Great Quotes from the Communist Manifesto

Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
332
Likes
84
My main interest in Marx is his method of analyzing what already exists. The Communist Manifesto is a kind of wish list of the Communist Party, rather than a serious work of analysis - as Das Kapital is. But, even so, the analysis of the bourgeoisie and their destruction of nations and cultures presented in the Manifesto is completely 100% accurate - as much today as in the 1860s, or even more so. Of course, the Manifesto is urging the Proletariat to rise up off their knees. But, the bourgeoisie has been very effective at putting off that day of judgement. It may come in an manner not expected by Marx. Perhaps a Global Caliphate will get the job done - Mohammad was a kind of Proto-Communist. Or maybe theocracies of other kinds. Personally, I think that's more likely than what Marx imagined might happen.
What do you think of the thesis that the bourgeoisie or entrepreneur class will die out of its own accord due to the diminishing role of the entrepreneur, that since it is much easier now than it has been in the past to do things that lie outside familiar routine, innovation itself is being reduced to routine. Thus the "adventure" of entrepreneurship is rapidly wearing away and the role will become obsolete. This is already well advanced in my opinion.

And put that next to what I believe to be the exaggeration of the antagonism between the two classes. Is not in normal times, in most cases, the relationship primarily one of cooperation? Sure there are pathological cases. But I think using these cases alone to "prove" the Marxian theory, ignoring the rest, is not a rational approach, but rather a "faith" approach.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,515
Likes
39,024
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #86
What do you think of the thesis that the bourgeoisie or entrepreneur class will die out of its own accord due to the diminishing role of the entrepreneur, that since it is much easier now than it has been in the past to do things that lie outside familiar routine, innovation itself is being reduced to routine. Thus the "adventure" of entrepreneurship is rapidly wearing away and the role will become obsolete. This is already well advanced in my opinion.

And put that next to what I believe to be the exaggeration of the antagonism between the two classes. Is not in normal times, in most cases, the relationship primarily one of cooperation? Sure there are pathological cases. But I think using these cases alone to "prove" the Marxian theory, ignoring the rest, is not a rational approach, but rather a "faith" approach.

Marx had a lot of theories. I wouldn't get tied down with any one of them. I think there'll always be a role for entrepreneurship, but the state can be very good at that too - particularly the Nationalist state. The days of one or two fellows making a huge breakthrough like the electric light or the telephone are certainly long gone. Do do anything really new requires investment on a scale that only states or state protected banks can fund. But, someone setting up a coffee shop in an unusual place or in any unusual way will continue, I'd say.

The antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has taken a different form in Europe. Today, it's an ethnic conflict, where the bougeoisie wants to replace a potentially uppedy native proletariat with desperate migrants. Ultimately, it's still about the ownership of the means of production. The proletariat does not agree that the nation is the private property of the bourgeoisie - to do with what they like.
 

SwordOfStCatherine

Staff member
Moderator
PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
13,706
Likes
16,012
What do you think of the thesis that the bourgeoisie or entrepreneur class will die out of its own accord due to the diminishing role of the entrepreneur, that since it is much easier now than it has been in the past to do things that lie outside familiar routine, innovation itself is being reduced to routine. Thus the "adventure" of entrepreneurship is rapidly wearing away and the role will become obsolete. This is already well advanced in my opinion.

And put that next to what I believe to be the exaggeration of the antagonism between the two classes. Is not in normal times, in most cases, the relationship primarily one of cooperation? Sure there are pathological cases. But I think using these cases alone to "prove" the Marxian theory, ignoring the rest, is not a rational approach, but rather a "faith" approach.
Marx predicted the destruction of small capitalists as a natural outcome of capitalism. So Marx was right there. I agree with you this is well advanced.

Capitalism has proved very effective through Post-Fordism in the context of Post-Fordism of crushing or masking class antagonism- however what sort of world has it created? All the positive values the capitalist world claimed in was defending against Soviet Union it has abandoned, you see this in the most raw and ugly way in the Republic of Ireland.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
332
Likes
84
Marx had a lot of theories. I wouldn't get tied down with any one of them. I think there'll always be a role for entrepreneurship, but the state can be very good at that too - particularly the Nationalist state. The days of one or two fellows making a huge breakthrough like the electric light or the telephone are certainly long gone. Do do anything really new requires investment on a scale that only states or state protected banks can fund. But, someone setting up a coffee shop in an unusual place or in any unusual way will continue, I'd say.

The antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has taken a different form in Europe. Today, it's an ethnic conflict, where the bougeoisie wants to replace a potentially uppedy native proletariat with desperate migrants. Ultimately, it's still about the ownership of the means of production. The proletariat does not agree that the nation is the private property of the bourgeoisie - to do with what they like.
I am quite open to the idea of nationalisation, particularly where the resources concerned are provided by nature and thus belong to everyone equally, like land or earth minerals etc. Also where monopolies arise, particularly where "rights" are bestowed by government, such as with the broadcast spectrum etc. Or put another way, I think a lot about socialism is desirable.

But where we differ is on this logic and the necessity of "class war". And where that line of logic inevitably leads us (you giving us one very good example of this in your post above, talking about "ethnic conflict". Or on other threads it's about conflict stemming from a Protocols of Zion like dichotomy etc.). - Whereas what I have said above comprises a logic based in thinking about the true nature and consequential rights due, with respect to land, monopoly and natural resources - in other words, we do not even need to descend to the logic of this kind of perpetual conflict, conspiracy, or the euphemism of "difference of opinion", where as you put it, the "proletariat does not agree that the nation is the private property of the bourgeoisie - to do with what they like."

And you know there are many tools of analysis that might be adopted - the question is which one might be most effective judged from a number of human perspectives. Now I can certainly see an occasional usefulness in Marx's dialectics as an analytical tool, but you know, I get this feeling that when he borrowed this device from Hegel's spiritual dialectics, to try and apply it in a materialistic context, he may have inadvertently profaned something. This is just a vague feeling I get.

Anyway the big problem of economics to my mind is that the materialistic inevitably comes up hard against the human and natural substance of our society. I suppose you could say a spiritual substance in a certain manner. So how do you protect that substance. That's the important question for the twenty first century.

At this point we have evolved through mercantile capitalism, the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century, the regulated or 'managed' capitalism, of the 20th century, to where we are with it today. So I do see capitalism somewhat as a "mature technology". And I believe that if the proper political will existed, that it could be improved even further, tending along lines such as I touched on in my first paragraph, to serve all people genuinely well.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,515
Likes
39,024
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #89
I am quite open to the idea of nationalisation, particularly where the resources concerned are provided by nature and thus belong to everyone equally, like land or earth minerals etc. Also where monopolies arise, particularly where "rights" are bestowed by government, such as with the broadcast spectrum etc. Or put another way, I think a lot about socialism is desirable.

But where we differ is on this logic and the necessity of "class war". And where that line of logic inevitably leads us (you giving us one very good example of this in your post above, talking about "ethnic conflict". Or on other threads it's about conflict stemming from a Protocols of Zion like dichotomy etc.). - Whereas what I have said above comprises a logic based in thinking about the true nature and consequential rights due, with respect to land, monopoly and natural resources - in other words, we do not even need to descend to the logic of this kind of perpetual conflict, conspiracy, or even the euphemism of "difference of opinion", where as you put it, the "proletariat does not agree that the nation is the private property of the bourgeoisie - to do with what they like."

And you know there are many tools of analysis that might be adopted - the question is which one might be most effective judged from a number of human perspectives. Now I can certainly see an occasional usefulness in Marx's dialectics as an analytical tool, but you know, I get this feeling that when he borrowed this device from Hegel's spiritual dialectics, to try and apply it in a materialistic context, he may have inadvertently profaned something. This is just a vague feeling I get.

Anyway the big problem of economics to my mind is that the materialistic inevitably comes up hard against the human and natural substance of our society. I suppose you could say a spiritual substance in a certain manner. So how do you protect that substance. That's the important question for the twenty first century.

At this point we have evolved through mercantile capitalism, the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century, the regulated or 'managed' capitalism, of the 20th century, to where we are with it today. So I do see capitalism somewhat as a "mature technology". And I believe that if the proper political will existed, that it could be improved even further, tending along lines such as I touched on in my first paragraph, to serve all people genuinely well.

The big problem with your way of seeing things is that the bourgeoisie have zero interest in logic, justice or philosophy. They're only interested in profit. That means they will inevitably be in conflict with anyone who values logic, justice and philosophy. They will particularly be in conflict with anyone who values racial blood and the nation (except Jews who are allowed to value their racial blood). Nobody would be more pleased than I would if the bourgeoisie took a look at themselves and what they are doing to the world and really tried to change. But, what they actually do is fund fake NGOs and fake parties like the Greens to make recommendations that won't really change anything - or will make things even worse - like supporting mass immigration (though more profitable for the bourgeoisie).
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,515
Likes
39,024
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #90
At this point we have evolved through mercantile capitalism, the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century, the regulated or 'managed' capitalism, of the 20th century, to where we are with it today. So I do see capitalism somewhat as a "mature technology". And I believe that if the proper political will existed, that it could be improved even further, tending along lines such as I touched on in my first paragraph, to serve all people genuinely well.
Capitalism can never serve human beings well, as it's based on the reproduction of an inanimate substance, i.e. money. Human energy must be sacrificed to drive this unnatural reproduction. Usury is the method whereby human life is turned into the reproduction of a dead thing. Needless to say, every society that practices usury eventually comes to a point where the debt swallows everything and the human beings no longer have enough energy to reproduce themselves, and so the whole system collapses - as happened in Rome.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
39,515
Likes
39,024
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #91
And you know there are many tools of analysis that might be adopted - the question is which one might be most effective judged from a number of human perspectives. Now I can certainly see an occasional usefulness in Marx's dialectics as an analytical tool, but you know, I get this feeling that when he borrowed this device from Hegel's spiritual dialectics, to try and apply it in a materialistic context, he may have inadvertently profaned something. This is just a vague feeling I get.

Anyway the big problem of economics to my mind is that the materialistic inevitably comes up hard against the human and natural substance of our society. I suppose you could say a spiritual substance in a certain manner. So how do you protect that substance. That's the important question for the twenty first century.
Although Marx thought of himself as a 19th Century Materialist, I don't think he actually was. He spends a lot of time thinking about the human spirit, and his real criticism of bourgeois economics is that it purposely ignores the human need in favour of an inhuman growth of money. Some kind of Marxist-Heideggarian theocracy might solve that problem in the future.
 
Top Bottom