Talk Back

[a8a4]

The communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
So the plot was so hard to follow. I thought that it was going to end with the bourgeois and the proletariat was going to end up dating but I was wrong.....
Alright
Enough of being funny.
I was supposed to read this for a class but didn't get to it until now.

I have some major problems with the theory he put forward. I don't think it was horrible and it perhaps could work on a small scale. But I doubt it could work for a country the size of the usa or almost any developed western country.
The couple of the problems I saw were that Marx didn't understand the idea of paying above the minimum wage (not the federal but the amount needed to live and no more (food house clothes that’s it)). The idea that companies are competing for workers allows the wage labor to be able to get more money while working at some jobs. Also a growing middle class of people would be totally screwed by the radical class shift. The middle class (to which I belong) is only mentioned but maybe twice in the whole book. This topic may not have been the problem it was then but now the middle class is growing in size.
Now, I do believe that large business is a problem today. I just don’t think communism is the answer.
1
All in all the book is worth it to read a quick read. Lots of interesting philosophy and the topic is commonly brought up.

[Bea]

I always thought of Marx's theories as awesome theories. You know, so long as you forget the fact that humans are the ones running it. Once you bring humans into any theory - the whole thing goes right out the window.

Essentially it's flawed because people in power - no matter who it is - will always do their best to *keep* the power. In the end - the oppressed become the oppressors.

At least that's what I always thought.

[woz]

So I feel compelled to reply to this post. The reason the middle class (or "petty bourgeouisie" to sound like a pompous academic) is mentioned so rarely both M&E is because it really didn't exist at the time. There were basically the poor and the rich. And actually, a middle class has only existed for a short time, at least in American history, from roughly 1945 (post-war boom) to about 1985 (reaganomics and deregulation). The middle class now is rapidly shrinking, and I could site mounds of economic evidence, but come on, that shit's boring. The point is that economic redistribution can only hurt those who have massive amounts of wealth. Second, the idea that workers receive a higher wage because companies are competing over them can only have been written by someone who's never had to find a real job. Real wages have been steadily declining since the 1950s (which seems to correlate with the erosion of the middle class...are we sensing a theme here?) because there are alot of workers? Where? Everywhere! The world has 7 billion or so residents, most of whome live on less than 1 dollar (U.S.) per day. Americans are no longer competing against unionized Americans for a $13 an hour wage. Rather, we are competing against Hondurans who receive a 13 cent a day wage. As for the fact that it's flawed because people are running it, well, that's just a non-argument. That's like saying I shouldn't eat because my food will be prepared by humans, and therefore will be imperfect.


Just some thoughts on the subject.

[MLE292]

Communism as a theory already existed at the time it was written, Marx just defined it more clearly.

What you wrote about the middle class confuses me, because I'm not sure if you see yourself as someone who produces something of value or someone who trades things of value produced by other people. Unfortunately, because most people don't have a good handle on what the terms mean, I think that many people who are working class refer to themselves as "middle class" and I wonder if modern versions of the Manifesto would benefit from some definitions.

The point is, of course, that labor creates all wealth and labor deserves control of the means of production. Merchants and traders (the middle class) produce nothing except exchange, and the Aristocracy only consume the surplus value of the working class.

There are effects, such as women and children as property and law as a tool to supress the strength of the working class but I will begin to ramble.

I have about a hundred things to say, because I want to explain this book to you, but I think that's really not the point of your post.

[shaw]

[MLE292]

Does an inventor create wealth? Is an inventor "labor"?
Does an artist or writer create wealth? Is an artist or writer "labor?"

"Guest" - you can sign up anonymously for this board, so we can have a conversation and call you by a name, even if it is not yours.

Really, I did not mean to post anonymously, I put MLE292 into the username space. clearly, I'm doing something wrong. All fantasies of an errant anonymous radical commie should now be squelched.

I think the point of microdefinitions is largely acedemic and even misses the point. The issue of relevance is that there is currently (and in Marx's time) the overt supression of one class - specifically the working class. Marx's model is the supression of the aristocracy and the control of the bourgeois to the benefit of society.

With a society that strived to succeed on fewer work hours, safer working conditions, peace, bread and work - The arts and other creative processes do not need to be limited to "inventors" or professional artists.

In my work field - construction, for example, almost ALL of the timesaving inventions came from tradespeople. Are their inventions less relevant because they are not professional "inventors"?
I also don't think that arts are so luxurious that they need to only be developed by a small minority of "gifted" (ooohh... a theological ideal) creators.