Do you think it would be worth studying the Communist manifesto for opposition research and to understand (yet not agree) with my enemy?

[Anonymous]

I actually saw a copy of the Communist manifesto at the book store and thought it might be worth buying and reading it to understand the point of view of my enemy better then he does.

If I do this I will see my enemy as someone who is misguided and understand their misunderstandings.

I could also use this information to understand the communist criteria of capitalism but instead offer a capitalist solution to those critiques.

[Derekk]

The Manifesto isn't really a good theoretical examination of capitalism or communism. It was essentially a pamphlet that Marx disseminated to the working class to try and expedite the revolutionary that he believed was destined to occur anyways. If you have the patience, I'd read Das Kapital.

In any event, the key tenets are these:

Communism is a stateless, classless, money-less society in which private property (distinguished from personal property) is collectively owned. There is no state to enforce ownership, and thus it is sometimes thought that Communism is an expression of a pure stateless anarchy. Hence the development of anarcho-communism and various offshoots. In order to achieve communism, Marx explained that it is brought about by a "Vanguard party" of the working class. Herein lies the evils of the 20th century under the banner of communism: the Vanguard parties took power forcefully, and never gave it up once power was achieved. They believed that they needed to consolidate and maintain this power to ensure that they could resist global market forces and reactionary revolutions by the bourgeoisie. Most Marxists today believe that Marx did not intend for a "Vanguard party" to be anything more than a temporary populist uprising to disassemble the state and then break off into various communes and self-regulated communities. Whether this is achievable or not is a primary question for many of unsuccessful anarchist movements in recent history. Marxists who still cling to the Stalinist and Maoist horrors are today called "tankies" and are not taken seriously in most radical leftist circles.

Why is capitalism opposed by Orthodox Marxism? Well, it isn't a result of moral argument or thought. Marx considered his theory to be scientific and amoral, (as distinct from "immoral"), meaning that he anticipated a class revolution due to the internal contradictions that he believed existed within capitalism. What were these "contradictions"? Imagine this: you form a group project at work under your control. Each of you does your role, submits your report, and you end up making $24,000. There are four of you. How should that money be divvied up? A Marxist would say: $6000 each. A capitalist would say, (supposedly), $2000 each for you, $6000 for me, and $12,000 in "profit" that gets put aside to be reinvested later. Marx believes this extra money belongs only to the group that made it, and that any extra money "left over" after people are paid is really their own anyways. This is his concept of surplus value. Surplus value is exploitative for this reason, and since capitalism is built on surplus value and profit, he believed that it was built off the backs of workers, and that as the rate of capital begins to rise, workers will rise up and overthrow the system.

I am not a Marxist, but I am a philosopher by training. If you have questions, I can help, but inevitably some of my insights may be filtered through my own interpretations of Marx.

[Derekk]

To clarify, a Marxist may not say "$6000 each" in my little example there. Contrary to popular belief, Marx did not believe "everyone should be paid the same", especially since he didn't believe that money should always exist into the future anyways. The main takeaway here is that the end product of what you make belongs to you, and those that helped you. And the dividing if resources between you is decided democratically, until Communism arrives and we no longer exist under a regime of artificial resource scarcity... Again, supposedly ;)

[Asker]

Thanks very much for your detailed answer.
I will keep it in mind if I had any specific questions for you.

[WindAtMyBack]

You don't need to buy it, just get it from the library and start reading. I read part of it a long time ago. I've been meaning to get back to it but haven't gotten around to it. It's moved fairly high on my to-read list.

I don't think going into it assuming you won't agree with it is the right way to read it. Read it first and then see what you think. In the part that I read I agreed with many of the issues he was trying to address. I just don't agree with his solutions.

It's important to have to read it in the context of when and where it was written. Here in the US, it's not much of a stretch to say we had an aspect of socialism right from the start. The founders explicitly outlawed nobility. That sort of thing continued in Europe well into the 20th century, and to some degree still exists. It was outlawed in the US from the start because they could - there wasn't any nobility to oppose it. It's the same reason they were able to do a lot of other things.

In many parts of Europe the average person didn't have upward mobility. Or at least they didn't perceive that they had it. People were pretty much born into a position and stayed there. Again, a lot of this is perception, but that's important. I'm not sure if it would be correct to say that early socialist thinking was an answer to capitalism - it was more an answer to aristocracy, inherited titles, and land holders that the populace was almost entirely dependent on.

Then there was the industrial revolution, which didn't help matters. It was dehumanizing and probably made matters worse. This might be viewed as early capitalism, but it was very immature. It was not even close to what we call capitalism today and didn't have most of the benefits of capitalism.

[NaultD]

I'm a hardcore leftist and i say go for it. In reality we are a mixed economy some industries thrive in a capital economy and other industries are better off socialize.

Imagine haggling with firefighters to save grandma in your burning home? That's bullshit and extortion even within a 100% capitalist society. That's why it's made illegal. So have that mindset. What's made better with capitalist competition vs What's just plain extortion on people's unavoidable hardships in people's daily lifes.

[Asker]

I understand your point of view but would disagree without totally discounting what you say.
If we all try to think of better solutions for tomorrow maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle.

[NaultD]

How do you meet in the middle with a firefighter saving grandma?

Does the firefighter just save grandma as a hardcore communist. Or haggle pay to save grandma just for the sake of capitalism?

The most middle solution is what I've already said.

"What's made better with capitalist competition vs What's just plain extortion on people's unavoidable hardships in people's daily lifes."

[Agagagagaga]

Dude no one cares about your goddamn grandma. Firefighters respond to fires so they don’t spread and burn the whole block down. 😒

[NaultD]

@Agagagagaga it's not just anyone's grandma but possibly your own very grandma! I did intentionally make this ambiguous for a reason.

OP I am a hardcore leftist because people like agagaga will force people in death camps while people like You are trying to find a middle ground. THEY WANT PEOPLE TO DIE IN MASS.

I was trying to be subtle but here's someone that values wood over living beings. I'm honestly scared to death over these people.

[BeMuse]

Here you go. Don't buy it. They don't believe in capitalism. No reason to give money to someone that doesn't believe in profit.

http://62.182.86.140/main/223000/20eb3326c2d4017258c3c2b4519247eb/%28The%20World%27s%20Classics%29%20Karl%20Marx%2C%20Friedrich%20Engels%2C%20David%20McLellan%20-%20Communist%20Manifesto-Oxford%20University%20Press%2C%20USA%20%281992%29.pdf

[ALPHABLACK]

Understanding enemies help you beat enemies

[RiseofArtemis]

I've always wanted to know what's inside a lunatics head who wrote something that killed millions or billions of people. I'd find Hitlers book interesting.

[KostasKouvalis]

Absolutely, I think it is extremely important to understand the perspective of the otherside

[Philyouup]

one should
always see the perspective of one’s foe. Reading ans understanding is not agreeing

[Anonymous]

No because it's dated and obsolete.

Where do you live that Communists are your enemy, 1960? I don't know if you've heard but the cold war is over, and communism is a dead political philosophy.

[AngryCarl]

Yes, it's good to educate yourself. Anyway the fact that communism has never succeeded anywhere doesn't mean it's wrong in theory.

[joeldalton]

you’d be better to read the Gulag Archipelago to learn about communism.

[Agagagagaga]

I don’t think most people have that kind of dedication to learning.

[Lunatic1]

Learning about your enemy is always a good step to take.

[Anonymous]

Nah, all you need to understand is the main points of Communism. The rest is just propaganda.

[jimmy2]

No not really