Young Writers Society

Today I read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. I must say that my leaning towards this part of the Left over the past few years has now been re-assured. I don't agree with everything outlined by the manifesto, and my philosophy says that even Communism is prone to chinks, i.e the riddance of class-that is not wholly achievable, and Communism is able to achieve this ONLY by force, as explained in the Manifesto that Communism can only be installed through forceful revolution. Those of you with Socialist/Communist leanings, who have not read this, I suggest you do - understand the values of Communism and Socialism before proffessing your upholdence of it. Having people follow an individual for any reason other than following the principles they adhere to is nothing less of control. Don't look at Stalinism - look at Marxism!

Comments (those who read, will, or haven't)?

Lol, I love you Bjorn.

"Don't look at Stalinism - look at Marxism!" Hmmm... I do have to agree with you there, however, even what most people consider the contemporary version of Marxism may be a bit altered, a bit distorted? I mean, even Marx at one point said of his followers, "If that is Marxism, then I, sir, am not a Marxist!"

So heh, I think a lot of times you have to be careful exactly who's version of things you're reading... ^_~ History is written to suit the winners, after all (as we discussed, lol). I once again refer to that German textbook that informed me that WWII ended in uneasy truce... ^_^

When I say that, I say it in a general meaning. So, look at the roots of Communism; the theory. Don't look at Stalinism, or even Leninism (yes, even Lenin's communism had its faults). Alter the original, yes. Like I said, not even I believe in ALL of the communist ideals as pointed out in the manifesto ^_~

Hi Bjorn,


I think your advocacy of Marx-by-itself is misguided. It is only through Lenin and Stalin that Marxism actualized itself in the world. Just as many, many Christians today advocate a "return to Jesus" (versus Saint Paul), they fundamentally miss the point that without Paul there is no Jesus--and this is Paul's significance, why we must study Paul in order to understand the teachings of Christ. A homologous argument, which I will leave the details to you, is given for Leninist/Stalinist vitalization of Marxism.


Best,
Brad

Yes, yes I agree. But if one were to go to the roots of something, they could begin a grass-roots revolution. Knowing that Leninism and Stalinism did not get very far means we must go back and begin a new form. But I see what you mean, Leninism (I still find bits of Leninism at fault), and perhaps Stalinism (I guess its the man and his values I disagree with), were on the right track, but failed because of something, something we must fix. I guess all I meant was for people to READ the manifesto to understand the fundaments of Communism, BEFORE studying what came from it. If you ONLY study Leninism or Stalinism, you'll only know their version of Communism. Still, I suppose that last remark of my first post was still wrong-I was in a bit of a hyped up mood! Forgive me, and thanks!

Hahaha... but the communist manifesto is deadly. It's a tiny document, barely even a book, and with so many fallacies that it makes my brain want to explode. With loaded language, it fails to provide an outline for a stable economy. Rather, it relies on a social standpoint while neglecting the whole economical aspects and instead relies on the good of the common man.

But how good is the common man and how will you make everyone equal? Sure, it would be nice to live in complete freedom, but freedom has mmany definitions that vary differently from a societal view. And then realize that everyone has different views of equality and freedom, and by refusing to acknowledge these differences, you are creating a society that only pretends to be equal and refuses to critique itself.

So in the end, what you should really read is "Animal Farm."

Snoink,


What you should really read is Marx's Das Kapital.


Best,
Brad

Ah... so that's where he explains it, no?

Marx is a complete crackpot.

A socialist maybe, an economist, never.

His entire system is based off the idea that the lower class should work not for any capital, but for the social status.

If you enjoy community service, than this should be just fine for you.

If you don't like working for free though, this is bad.

The entire system is also based off a faith in the lower class. If the only difference between the upper class and the lower class is power, then what happens if you give the leaders of the lower class power?

Naturally, the leaders become the new upper class, complete with a subordinate class of idiots who think that their leaders actually care about them.

Ultimately though, the people don't rule the communist system. America has her problems, but if we don't like our leaders, we can vote them out of office. If you don't like your leaders in the communist system, you don't like the lower class, therefore you don't like the state, therefore you have committed treason. The mere action of thinking this is itself a rebellion (the kind which Marx provokes, yet doesn't allow in his own system.)

So now, you have a bunch of leaders who are in fact, dictators of the people. The people can not speak out against them, so everything is well.

In a class where everyone is equal, leaders can not exist. Except they do and must exist in order to organize labor to complete an objective.

See now, the communist party is supposed to work as a hive with one mind. This is very much how they work too. With one mind and one mind only, the mind of their leader.

Ironically, nothing changes. The communist switches from one system that discourages thinking and living outside the machine, for another where thinking and living outside the machine is treason.

The Communist Manifesto is absolute dung because the people ultimately get shafted, since the government that is supposed to represent them isn't accountable for its actions to the people.

If you gave me your wallet and told me to spend a dollar to get you some ice cream, I might do that.

However, if I am able to keep the wallet, the ice cream, and stop you from being able to do anything about it, then I'd be in complete control.

Communism is just that, you give all your possessions to it, it buys itself ice cream, keeps your money, and if you try to do anything about it, you die. If this happened in America, it'd be called armed robbery, but communists are so stupid that they actually give it to these leaders.

Capitalism works like this: you earn a dollar, you pay a dollar for ice cream, you get the ice cream.

Communism works like this: you earn a dollar, the state takes it, promising to get you ice cream. The state comes back, eating the ice cream. The state gives you a dirty napkin and you grin, otherwise they'll try you for treason and shoot you.

Capital drives industry, not politics.

Like I said, it has its faults! I understand everything you said, and those things were running through my mind as I sat there and read it. I in fact thought to myself whether Marx and Engels really thought some of what they outlined would work! Life can only go on so long as it contradicts, but the Manifesto also points out the all too aggrieving truths of Capitalism. Perhaps we were unable to avoid them, but they are glum to look upon (for myself, that is). Communisms greatest fault: its grasp of power through revolution, and, like you pointed out, control of the un-enlightened working class. Marx points out education of the working class, not to inspire hysteria!

Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Most libraries have it.

I'll be sure to look for it, thanks Nate ^_~

I do own a copy of the communist manifesto but must confess that i only skimped it and never read the whole thing cover to cover, partly because over half of the book is just the introduction. And partly because i would never describe myself as marxist because i am totally against the use of violence as a means of achieving aims, although i am in favour of a classless society - but my idea of perfect world is less USSR, more K-PAX. Also it was never just intended to be a book, it's what it says it is a manifesto. Its original title was the manifesto of the communisy party. It was intended as a way of showing people all over the world what the aims of communists were.

I do own a copy of the communist manifesto but must confess that i only skimped it and never read the whole thing cover to cover, partly because over half of the book is just the introduction.

...

the Manifesto itself is about 2 pages long. Just read it.

Grif - what you've just described is completely opposite to Marx's Communism. Sure, it was the bent 'Communism' instituted under Stalin et. al., but Marx's original ideas are much different.

And, as Inc says, if you want to actually understand Marx as an economist (and an excellent one) Das Kapital is the important piece.

As bob has said:

Marxism is an economic system, not a political one.
Stalinism/Leninism are political systems, not economic ones.