Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
— Communist Manifesto, Preamble
It’s been years since I last read the Communist Manifesto. In fact, decades. But goaded on by Charles’ scurrilous accusations, I snatched my tattered old copy from its place of honor on my bookshelf (tucked snuggly between Mein Kampf and the Holy Bible), and sat down for a quick refresher. And I gotta say I was a bit surprised to see how well the document holds up.
Really, give Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians a close reading, and apart from some of that Hegelian hubris about predicting the future (“the victory of the proletariat” was quite clearly not “inevitable”), I challenge you to find a passage that’s all that, well, radical. Sure, “the history of all hitherto existing society” is more than just “the history of class struggles,” but it’s that too, and as simplified as the Manifesto’s presentation of economic history may be, it’s reasonably well supported.
As for Marx and Engels’ analysis of the dynamics of capitalism itself, just read the following passages and then try to tell me that, even 163 years later, they don’t completely nail it:
[The bourgeoisie] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. … Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.
In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations.
The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. … And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
Rail against the revolutionary tone of the authors, recoil at their prescriptions, but it’s hard to read their analysis of 1848-era capitalism without seeing reflections of the economic crisis we find ourselves in today. Hell, they didn’t just describe modern capitalism… they defined it.
So while no, I’m not a commie, or, I guess, even a self-described “Marxist” like Charles, I can certainly appreciate why Marx himself was.
Thank you for that Cliff Notes version, Goldy, and you’re right, it does stand up well.
(…but be honest, you’re really just trying to give Seattleblues an aneurysm, right? Or at the least the beginnings of one, before he gets on the plane home?)
I’m sorry, but all I see is a description of the obvious. And mandkind, by his very nature, is unmotivated to form cohesive societies that create the most good for the most people without greed, which, even with having a negative connotation, is actually a useful part of human nature. And, really, how many people don’t enjoy new technologies? Or new innovations that make our lives more comfortable and enjoyable? And when you see communism instituted, you see a collapse of motivation and innovation. Maybe capitalism isn’t perfect, human creations never are, but it works. It’s worked for centuries. And even Fidel Castro can’t say that about Cuba. The leaders in Beijing learned that. And not even Stalin could say it worked for the USSR.
Maybe it’s the anger, maybe its the knowledge of the totalitarian horror that grew out of these ideas, but I find this text incredibly creepy.
I’ve never read the book, and from the excerpts quoted, I’m reassured that I’ve chosen wisely. Too… wordy. *Snooze*
Just going on the excerpts, though, I have to remark that a lot of what seems to irk the authors is the notion of change. Progress, technology, etc. I’m unwilling to toss it all out, although there’s a lot of bad stuff that accompanies it. But, this is why we need a government which regulates industries, and working conditions, and things that affect the safety of its citizens. This is why we need taxation and spending, by a government which recognizes the excesses inherent in free-wheeling capitalism and engages in a bit of redistribution to maintain social order and the happiness of its citizenry. Not everyone can be a railroad / internet / aerospace / finance tycoon, and those who can’t still need some gainful employment, even if it’s working for the government collecting or spending tax money, or teaching the next generation how to be a tycoon, or civil servant, or teacher.
Capitalism only works for a free and stable society if it’s regulated and offset by a benevolent government. The Reagan-esque dream of dismantling government and letting capitalism “blossom” is idiocy at its most ridiculous. It would be the equivalent of pulling the regulator off an engine, pulling the throttle full open, and allowing it to self-destruct from its own power.
Marx and Engels were right to be wary of unfettered capitalism, but they were wrong if they sought to suppress it entirely. Regulation, taxation, and a government dedicated to the welfare of its citizenry are the correct counter-balance to make it work.
I too am not a commie, but you gotta love Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. Dude was taking a look at premature mortality, health problems, housing issues, familial stresses etc. associated with the Industrial Revolution before just about anyone. And it is great reporting and analysis.
Sorry, but it’s way too early in the morning for me to deal with this. Maybe after I’ve had my coffee.
@%, word. Damn, 5280, only a fool types before coffee. Get offline this very minute and take care of yourself.
And for “@%” read “@6”. See, I’ve had too much coffee…
(morning, Canuck!)
Are you being ironic, gus? (@%)? Because if you are, then I totally got it, I was just checking… 🙂
Pure capitalism is just as much a mistake as pure communism.
We do need innovation, and survival of the fittest (in the marketplace), and new technology, and change. And in those ways, capitalism is good. But we also need to constantly be vigilant about the capitalists themselves destroying capitalism. We need to have the power to regulate and to stop the capitalists when they’ve “grown too big to fail.”
The people who do the most harm to competition in the marketplace are not the consumers, but the competitors themselves.
Gaaa, you have had your coffee, gus, because you typed faster than I did…and good morning!
Goldy, you and Charles should read Leszek Kowlakowski, who points out that the inevitable result of Marxist ideology as expressed by state power is Stalinism. And unlike the so called “proletarian victory” history bears this out.
@12,
As I imply, the very notion of historical “inevitability” is stupid.
One can appreciate Marx and Engels as groundbreaking economists and sociologists without being apologists for Stalinism.
@10: If Marxism hadn’t carried the concept of regulated economies to such an absurd and murderous extreme, the Tea Party, which is its natural counterbalance, wouldn’t exist.
@13: Historical inevitability is just atheist speak for “mission from God.” These men were missionaries, not scientists. Instead of peddling opium to the masses, they peddled crack.
Communism fails most prominently in that it assumes that humans are essentially goodhearted, and will cooperate for the good of all if their needs are assuredly seen to.
Capitalism fails most prominently in that it assumes that humans are capable of discerning which courses of action are in their own best interest.
@15 You have no idea what you’re talking about. Try reading something besides the Manifesto, like Das Kapital (although I’m sure you won’t, because it’s easier that way.)
@17, sounds like the interplay between the poles is where all the fun is….
@17 – A major factor here is the size of the society: With society at the scale where people know each other, there is a thing called “reputation” which guides social responsibility and encourages human cooperation. When there are large, anonymous societies, the value of reputations is diminished, and the cost-benefit analysis of simply stealing — or setting up large faceless corporations to rape the earth, abuse workers and shun taxes — falls down on the side of abuse and greed.
That said, I will counter those that say communism has actually been put into practice: The state-totalitarian regimes of the USSR, Cuba and China have as little to do with actual “communism” as our corporate-fascist regime has to do with “democracy”.
@16 – “World communism was defeated”? What does that even mean? You mean the “Cold War” being “won” by the US? Actually, the USSR was taken down by Saudi Arabia, who opened their oil production spigots full-blast for about a year, and undercut the USSR’s primary funding mechanism – oil exports. Defunded and over-committed due to the Arms Race, the regime destabilized & collapsed. It had nothing to do with cheap commodities. It had everything to do with the US’s relationship with Arab oil-igarchs.
@21 you mean like SLOG reputation?
The main problem is that what might mean a “bad” reputation to you – or negative “consequences” – may not mean the same thing to a different person.
CEOs and other job-exporting capital-exporting anti-Americans only care about how much loot they can steal from Americans. Not any of your piddling 0.0001 percent of profits “fines” and “admonishments”.
That and actual jail time.
@23 – If you live in a city of 5000 people, you will personally know everyone. If someone steals from you (a classic taboo) and people learn of the thief, they will castigate him/her. Or rather, theft will be a tiny, tiny problem, because it isn’t worth the social risk.
In a city of 1m people, the thief is likely not known to anyone you know, therefore there are no repercussions from your social group towards the thief. And the thief likely lives with other people who employ similar survival strategies, and won’t reprimand the thief.
As to your CEOs comment: What is your proposal to reign in capitalists, now that they can make nations bend to their (economic) will? What will it take? They won’t give up power without a fight, they have friends in the right places, and they are doing all they can to immiserate the rest of us to within a hair’s breadth of our tolerance for this bullshit. Are we all too distracted by pretty, shiny things to stand up for ourselves?
@22 – A valid point. Trabants were pretty boring. People also wanted to escape the secret police, however, and had not managed to topple their own government on their own through sheer desire for “consumer” goods. Again, the USSR, like China, was not “communist”, it was a totalitarian dictatorship that used a state-command economy. Dictatorships are not known for their popular cooperation.
Every system is easy to criticize, and capitalism is no exception. The principal analytic problem with Marxism is its equation of labor with value. You can work your whole life to make an exact replica of the Taj Mahal out of popsicle sticks, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth anything to anyone. If Marx had ever figured out a way to value labor in accordance with supply and demand, he might have had something.
So what happens now since our nation’s citizens are too stupid to achieve self-awareness, let alone class consciousness?
Whatever problems there may be with communism, we need a large communist party in this country again if only to push back against the immense power of the corporatists, since you liberals have been doing such a piss pour job of doing anything but letting your Democrats capitulate to the robber-barons and then re-electing them to do more of the same.
Communism can only take hold when the majority of the population that was raised with capitalist theory, perishes. During that transition period, communism is at its weakest. When you still have the ideas of power and accumulation in the brain of individuals, some people will naturally seek to take that power, like Stalin. True socialism and communism will never be achieved in our lifetime, until we can eliminate the idea of greed in the consciousness of our class.
@28 You’re never going to get the idea of power and greed out of the minds of individuals, kids are gonna pick those up during recess whether you like it or not. The sort of tabula rasa you’re envisioning is utterly unrealistic under any circumstances save a global holocaust after which a nanny race of aliens shows up to guide the remaining children into a zen adulthood.
But what’s so impossible about getting to a Scandinavian like socialism and then keep pushing from there?