Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Media Mania > Books Reviews and Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
  Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Research Group
Posts: 391/670
Donated $112.99
(15-Mar-2008 at 01:44)


The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

I'm so very surprised that this isn't here (I did an advanced search). Goes without saying that this document has forever left it's mark on the world and is still effecting events today, over 150 years later.

Wikipedia's Article
Manifesto of the Communist Party
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by advocatus Add advocatus to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1763/2297
(15-Mar-2008 at 21:35)


It's a good introduction into the works of Marx, but since it was written for the uneducated masses it doesn't really give an insight into the mechanisms of society as Marx sees them. It's the latter part of his work which is (in my opinion) far more interesting then the whole communist utopian ideal.

Still, it's a very interesting read and I'd recommend it to everyone who is interested in politics/philosophy/economics.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 263/271
(16-Mar-2008 at 22:31)


We had to read this for my Humanities class (i.e. History of the Western World) this semester. I was vaguely familiar with it but hadn't read it until then. I found it very interesting and it was a lot better presented than I had been led to believe by many uninformed people. It addresses many of the arguments that people still make against communism and I was impressed at its prose.

Although I myself am an idealist, I found it a bit too idealistic. It makes too many assumptions for my liking. Still, it is a very thoughtful and well-written document that everyone studying history (which should be everyone) should read.

Signature suspended for violating the forum's rules.
Signature contained non-English.
"The translation has to be valid, and easily verifiable by a moderator doing a quick search on the Internet."
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Draco Eudokus Add Draco Eudokus to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 4144/4241
Donated $0.60
(18-Mar-2008 at 23:08)


Ideas of Marx and Engels were good. Both persons were idealists living in victorian time and during turmoil of 19th and 20th century, which clearly is seen their manifest. But person were dreamers and their idea of communism is simply based on utopistic dream where everything is perfect... Unfortunately peoples manage to corrupt their work. None of the less Communist Manifesto is intresting reading, if not else, then for the insight of 19th and 20th century philosophy in Europe.

Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Menchalior Add Lord Menchalior to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1771/2297
(19-Mar-2008 at 11:17)


No offense, but that's simply false. The basis of Marx works has never been the utopian society that is to come. Quite the opposite actually, he bases his works on the radical opposition of class interests in his time that can only end in a violent overthrow of the system of production.

You can criticize that as well of course, but denouncing Marx as a utopian thinker is not at all fair, especially seeing as how in his most important work (das Capital), the communist society plays only a very minor role.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 4148/4241
Donated $0.60
(22-Mar-2008 at 21:55)


but his entire deduction is based on that population as one can govern itself without one leader and they can own everythign equally... and that it could work. Anyone who knows even little bit about human nature knows this is impossible.

He was utopian thinker in way he thought that communists could rise above regular person and that communism as idology would be stronger than human nature.

Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Menchalior Add Lord Menchalior to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1775/2297
(22-Mar-2008 at 22:12)


First of all, that's not true. His deduction is nowhere based on whether or not a population can govern itself. (he is actually quite sceptic about that. Again, check out Das Capital)

Second, he does not envision a world where everyone owns everything equally, he envisions a world without owning. That seems like a small difference, but in his theory it has huge consequences.

Third, what is human nature? The concept of human nature has, as Marx himself noted, been used troughout nature to justify some of the worst abuses of power.
In fact, it's quite likely that there is no such thing as human nature (other then our physical properties) and that most of our behaviour is culturally determined (Science has actually provided quite some evidence for that thesis over the past 100 years or so). Marx believed (and not unreasonably so) that a radically different society would create radically different people, so you cannot criticise his theory on an idea as to what human nature is now. Of course you may find his ideal very unlikely (I definitely do), but you need to use different arguments for that, like his far to optimistic believe that a communist society would be a classless one (Foucault amongst others has written some great works on the possibility, or rather lack of possibility, of such a society).

But again, you severely underestimate Marx if you think that his theory is entirely based on his utopian ideal. His influence is still huge in economics, history, philosophy, sociology and probably a lot of other sciences, none of which use his ideal of communism.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 4149/4241
Donated $0.60
(23-Mar-2008 at 12:37)


I don't question his influence. I question the communist manifesto and its core ideas. Communism itself is very good idea and will work as thought in communities less than 250 person. But it is terrible way to try to rule the country. As we've seen communism has lead directly into personal cult.

In Russia so called communism never took place but in the name of communism became Leninism. After Lenin died it became Stalinism. After Stalin it became mixed ideas of Stalin whoever ruled then until breakdown of Soviet Union.

In China communism was never "real" communism either but Maoism. In Cuba communism idea was more pure than in China or Soviet union but still majority of idea was supported very charismatic Castro.

in Vietnam Ho Chi Minh was very big influence for Vietnamese communism and is very controversial figure in the Vietnamese themselves. While Bietnamese who livei n Vietnam consider him father of Vietnam oversea vietnamese consider him usually as traitor and murderer. But Ho Chi Minh was de facto leader of communist vietnam. Like Stalin was Soviet Union's and Castro was Cuba's and Mao was China's.

First six of the 10 planks of communism already secured that any communist state would act as police state. State would rule everything. Which would eventually lead demise of his idea that peoples would own everything together when his ideas would base that peoples would govern the state and state would own everything and everything would centralized for the state. That would always lead into small clique in top of the state ruling everything.

In the fight against capitalism and burgoises power of wealthy and oppression of poor peoples, his ideas made sure that he would create another way for small elitist group to control entire nation with iron grip. Now not based on wealth but idiology.

Leash is still leash for dog. Wether it was made from cord or cold strings. Marx hated so much that leash called capitalism that he made another leash for the peoples and really thought it would make the difference.

Best way still govern is benelovent dictator / king... But its far too dependable on character and is position that makes even good peoples so corrupted that it rarely works. But when it works, peoples couldn't be happier. I think in past 3000 years there has been less than 7 such peoples.

Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga

Last edited by Lord Menchalior, 23-Mar-2008 at 12:38.
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Menchalior Add Lord Menchalior to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1776/2297
(23-Mar-2008 at 13:04)


You are avoiding the point that I'm making, which is that Marx' strength lies not in his utopian thought, but in his historical-economic social analysis. And for that, the possibility of a communist utopia is irrelevant.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 4150/4241
Donated $0.60
(24-Mar-2008 at 00:55)


Problem is that Marx created idealogy to fight against burgois peoples. I.E. social elite based on wealth. In his idealogy you take capitalist ( wealth based elitist ) make them your enemy and advosary and create communist ( idiealogy based elitist )

Marx's idiealogy was to change one small elitist clique into another small elitist clique.

In his attempt to divert as much from capitalist and such, he made perfect idiealogy for police state, where small elitist can control more effectively the mass' than in the capitalism.

In my opinion communism was most miserable failure in political history. Not because of Marx but because of Stalin and Mao. However, I think world would be much better place if Marx would have only written Das Capital and that's it.

Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Menchalior Add Lord Menchalior to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1777/2297
(24-Mar-2008 at 09:52)


Re: The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Originally Posted by Lord Menchalior: View Post
Problem is that Marx created idealogy to fight against burgois peoples. I.E. social elite based on wealth. In his idealogy you take capitalist ( wealth based elitist ) make them your enemy and advosary and create communist ( idiealogy based elitist )
Not true. Marx thought that the proletatiat and the capitalists were enemies by economical interests, not because of ideological works. Not very strange if you know what the situation for the labourers was like during those times. And he theorises that since by far the largest part of the population consists of the proletariat, there can be no elitism. (a little naive I agree)

Quote:
Marx's idiealogy was to change one small elitist clique into another small elitist clique.
See above.

Quote:
In his attempt to divert as much from capitalist and such, he made perfect idiealogy for police state, where small elitist can control more effectively the mass' than in the capitalism.

In my opinion communism was most miserable failure in political history. Not because of Marx but because of Stalin and Mao. However, I think world would be much better place if Marx would have only written Das Capital and that's it.
You can only blame an author for what he writes, not for what others have later done with his work. Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra was used to support the Nazi ideology, while Nietzsche in fact despised anti-semites. Should he have never written his book then?
And you have no idea how many great ideas would have been lost if Marx had only written Capital.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
  Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 16:53.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.