Posts
We hear much rhetoric in the conservative right about President Obama's political ideology. Marxist. Socialist. Communist. I read a book that I only wish I could change the title. I'd call it "The Roots of Obama's Policy". Of course that sounds pretty boring and probably wouldn't sell as well, but it is was a fascinating read. This book may present a more accurate picture of who and why the President acts in the way that he does. The premise of the book is that we are not living out the ideology of Barack Obama so much as we are living out the legacy of a failed Kenyan civil servant that Barack Obama has been trying to live up to his entire life: Barack Obama, Sr.
The author, Dinesh D'sousa's first and most basic clue to this possibility is to look at the title of President Obama's first book, "Dreams from my Father". The very title itself implies that he has received his dreams from his father. D'sousa's book suggests an Obama I and Obama II. Obama I is the inspirational Obama that was so praised and lifted up in adulation during the 2008 campaign. The Obama that - putting it in the words of the man himself -was "...a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views..." . I think the premise of the book is that President Obama is not a communist or a socialist or a marxist. He is anti-colonialist and anti-Imperialist. D'Sousa suggests that President Obama believes the US, in the 20th and 21st century, is colonial in it's foreign policy. It suggests Mr. Obama's hope is that he can help make the US the last of the colonialist powers.
The consequence of this is that his policies are designed for one purpose: to weaken our standing abroad, and strengthen the role, power and impact of the federal government domestically. The book suggests that - when given the choice of policy - his choice will always further this objective. The book offers a tremendous amount of evidence to make this case. I won't present all of the evidence here, but agree that it does seem to serve as a predictive measure of how Obama has acted. Think about it. Health Care (domestic)- increases government control. Finance Reform(domestic)- increases government control. Buying GM(domestic) - increases government control. Poland Missile Shield Abandoned (foreign)- weakens foreign influence. Leading from behind in Libya (foreign)- weakens foreign influence. Flooding economy with (borrowed) printed dollars(QE I, II, III?) - increases government control and weakens foreign influence.
Perhaps the most interesting things that it explains, in my mind, is why the President finds himself with eroding support in both conservative and progressive political camps. We have the right clamoring for his ouster, we have the left clamoring for his ouster and we have independents exceedingly dissatisfied. His policies have seemingly pleased no one and the reason, this book would argue, is because he isn't playing to any of us. He is acting to more fully realize the dreams of his Father. Could this explain why a "really good one-term Presidency" would be OK with him? If "really" good is defined by him, and not by the rest of us, then he can - in principal - be "really good" even if no one (but him) is satisfied with his results.
I will say there were occasions in this book for what I perceived to be hyperbole. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, even the title of the book plays to the hard core Obama malcontent. While hyperbole may increase sales, it likely prevents a more wide range of political ideaology in it's readership. I think that's unfortunate. Were it not for the title of the book I think it offers a reasonable (even one for which we might objectively empathize) explanation for how and why the President takes action. I wonder though, what an honest to goodness, clear thinking, progressive might think?
Showing posts with label Communist Manifesto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communist Manifesto. Show all posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Friday, May 08, 2009
Communist Manifesto in 8p's or Less -Day IV
The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. Conservative talking heads tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!
********************************************************************************
Chapter III - Socialist and Communist Literature
The aristocracies of England and France would regularly write pamphlets against the existing "bourgeois" society. In July of 1830 and in English reform the aristocracies once again began this vocation on behalf of the hateful uprising. Therefore noting seriously political could occur but only a war of words through these pamphlets. But even in this literature the old cries of restoration had become impossible. In order to be viewed with sympathy the aristocracy had to lose sight of the goal and attack the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class. This is how Feudal Socialism took root. This was a amalgamation of lament, political mockery - based on the past but warning of the future often highly effective in striking profane impact on the ruling class while at the same time in effective because it did not comprehend the direction of history. The aristoracy tried to use the working class, but the working class saw their self interest and laughed at and derided their efforts.
Petty Bourgeois Socialism
The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie. Small proprietors were the precursor to this demise. In lessor developed countries these classes still co-exist side by side with the bourgeoisie. In other counires where "modern civilization" is fully developed the bourgeosie and proletariat go back and forth from one class to the other. Rising to wealth (bourgeoisie) and then "hurled" back down to poverty (proletariat) by the esuing competition. This process will make them all eventually disappear and they will become fully proletarian and overseen by managers. In countries like France where the peasants make up more than half of the population writers would speak for the peasants to drive a wedge between the classes. This type of Socialism "dissected" with great efficacy the contradictions and hypocricy of modern production. It proved "incontrovertibly" the terrible effects of the division of labor. It revealed the inequality of distribution of wealth, the industrial war between nations, the break down of moral bonds, of family relations. With positive aim, however, this form of Socialism seeks to restore the old means of production and exchange. Unfortunately reverting back to that caused its ultimate demise. It's last words: Corporate guild for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture. Ultimately history ended this type of socialism right where it started.
German or "True Socialism"
Socialist and Communist literature of France was introduced to Germany right when they (proletariat) had begun its contest with feudal absolutism. German philosophers devoured this literature, not realizing the differing social structures of their respective countries. With this void the writing lost all their practical significance. The work of the German academics then was to bring this in line with German conscience without violating their own philosophic point of view. This took place through translation. The result was the "True Socialism" of confronting politics, hurling rants against liberalism, against representative governement, against corporate competitition, against freedom of the press, corporate legislation and the idea of "liberty" and "equality" and preaching to the masses they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by these ideas. To the "absolute" governements it served to scare off those who would rise to power. So the governments used these writings in their favor. The lower middle class (petty bourgeosis) was the mainstay of stability. To retain it was to retain the status quo. "True Socialism" appeared to kill both the concentration of capital and a possible rise of the proletariat. The idea spread wildly. German Socialism proclaimed the German nation to be the "model nation". It made villains seem virutous. It would oppose vehemently Communisim's destructiveness. To this day (1847) the literature is prevalent.
Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
A part of the bourgeoisie (middle class) wants to redress social grievances in order to maintain credibility and retain it's status. Economists, humanitarians, charity workers, workers with the working class, animal cruelty prevention groups fanatics demanding prude behaviour all belong to this group. The same ideology, worked into different groups. This idea generally wants all the benefits of modern social conditions, without the struggle or danger that results from pursuing them. They want everyone to be the bourgeosie, and of course to be the best station in life. They demand that the under-class (proletariat) march for this class which they see as a "New Jerusalem". Which simply means they should join us and drop your hateful talk and ideas about us. A second form of this socialism seeks to put down the revolutionary tendencies by showing that no politics will improve their station only a change in their economic circumstances. By this they mean leave the means of production alone, the concentration of capital alone (these can ONLY be negotiated through revolution) and instead focus on administrative reform. Just make government more effective. Bourgeois attains expression only through becoming a figure of speech. For Example: "Free Trade-For the Benefit of the Working Class" or "Prison reform-For the Benefit of the Working Class" or "Protective duties-for the benefit..." you get the idea. Summed. Bourgeosis are Bourgeosis-for the Benefit of the working class.
Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism
This is not in reference to great writings like Babeuf that support every revolution. The first attempt of the working class to attain it's own ends failed because it was under-developed both educationally and economically. It attempted social levelling in its crudest form. These systems spring to life during the period described above. During the struggles ensuing between Proletariat and the Bourgeosie. (mostly Petty) The founders of these systems see class antagaonism and in the Proletariat now, see a class without any understanding of history or political involvement. Since class struggle keeps pace with industrial growth the economic situation does not give them the opportunity to free the working class. They resort to searching for new "social science", "social laws" that will create these conditions. Historical action is to yield to their own invented ideas. They create these conditions of freedom in grand fashion. These ideas then drive the working class to an organization of society they think they thought of themselves, but really were contrived by these social inventors. History will be what they say it was, once they carry out their plans. As they make these plans they pretend the working class suffering is all that matters. Socialists of this kind believe themselves far superior to all others. Their belief is to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence they appeal to society at large, irrespective of class. For certainly, no one could see their plans for anything less than sheer genius. Therefore they reject all political and revolutionary action; peace at all costs. The will use small experiments, that will fail, and by example pave the way for a new social gospel. These pictures communicated to the proletariat correspond with the first demonstrated desire of the proletariat to reconstruct society.
These also contain a critical element. They attack every element of existing society including town and country, abolition of family, private gain and of the wage system; the proclamation of social harmony; the conversion of the functions of state into supervision of production-- all these point toward the abolition of class. These proposals are of purely Utopian character. There is an inverse relationship between this view and historical development. By standing back from what is really happening, these attacks lose all "practical value and theoretical justification." Therefore while the originators were revolutionary, their foot soldiers have merely formed reactionary, yet docile sects. The result is to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of the experiements and to fund this appeal to the purses and feelings of the bourgeosis. In the end they violently oppose all "...political action on the part of the working class; such action...can only result from blind unbelief in the new gospel."
********************************************************************************
Chapter III - Socialist and Communist Literature
The aristocracies of England and France would regularly write pamphlets against the existing "bourgeois" society. In July of 1830 and in English reform the aristocracies once again began this vocation on behalf of the hateful uprising. Therefore noting seriously political could occur but only a war of words through these pamphlets. But even in this literature the old cries of restoration had become impossible. In order to be viewed with sympathy the aristocracy had to lose sight of the goal and attack the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class. This is how Feudal Socialism took root. This was a amalgamation of lament, political mockery - based on the past but warning of the future often highly effective in striking profane impact on the ruling class while at the same time in effective because it did not comprehend the direction of history. The aristoracy tried to use the working class, but the working class saw their self interest and laughed at and derided their efforts.
Petty Bourgeois Socialism
The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie. Small proprietors were the precursor to this demise. In lessor developed countries these classes still co-exist side by side with the bourgeoisie. In other counires where "modern civilization" is fully developed the bourgeosie and proletariat go back and forth from one class to the other. Rising to wealth (bourgeoisie) and then "hurled" back down to poverty (proletariat) by the esuing competition. This process will make them all eventually disappear and they will become fully proletarian and overseen by managers. In countries like France where the peasants make up more than half of the population writers would speak for the peasants to drive a wedge between the classes. This type of Socialism "dissected" with great efficacy the contradictions and hypocricy of modern production. It proved "incontrovertibly" the terrible effects of the division of labor. It revealed the inequality of distribution of wealth, the industrial war between nations, the break down of moral bonds, of family relations. With positive aim, however, this form of Socialism seeks to restore the old means of production and exchange. Unfortunately reverting back to that caused its ultimate demise. It's last words: Corporate guild for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture. Ultimately history ended this type of socialism right where it started.
German or "True Socialism"
Socialist and Communist literature of France was introduced to Germany right when they (proletariat) had begun its contest with feudal absolutism. German philosophers devoured this literature, not realizing the differing social structures of their respective countries. With this void the writing lost all their practical significance. The work of the German academics then was to bring this in line with German conscience without violating their own philosophic point of view. This took place through translation. The result was the "True Socialism" of confronting politics, hurling rants against liberalism, against representative governement, against corporate competitition, against freedom of the press, corporate legislation and the idea of "liberty" and "equality" and preaching to the masses they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by these ideas. To the "absolute" governements it served to scare off those who would rise to power. So the governments used these writings in their favor. The lower middle class (petty bourgeosis) was the mainstay of stability. To retain it was to retain the status quo. "True Socialism" appeared to kill both the concentration of capital and a possible rise of the proletariat. The idea spread wildly. German Socialism proclaimed the German nation to be the "model nation". It made villains seem virutous. It would oppose vehemently Communisim's destructiveness. To this day (1847) the literature is prevalent.
Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
A part of the bourgeoisie (middle class) wants to redress social grievances in order to maintain credibility and retain it's status. Economists, humanitarians, charity workers, workers with the working class, animal cruelty prevention groups fanatics demanding prude behaviour all belong to this group. The same ideology, worked into different groups. This idea generally wants all the benefits of modern social conditions, without the struggle or danger that results from pursuing them. They want everyone to be the bourgeosie, and of course to be the best station in life. They demand that the under-class (proletariat) march for this class which they see as a "New Jerusalem". Which simply means they should join us and drop your hateful talk and ideas about us. A second form of this socialism seeks to put down the revolutionary tendencies by showing that no politics will improve their station only a change in their economic circumstances. By this they mean leave the means of production alone, the concentration of capital alone (these can ONLY be negotiated through revolution) and instead focus on administrative reform. Just make government more effective. Bourgeois attains expression only through becoming a figure of speech. For Example: "Free Trade-For the Benefit of the Working Class" or "Prison reform-For the Benefit of the Working Class" or "Protective duties-for the benefit..." you get the idea. Summed. Bourgeosis are Bourgeosis-for the Benefit of the working class.
Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism
This is not in reference to great writings like Babeuf that support every revolution. The first attempt of the working class to attain it's own ends failed because it was under-developed both educationally and economically. It attempted social levelling in its crudest form. These systems spring to life during the period described above. During the struggles ensuing between Proletariat and the Bourgeosie. (mostly Petty) The founders of these systems see class antagaonism and in the Proletariat now, see a class without any understanding of history or political involvement. Since class struggle keeps pace with industrial growth the economic situation does not give them the opportunity to free the working class. They resort to searching for new "social science", "social laws" that will create these conditions. Historical action is to yield to their own invented ideas. They create these conditions of freedom in grand fashion. These ideas then drive the working class to an organization of society they think they thought of themselves, but really were contrived by these social inventors. History will be what they say it was, once they carry out their plans. As they make these plans they pretend the working class suffering is all that matters. Socialists of this kind believe themselves far superior to all others. Their belief is to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence they appeal to society at large, irrespective of class. For certainly, no one could see their plans for anything less than sheer genius. Therefore they reject all political and revolutionary action; peace at all costs. The will use small experiments, that will fail, and by example pave the way for a new social gospel. These pictures communicated to the proletariat correspond with the first demonstrated desire of the proletariat to reconstruct society.
These also contain a critical element. They attack every element of existing society including town and country, abolition of family, private gain and of the wage system; the proclamation of social harmony; the conversion of the functions of state into supervision of production-- all these point toward the abolition of class. These proposals are of purely Utopian character. There is an inverse relationship between this view and historical development. By standing back from what is really happening, these attacks lose all "practical value and theoretical justification." Therefore while the originators were revolutionary, their foot soldiers have merely formed reactionary, yet docile sects. The result is to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of the experiements and to fund this appeal to the purses and feelings of the bourgeosis. In the end they violently oppose all "...political action on the part of the working class; such action...can only result from blind unbelief in the new gospel."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Communist Manifesto in 8's or less - Day III
The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. Conservative talking heads tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!
********************************************************************************
Chapter II - Proletarians and Communists, Marx and Engle
How are Communists and proletarians different? There are only 2 differences. 1.) Only in that Communists acknowlege no individuality in nations or persons: The common interest of the working class is it's only concern 2.) Communists always represent the intests of the "whole" of proletarians - not individual proletariat from one region, locale or nation. The communists then are better than the proletarians because they work for the good of the entire group only - no self interest. Because the constant struggle is always one of securing capital (through wage-labor or currency) and this causes the clash of the classes the Communist seeks only this: "The abolition of private property." Said again, "Property in it's present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor." Looking at both sides we see that capital is not personal, it is instead social, power. Since the recipient of capital will seek to pay his laborer the least amount in minimum wage, the laborer will not be able to acquire property but only subsist. Communists want to "do away" with this. You are "horrified" that we wish to do away with private property. We believe that private property is already done away with for 90% of the population. You shun us because we intend to take away your property and in fact that is what we intend to do! Communism does not remove the ability to power to allocate products in a society, it only removes the ability to utilize the labor of others in order to move those products. You say if we do this then all work will stop and laziness will be the norm. We say no. We believe that if this were so the bourgeois society would have died out long ago.
What we believe for product and goods we also believe to be true for intellectual property. You don't like these thoughts only because you have been indoctrinated by the system that tells you that all these 'products' are good. In fact the culture is a great problem because the creation of even family itself is generated so that that unit of living can get more. This is selfishness. Therefore we are all for the "Abolition of the Family." This is because we cannot allow patriarchs to exploit the children in their family. Charge us with the crime of wanting to stop the exploitation of kids? We "plead guilty". You are appalled that we destroy this sacred institution. Poppy-cock. All language of the culture to justify exploitation of kids.
As for Mothers and wives, they too are merely tools that perpetuate production by facilitating the domestic lives of their husbands. Get rid of them. Create a "community of women". It has always been this way anyway. The rich and mighty steal each others wives, not to mention buy other women through prostitution. What is this but the community of women? All we wish to do is replace the illusion of "family" with what is really going on already anyway. We want to legalize the community of women and quit abusing them through this sham and hypocrisy. Call it what it is!
Of course, because we see no preferences we also wish to abolish countries and nationalities. We will get rid of these tensions all together. Give the working class the opportunity and they will choose this very quickly. If people are no longer exploited, then nations will no longer exploit and we have perfection. As this antagonism due to wage-labor producing capital goes away between individuals it will also go away between nations.
We won't even give religious or philosophical arguments the time of day in this book because they don't deserve "serious examination". Man's consciousness will change if his material conditions and social relations change, as Communism seeks to do. We've seen this time and time again. You argue that Communism abolishes all truth even the eternal ones, re-writing them and you further argue that this contradicts history. Never has man been able to abolish the eternal truths. To this we say, of course it's not gone away...you are all trained up in the system and he system perpetuates these eternal truths! Communism is the most radical of ideas and its application will result in the crashing of all "traditional ideas". We've just not been able to see Communism done correctly. So let's be done with these objections!
Here's how it is done. First, let's bring the working class to the position of "ruling class" through democracy. They will take all the capital from the 'ruling class' and give it over to the state....that is...the 'working class'. This will increase the working class, which is now infused with all those that used to be the 'ruling class'. Of course to do this we (working class) must be "despotic" in regards to the old ideas about property and production in ways that will seem unacceptable...but this is revolution and the pain will be worth the result. The actions taken will be different for different countries. But we can list 10 procedures: Abolish property; heavy taxes; no inheritance; take property; centralize banking (to the state); centralize communication; grow government business, land of all kinds; equal work for all;combine agriculture and manufacturing and get rid of towns, counties and country sovereignty, disperse population equally throughout; Free education to kids in public schools only-get rid of child labor in factories-while combining education with industrial production.
When all this is done then there will be no individuality and therefore no "political character". Political power simply put is one class exploiting another. If the proletariat can do all these things they will have abolished the need for class antagonisms (because no class no exists). It will even have abolished it's own supremacy as a class. In the place of the old we will have one big group association where the free development of each is required and in so doing we will have the "free development of all".
********************************************************************************
Chapter II - Proletarians and Communists, Marx and Engle
How are Communists and proletarians different? There are only 2 differences. 1.) Only in that Communists acknowlege no individuality in nations or persons: The common interest of the working class is it's only concern 2.) Communists always represent the intests of the "whole" of proletarians - not individual proletariat from one region, locale or nation. The communists then are better than the proletarians because they work for the good of the entire group only - no self interest. Because the constant struggle is always one of securing capital (through wage-labor or currency) and this causes the clash of the classes the Communist seeks only this: "The abolition of private property." Said again, "Property in it's present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor." Looking at both sides we see that capital is not personal, it is instead social, power. Since the recipient of capital will seek to pay his laborer the least amount in minimum wage, the laborer will not be able to acquire property but only subsist. Communists want to "do away" with this. You are "horrified" that we wish to do away with private property. We believe that private property is already done away with for 90% of the population. You shun us because we intend to take away your property and in fact that is what we intend to do! Communism does not remove the ability to power to allocate products in a society, it only removes the ability to utilize the labor of others in order to move those products. You say if we do this then all work will stop and laziness will be the norm. We say no. We believe that if this were so the bourgeois society would have died out long ago.
What we believe for product and goods we also believe to be true for intellectual property. You don't like these thoughts only because you have been indoctrinated by the system that tells you that all these 'products' are good. In fact the culture is a great problem because the creation of even family itself is generated so that that unit of living can get more. This is selfishness. Therefore we are all for the "Abolition of the Family." This is because we cannot allow patriarchs to exploit the children in their family. Charge us with the crime of wanting to stop the exploitation of kids? We "plead guilty". You are appalled that we destroy this sacred institution. Poppy-cock. All language of the culture to justify exploitation of kids.
As for Mothers and wives, they too are merely tools that perpetuate production by facilitating the domestic lives of their husbands. Get rid of them. Create a "community of women". It has always been this way anyway. The rich and mighty steal each others wives, not to mention buy other women through prostitution. What is this but the community of women? All we wish to do is replace the illusion of "family" with what is really going on already anyway. We want to legalize the community of women and quit abusing them through this sham and hypocrisy. Call it what it is!
Of course, because we see no preferences we also wish to abolish countries and nationalities. We will get rid of these tensions all together. Give the working class the opportunity and they will choose this very quickly. If people are no longer exploited, then nations will no longer exploit and we have perfection. As this antagonism due to wage-labor producing capital goes away between individuals it will also go away between nations.
We won't even give religious or philosophical arguments the time of day in this book because they don't deserve "serious examination". Man's consciousness will change if his material conditions and social relations change, as Communism seeks to do. We've seen this time and time again. You argue that Communism abolishes all truth even the eternal ones, re-writing them and you further argue that this contradicts history. Never has man been able to abolish the eternal truths. To this we say, of course it's not gone away...you are all trained up in the system and he system perpetuates these eternal truths! Communism is the most radical of ideas and its application will result in the crashing of all "traditional ideas". We've just not been able to see Communism done correctly. So let's be done with these objections!
Here's how it is done. First, let's bring the working class to the position of "ruling class" through democracy. They will take all the capital from the 'ruling class' and give it over to the state....that is...the 'working class'. This will increase the working class, which is now infused with all those that used to be the 'ruling class'. Of course to do this we (working class) must be "despotic" in regards to the old ideas about property and production in ways that will seem unacceptable...but this is revolution and the pain will be worth the result. The actions taken will be different for different countries. But we can list 10 procedures: Abolish property; heavy taxes; no inheritance; take property; centralize banking (to the state); centralize communication; grow government business, land of all kinds; equal work for all;combine agriculture and manufacturing and get rid of towns, counties and country sovereignty, disperse population equally throughout; Free education to kids in public schools only-get rid of child labor in factories-while combining education with industrial production.
When all this is done then there will be no individuality and therefore no "political character". Political power simply put is one class exploiting another. If the proletariat can do all these things they will have abolished the need for class antagonisms (because no class no exists). It will even have abolished it's own supremacy as a class. In the place of the old we will have one big group association where the free development of each is required and in so doing we will have the "free development of all".
Monday, March 16, 2009
Communist Manifesto in 8p's or Less - Day II
The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. Conservative talking heads tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!
********************************************************************************
After Engle wrote the introduction which we outlined last post, he then begins to write in the voice of both Marx and Engle. He has a sort of Preface II section where he establishes through a by-line including both himself and Marx. We start with his Preface II (my term) below and then the first of four "chapters" follow:
Manifesto of the Communist Party
by Marx and Engel
Communism is, in a vague but consistent form alive and well in Europe and the government of our times are aligned to fight it. The result is 2 things: First, it (communism) is being acknowleged by all those fighting it to be alive, legitimate and powerful. Second, it is time that we publish their views for all to see in a document for all to see. We propose to do this, and publish it in muliple languages.
Chapter I
Bourgeois and Proletarians
All history relating to social interaction is a history of class struggle. Oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to each other in one form or another. Sometimes hidden, sometimes openly but always present. Look at history and see this. rome, Middle ages, no matter...class struggle always exists between a 'ruler' and the 'ruled'. Our society today has not done away with this class struggle. We simply have a new face to replace the old one. The struggle and teh fight remains. Even though we now have markets and commerce these are ruled by wealthy industrial citizens that are the new 'ruling class'. (the bourgeois) America and it's founding has "paved" the way for this. The wealthy 'ruling class' of today is itself a product of a series of revolutions in the way we produce and exchange goods.
Each stage in the development of our current bourgeoisie also including a simultaneous political power grab by that 'ruling class'. This 'ruling class' has replaced a specific social order of man and his "natural superiors" with no other bond than blatant self interest. This has "drowned" religion, family, enthusiasm, personal worth and emotion as a sacrifice for man's ability to out-win the next guy and get his share. There are no more 'professionals' (doctors, lawyer, priest, poet, etc.) because these once respected professions are now merely paid laborer's. The 'ruling class' (bourgeoises) must always be changing/improving the tools of production and in doing this change the way we relate to each other socially. The run the "globe" looking for new and 'better' ways, talking, meeting, networking "everywhere". This destroys industry as we know it and replaces them with something new, constantly. Interaction and transactions around the world becomes greater and greater. This 'ruling class' (bourgeoises) draws everyone into the fold. Everyone and "Everywhere". Not only this but they make it fashionable to produce and consume. Since everyone is learning and re-creating what works there is no room for a unique national 'way'. It even forces oppressive forces to seek their way. (ref "Chinese" Gov't) These nations economies must follow or they will die. This 'ruling class' has created town and enormous cities. This forces consolidation of resources. (material and human) And with consolidation comes centralization not only of resources but of politics. In the last 100 years this has resulted in more production than the production of all history prior to this time combined. Labor does the work and the 'bourgeoises' benefit, this is derivative of post-modern feudal societies. This system becomes an uncontrollable force that not even the 'ruling class' can manage and so in their place comes "free competition" along with social and political systems.
This is what is happening today. In fact the productive forces no longer further the development of the 'ruling class' property, but rather the break down of this social order brings chaos and disorder which endangers the very idea of property. This system is not strong enough to operationally manage the power that such a system can generate. So what does the 'ruling class' do? They create progressively greater crisis and remove the constraints that are in place to prevent the crisis in the first place. So the system risks extinction by the very forces that brought it into being. This system has also brought into existence the modern working class whose only commodity to sell is it's time to increase other's wealth and can earn only so long as 'the ruling class' are confident in labor's productivity toward profit. This means labor is a victim to the lack of profitability of the 'ruling class' to live on other's productivity. These laborers don't realize that the more productive they make the 'ruling class' the more embittered they will become at injustice. This process of earning works it's way all through the purchasing process. The lower social structure, micro-business owner, shopkeepers, retired folks, carpenters, small family farmer's all sink into the working class because they don't have the cash reserves to become a part of the bourgeois class. While their skill eventually becomes worthless because of new means of productivity.
The proletariat also go through various stages of development, like the bourgeois. First work is done by one-off individual contractors. Then the job is moved to a factory floor or process. Then it is done by specific operatives of a single specialized trade. They eventually rebel against not the 'ruling class', but against the tools the 'ruling class' give them to produce. They seek to destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, "smash" machinery, burn factories and try to restore through violence the workman as he 'used to be'. At this stage they are not co-ordinated other than locally. Yet these things are not their enemies. They should be fighting the system set up by the bourgeois. Doing what they (proletariat) are doing they unwittingly win battles for the bourgeois.
What the proletariat also see is they are becoming larger and larger in concentrated numbers because the means of production is becoming more and more centralized. They begin to form associations with one another. ("Trade Unions") This improves communication and begins to centralize the revolt spoken of earlier so that a "national struggle" is possible. This is the national struggle between classes. We see it once again. This group will struggle and compete against itself but each struggle will only make it stronger and more united. It will pass bills and legislation for it's' class. This benefits the proletariat position by causing certain sectors of the bourgeoises to conflict, which then requires political action and, then results in entire sections of the 'ruling class' being pushed down into the proletariat.
"Finally," when tensions get too great and it seems that the whole of society will break up a small section of the "ruling class" will cut itself free and join a revolutionary class, this new class becoming the one that holds the future process "in it's hands." Since these classes get smaller and smaller going through this process, again, and a again...the 'ruling class' getting smaller and smaller each time and the 'proletariot' getting larger and larger...we see the proletariot are the only class that is a "special and essential product." Since this class has nothing, (no property) they cannot become masters of prodcutive forces so their natural recourse will be to destroy the property and property protections of all others. This is a national struggle. Remember, all history is a history of the clash of classes.
The essential ingredient for the existence of the 'ruling class' (bourgeois) is the accessibility of capital; the condition which creates capital is wage-labor. Labor, unwittingly is the key. What the 'ruling class' is producing therefore, is it's own "grave-diggers". The fall of the bourgeois and the victory of the proletariat will be the final result of this system in all scenerios.
********************************************************************************
After Engle wrote the introduction which we outlined last post, he then begins to write in the voice of both Marx and Engle. He has a sort of Preface II section where he establishes through a by-line including both himself and Marx. We start with his Preface II (my term) below and then the first of four "chapters" follow:
Manifesto of the Communist Party
by Marx and Engel
Communism is, in a vague but consistent form alive and well in Europe and the government of our times are aligned to fight it. The result is 2 things: First, it (communism) is being acknowleged by all those fighting it to be alive, legitimate and powerful. Second, it is time that we publish their views for all to see in a document for all to see. We propose to do this, and publish it in muliple languages.
Chapter I
Bourgeois and Proletarians
All history relating to social interaction is a history of class struggle. Oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to each other in one form or another. Sometimes hidden, sometimes openly but always present. Look at history and see this. rome, Middle ages, no matter...class struggle always exists between a 'ruler' and the 'ruled'. Our society today has not done away with this class struggle. We simply have a new face to replace the old one. The struggle and teh fight remains. Even though we now have markets and commerce these are ruled by wealthy industrial citizens that are the new 'ruling class'. (the bourgeois) America and it's founding has "paved" the way for this. The wealthy 'ruling class' of today is itself a product of a series of revolutions in the way we produce and exchange goods.
Each stage in the development of our current bourgeoisie also including a simultaneous political power grab by that 'ruling class'. This 'ruling class' has replaced a specific social order of man and his "natural superiors" with no other bond than blatant self interest. This has "drowned" religion, family, enthusiasm, personal worth and emotion as a sacrifice for man's ability to out-win the next guy and get his share. There are no more 'professionals' (doctors, lawyer, priest, poet, etc.) because these once respected professions are now merely paid laborer's. The 'ruling class' (bourgeoises) must always be changing/improving the tools of production and in doing this change the way we relate to each other socially. The run the "globe" looking for new and 'better' ways, talking, meeting, networking "everywhere". This destroys industry as we know it and replaces them with something new, constantly. Interaction and transactions around the world becomes greater and greater. This 'ruling class' (bourgeoises) draws everyone into the fold. Everyone and "Everywhere". Not only this but they make it fashionable to produce and consume. Since everyone is learning and re-creating what works there is no room for a unique national 'way'. It even forces oppressive forces to seek their way. (ref "Chinese" Gov't) These nations economies must follow or they will die. This 'ruling class' has created town and enormous cities. This forces consolidation of resources. (material and human) And with consolidation comes centralization not only of resources but of politics. In the last 100 years this has resulted in more production than the production of all history prior to this time combined. Labor does the work and the 'bourgeoises' benefit, this is derivative of post-modern feudal societies. This system becomes an uncontrollable force that not even the 'ruling class' can manage and so in their place comes "free competition" along with social and political systems.
This is what is happening today. In fact the productive forces no longer further the development of the 'ruling class' property, but rather the break down of this social order brings chaos and disorder which endangers the very idea of property. This system is not strong enough to operationally manage the power that such a system can generate. So what does the 'ruling class' do? They create progressively greater crisis and remove the constraints that are in place to prevent the crisis in the first place. So the system risks extinction by the very forces that brought it into being. This system has also brought into existence the modern working class whose only commodity to sell is it's time to increase other's wealth and can earn only so long as 'the ruling class' are confident in labor's productivity toward profit. This means labor is a victim to the lack of profitability of the 'ruling class' to live on other's productivity. These laborers don't realize that the more productive they make the 'ruling class' the more embittered they will become at injustice. This process of earning works it's way all through the purchasing process. The lower social structure, micro-business owner, shopkeepers, retired folks, carpenters, small family farmer's all sink into the working class because they don't have the cash reserves to become a part of the bourgeois class. While their skill eventually becomes worthless because of new means of productivity.
The proletariat also go through various stages of development, like the bourgeois. First work is done by one-off individual contractors. Then the job is moved to a factory floor or process. Then it is done by specific operatives of a single specialized trade. They eventually rebel against not the 'ruling class', but against the tools the 'ruling class' give them to produce. They seek to destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, "smash" machinery, burn factories and try to restore through violence the workman as he 'used to be'. At this stage they are not co-ordinated other than locally. Yet these things are not their enemies. They should be fighting the system set up by the bourgeois. Doing what they (proletariat) are doing they unwittingly win battles for the bourgeois.
What the proletariat also see is they are becoming larger and larger in concentrated numbers because the means of production is becoming more and more centralized. They begin to form associations with one another. ("Trade Unions") This improves communication and begins to centralize the revolt spoken of earlier so that a "national struggle" is possible. This is the national struggle between classes. We see it once again. This group will struggle and compete against itself but each struggle will only make it stronger and more united. It will pass bills and legislation for it's' class. This benefits the proletariat position by causing certain sectors of the bourgeoises to conflict, which then requires political action and, then results in entire sections of the 'ruling class' being pushed down into the proletariat.
"Finally," when tensions get too great and it seems that the whole of society will break up a small section of the "ruling class" will cut itself free and join a revolutionary class, this new class becoming the one that holds the future process "in it's hands." Since these classes get smaller and smaller going through this process, again, and a again...the 'ruling class' getting smaller and smaller each time and the 'proletariot' getting larger and larger...we see the proletariot are the only class that is a "special and essential product." Since this class has nothing, (no property) they cannot become masters of prodcutive forces so their natural recourse will be to destroy the property and property protections of all others. This is a national struggle. Remember, all history is a history of the clash of classes.
The essential ingredient for the existence of the 'ruling class' (bourgeois) is the accessibility of capital; the condition which creates capital is wage-labor. Labor, unwittingly is the key. What the 'ruling class' is producing therefore, is it's own "grave-diggers". The fall of the bourgeois and the victory of the proletariat will be the final result of this system in all scenerios.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Communist Manifesto - In 8 paragraphs a Day
The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. While the conservative talk shows tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!
*****************************************************************************
Communist Manifesto
Preface
by Fredrick Engels
This Manifesto was written for a group that was originally called the "Communist League" which was the late 1800's version of a modern day union. This union started locally in Germany and then spread International. The movement was forced underground because of a lack of openess to it's tenents in the late 1800's. (1847) Marx and Engel agreed to put the ideas down on paper so as to have and official document establishing the group. (political party)
There was an uprising (meaning internal conflict boardering on war) in Paris a few years later in 1830 and the working man was pummelled at their attempt to revolt. After that revolt, the only groups of people (called classes) involved in decision making for society were those that had property in varying degrees (called Bourgeoisie). Non-propertied individuals (proletariat) were considered non-decision makers and had no impact on the political dialogue. When the working class started to make gains, the propertied class would hunt them down using their enforcement power to silence descent. The main leaders for this group (the Communist League) spent 2 years in jail. They weren't given a trial until 18 months after they were tracked down and put in jail. After finally being tried and convicted, 7 of the leaders of the group were given an additional 3 to 6 years in a "fortress". Which is to say an ugly, cold dark prison. After these men were given their official sentence the "dissolved" the group. No one, including the broken leaders, believed it would ever return.
After a while though, the European working class had taken a break from "revolution" and, in the context of them times been beaten down so the ideas came back to the forefront. This time, however, the European and American working class seem to be working together. It required something less specific, broad enough to be able to cross the vast cultural and political differences between the US and Europe. What they found is that the group (thousands of men, if not millions) was very different now from what it was when it first started. They even found that "socialism" was a word that was being spoken in large political gatherings.
So the Manifesto came back into public discourse around 1872 in English in New York in what to us would seem an obscure Weekly Newpaper, but was at the time quite successful. Then the french copied this into an American published French Newsletter in New York. This was followed by no less than 12 reprints in a host of different languages being proclaimed (by Engle, at least) as the most widespread of all socialist literature reaching from "Siberia to California".
It could not, at the time been called a "socialist" manifesto. Socialists at the time were a dying "sect" and were considered in the mainstream to be "quacks". Trying to solve problems without considering the impact on "profit" or money. They relied instead upon the "educated" classes (propertied classes) for support. Instead, those working people that grew weary of mere attempted and unsuccessful political change called themselves communists. Socialism was a middle class movement, Communism a working class movement at this time. It was socially acceptable to be a socialist, but not so for the Communists. (working class)
The foundation for this work is mostly Marx's. And this is it: history proves that in every cycle there is a history of class struggle between those that are exploiting and those that are exploited. That is those that rule and those that are ruled. And it has reached a degree that requires freeing the entire working class from constraint by the ruling class. This will do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology.
Engle then concludes with evidence of his support for this doctrine and that it is as valid as he writes it as it was when it was conceived. Also says that they cannot change the doctrine now because it has become a historical document "which we no longer have any right to alter".
Friedrich Engle, London
January 30, 1888
*****************************************************************************
Communist Manifesto
Preface
by Fredrick Engels
This Manifesto was written for a group that was originally called the "Communist League" which was the late 1800's version of a modern day union. This union started locally in Germany and then spread International. The movement was forced underground because of a lack of openess to it's tenents in the late 1800's. (1847) Marx and Engel agreed to put the ideas down on paper so as to have and official document establishing the group. (political party)
There was an uprising (meaning internal conflict boardering on war) in Paris a few years later in 1830 and the working man was pummelled at their attempt to revolt. After that revolt, the only groups of people (called classes) involved in decision making for society were those that had property in varying degrees (called Bourgeoisie). Non-propertied individuals (proletariat) were considered non-decision makers and had no impact on the political dialogue. When the working class started to make gains, the propertied class would hunt them down using their enforcement power to silence descent. The main leaders for this group (the Communist League) spent 2 years in jail. They weren't given a trial until 18 months after they were tracked down and put in jail. After finally being tried and convicted, 7 of the leaders of the group were given an additional 3 to 6 years in a "fortress". Which is to say an ugly, cold dark prison. After these men were given their official sentence the "dissolved" the group. No one, including the broken leaders, believed it would ever return.
After a while though, the European working class had taken a break from "revolution" and, in the context of them times been beaten down so the ideas came back to the forefront. This time, however, the European and American working class seem to be working together. It required something less specific, broad enough to be able to cross the vast cultural and political differences between the US and Europe. What they found is that the group (thousands of men, if not millions) was very different now from what it was when it first started. They even found that "socialism" was a word that was being spoken in large political gatherings.
So the Manifesto came back into public discourse around 1872 in English in New York in what to us would seem an obscure Weekly Newpaper, but was at the time quite successful. Then the french copied this into an American published French Newsletter in New York. This was followed by no less than 12 reprints in a host of different languages being proclaimed (by Engle, at least) as the most widespread of all socialist literature reaching from "Siberia to California".
It could not, at the time been called a "socialist" manifesto. Socialists at the time were a dying "sect" and were considered in the mainstream to be "quacks". Trying to solve problems without considering the impact on "profit" or money. They relied instead upon the "educated" classes (propertied classes) for support. Instead, those working people that grew weary of mere attempted and unsuccessful political change called themselves communists. Socialism was a middle class movement, Communism a working class movement at this time. It was socially acceptable to be a socialist, but not so for the Communists. (working class)
The foundation for this work is mostly Marx's. And this is it: history proves that in every cycle there is a history of class struggle between those that are exploiting and those that are exploited. That is those that rule and those that are ruled. And it has reached a degree that requires freeing the entire working class from constraint by the ruling class. This will do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology.
Engle then concludes with evidence of his support for this doctrine and that it is as valid as he writes it as it was when it was conceived. Also says that they cannot change the doctrine now because it has become a historical document "which we no longer have any right to alter".
Friedrich Engle, London
January 30, 1888
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
