you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The communist manifesto literally explains a new industrial system, production and a workforce that is run by the state.

Yes

The state is made up of people at the top, who communism does not apply to.

I understand that this is the way it plays out, but it also isn't exactly what Marx had in mind in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital. Not that I personally would want any sort of centralized control of the economy.

Also, not that I think it would work much better, but much ignored Kropotkin advocated for a very decentralized communism, which opens up a different set of problems

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

-3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

-5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

-6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

-7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State;

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I get what you are saying Anman, and I see the similarities in some ways, but in others it is directly contradictory to the current regimes goals.

the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class

Nope

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie

Definitely not, the bourgeousie are the ones benefitting

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The system takes from the people, and gives to the state. It's literally right there. The goal is to take all personal liberty and property from the working class and give it to the state. When you read the manifesto, it says over and over that the goal is to destroy the class system, so there is only one class. But again, how does someone take from the individual, if they are not above the individual.

The chinese wealthy, are not bourgeoisie, because all of their wealth is controlled by the state. The manifesto leaves a lot of hints as to its time line of goals. The immediate goal is to remove all wealth and property and then distribute it evenly. Then, after that, the state "takes care of the future". Your version of bourgeoisie and the communists version, is merely just the name. The chinese wealthy are bourgeoisie to the working class, but to communists in china, they are the state.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This was not my interpretation of the Communist Manifesto, but maybe it is more insidious than I realized.

it says over and over that the goal is to destroy the class system, so there is only one class. But again, how does someone take from the individual, if they are not above the individual.

The chinese wealthy, are not bourgeoisie, because all of their wealth is controlled by the state.

My understanding was the Marx and Engels were working under the assumption of a democratic state. The State being nothing more than a majority consensus. The wealthy capitalists would have their wealth confiscated by 'the people', the people would run the means of production through democracy, and the goods would be evenly distributed

My objection to even this sort of arrangement is that you haven't solved the problem of Capitalist Alienation at all. Anyone in the minority of this theoretical nation would be operating under the same alienated condition as if the means of production were owned by capitalists, and people are bound to be in the minority on some issues

To me, communism is simply the principle of democracy applied to the economic sphere. The theory anyway, as we know in practice this is not how it ends up working

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://gwydionwilliams.com/about/998-from-labour-affairs/very-old-issues-images/magazines-010-to-019/magazine-018-xx/democracy-and-the-communist-manifesto/

The Communist Manifesto was drafted as a working document. not an abstract statement of principles. It was intended to be used precisely as a political manifesto for a seizure of power by the Communist League.

It was commissioned in 1847..[note the word used here, being COMMISSIONED]

In the event. in 1848 it came out first in German, and then in Danish, Polish and Swedish. French, Italian and Spanish translations were made, but remained unpublished. It came out in English in 1850, and it was this English edition that was the first to give the name of the authors.[A] Incidentally, it anglicised them as Charles Marx and Frederic Engels.

It was always insidious and always designed to trick the working class one way or another.

I'm not going back over the document to bring up its democracy references, but hasn't democracy around the world now and historically taught you anything? It destroys every country it is used in. Further, a national democracy allows the effect use of propaganda to get people to vote and think the way they want. I would say in some ways, western democracies are the most effective communism top level control that has ever existed. Technically, the government can take your land or money at any time. And they often do. They give you a sense of freedom by looking you pick your work or trade, but it just means the government does not have to be responsible for you, as long as you keep paying the state your taxes.

What exactly is the "means of production". Actually think about it. In the context of the manifesto, it starts as a means of nationalism. Individuals are not allowed to own businesses, all the people own those businesses in a single nation. However, the document is clearly aimed all many parts of europe, its real goal is globalist production. Seize the entire planet. By who? The people? They already have it. I produce fruit, vegetables and meat from my own garden. To a very tiny degree, I can produce my own power. I have water tanks, I can produce my own water. Have I not seized the means of production? It's just a buzz word for government control of industry.

If a person has no individual right to own anything or be anything, then democracy is meaningless, because you can not vote to improve anything. And why should you? Because someone else will do it for you. Anyway, see previous paragraph on how modern democracy is already a communist dream. I rate national democracy as bad as communism.