On Communism

This is a paper I am currently writing on The Communist Manifesto. The part in the smaller text is the first part and is simply an introduction on the communist ideas. I have placed the first part at the end of the post because a i felt that is is not as important to be read and critiqued as it is just a summarization of the manifesto. The part in the normal sized font in the first half of the post is the second half of the paper and is arguments against the manifesto. This is still a work in progress. The section on the inequality of man is still rather weak and unfinished. Any opinions or arguments for or against are welcome.

Communism: Criticisms
Marx displays a very vivid and interesting portrayal of communism. Many of these ideas we could agree with on a basic level and some we may even begin to believe with some convincing. I however have problems not only with the historical interpretations of communism, but also with Karl Marx’s theory of communism itself.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
First I would like to look at the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is the time period in which the proletariat has come into power in society and is now the ruling class. Marx lays claim that once in power the proletariat shall give up all it has done and radically change how society has worked in all prior history. I wonder though, is it true that power corrupts? Once the proletariat gains power will it so easily give it back up, or shall they abuse their power as every single ruling class has done in all prior history. Will they taken vengeance on the bourgeoisie and make them the new oppressed class?

I cannot say for certain that the proletariat will become the new oppressor class, but also what happens to society as a whole if they do follow Marx’s teachings and give up their power. Will society be able to function or will it crumble without formal rules? Marx does not explain how government will function after the proletariat gives up power; he simple says “we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition of free development for all”. Who shall make the decisions in this society, and how will they be able to rid themselves of their personal prejudices? If whole societies are communist will not communists of a mountainous region have different ideas of what is the best use of resources than a coastal region? Who is the one to decide what is best? We obviously have a history of great rational thinkers who can make such a decision; or maybe it is the majority that makes the decision, but in that case wouldn’t it just be the majority ruling over the minority?

 Marx never establishes a government after the proletariat gives up power; he has no system of law. Marxism is simply a social code. He does not take into account greed or corruption, nor does he look at how the bourgeoisie shall react once they lose power. Once the proletariat gives up power, why would the bourgeoisie not try to once again take power? Under the veil of communism it would be very easy for a bourgeois to gain the power to create a tyranny in the name of communism. There is nothing in place to prevent this for Marx; in his society of equals there shall, of course, never be one who seeks to gain absolute power.

The Call for the Destruction of the Bourgeoisie and the Equality of Man
One of the most important claims of communism is the abolishment of class distinctions and the bourgeoisie class. Many people will make claim that classes are only maintained in order to oppress each other, and with this I do agree, but from it I will make a most radical claim, which will in all likelihood be extremely demonized; classes are not all inherent in all forms of modern society, and that there is no reason to do away with them. Many shall say this is most despicable, claiming the equality of man; there should never be a hierarchy where one man is above another. This is of course central to Marx’s theory; equality is why the communist movement is formed; equals should never oppress or be oppressed by each other. If, however there is no equality of man, then there is no need for the abolition of social classes.

Man is naturally unequal; some are more intelligent, some more beautiful, more talented, or more strong. Some people are naturally weaker, less beautiful, or less smart. Some people are simply average. This is the way of nature; equality is a myth. Natural selection is cruel and vicious, and nature is indifferent and unforgiving. Once one realizes that there is inequality on earth they are wrought with despair. Some turn to religion and the idea that all can be fixed in the after life; there everything shall be righted. Others, such as Marx, put forth the idea of a social system where equality is created from whence there was none. Through this social system equality is artificially manifested.

The artificial creation of equality can never work. One of superior qualities would never subordinate themselves with those of lesser values. Many people may make claim for the equality of man in society, but if it were to really be put into place would their reaction be the same? You a smart, intelligent, hard worker, do you want to be taught the same subjects as everyone else, should there not be different tiers of education? Are not all aspects of society like this?

The Destruction of the Bourgeoisie
In order to reach the end of Marx’s theory, we must of course abolish the class of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are despicable, they are oppressors and so they must naturally be the pinnacle of that which is evil. Are there, however, some redeeming qualities of the bourgeoisie? Would the creation of cities and the advancement of technology have been possible without the modes of production of the bourgeoisie? “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation railroads”, etc, so claims Marx. Has not the bourgeoisie been the reason for so much progress?

It is probable that Marx would claim that the bourgeois have created the modes of production, but that now society and the communists can properly run them and develop it themselves; without any need for the oppression of the bourgeoisie. Are must ask though, what can the communism accomplish without a strict government or any ruling class, how can equals keep up the modes of production? How are complex structures built when no one person or organization has the funds to do so as resources scarce and spread? Some could claim that the government must do so, but there is no government in the formal sense, there is no one to make these decisions, and the collective is not accomplish such as too many people working on any one thing would only complicate it more. With communism, modern society as we know it is not able to function, there is no advancement of technology or greater industry. Only the basic needs of survival would be created; is this the society you strive for?

Marxism, the Perfect Argument

Each of these prior arguments can be argued against by a stout communist. Marx is an ingenious writer, and he does have answers for much of this, though there is a inherent problem with certain rebuttals. Though Marx of course would never admit it, Communism bears a striking resemblance to organized religions; it is through this similarity that most rebuttals are made. Communism cannot be argued against from Marx’s writing. Marx’s historical materialism is represented as universal truth; it explains all and can cure all the ailments of oppressed society. Historical materialism is of course, not fact however.

Just like religion, communism also only uses reason when it helps its platform; it uses case based reason to fight off objections. It is Marx’s claim that it shall be the proletariats who will be the one class in all of history who will change all past history; historical materialism only helps to prove such.

If all else fails, the communist has one finally rebuttal it can use to squelch any argument; to invalidate any argument by claiming what the motivation of the opponent is. This motivation, Marx uses as a counterargument to any claim against communism. Do you believe free trade is the best economic system for society? You are simply brainwashed by the bourgeoisie modes of production. What, you believe in self determination or the notions of freedom, culture and law? ”Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of you bourgeoisie production and bourgeoisie property”. Any claim that is made against communism is countered with this argument. Just as the Roman Catholic Church is infallible, so is Karl Marx.

Conclusion
Communism in an interesting ideology, but I do not think it can ever leave that sphere of thought. It has too many inherent problems and it relies on the goodness of society as a whole. Corruption, greed, and human nature exist in this world, and communism can not function with any such evils. Many of the problems it wishes to solve sound very pleasant; prosperity, happiness, and pleasure for everyone is something that we all want, but that is all it is, a want, a desire, a dream. This society is not attainable. The world is intrinsically a bad place. There is natural disaster, destruction, greed, murder, inequities, and oppression. Communism cannot solve any of these problems. Though it has many faults, though, communism did start many important social movements, whether they are good or bad for society is an argument for another day. In the end, Karl Marx has had an immense role on the shaping of society as a whole in the recent century, this no one can argue.

[size=75]The Bourgeoisie and Proletariat
The history of all prior existing society is a history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, simply oppressor and oppressed, each stands in opposition to each other throughout history. Whether the conflict is hidden or in the open does not matter, the fight always ends in a revolutionary reconstruction of society.

Past society were made up of complicated class structures. From feudal times, there were lords, vassals, journeymen, serfs. The modern bourgeois have sprouted from this past feudal society. There is a new form of class antagonism today, but it is unique from past societies; it has only two factions, bourgeoisie and proletariat. 

The Bourgeoisie
The bourgeoisie are a product of a long development and a series of revolutions in the modes of production and exchange. Each development of the bourgeois was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of the class. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeois.

The bourgeoisie through history have been revolutionaries. They have tried to put an end to feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations and to put the idea of self interest above all. It has tried to rid us of religion, chivalry, and philanthropy, in order to make personal worth valued by an exchange of value, our only freedom is that of free trade. Everything is a money relation and all jobs are wage-laborers; Even family warps from that of sentimental value, to that of mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie are unique from past classes; in order to exist, they most continually modify the modes of production in society. The bourgeoisie need a constant and expanding market, so they settle and establish connections all over the globe. Our old wants satisfied by our countries production are changed to new wants that require the products of distant lands. Old seclusion and self sufficiency is changed to universal independence of nations. Production and consumption take over all of society; isolationism and national sovereignty become impossible to sustain. All nations adopt its mode of production, even the barbaric. They “create a world after its own image”. They must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere. All become dependent on the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie have created massive cities, and have increased the urban population over the rural. It has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones; nations of peasants onto nations of bourgeoisie. Populations form into collectives, means of production is centralized, and property is concentrated into a few hands. Then there is political centralization. Independent provinces have separate laws, interests, laws, and governments, but into one nation with one government, one set of laws, and interests.

The bourgeois in their time of power have created greater productive forces than all preceding generations together. In machinery, chemistry, industry and agriculture, the railroads, steam and electricity; what was previously inhabitable is now habitable, anything can now be cultivated. So much has developed in the means of production and exchange. But as the modes of production and means of exchange develop, so does the threat of society and the working class.

The Proletariat
In the same way that the bourgeoisie develop capitol, the proletariat also develop themselves. The proletariats are the modern working class, a class of laborers. Who can live only so long as they find work, and whom can find work only as long as their labor increases capitol. These laborers are a commodity, and they must sell themselves like an article of commerce; they are exposed to the vile of commerce and the fluctuations of the market. Because of the use of machinery and the division of labor, the work of proletarians has lost individual character and any charm for the workman. He is an appendage to the machine, and only the most simple, monotonous work is required of him, and so his cost is restricted.

Modern industry has changed the worker into a subordinate. Laborers are crowded into factories and worked like soldiers. They are slaves to the bourgeoisie class and bourgeoisie state. As modern labor develops it is not just men who are slaves of labor, but soon also women and children. Even the middle class gradually falls into the proletariat, as their capital cannot scale with that of the bourgeoisie as they are starved with competition by large capitalists. All classes of society will become proletariat. 	

The Struggle
The struggle between the two classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat, develops over time. At first the proletariat consists of just individual laborers, then before long a factory can come together and soon and industry will be as one against the bourgeoisie who exploit them. The proletariat attacks are not against the bourgeoisie, but rather acts the modes of productions, they destroy machinery, factories, and seek to restore the worker of the middle ages. The proletariats are formed into a class, and create unions to protect themselves; at first to protect their wages, but eventually as a political platform.
During this time the bourgeois are fighting amongst themselves. They fight with each other over industry or with the bourgeoisie of foreign nations. Eventually one bourgeoisie will ask of the proletariat the help of destroying another bourgeoisie. In doing so the supply the proletariat with the political knowledge it needs in order to ultimately fight the bourgeoisie.

In the struggle against the bourgeoisie, the proletariat is unique from all other prior classes. The proletariat is without property, he has no national character, he does not trust in the bourgeoisie family. Law, morality, and religion are but bourgeoisie prejudices to the proletariat. The proletariat does not seek to become masters of society, they have nothing of their own to protect; they seek to destroy all previous securities of society and individual property. 

This struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is a national struggle. In their gaining of power the bourgeois create the proletarians and give them industry. It is in this way that the bourgeois bring on their own downfall. They create their own destroyers.

The Communists and the Proletariat
Where do the Communists stand? The communists have no interests separate from that of the proletariat as a whole. They do not attempt to shape the proletariat movement and are different from other working class movements in that they seek out common interests of all the proletariat independently of nationality, and that always represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The communists are the most advanced and resolute of the working class parties, it is the section that pushes all others forward, and it is the communists who have the best understanding of the results of the proletariat movement. The aim of the communists is the same as all proletariat parties: the formation of the proletariat class, overthrowing the bourgeoisie, and the gain of political power for the proletariat. The abolishment of property relations is not a distinctive feature of communism.

On Property
The distinguishing feature of communism is not abolition of property in general, but rather the destruction of bourgeoisie property. Bourgeoisie property is based on class hostility; exploitation of the many by the few. Communist so seek, abolition of private property. This is often argued against greatly, and so this must be defined thoroughly. The self acquired and hard won property of the peasant or petty artisan has no need to be abolished (Industry has already done this to an extent). It is modern bourgeois private property that must be abolished.

Capital that is produced can only be created by the united members of society. It is therefore, a social power, not personal. By changing capital from personal property to common property, nothing is lost but its social status, its social character is the only thing changed. Its class character is lost. 

The average price of wage-labor is that of minimum wage, that which is absolutely necessary to keep the laborer’s existence as a laborer. He needs to work to live. Communists seek to change this miserable existence where the laborer works only to increase capital of the bourgeoisie and is allowed to live only as they require the worker. In bourgeoisie society capital is independent and has individuality, while the laborer is dependent and has no individuality. 

The bourgeoisie may call the abolishment of this the abolition of freedom and individuality. That is correct. The communist seeks the end of bourgeoisie independence, bourgeoisie individuality, and bourgeoisie freedom. Communists seek the abolition of the bourgeoisie systems of production and free trade.
This may all seem strange, to do away with private property, but this has already happened in modern society; it exists for only the few, only because it does not exist for 90% of the rest. Property only exists if there is no existence for the majority. They say that the communists seek to do away with property; this is exactly what they intend. Communism does not seek to deprive anyone of the products of society, but rather only to deprive the power to subjugate the labors of others to seek such products.

The Communist Revolution
In order for revolution to occur, the proletariat must rise to the position of the working class. With such political power the proletariat will take capital from the hands of the bourgeoisie and put all production into the states hands. In time, the proletariat will be able to overcome the bourgeoisie way of rule, and can establish its own new ways as such: the abolition of property in land and application of rent of land for public purpose, Graduated income tax, abolition of inheritance, confiscation of rebel and emigrate property, credit into the hands of the state, a national bank with state capital, state run communication and transport, instruments of production owned by the state, equal liability of labor, combination of industrial and agricultural industries, abolition of a distinction between town and country with an equal distribution of the population in both spread over the country, free education, abolition of child labor, and a combination of production with education.

With such developments, class distinctions disappear, and production is in the hands of everyone. With this the state shall wither away, the rule of the proletariat shall be replaced by communist society. There is no longer any class hostility, but rather there shall be an association of people, free development of everything for all.

Communists support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. These ends can only be achieved by the forcible over throw of all existing social conditions. “The proletariat has nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”[/size]

I’ll give you the basics and I’ll be brief about it.

“True Communism” happens when all of the workers get smart, team up, get along, be fair, and take responsability for their own country. This would destroy the Bourgeoisie in so far as it would remove the Bourgeoisie’s political authoritative voice. The “True Communism” would be none-other than a certain type of direct-demoncracy, or, cooperation in large numbers by the productive powers of the civil mass.

This Communism can’t be forced or made up by leaders, either the people do it or they don’t.
Because the majority of the workers don’t get smart, they don’t make True [“True” = ideal = not here = not real] Communism.

No matter how you look at it, being dumb and disorganized is going to leave you fucked and worm-ridden.

keep 'em dumb and disorganized? but the democrats have run education for 50+ years! dumb and disorganized? never!

fucked and worm ridden however…

-Imp