The Communist Manifesto

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston
I think one of the most important questions one needs to ask in this context is, "When did Coventry City last win the FA Cup?"

grats.

You made me laugh.

City rather spoiled the joke by winning it in the 80s.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BeBro
As I'd unterstand it they aren't against education, but against education in a capitalist society which is for them just a tool for exploitation. As for change probably depends what kind of change.

We are not opposed to education at all. We critique education in capitalist society, but that doesn't mean we oppose it. Education in capitalism by and large serves the interests of the ruling class. It teaches us how to deal with boredom and how to subordinate our days to workplace life.

Obviously, school should be used to impart the skills we need in life, but in capitalist schools, at least in America, those skills are of a decidedly one-dimensional nature. They are only work related, not life or citizenship related.

[chequita guevara]

Re: The Communist Manifesto

Originally posted by Space05us
I'm about halfway through the first chapter, so far what I have read is all good praise for capitalism. When does it get to the "starve your own people in order to compel them to bend to your will" part? I thought Communists hated Capitalism.

It never really does. If you want to read a condemnation of capitalism, you should read Engel's, The Conditions of the Working Class of England in 1845. The Marxist critique of capitalism, however, does not reside in the oppression of the working class. That's a moral issue, and while moral issues are important, they won't be the basis of overturning a whole system of society.

Marxism's critique of capitalism lies in the fact that capitalism is inherently insane. In all previous systems, disasters were largely natural in cause (excepting war). Under capitalism, disasters occur because it is so productive. It is when capitalism is producing more than we need that people lose their jobs, go homeless, and starve.

At the same time, Marxism looks at the dynamic of history and sees that all social systems (and in fact, everything that exists in the universe) is transitory in nature, and changes into something different. Capitalism is no different, and so Marx examined capitalism to see what were the underlying mechanisms, what were the forces being developed, and to what would this lead in the future.

Everything that exists contains the seeds of its own destruction. Capitalism is no different. Marx identified that seed a the urban industrial proletariat. It's role with its hands on the means of production meant that it was in unique position to take control of production and to run society in its own interests, which, being the lowest class of all, would be the universal interests of the human race.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unfortunately the lowest class failed when the capitalists discovered television.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Winston
I think one of the most important questions one needs to ask in this context is, "When did Coventry City last win the FA Cup?"

1987. I lived in Coventry at the time and enjoyed the win over Spurs as much as the City fans. I've never seen a whole city party like that night.

[Cort Haus]

Re: The Communist Manifesto

Originally posted by Space05us
I'm about halfway through the first chapter, so far what I have read is all good praise for capitalism. When does it get to the "starve your own people in order to compel them to bend to your will" part? I thought Communists hated Capitalism.

As I've often argued on here, Marx saw Capitalism as a progressive development from Feudalism, despite the horrific working and living conditions endured by the 19th century working class.

He saw contradictions and iniquities, and himself experienced the harsh brutality of the times, but he didn't consider the life of the peasant to be better.

He recognised that capitalism could bring improvements, in part because it brought the working class together with a collective interest and a collective power to change the world. It was the struggles of the labour movement under Capitalism which brought about the social changes in the 20th century which immeasurably improved the lives of millions of people - in the long run.

For me, one relevance and importance of Marx today is the reminder that leftist politics was once about advancing the forces of production, rather than holding them back, which is the preferred position of many contemporary leftists, with their adoption of the reactionary and bourgeois green agenda.

[Cort Haus]

Oh, and I don't recall Marx saying "starve your own people in order to compel them to bend to your will".

[Cort Haus]

And of course, nor did Adam Smith say "reduce your workers to the nightmare existence of impoverished wage-slaves and violently crush any attempt they make to improve their plight".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cort

I also think that Marx didn't see how smart the capitalists would become. And the fact that some of them would grow a conscience. The social welfare programs of the 20th Century (and continuing on) are a factor of the upper classes genuinely feeling bad for those on the lower end of the scale and a cost/benefit analysis by some (how much/little can we give and keep on making tons of money).

This has resulted in a mixed capitalist system which seems very, very unlikely to go socialist or communist any time in the foreseeable future.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Unfortunately the lowest class failed when the capitalists discovered television.

As the famous Marx quote goes "Television is the opiate of the people"

Or was it computer games

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Unfortunately the lowest class failed when the capitalists discovered television.

In Marx for Beginners, after mentioning Marx's famous (and oft misunderstood statement) about religion being the opiate of the masses, Rius draws a picture of a television with a thought cloud, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

[Arrian]

If you're looking for modern parallels to the world described my Marx, you're best served to look in the 3rd world. The 1st world countries have mixed economies and, while there are certainly inequities, things are far better than the mid-19th century.

Meanwhile, in China...

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Cort

I also think that Marx didn't see how smart the capitalists would become. And the fact that some of them would grow a conscience. The social welfare programs of the 20th Century (and continuing on) are a factor of the upper classes genuinely feeling bad for those on the lower end of the scale and a cost/benefit analysis by some (how much/little can we give and keep on making tons of money).

This has resulted in a mixed capitalist system which seems very, very unlikely to go socialist or communist any time in the foreseeable future.

Well, it wasn't really in his power to foresee certain developments. As to not thinking the capitalists would become smart or grow a conscience, again, the issue isn't about individual bad capitalists, but the nature of the system. Marx also discusses "bourgeois socialism" in the Manifesto, which was an actual current at the time, so one can hardly claim he didn't foresee it (technically I guess that's true, since it predated him).

What Marx did fail to foresee was the rise of media as an instrument of capitalist domination. Ideology production was very rudimentary at the time, and his critique was really limited to the role of religion. It wasn't until the Fascists stuck Mussolini in prison that a Marxist began to try and grapple with the nature of ideology in modern capitalism.

Marx also failed to foresee the rise of capitalist imperialism, and thought that capitalism and colonialism still had a positive role to play in the rest of the world.

Marx's biggest failure, though, was failing to foresee that the very victories of the workers in capitalism would lead to them failing to take the final step to becoming the ruling class. Ironic that the very weapons forged to build socialism became a hindrance.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Arrian
Meanwhile, in China...

The place needs a strong trade-union movement and the collective will of the workers to break the tyranny of oppression.

Although in the meantime the West benefits from the cheap goods.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The place needs a strong trade-union movement and the collective will of the workers to break the tyranny of oppression.

QFT

Although in the meantime the West benefits from the cheap goods.

Yes and no. We benefit as consumers but lose out as workers, as we lose our high paying manufacturing jobs.