Communist Manifesto anyone, anyone?

With all the talk on msm and particularly here on ats, I was curious to know how many people actually have read the Communist Manifesto or if they were simply going off failed communist and socialist experiments worldwide?

According to Marx and Engels, there were to be 6 phases in a countries evolution, and if a country were to be successful, it was have to pass through each phase (no bypassing) and in order. The stages are as follows: a state of anarchy, a slave owning society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally communism. To Marx, the most important stage of the evolution is capitalism. He also theorized that in the passing between the stages there would be violent overthrows of the previous regimes, and suppression by the leaders/elite was not part of the plan, but an eventual society based on peace and harmony (thus why people often say that communism is great in theory).

The problem with Russia was that it bypassed capitalism, and I stated capitalism is ESSENTIAL. Lenin thought he was going to move from feudalism to socialism Without it, there could be no "goodies" none of the "finer" things that people tend to enjoy, PS3's, computers, etc. Capitalism provides the economic base necessary to make the transition from private to public owned. Public owned does not mean government owned, it means truly public owned. Aside from providing a base of support, capitalists would have done all of the work of buying and selling.

Now, I understand particularly in the US, the thought of communism is evil, it brings up memories of the cold war, bread lines, and the evil Joseph Stalin. Stalin, was a piece of work onto himself, and did not follow the theory. Like most leaders, he picked out bits and pieces that would increase his own power and money, he was not a marxist or at least not by the theory laid out by Marx himself.

On a side note, I write this because I am so tired of seeing arguments that this is socialist, or this is communist or Obama is pushing the evil socialism onto America. Socialism and communism are not evil as they are, it is the person that hides behind the guise of the political theory that is evil, simply most people can not handle power very well. And it doesn't a genius to realize that our capitalist leaders do not handle their power well either, corruption, greed, lies, false imprisonment, SUPPRESSION of the masses, murder of innocent civilians (granted mostly not in our own country but true nonetheless) and these are faults of our own nation. Now, I am not advocating everyone jumps on the commi boat, I myself suppose I would called independent, that is until a party that acknowledges and follows our constitution is constructed and the blood suckers in Washington are replaced by someone who actually works for the people are in there places. I am simply someone that had to read the manifesto about 6 times from high school through college and I do not understand why the propaganda and spread of a culture of fear when if they read the text, there would be no fear, at least not of the supposed evil political theory.

Ive read it, and,as Marx designed, we have never seen an actual communistic society in this world.

However, marxism is flawed. It could not survive as a country's philosophy. Which is why we've never seen it.

It was more a foundation, than a building, so to speak.

First, I agree that we have never seen a society as he described. I doubt we ever will.

I just wonder how many of those that accuse the current administration (or previous administrations) actually have read the text. Something tells me, that the person on CNN with there sign "No Socialism" that barely speaks proper English even knows what socialism, and going further communism, is supposed to be.

One of the reasons I rail on some people on this site so hard is because I read it in High School, The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf served as the basis of an extra-credit essay I wrote in grade 12 that won me a scholarship from my school. Thusly whenever I see someone commenting on "Socialism this" "Communism That" or "Democracy" I can only shake my head and wonder exactly when the part about "Denying Ignorance" comes into play.

We've never seen true communism on earth as Marx intended it, outside of perhaps a few intentional communities that are springing up. Humans are simply not wired properly to grasp the principles that Marx set forth. He was a visionary, truly one of the great thinkers of our species, but we took a different path from his vision long before he arrived on the scene.

The reason that we hear the words communist and socialist in such a negative light, so often, is because the media has succesfully, over the last 60 years, turned those words into emotion.

people hear Communism, they think hitler, they think china, they think third world. The population has been conditioned to respond with emotion.

It's just like the word terrorist. We were absolutely bombarded with that phrase post 9/11, to the point where anytime it was used, it evoked an emotional response.

Unfortunately, most people cannot see the brainwashing that is happening.

A great book on Socialism is Robert Tressel's - Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. A convincing argument for socialism.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Why would they think Hitler? Hitler had nothing to do with Communism, he was a hardline Fascist dictator. If anything, they should think Stalin or Mao. Germany never even came close to what Russia and China devolved into.

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Why would they think Hitler? Hitler had nothing to do with Communism, he was a hardline Fascist dictator. If anything, they should think Stalin or Mao. Germany never even came close to what Russia and China devolved into.

Again, that's my point. None of those things really has anything to do with communism. But the american people have been inundated with false ideas about it. Its not a mistake.

Stalin and Mao were far closer to fascism than communism.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Ahh, I can see what you meant now. Completely agree with you in that case.

Marx was a charlatan who stole his ideas from the left, which included Anarchists such as Proudhon and Bakunin.

The Anarchists, and most of the true left, at this point dissociated themselves from the ranks of the left as they disagreed with Marx's idea of a dictatorship. The true left, Anarchists, Socialists, and Communists did not support dictatorship. This is also when the term 'Anarchist' became a term people would publicly label themselves, as before it had been a taboo term that could get you hung for mentioning.

Marx was part of the war against the left and it's true desires. It turned the idea of a free society, organized and ran by all as apposed to a select wealthy few, into a dictatorship.

Marx had nothing to do with true Socialism, or Communism. It's the same process that happens to this day, anything that is a threat to the state, and it's control of the people, is in someway consumed by the state and shat out as a safe non-threatening version devoid of any substance.
In other words 'change' is curtailed by the never ending, never changing state. The state cannot change, it's very foundation is rooted in a system that has been in operation for centuries, in one form or another. It can change it's name and it's methods, which it does often, but it's still control of your life by another class of people. This happens in every country regardless of whether it calls itself communist, fascist or capitalist.

The state is the true enemy. Marx supported the state in it's most brutal form, dictatorship.

(The 'state' is the system, and resources, used to allow one class of people to rule over another)

[edit on 9/18/2009 by ANOK]

I am actually doing a college course right now and just covered some Marxist topics. What I found is the Marxism is actually the foundation of how our country is designed currently. Marxism was expanded by many people following Marx. Some interesting things I'll quote below.

“What makes the behavior of some criminal is the coercive power of the state to enforce the will of the ruling class.” -William J. Chambliss

“The more economically stratified a society becomes, the more it becomes necessary for the dominant groups in the society to enforce through coercion the norms of conduct which guarantee their supremacy.” -Chambliss and Seidman

On avoiding prosecution of the elite: “very rational choice on the part of the legal system to pursue those violators that the community will reward them for pursuing and to ignore those violators who have the capability for causing trouble for the agencies.” -Chambliss

“As capitalist societies industrialize and the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat widens, penal law will expand in an effort to coerce the proletariat into submission. Crime reduces surplus labor, by creating employment not only for the criminals but for law enforcers, welfare workers, professors of criminology, and a horde of people who live off the fact that crime exists." -Chambliss

...justice system is biased against the poor from start to finish and that well-to-do members of society control the criminal justice system—from the definition of crime through the process of arrest, trial, and sentencing.38 Reiman also claims that many of the actions undertaken by well-off people should be defined as criminal, but they aren’t. Such actions include the refusal to make workplaces safe, the refusal to curtail deadly industrial pollution, the promotion of unnecessary surgery, and the prescription of unnecessary drugs. This kind of self-serving behavior, says Reiman, creates occupational and environmental hazards for the poor and for those who are less well-off than the rule makers themselves. These conditions, claims Reiman, produce as much death, destruction, and financial loss as the so-called crimes of the poor. -Jeffery H. Reiman

So you see the ruling elite want us in a capitalistic system as they control the rules of that system. They make the money, they give the jobs, and they control the system.

What boggles the imagination is how everyone who rails against Obama's healthcare proposals as "socialist" or "communist" (leaving out for the love of God the problems with said proposals) seems to deny that already, to a certain degree, this country has a slightly socialistic tinge to it already. Medicare, The VA administration, public works projects, law enforcement, education, emergency services such as firefighters... these people don't exactly have to hold a bake sale to get funding... all federally subsidized kiddies! The nasty socialists are already knocking at the door!

So do you think it would take a major violent revolution in order to ascend up the Marx' ladder as it were to total Socialism? And from there Communism? I'm advocating neither, simply wondering. Russia's major failing, which in turn IMHO led to the inevitible collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent associations with villainy in the MSM was in fact it's complete bypassing of capitalism which led to the bread lines, the lack of basic needs by the proletariat and a corrupt Politburo which could make our current administration, as well as the house & Senate look like boy scouts in suits. I've read both Marx & Engels, and it seems to me that the failings with every economic system ever concieved has been one of human nature... a nature that compels those in power to always and without fail desire even more power...

I don't know what it's going to take to fix this sinking ship guys, I really don't. But I'd bet money that somewhere in the near future there will come a time of reckoning when the basic fundamentals of this society will have no choice but to either evolve a more equitable sense of community and brush to the side the "I'm all right so who cares about you" crowd, or it will burn to ash.

reply to post by ANOK


One of if not the most influential philosopher's to Marx was Rousseau, who was left off of you list. Rousseau's ideas were also highly influential amongst our founding fathers. I don't see how anarchy comes from Marx, when it is, to him, the starting point of a society.

I have read the Manifesto. Several times, actually.

The fact is, I actually agree with a lot of Marx's assessments about the development of history in the direction he proposes.

However, I disagree with the idea that the culminating revolution with ever take place.

The most interesting part of the Manifesto, is actually the proposal that there will need to be a growth of government into all sections of the economy and life in order to facilitate the revolution. Thus, in order to get rid of government, government has to grow.

If there is anything to take from Marx, it is the fact that there has not been a single nation that has met his qualifications for the revolution. Remember, the Manifesto was meant for Britain and Germany... NOT the Soviet Union or China.

reply to post by searching4truth


I didn't make a list, I just noted a couple of names. Yes there were many more.

I also didn't say Anarchism came from Marx, nothing of the sort. It just bought a lot of Anarchists, who had been part of the left, out of the closet so to speak. Many called themselves 'Anarchist' to just dissociate themselves from the closed mindedness, and state supporters, of the left and right.

I focus on the Anarchist side of history because most history books ignore it completely. Most people don't realize how big and influential the Anarchist movement used to be, and has been, on politics and social society.

[edit on 9/18/2009 by ANOK]

reply to post by Iago18


How true. You know, I can't think of a single person that has actually read it and came away from it with a "communism is evil" attitude. Quite the opposite really, is usually more of a wouldn't it be wonderful if....... .

I do find it interesting that the only responses are from people that actually have taken the time, either by personal interest or educational requirement to read the text and those that have read it are not the ones spewing nonsense.

reply to post by ANOK


ahhh, I see where you were going.
second line

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
people hear Communism, they think hitler, they think china, they think third world. The population has been conditioned to respond with emotion.

No, I think of living under the constant threat of a nuclear war. The Iron Curtain and Big mouth here. Some can have their romanticized vision of Communist Russia or China and may want to believe their revisionist version of history. I'm not buying what their selling.

Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev "We will bury you!"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d73af0ffa3a1.jpg[/atsimg]

On paper communism is a wonderful theory. We need to remember the human factor. Once we apply that then this always leads to greed and power hungry individuals who in time would ruin it for everybody.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by ANOK

Marx was a charlatan who stole his ideas from the left, which included Anarchists such as Proudhon and Bakunin.

Agreed. I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up.

The state cannot change, it's very foundation is rooted in a system that has been in operation for centuries, in one form or another.

Those in power are in the business of making sure they stay there.

The state is the true enemy. Marx supported the state in it's most brutal form, dictatorship. (The 'state' is the system, and resources, used to allow one class of people to rule over another)

I would define the state as a legitimized institution with a monopoly on violence. Max Weber was heavily influenced by Proudhon among others.

The Communist Manifesto is an interesting read. Communism, to work properly, must be voluntary. A good example would be a church pot-luck. Not everyone brought stuff to eat, and no one is forced to be there, but everyone gets fed.

Communism must be voluntary.

I also have issues with Marx's class theory. The Libertarian Class Theory fills the holes.

1The State is the main means by which people live by plunder; the Market, in contradistinction, is the sum of human action of the pro-ductive.
2.The State, by its existence, divides society into a plundered class and a plundering class.
3.The State has historically been directed by those who gain most by its existence — the “upper class,” Ruling Class, Higher Circles, or “Conspiracy.”
4.The Higher Circles will fight to keep their privileged status, and have done so, against libertarians seeking their overthrow and the restitution of their plunder to those from whom it was taken.
5.Politicians operate as “gladiators” in the aptly named Political Arena to settle disputes among the Higher Circles (which are not monolithic)

That was from an article written by Samuel Edward Konkin III or SEK3 titled "Cui Bono? Introduction to Libertarian Class Theory".

Well one big point is that words have their meanings changed as in 1984. Communism, meaning 'communal' as in familial or working to help like a symbiote sort of, has come to mean "the lazy man gets equal and the hard worker gets less than deserved". In truth it should be that the lazy man has to work more.

Capitalism means to capitalise on something, ie. to exploit. To capitalise on a situation such as falling markets, distraught people (will sell low!), niche markets, etc. But it has pretty much come to mean 'freedom and democracy'. I think capitalism as in free market is necessary part to society but the greed and power and most importantly, control aspect of it, are criminal elements.

Originally posted by searching4truth
I don't see how anarchy comes from Marx, when it is, to him, the starting point of a society.

I think because things work in cycles. After the inevitable 'communism' stage, things can not stand and will eventually become stagnant and collapse. Then back to square one, ie society collapse and anarchy ensues. Then cycle starts over.

reply to post by SLAYER69

That's just the thing, Stalin was not a communist, he was a totalitarian, communism by definition pretty much can not have a leader, ie with power. So communism is ideal but there are humanity in the way of it. Truthfully it is not ideal we live in a reality where we need change to progress, so NO system is good, change (ie anarchy to order) is the only thing that works, constantly.