Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: [TCM] Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part 3 39
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his âoenatural superiorsâ, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous âoecash paymentâ. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom â" Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
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 has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what manâ(TM)s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
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. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
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.
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations."
It almost sounds as though Marx is an apologist for Feudalism here.
(a) I doubt that he seriously is, and
(b) I completely disagree that the bourgeoisie behaved or continue to behave in any manner substantially differnet from those they supplanted.
(c) However, this passage is consistent with the rhetorical need to instantiate the bourgeoisie as a new object for reader consideration.
"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo. .
Has it?
"The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation."
Karl the Kloset SoKon! It's almost as though he views the bourgeoisie as proto-Progressives, or something.
"The bourgeoisie has disclosed. .
Really, really needs some kind of reference as to what he means. Is Marx a crypto-Luddite?
"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production. .
I don't actually think Marx is in any sense a Luddite. Rather, I think he's trying to strum the Luddite strings in his audience with this technological angst talk.
"The need of a constantly expanding market for its products. .
Well, if we're supposed to genuflect to the unions for the 40-hour work week, then let's at least offer a nod to the risk takers and experimenters who've actually *enabled* the modern world we like.
Or one could just head off to Papua-New Guinea, I suppose.
I can track Marx's point, insofar as having your bling steal your soul is an eternal tragedy--yes.
But bling as such is neither good nor evil, and not explicitely sinful, kept in perspective.
Installments:
Part 1
Part 2
Pastable version:
<a href="http://slashdot.org/~smitty_one_each/journal/1342943">Part 1</a>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/~damn_registrars/journal/1343899">Part 2</a>
No, not "bling" (Score:1)
Gluttony... I believe that is one of the things your good book (not the subject of the JE) discourages.
And since I'm here:
I completely disagree that the bourgeoisie behaved or continue to behave in any manner substantially differnet from those they supplanted.
This is absolutely true in every instance, including the USA. Power is always shape shifting, never dispersing. This is the "continuous revolution".
But, since we're throwing out little tidbits, I found that we are pretty much living this:
The conditions
Do you see your contradiction? (Score:1)
Power is always shape shifting, never dispersing. This is the "continuous revolution".
. . .
. . .weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
I guess the bourgeoisie is some kinda bullet proof, if it's turning weapons on itself without ever letting the power disperse.
. .the horror:
Wait. .
. .
is ManBearPig [wikipedia.org] a specimen of the bourgeoisie?
Re: (Score:1)
I guess the bourgeoisie is some kinda bullet proof, if it's turning weapons on itself without ever letting the power disperse.
Don't read so much into it. It was a cheap shot at US/UK middle east policy of creating monsters to destroy, and their present phony war on terrorism, and your idealism about the same. with the assumption that things are as they seem.
Re: (Score:1)
US/UK middle east policy of creating monsters to destroy
I rejoice that you didn't, I don't know, oversimplify matters, or something.
Re: (Score:1)
oversimplify
Ahhh, there ya go, with the hand waving again. The ultimate cop out that one is. You gotta stick with what works, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do tell! Let's just say that you guys grew a few little two-bit regional warlords into the world enterprise it is today. I gotta admit business has never been better.
I think you are still making the same mistake of believing "opposing" systems are actually in opposition. The truth is that there has always only been one. Stalin and Mao were much more evil than Hitler, why weren't they taken out? Because they knew how to conduct business with their friends in Washington, New York, an
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You not showing it with your obsession and idolatry over specific individuals and tribal attraction to certain factions. No, if you actually believed in "liberty", you would be working it more generically with unbiased advocacy for all. You would be attacking real issues instead of being led around by your mass media. And of course you're still silent on the hedonism of gluttony, in fact you seem to be all for it with your infinite property rights schtick. Legitimately purchased.. I'm still laughing at that
Re: (Score:1)
No, if you actually believed in "liberty", you would be working it more generically with unbiased advocacy for all.
Fascinating. Do break your handwaving down to specific actions. WTF is "unbiased advocacy" in a subjective existence where absolute bias-freedom is just impossible?
Ever charge you level is symmetric, by your own rules. I see your laughter, and return a guffaw.
Re: (Score:1)
Please, don't play dumb. You know what I'm talking about...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Damn right! We defend your right to snort your political/religious drano and cause just as much damage to the planet. All you gotta do is to treat people humanely and respectfully, as if they were your own mother.. I mean, that's if you want any respect at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Only you can answer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Like I said, it makes no difference. Just don't act all surprised and get offended when what you do is reflected back. It may not be right, but that's just how people are. Good or bad, they will follow your example, not your words.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong again...
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps the wording was obtuse? (Score:1)
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence.
Based on your comment of
Really, really needs some kind of reference as to what he means.
In this case, I intentionally quoted the full statement from him rather than the part you specifically mentioned in your JE. If I'm reading your comment correctly you seem to be searching for Marx to be sharing some great insight (ie, "the Bourgeoisie has disclosed...") from the upper crust. I will argue that you are reading this statement incorrectly; he didn't receive a great insight from the Bourgeoisie themselves, but ra
Let's rewrite that (Score:1)
"The emergence of the bourgeoisie is the flip side of the brutal Middle Ages vigor (e.g. Crusades?) that all of the reactionaries admire, and but which today has all gone to foppish decadence?"
I'm working far too hard to make this mean something.
Re: (Score:2)
Does he mean:
"The emergence of the bourgeoisie is the flip side of the brutal Middle Ages vigor (e.g. Crusades?) that all of the reactionaries admire, and but which today has all gone to foppish decadence?"
I would say that Marx saw the accumulation of bourgeoisie power as a direct result of the brutal class warfare of the middle ages. Remember the Marxist ideal - which arguably has never been pursued anywhere for very long - is to have a classless society. This is what made the Manifesto so revolutionary, he wanted to propose a very different way of going about doing things for society.
Now, whether or not it is absolute human nature to divide people up into classes is a discussion that should still be
Re: (Score:1)
Remember the Marxist ideal - which arguably has never been pursued anywhere for very long - is to have a classless society. This is what made the Manifesto so revolutionary, he wanted to propose a very different way of going about doing things for society.
Part of my challenge is that Marx seems to be discussing granular externalities, e.g. classes. These are conceptual handles for swaths of people. Yet people remain individuals, from birth to death. Thus, societal alteration would seem to require some kind of internal renewal, not just a fresh set of labels. There's something of a top-down "Rousseau" flavor to Marx's ideas.
Re: (Score:1)
Remember the Marxist ideal - which arguably has never been pursued anywhere for very long - is to have a classless society. This is what made the Manifesto so revolutionary, he wanted to propose a very different way of going about doing things for society.
Part of my challenge is that Marx seems to be discussing granular externalities, e.g. classes
Indeed, he saw the class struggle as being the primary force of oppression in his day - and indeed to him throughout history.
These are conceptual handles for swaths of people. Yet people remain individuals, from birth to death.
And the overwhelming majority of people in this world die in the same socioeconomic class that they were born in to. His experiment is to place all people in a single class and study the effects it has on their ability to prosper and achieve their potential.
Thus, societal alteration would seem to require some kind of internal renewal, not just a fresh set of labels.
Marx's argument in the end will be for the working class to rise up and take control. He believed that this would be the pat
Re: (Score:1)
Marx's argument in the end will be for the working class to rise up and take control. He believed that this would be the path to a single class society, when the means of production are controlled by the people who themselves toil on said production.
Even if a revolutionary, altruistic vanguard can seize power and not fall prey to Acton's observation, even if: there is still the nasty problem of transfer of power. Bureaucracy happens; lessons not acquired via first-hand struggle are difficult to propagate to the youth.
Consider the secular Jews of the United States, who seem awful asleep at the switch while we brew our own tyranny right at home. [And that oblique comparison is served totally non-partisan, by the way.]
If anybody shouldn't be sucking up
Re: (Score:1)
Marx's argument in the end will be for the working class to rise up and take control. He believed that this would be the path to a single class society, when the means of production are controlled by the people who themselves toil on said production.
Even if a revolutionary, altruistic vanguard can seize power and not fall prey to Acton's observation, even if: there is still the nasty problem of transfer of power. Bureaucracy happens; lessons not acquired via first-hand struggle are difficult to propagate to the youth.
You're getting closer to the goal, here. Communism isn't about giving power to one person or even a small group of people. Communism is about distribution of power. The ideals Marx is trying to share here involve sharing basically everything, including power. Contrast that with the "communist" regimes that we've seen rise and fall, who did no sharing of power.
Basically, the hippie communes of the free love era were closer to Marxist ideals than the "communist" governments in Russia, China, et al.
Re: (Score:1)
Rather, that the Kingdom of Heaven is orthogonal to all the evil that men do.
Re: (Score:1)
People are individuals. Government is a derived bureaucracy riding atop the people. Government is never more than a necessary evil.
This is an important conceptual modeling issue.
All evidence points to that Jesus is a statist.
My head 'splodes on this one. Have you read the Gospel? Born a peasant, worked as a carpenter, built His church of fishermen from the backwater of Galilee, his cousin John the Baptist decapitated by Herod, runs afoul with Chief Pr
Re: (Score:1)
And in the second place, I'm just really not sure that the bourgeoisie ever accomplished Marx's stated outcome:
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.
I guess it makes partial sense if you consider the transition of some of these professions from ones involving patrons to commission musical works, or endow universities.
That said, this smacks of an evidence-free charge to make the bourgeoisie into bigger super villains, or s
Re: (Score:2)
In the first place, I'm offering brief quotations as linkage to the fully quoted passage, rather than in-lining my remarks.
OK, thank you for the clarification. I wasn't sure based on what you wrote if you stopped where you thought the idea of the statement ended, or if you stopped there just to highlight that sentence without doing a longer quote.
In the case of the Communist Manifesto, a single sentence is usually a single thought. Sometimes a single thought is spread over multiple sentences in this document but I don't think I've seen him ever write a sentence where he incorporated multiple thoughts - or at least, not tho
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't say he's trying to make them into "villains", he is trying rather to show what happens when one class of people has unchecked dominance over another and the dominated class has close to no opportunity to change it on their own. This may, again, be human nature - but that is what made the idea of communism so revolutionary as it hadn't been done before (and arguably still hasn't been done).
Again, I'm sort of rolling with "one class of people has unchecked dominance over another and the dominated class has close to no opportunity to change it on their own". One has to suspend disbelief, and allow Marx his say. .what made the idea of communism so revolutionary as it hadn't been done before (and arguably still hasn't been done)" gets at the challenge of moving from some abstract ideas in Marx's head, and allowing first contact with reality. My opinion is that the success of the ideas varies
". .
Re: (Score:2)
the challenge of moving from some abstract ideas in Marx's head, and allowing first contact with reality. My opinion is that the success of the ideas varies inversely to the size of the population in question.
You're getting really close to the problem that Marx's ideals faced when applied in real societies. It is accepted in many circles that Marx never had in mind large (both in terms of geography and population) nations when he wrote the Manifesto. The countries he had his eye on most for this were Germany, France, and the UK. While they are, of course, three of the largest economies of Europe, they also are less of a management challenge than Russia or China.
It is unclear if Marx thought that Communis
Re: (Score:1)
Compare what has actually been done to what Marx aspired to do.
This is my point, precisely. We haven't gotten to Marx's ideals yet, but anybody subscribing to Edenic thinking in our post-Eden world is kinda far out.
I know part 4 is on me... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)