[Druspills]

... there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. ...



... as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. ...

Dude clearly never worked wastewater management. They rob the ****ing bank.

[markoiutrfffdsa]

Originally posted by Space05us


I will continue to read it as I drink more. So like, in a few days I will read chapter 2. (slaps Space's hand)

Bad boy! I'm writing you a ticket for drinking and reading.

[st01en_lox]

... The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. .... These are the people who protest against Wal Mart.

[Jalieteplalry]

Originally posted by Space05us
As I read more of this I am lead to ask how relevant is The Communist Manifesto to the modern Communist. And what does the modern Commnuist have in common with the Communist from the 19th century, the man that feared education and constant change? 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.

How relevant it is today for communists - dunno. I guess it depends if you're a classical communists or one of the so-called reform commies that emerged in Western Europe and later elsewhere esp. in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet block, but the orthodox commies probably would say these aren't real commies anymore.

[Licacivelip]

Hmmm. Could be

Where's Che when you need him

[ElenaEvgeevnaa]

Originally posted by BeBro
Hmmm. Could be

Where's Che when you need him Power went out (FPL has such great service ) and I've been attending to monetary matters (my severance is not in my bank account ).

[ticfarentibia]

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.

[AlexBolduin]

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.

[gundos]

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.

[alskdjreyfd]

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

[neguoogleX]

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.

[Heliosprime]

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."

[KacypeJeope]

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.

[Attaniuri]

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.

[Progniusis]

Class warfare is not something someone decides to do or not do. It is how class society operates. The only problem is that in the West, the working class has largely surrendered.

Nor can you peacefully evolve your way to socialism. Were that possible, it would have been done. Instead what happens is that when the reformists even look like they're getting serious about threatening private property, the ruling class sinks the economy and forces the reformists to back off. If that doesn't work, they call in the military and overthrow the government.

[lrUyiva1]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Class warfare is not something someone decides to do or not do. It is how class society operates. The only problem is that in the West, the working class has largely surrendered. If you buy the Marxian model to describe society and its development that is a valid point. Just that it isn't the only one out there.

[VomsVomaMew]

the ruling class sinks the economy Please provide one example of this.

[ashleyjoseph]

How about you be more specific, "France 1980" is a little vague for google.

Though honestly if that is all you have, two instances in 100 years, you point fails.

[cepAceryTem]

You did ask for "one example", to be fair.

[Coededgeme]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It is not the Marxian theory of society. It is the theory of Giambattista Vico, and it predates Marx by about 100 years. It was the view of classical political economy, and while there are other models out there, they simply don't have the explanatory power of that model. Marx certainly describes history as one of class struggles (I think it is even in the manifesto where he says so). If he has it from the other guy fine but it's a core part of his thinking.

As for "explanatory power" well the core prob is that the practical development of modern (capitalist) societies went differently.