The Communist Manifesto

[DARKanima]

Has anyone read the Communist Manifesto? What are your thoughts?

[Mercurial]

I like the idea that class struggle is what drives changes in the social order, historically. I read it for my Sociology course, so I got a different context from people who read it in Philo or Poli Sci.

I particularly like his argument how humanity first began with slavery, but that slowly got pushed out by feudalism and now finally we are at the capitalist stage. I think he felt that you needed to undergo all the levels of economic situation before you can reach the communist state.

I think that it is an excellent work but in reality, much of what he hopes for is impossible in my own opinion. Does read a little dry.

[blp]

Didn't Marx say something like 'Whatever I am, I am not a Marxist'? Or was it '...not a Communist'?

Haven't read it, but love, mainly from a literary point of view, the passage where he says 'All that is solid melts into air'. Easy to find on the net.

The idea of a sort of historical inevitability, via a dialectic process, is what interests me most about it. The idea is derived from Hegel and, more recently, in The End of History, Francis Fukuyama (sp?) has used the same language to argue for the historical inevitability of free market capitalism instead, making him beloved of Reaganite economists and the like. The question is, if something is inevitable, was it then, somehow metaphysically prior too? Frankly, or Francisly, I doubt it. But metaphysics is like a constantly mutating germ, constantly resurfacing despite concerted attempts to find an antidote.

[CrazedPianoKid]

Didn't Marx say something like 'Whatever I am, I am not a Marxist'? Or was it '...not a Communist'?
communisim was basically the child of marxism. so i doubt it was communist

[Unregistered]

But metaphysics is like a constantly mutating germ, constantly resurfacing despite concerted attempts to find an antidote.

There is no antidote because metaphysics is philosophy. The antidote is the end of philosophy - which is the end of thought. Philosophy is thought as it acts and exists in the most developed accord with its original and pure (true) logic. The dialectic presupposes the activation of everything since its activity is infinite. The problem and naivity of the Marxist dialectic is in its irrational conception as being necessarily finite (and dogmatic at that - a type of Kantian original dogma that arises out of the protestant consciousness of the time (according to Hegel)). It is metaphysically prior in the sense that metaphysics (I'm being very Hegelian here) is infinite - so everything is it (the Absolute) as it becomes itself. The Idea can never go outside of itself. It can merely extend and rise above itself while at the same time being itself (or more precisely not not being itself).

The problem with Marx is that, contrary to popular belief, his theory is flawed and not its application. However, it is a great start in the sense that everything great requires a start - and he gave it (if only in his historical analysis). The spirit is also something to be admired and has a type of directive value (regulative perhaps).

sis

[Leonardo]

I had studied Marxizm in the University in USSR. It was impossible to get diploma without good marks on Marxizm-Leninizm.
Many principles of Communist Manifesto had been implemented in the Soviet Union.
For example, they cancelled private property on the land. Rural paeple have been send to collective farms by force. Those, who opposed, (many millions) had been sent to Siberia and died there.
Result - collapse of Russian agriculture, low effectiveness of collective farms, lack of food for all country, starvation.

[vierdreieins]

I read it not too long ago; earlier this year. I enjoyed it, because the points he made make sense, but it's kind of hard to shake the mental image of disaster that resulted from the thing.


Many principles of Communist Manifesto had been implemented in the Soviet Union.

Has the new ("capitalistic") system helped any in terms of quality of life in Russia? A lot of the people I've talked to (most who have any opinion, really) feel that the stability of Russia is a lot worse now after the fall of the USSR. I'm no expert, so I really have no idea, but it just strikes me as interesting that I've heard people mention it and have read articles taking the same stand. The switch from communism to capitalism happened too quickly, or they expected it to be an overnight transformation, wreaking havoc on the economy and quality of life. It's going to take a while, but in the meantime, apparently, they'd be better off under communism.
Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

[Leonardo]

Dear vierdreieins:
The new system in Russia is not capitalistic. It is an authoritarian regime. There are no freedom of speech, no free Media, the Juridical system obeys commands from the Kremlin.
The idealistic Bolsheviks from 1917 had started a huge social experiment - creation of e new human - Homo Sovieticus. And they did it, killing all educated people, old politicians, scientists spiritual leaders.
Country remained without intellectuals. They created their own intellectuals who can do military science and production. And a huge army of mediocre bureaucrats has created..
The people lived in a miserable condition. Only Communist high-rank officials were very rich, but they kept secret og their way of life.
When in1991 the Communist regime had collapsed, former communist officials became high criminals and Mafioso. Now mafia, army, police, and management system are merged together.
More than half population of Russia lived below poverty-line. At the same time they have many very rich people, tycoons, who get their money running a criminal business.
If you go to Moscow, you'll see rich quarters, beautiful buildings etc. And if you will come to provincial city, you'll see high crime rate, neglected towns management, pensioners, dying from starvation, narcotics, and drunkenness.

[blp]

Doh. I have read this book. It's Das Kapital I haven't read.

A couple of points. Isn't it Stalinism that was all about killing intellectuals and isn't it pretty difficult to argue that Stalinism has much to do with the letter of Marxism? A lot of the force exercised in the implementation of Communism has a huge theoretical fault in it, in that, according to Marx's conception of the dialectic, his system was supposed to simply occur as the end result of the process. There was a short period after the revolution when things could have gone quite differently. The career of an artist like the filmmaker Eisenstein is an indicator of how things went wrong. Early works like Strike and Battleship Potemkin were made as part of the radical artistic climate that also produced constructivists like Rodchenko, Tatlin and Malevich, the last of whom, with his black square, virtually invented pure minimalist abstraction. Under Stalin, all this was frowned upon in favour of the kitsch of Socialist Realism (an actually profoundly unrealistic portrayal of proud peasants advancing into bright futures) and internationally recognised artists such as Eisenstein suddenly found it very difficult to make their work. His film Bezhin Meadow was banned for its formal experimentalism, he was persecuted for his Jewishness and homosexuality and, amid the banning of his 'Ivan the Terrible Part 2' and the destruction of his footage for Part 3, he had a heart attack and died. But all this is a result of Stalinism, not, strictly speaking, Communism.

Sis, isn't this idea of the dialectic coming to a final synthesis rather than being infinite derived from Hegel?

[Leonardo]

Some Western intellectuals believe that the Communism itself is a “bright future of all mankind” (quote from the Soviet propaganda). This is well spread misconception among the Western intellectuals. Romain Rolland, Anrie Barbuse, Lion Feichwanger, John Reed etc. were fooled by Marxist-Soviet fair tales.
Let’s ask Marx – what is the Communism?
1. The main principle of Communism – each citizen must get the same amount of material benefits from society.
My comment: This is against a natural law. People are not equal neither phisiologically, nor mentally. The condition of social progress is – competition, striving to improve themselves and their living condition. This main dialectical principle will be broken by equalizing all humans; it would stop the social progress and led to death of society.
Finally this principle contradicts the Gegel’s dialectical triad: Thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

Besides, state only distribution of benefits among citizens means that some dictator will decide who will receive what.

2. Second principle: all people will work as much as they want.

My comment: as far as people will get equal benefits regardless of work, so inevitable people will not work – they will not have a stimulus to work. So, who will create those benefits, another word, welfare? The society transformed to flock of parasites and will die soon.

And the last: Karl Marx in his letter to Wiedemayer in March 1848 wrote, that socialism as the first stage of Communism is not a fair social establishment and its principles being implemented can destroy any society. Most Marxists prefer do not mention this letter.

And short notes:
In contrary of well spread opinion, I believe that “Battleship Potyomkin” by Eisenstein is ungifted movie created to please political authority in RSFSR. (Russian Federation). Moreover, I don’t believe Eisenstein is genius. His “Ivan the Terrible” has been made by straight order of Stalin. Stalin wanted to confirm his dictatorship and cruelty by historical parallels.
I could tell you a lot about horrible destinies of artists, writers, poets, painters, who live in the USSR. This is the long story and I don’t want to misuse space here. Only I can agree with you, Blp, – the short period of 20-s – constructivism, futurism, symbolism, abstractionism has terminated by Bolsheviks orders to create just one direction – Socialistic realism. For those who won’t obey orders – bitte-dritte welcome to concentration camp.

[oceanflower]

Thank you Leonardo. At last, someone who has lived the reality of communism.

[blp]

I don't know what to tell you about Potemkin, Leonardo, except, look again. You're right that Ivan the Terrible was made for the Stalinist regime. Who else would it have been made for? And it's true that, having had so much trouble already, Eisenstein was trying to tone down his style. My point is, he still had a lot of trouble, and that trouble was from Stalinism specifically, which can't be said to be synonymous with Communism, which could have been put into practice quite differently - under Trotsky for instance. My post was not supposed to be an argument for Communism, just a response to your point about how intellectuals were murdered and oppressed under Communism.

[Leonardo]

One more Western misconseption: Yes, Stalinism is awful, but the real Communism is something else; the Communist ideas will help people to create Paradise.
Great! Let us see Communist Paradises.
1. USSR - 60 million population has been killed out of 180 million. They died in starvation on Volga basin 1918, on the Civil War, by Red Army, starvation on Ukraine in 1932, made by Bolsheviks, in the WW-2 bacause of incompetency of Stalin, in concentration camps, exiles, prisons acrros all Russia.

2. China - 80 millions were killed by order of Mao-Tse-dung during so-called "cultural revoution" in 60-s.

3. Cambodia - 3 millions out of 8 millions were killed by Pol Pot and his "khmer-ruge".

4. North Korea - number of killed unknown, it's a secret. USA is supplying N. Korea by food. All this food directed to feding high Communist bureaucrats and military. Ordinary people live on the edge of starvation and forced to slave labor on creating nuclear weapon against USA.
5. Cuba - you know, perhaps better than I do.

Where the Communist paradise is built?

Enough? May be you want to know about origination of contemporary terror? Or, why the most palestinian terrorists speaking Russian? Or what the essense of Iranian revolution?

[blp]

Oh pay attention will you? and stop just reading what you want to back up your own defensive prejudices. I haven't once said I endorse Communism, let alone that I think it would have brought about paradise. I'm not going to say this again.

[oceanflower]

Oh pay attention will you? and stop just reading what you want to back up your own defensive prejudices. I haven't once said I endorse Communism, let alone that I think it would have brought about paradise. I'm not going to say this again.

I wouldn't call Leonardo's feelings about Communism " defensive prejudices" when he has lived its realities.

[eflo]

I think I have about 3 copies of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, not to mention an electronic copy on my computer. I still have yet to read it though. I'm going to try to make any effort to read more non-fiction/history/biography books over fiction.

Fiction is nice, but I am also going to try to branch out some rather than stay where I am comfortable.

How come no comments from incka in this thread? I would expect incka to be all over this discussion!

Maybe tomorrow I will buy another copy of the Manifesto and read it for this thread...

[blp]

I wouldn't call Leonardo's feelings about Communism " defensive prejudices" when he has lived its realities.

I'm not talking about his feelings about Communism, but about what I said. He appears to be having a problem living that reality.

[blp]

Maybe tomorrow I will buy another copy of the Manifesto and read it for this thread...


Buy another when you already have 3? Beware of commodity fetishism!

[blp]

One more Western misconseption: Yes, Stalinism is awful, but the real Communism is something else; the Communist ideas will help people to create Paradise.
Great! Let us see Communist Paradises.
1. USSR - 60 million population has been killed out of 180 million. They died in starvation on Volga basin 1918, on the Civil War, by Red Army, starvation on Ukraine in 1932, made by Bolsheviks, in the WW-2 bacause of incompetency of Stalin, in concentration camps, exiles, prisons acrros all Russia.

2. China - 80 millions were killed by order of Mao-Tse-dung during so-called "cultural revoution" in 60-s.

3. Cambodia - 3 millions out of 8 millions were killed by Pol Pot and his "khmer-ruge".

4. North Korea - number of killed unknown, it's a secret. USA is supplying N. Korea by food. All this food directed to feding high Communist bureaucrats and military. Ordinary people live on the edge of starvation and forced to slave labor on creating nuclear weapon against USA.
5. Cuba - you know, perhaps better than I do.

Where the Communist paradise is built?

Enough? May be you want to know about origination of contemporary terror? Or, why the most palestinian terrorists speaking Russian? Or what the essense of Iranian revolution?

Maybe, to get back on topic, you'd like to explain how these atrocities can be laid at the door of Marx's writings. But please, don't lets get into the Middle East.

[Leonardo]

Maybe, to get back on topic, you'd like to explain how these atrocities can be laid at the door of Marx's writings.
I'll try.
1. Marx' Theory: Communism - all explotation will be destroyed. All capitalists, top managers, directors of industry will be deprived of their possesity. There will be only state ownership, no capitalist trade. Next stage - annihilating money, liquidation of Stock market, all markets. State distribution og all comodities. Top communist leaders will decide what and how much you will receive.

2. Practice: there were several follovers of Marx and several plans to implement Marxism into state management.
a. Plekhanov - social-democratical ideological Communist state. Ownership gradually became state.
b. Lenin - communism - dictatorship. Ordinary people can't supervise, they need leaders, dictators. Everyone not agree - death. Everyone who not believe in communism - sent to GULAG archipelago.
c. Trotzky - military communism. Population is organized, like military strukture. Military discipline.
d. Mao-Tze dung - "popular" communism. Base - rural hosehold. Metall, chemical, electronics - all must be produces in the collective farms.
e. Fidel Castro, Che Gevara - communism-banditism.
f. Pol Pot - medieval, feodal communism.
g. Kim Chen ir - communism-slavery.

Each of them declared himself as true communist and follower of Marx's theory.

You are free to chose any kind of communism.

[incka]

You really do not understand communism. None of those regimes you mentioned were communist. Communism comes about when workers strike and become so politicised that they set up councils that do the work that states usually do, and eventually replace the state. The closest to that was Lenin in the first few year in Russia. You also misunderstand trotsky completly, the military discipline as you call it isn't for the state, it's for the revolutionary communist party IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY BEFORE A REVOLUTION.

You really need someone better than me to explain this, but basically we have not seen a real marxist state as of yet. A real marxist state will have no leaders, it will be run by councils elected by delegates from every community where local councils will decide what the delegates press, it will solve the problems of third world hunger and iminent environmental disases within only a few years - the only requirement is a revolutionary strike.

[Maduro_Scotty]

I'd have to agree with Incka on this one. The regimes listed are more dictatorial in nature than communist. They mouth platitudes and the government does run the economy, but in theory, it's the workers through cooperative and workers councils(i.e.- "Soviets") that are to run things.

Do we need to merge threads?

http://www.literatureforums.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=3795

Might be a good idea.

I'm going to lock the other thread and post a re-direct to this thread. I don't want to merge them because the posts from the othe thread will be inserted by date, and that will interfere with continuity.

[incka]

The main marxist reason for calling for the uprouting the of the capitalist system is the exploitation of the working class - while ethically this is important, there are now far more important reasons to call for a system that is managed by the collective needs of the people rather than by the principle of accumulation, as capitalism (both states and businesses, this includes former ussr). I would describe myself as marxist simply because I believe the only forward is through revolution, and the easiest way to bring about revolution is through a mass strike. If we do not have one within the next 50 years or so, I'm pretty certain the the earth is doomed because of climate change, but the crisises that creates will be what leads to revolution. Really we need a modern Marx to explain this, but exploitation of the working class won't be the only revolutionary cause any more.

[Maduro_Scotty]

I would describe myself as marxist simply because I believe the only forward is through revolution,

Really? :o :o Armed insurrection and that kind of thing? :confused: :?: Change can come through strikes as well. Remember, the 40 hour week, pensions, and collective bargaining were obtained through a less radical(though not a less bloody) route.


and the easiest way to bring about revolution is through a mass strike.

Very true, but humans are very fickle creatures. Class consciousness isn't the only interest of working class(or any class) of people. The first and foremost thought on my "interest" list is that of my family. If there is a strike or economic upheaval, you'd better darn be sure that people would break the picket line and work in order to provide for their families, principles or no principles. You would have to have unemployment at about 50% in order to get the support of the working class, who can live and choose to live well in even the harshest of conditions.(i.e.-$5.50 minimum wage jobs w/no health insurance) The increasing of wages and awarding of pensions was done because managers and owners knew that employees just want some cash left over after the bills to enjoy. People want enough to live on and to guarantee their kids a good life. Other than those things, people don't ask for a whole heck of a lot from their jobs.


If we do not have one within the next 50 years or so, I'm pretty certain the the earth is doomed because of climate change, but the crisises that creates will be what leads to revolution.

It would be an off-shoot cause of it. Perhaps factories and such would close and you would have riots. I doubt people will riot or even so much as write letters to the editor if winter disappears where they live(I would just hate it if that happened) or if the water levels increase three-fold.


Really we need a modern Marx to explain this, but exploitation of the working class won't be the only revolutionary cause any more.

You have touched upon a huge problem that the left has. Where is the Eugene V. Debs of our time? You may have already seen it, but an alterantive model that we could utilize can be found on ZNet's (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm) website. Do check it out, I think you'd be interested in it.

[incka]

Revolution does not mean armed insurgence - personally I think that is one of the worst ways of going about change.

Isn't Albrect just describing life after capitalism rather than discussing how to get there?

[Maduro_Scotty]

Revolution does not mean armed insurgence - personally I think that is one of the worst ways of going about change.

Isn't Albrect just describing life after capitalism rather than discussing how to get there?

You know, that is what is truly missing today. In reading various books of the past, you get some enumeration as to how the future should be or will be if we don't change things. Why is it that we don't have that now? The only thing remotely like this was Fukuyama's The End of History, but I would think most would agree that history isn't over. Where are the writings of a better tomorrow/ Whare are our utopians? Is this it? :confused:

[thoreauscholar1638]

Marx's ideas were very intelligent and would work in society however when Lenin got his hands on Marx's ideas, he took them way to far (same with Stalin)

Marx did have some extreme ideas, but his idea, that all people are created equal with equal materials and equal benefits and an equal place in society was the base for many other philosophies throughout history.

[padmar]

If you leave out ideological consideration you can see that marxist ideas have come to fruition. Having read the Manifesto and Das Capital I can see that a lot of his ideas have become part of our lives. Das Capital is the working day and the conditions wage slaves find themselves in, in a division of labour. We get holidays sick pay the working day is shorter. We also enjoy other rights as workers. People always point to the failure of the Communist ideological system of the Soviet Union as an example of the failure of his thought. This is what the west promote as a defence against progressive thinking, yet in any discourse on society there is always the Marxist perspective.

[intellectualammo]

The main marxist reason for calling for the uprouting the of the capitalist system is the exploitation of the working class - while ethically this is important,

Ethically it is important to establish a laissez-faire capitalist system, the only system that is compatible with, and upholds individual rights.


I would describe myself as marxist simply because I believe the only forward is through revolution, and the easiest way to bring about revolution is through a mass strike.

I would decribe and call myself an Objectivist, and if there needs to be a strike, such a revolution - I hope it comes in the form of "the men of the mind going on strike" as portrayed in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I'm happy that this novel is still making sales of well over a quarter million a year, and is being taught inside many classrooms now to generation of students.


If we do not have one within the next 50 years or so, I'm pretty certain the the earth is doomed because of climate change, but the crisises that creates will be what leads to revolution.

I do not share neither you premise nor your pessimism in regards to that degree of certainty of yours.


Really we need a modern Marx to explain this, but exploitation of the working class won't be the only revolutionary cause any more.

I definitely to not think that we need a modern Marx, but need John Galt more, especially if the conditions continue to slide into socialism or theocracy.

I do not wish to engage in argument in this, since I and many others, aren't in agreement, but those of you who are interested in the subject of what is the best economic system for man, which system upholds individual rights, rather than violating them, what system has the moral and philosophic defense that it needs to support itself, unlike other ones, then you can read or search the following material in regards to laissez-faire capitalism:

"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand
"The Capitalist Manifesto" by Andrew Bernstein

and this website capitalism.org.

There's plenty more material, but I may just be wasting my time in a thread largely sympathetic to Marxism/socialism/collectivism in general, sympathetic to violating the individual rights of property owners, and those that have, those that earn to those that do not. (that's what charity is for)

[padmar]

I think people over embrace ideas. Every thing is a process the most consistent thing in life is change. Marx once uttered coming out of the British library ‘I am fed up with all this economic crap’. Having read Das Capital and the Manifesto I think understanding Marx is the most important part of the experience. I remember in my late twenties first attempting to read Das Capital, for weeks I was distracted by the idea that I was actually reading the work of this famous and celebrated genius. Absolutely nothing was being registered and I was acutely aware of this as I would not remember anything that I thought I had digested. Then one day without really thinking about it I picked up volume one and read it cover to cover. When I had finished I realized what the initial stalling had been about, I had given it too much reverence I also realized how simple and straightforward the book is. I would say putting it in a nutshell Das Capital is about the working day. Walls have been erected millions have fought in wars but the book is there on the shelf for anyone who wishes to know more. All my life people have said to me communism doesn’t work, quite a lot of communists have been prevented from working is closer to the truth. The Manifesto is a lot different than Das Capital as it is a statement of intent or an article of faith if you like. It is easy to read and communicates the idea of a united cause to the exploited masses of the time. And who are the Proletariat? my guess is the workers who could read. The Orwellian idea that semi literate people hold the key to the future of mankind has never washed with me.

Quite a few contributions to the thread have been sympathetic to the idea of actually reading the document and that I feel should be the spirit of the forum. Making comments on assumptions and using well worn clichés can only down grade the debate. The question is what do we think of the text? Do we understand the substance and core concepts here? I can put my hand up and say I do. Could Stalin understand all the works of Marx? I doubt it very much or quite a lot of other ideologically driven people. Lenin is the one who truly grasped the ideas and who gave this world a practical example of what the idea is about. History tells us that Russia had a revolution those who made the revolution in part were inspired by the manifesto of that there can be no doubt. However Lenin understood that it was a document that was part of a process and like his revolution had a place in the history of the world. I think if you read it you must admit that it is couched in the language of a bygone age and to the young will appear old fashioned and historical. It has always had a strange charm for me as I find the language that is used unique .I mean who talks like that these days? Sometimes I feel excitement and wonder what the people of those times must have felt. Marx in part of the manifesto speaks of the old and the new existing side by side that is when things change the past is still there to be seen. I have always liked being with it! I think it is something you should read and it does have value I don’t feel you can just discount it. In terms of European history it is a very important historical document

[intellectualammo]

All my life people have said to me communism doesn’t work, quite a lot of communists have been prevented from working is closer to the truth.

I've also heard that communism looks better on paper, or that it never fully existed or was established - but the following to me does not look good on paper, or on banners, written on posters, written anywhere:

The first plank of Communism from said book: Abolition of private property. Plank 5, 6, 8, 10 don't look good on paper either - What does then? (don't answer.)

It looks immoral to me.

Such "planks" of Communism, need destroyed, burned to complete ash using the torch of reason.

Communism is just a variant of collectivism, as is socialism, democracy, dictatorship, etc. Collectivism as such is what needs to be examined and fully refuted explictly. Millions upon millions of people have died or have been murdered under such systems, yet people still want to make them work. (approx. 25 million in 12 years of National Socialism and 100 million in various Communist tries in 80 years over various countries) Check your premises. What lies beneath and across them philosophically is that they are forms of collectivism. The ideas behind them still haven't changed. It doesn't work in practice, because it doesn't work on paper. They are systems of immorality with taxation, some with the abolition of private property, "collective ownership" over "private ownership", and so forth. It's not "working for the good" it's all about taking from the good, in these systems.


Quite a few contributions to the thread have been sympathetic to the idea of actually reading the document and that I feel should be the spirit of the forum.

I have read this years ago. Actually looking at a document, what it looks like on paper, can be horrific. I did this with the Holy Bible too, at least the parts that were relevant to discussions, and so forth. I have yet to find anything redeemable in the Manifesto, or in Marx. His ideas are atrocious and that one may go on to argue that the ideas are even more atrocious than when actually put into practice, because they are the cause, mission, goal of that which is put into practice.

From the foreward to Ayn Rand's We The Living novel:


When, at the age of twelve, at the time of the Russian revolution, I first heard the Communist principle that Man must exist for the sake of the State, I perceived that this was the essential issue, that this principle was evil, and that it could lead to nothing but evil, regardless of any methods, details, decrees, policies, promises and pious platitudes. This was the reason for my opposition to Communism then —and it is my reason now. I am still a little astonished, at times, that too many adult Americans do not understand the nature of the fight against Communism as clearly as I understood it at the age of twelve: they continue to believe that only Communist methods are evil, while Communist ideals are noble. All the victories of Communism since the year 1917 are due to that particular belief among the men who are still free.

More Ayn Rand - from “Screen Guide for Americans,” Plain Talk, Nov. 1947, 41:


The Communists’ chief purpose is to destroy every form of independence—independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, an independent mind, or an independent man. Conformity, alikeness, servility, submission and obedience are necessary to establish a Communist slave-state.

Those of you who want to read the Manifesto, fine. Read Ayn Rand's We the Living afterwards to see that put into practice, if the theory/ideas/principles behind it isn't horrific enough for you already.

Long live Lady Liberty!

[padmar]

I have read the above and considered your argument.I think the term communism is a big stumbling block as it is a demonizing label in some quarters owing to historical tensions between peoples.I was in my post promoting the right to have the freedom to read and debate Marxist literature in free societies as we do in this country.


I was raised in the north of England amongst the dark satanic mills of wage slavery. The landscape was that of chimneys and old brick warehouses and factories. The air was heavy with industrial pollution and you would smell a different smell every quarter of a mile. Children were raised on inadequate diets and life expectancy was low. This drab existence is gradually fading for folk in this country yet in some quarters these conditions still exist. As a young man Marx was of interest to literate working class people like me. Why shouldn’t he have been? He was writing about their plight. The industrial towns and cities of England needed a voice and those who wanted to change the harsh reality of this situation were seen as friends of the people. Those who say Marxism is a failed social outlook should consider the changes in English society through agitation by the trade union movement and the Labour party, a welfare state was created to provide for all the citizens of the nation. The Marxist paradigm has always been in attendance on these moves to make this society fairer you cannot divorce the two. The welfare state was created from the social thinkers that thrived in the universities of this country and did not have a problem teaching students Marxists perspectives. The manifesto to be fair was around along time before the cold war started. Then there is the free market of the present day that doesn’t seem to be able to feed the third world. I would hate to see a resurrection of the ideological blocs of the past. My argument is that the manifesto is relevant particularly to the country that I live in. Remember Marx was addressing the people of this country and Europe when he wrote. I said once that the workers should own the means of production not the means of destruction. It seems we own neither. Yet the forging of social policies is always suspect. It is not wrong for working class people to want more than they get. The working class creates wealth. That is what it was always about. The creation of wealth. The fact that millions of people died in Europe has more to do with the dominant mode of production being arms than ideological or other considerations. Look now at China they produce more commodities than anyone on the planet. It would be a sorry state of affairs if they only produced arms. Marx pointed out that in any given epoch the mode of production would dictate the historical social arrangements of the period. In the last century the dominant mode of production was arms and we fought two world wars. I think the principles of international socialism will remain in this country. I doubt British socialists have any designs on taking over the world, rather it seems to pursue better conditions for the people is the agenda