Karl Marx Forum

Karl Marx

Forum

THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

If you didn't read this book when you were young - YOU'VE WASTED YOUR LIFE.

It's the single most liberating and ahead-of-its time masterpiece ever written. All the people who like Fight Club should read it. It's proof that the materialist view of the world is totally unecessary. And if you think it's UN-AMERICAN, you've been brainwashed by television, and haven't got much of a mind have you? Ask yourself - where you'd be without your trade union? This man pointed out the need for them, (and all the rights that you take for granted), when he wrote the Communist Manifesto.

The class system explained, and the human race permanently advanced when Karl wrote these few 10,000 words. Pick up a copy and READ IT.

"WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!" - Karl Marx

>>By SMASH_YOUR_FACE_IN (Monday, 29 Mar 2004 17:02)

Communism the ideal system of goverment for the world but ruined by fools if trotsky had come to power instead of lenin communism would have been the role model to the other nations instead lenin came to power and thus began 80 years of corruption lies and murder continued by his predecessors i believe in the ideals of karl marx and Friedrich Engel's there philosophy was ruined by the corrupt and immoral

>>By therion (Monday, 29 Mar 2004 23:53)

The problem with ideals is that no matter how great they are, they can't impose themselves on reality. The problem with reality is that it is cruel without ideals. History and anthropology show that understanding human reality can lead to shape it and bring it closer to shared ideals. It is what Ghandi did. Yes, India still has castes, but it's not a colony and it's still evolving.

>>By Noudjali (Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004 11:02)

when a truly great man comes along with the best intentions and ideals and succeeds the ideals are forever imposed on that society history documents everything if even one person reads anothers work the ideal is not lost and if there is enough who believe and who are willing to fight for that ideal them you have a reveloution if ideals cannot impose themselves on reality how do you explain Fidel Castro?

>>By therion (Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004 16:54)

There might be something as the ideal solution to world economy and poverty. But even if it works in theory, it will probably fail when put to practise. Simply because there's always someone who wants to get more profit out of something, or because one person dislikes another and tries to boycot or destroy what he produces.

Ideologies can be ideal and perfect. Human beings just aren't. We can all try to be better people, but we'll still all be different people. And that's bound to create problems

>>By Aywin (Friday, 2 Apr 2004 18:07)

my point was that ideals can impose themselves on reality

there is no perfect system democracy gave rise to the most evil of all human beings Hitler through democracy he conqured he knew that taking power by force was a folly he used the machinations of the democratic system he was quoted as saying "How much better it would be to gain power through the system of the people" ideally communism is a better system its problems stem from formatting itself in real life the reason it does not succeed is greed human greed imposes itself on societies communisim while the role model system cannot compete with human greed there are to few selfless people in the world everything that society teaches us teaches us to resist to be greedy to want what we cannot have in order for communisim to succeed we must eliminate the age old struggle with possession and greed through education we can end democracy and make it the system of the people a system based on the ideals of Karl Marx but different from the system run by the corrupt and immoral the potential is their the only way to fail is to do nothing

>>By *Vovin* (Friday, 2 Apr 2004 21:37)

if only leaders in the communst movement weren't so hasty, perhaps we could now be enjoying some of the great utopian-like conditions that Marx described. But the reality played out differently than Marx proposed it should or would and now we are left with negative connotations of an idea that resulted in the best possible ways humans could find themselves. Personally i like the idea of eventually needing no government. i like the idea of personal responsibility and cooperative effort. But it is easy to argue against collectivism and redistribution of wealth because we haven't really shown that we are capable of doing it on a large scale. this kind of argument is of the immediate-practical type because it isn't necessarily wise in the long term but imperative in the short term. As an example, it is very difficult to have an open debate on social Security because it is a problem that only exist to the young generation in the very back of their minds. If the debate doesn't produce tangible and immediate results for them now, then it isn't worth dealing with it yet. In the short term sense this is fine because they are right, the decisions today will not be completely felt until much later. But in the long term, the decisions of today are critical. this is the kind of psychology that can be both beneficial and self-destructive. Another argument against collectivism is simply the fact that there isn't a self-evident moral philosophy that can bind us together and make us believe that collectivism is right or good. Moral Relativism may be accurate but it is also a hinderance when it comes to unifying large bodies of people.
even the socialist european countries have to deal with poverty, unemployment, disease, and often times less than desireable working conditions. i think the moral of our human story is that our nature and the behavior that results is bigger than government and transcends those philosophies which in the past have tended to be too narrow or restrictive. If an idea doesn't correspond to reality or cannot in the future be actualized in reality, then it ought to but improved scrapped. So we must combat our natural tendency both as individuals and expecially as a group to act in a hasty manner. We have to discipline ourselves to both form reasonable plans and not skip a single step along the way. just imagine our world for a second, slightly different. In this new world historians would write about how marx formed a plan and developed a specific social philosophy. they would mention how his ideas were read and talked about, and eventually accepted by the masses. Imagine then the people truly understanding the ideas for what they are and seeing their true implications. Imagine not skipping a single step the marx envisioned. In this way we could really be able to prove whether Marx was accurate in his predicitons or not. However we cannot know at this time because our reality, the way things played out before we were born, obstructs us from observing communism as it was originally layed out. Instead we are left with merely scraps scattered about here and there. Some pieces work for us, some oppress us. the net result is a perception that communism cannot and therefore should not work.

>>By Hume Ungus (Saturday, 3 Apr 2004 19:33)

communism will one day be the system of government for us all i have nothing but contempt for capitalist societies capitalism could be great but no system can stand up to greed or corruption

>>By *Vovin* (Sunday, 4 Apr 2004 04:56)

If you want to understand why communism can't work, read Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

By the way, some of the fiercest opposition to communism has come from left-wing trade union leaders.

George Orwell had bad experiences with Communists during the Spanish Civil War. 1984 can be read as a satire of the Communist system. Ingsoc stands for English Socialism. Big Brother is an obvious parody of Stalin.

>>By Mikey_Canuck (Sunday, 4 Apr 2004 23:41)

SMASH_YOUR_FACE_IN said: " It's [the book- The Communist Manifesto] proof that the materialist view of the world is totally unecessary". why the hell would we need PROOF that the materialistic view of the world is totally inecessary!?! no shit, sherlock!

>>By ania (Monday, 5 Apr 2004 15:42)

no comment

>>By *Vovin* (Tuesday, 6 Apr 2004 20:31)

well I read excerpts... and I just can say:
communism sounds great but the problem is that it does not work?
why? cause human beigns own some characteristics that dont fit with this system...like egoism.

>>By LiV* (Wednesday, 7 Apr 2004 23:18)

communism could work its all about human greed it always has been get rid of that and the blocks fall into place

>>By *Vovin* (Wednesday, 7 Apr 2004 23:46)

It's not greed that gets in the way... it's the need to be individuals. Even when we're following the crowd, we have to do it our way.

My favorite Marx is Groucho.

>>By Dare (Thursday, 8 Apr 2004 00:19)

i still think its human greed you can be an individual in a communist society as long as it is based on the ideals of karl marx which no communist society to date has been his ideals were manipulated by people who wanted to use his beliefs for their own gains

in a true communist society individuality would not be oppressed

>>By *Vovin* (Friday, 9 Apr 2004 21:21)

We must all remember that we are unique like everyone else.

>>By Hume Ungus (Wednesday, 28 Apr 2004 21:17)

poor vovin, I am sorry but most sane people would not 'choose' a marxist form of government. And that assertion has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with free will, the abilty to choose even if one chooses what may not always be best. How about you read this wonderful little book called ANIMAL FARM. Yes, good book.

>>By pass (Sunday, 2 May 2004 06:45)

yes, pass, how sadly true your statement is. most people, in the context of today's world (and that of recent history) would NOT choose a marxism as the cloth from which our sociopolitical tapestry is woven. but let's ask the question WHY most people would not choose marxism when there are undoubtedly SOME (if not an abundance of) great ideas and intentions underlying it.

could it be democracy's dominant role in shaping the consciousness of the world? over the last century democracy has spread through the international political context like a plague. the more it spreads, the more powerful it becomes (obviously) and the more marginalised ideologies like those expressed by Marx become. who's gunna CHOOSE something so marginalised under the oppressive influence of democracy, in all its marketable aspects?

Pass, you mentioned "free will", whatever the hell that means today. How free is the will in today's free-market-driven-democracies? How many "sane" people do you actually believe are capable of penetrating into the forces of the "free-market" which shape their countries' foreign and domestic policies, shape their societies and shape their own minds from birth. Critical insight and inquiry is one of the first casualties of the 'free market's' onslaught, and with the fall of this essential skill comes the corruption of what you call 'free will'. The will might very well be 'free', but the context in which it can be exercised is restricted and saturated with the influence of free market capitalism.

Yes, Animal Farm, brilliant satire; though i contend equally applicable to some of today's most powerful propagators of 'democracy' - the Bush administration as tuxedoed and top-hatted pigs........the satire need not be confined to communism.

I would suggest that if MOST people could remove the 'lenses' through which they perceive the world, if they could critically penetrate into the processes that have framed their perception of democracy and realise the sheer impossibility of TRUE democracy to exist in a free market economy (i mean, it's just so obvious isn't it?) then they'd be at least a little more open to alternative ideologies. Compound to this a context wherein Marxist thought had been applied PROPERLY and not by corrupt and hasty administrations, then we could safely assume that MORE, if not MOST people would be likely to turn from the deceit of democracy in its current form and more likely to CHOOSE....let's say....the marxist alternative.

>>By footprint (Wednesday, 5 May 2004 07:19)

if either of you had read the earlier comments you would know that a society based on the ideals of marx and engles would be benificiary to the world its corrupt and immoral individuals who ruin the reputation of communism i would say read up on Leon Trotsky if he had come to power communism would have been the ideal role model government he was a marxist in the truest sense of the word believing and following in the ideals of marx and engles other communist leaders have not done that they have twisted the ideals for their own selfish gain people today judge a communist society by the failures of communist leaders and not by the philosophy for which it stands that is the problem no one ever looks at the philosophy they judge the society based on thoes who twist the ideals for their own gain

it seems that some on this discussion have not been properly educated in the matter and have formed their opinion on half truths so i say poor pass

>>By Vavin (Tuesday, 11 May 2004 19:31)

and if you had read my words carefully you'd realise that i in no way contradicted your views; i merely described a world where YES, people judge communism against the backdrop of its failings AS IT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN NUMEROUS SOCIETIES BY NUMEROUS CORRUPT BODIES and not judged as a philosophy.

my words were concerned less with communism itself and more concerned with describing the historical and contemporary CONTEXT in which communism is judged.

i DID read the earlier comments (so strange of you to assume that i hadn't) and agree wholeheartedly that communist ideals have been twisted and misrepresented through actions incongruous with these ideas.

.....assuming, of course, that your "if either of you had read......." was actually aimed at me. was it?

>>By footprint (Thursday, 13 May 2004 05:19)

if you had read my earlier statement you would notice for the most part that was addressed to pass not you

and i do not believe in communism as it is i merley believe in the ideals and philosophy for which it stands

>>By Vavin (Thursday, 13 May 2004 20:56)

The people posting here would be better off reading "Eats, shoots and leaves" and a dictionary, then the rest of us might understand your points of view.

Two workers in a factory are paid the same wage, one saves his money, the other wastes it. The saver's family have a better way of life than the waster's. How does communism deal with this?

>>By camban (Friday, 14 May 2004 16:04)

The discussion board is currently closed.