In the "Communist Manifesto," Marx and Engels suggest some "wonderful improvements" for society. Cite a line from the Manifesto highlighting one of these improvements, i.e, something Marx and Engels want to see changed. Would the change they suggest be a good one? Why, or why not? Do you get a feeling of deja vu when you read through the Manifesto? Any issues raised similar to those in contemporary American politics? 
You do not need to read the whole of the Manifesto. Part II (Proletarians and Communists, pp. 135-142 in the Dover anthology) will be sufficient.
"When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, belonging to all members of society, personal property is not thereby converted into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."
ReplyDeleteI don't believe this is good. It sounds to me like they're losing everything if they lose the character or means of competition. There is no hard work. Crops will not flourish because people don't care to be the best.
These pages that I read from this book remind me of the new Health Reform that's being debated in the legislature right now, which makes me nervious!
---- Ashley Acker, 9:00 class
Marx
ReplyDelete"Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of workers, crowded together in the factories, are organised like soldiers. Like soldiers of industry, they are placed under the command of a perfect heirarchy of subalterns and officers. They are not only the slaves of the bourgeois class, the bourgeois State, they are daily and hourly enslaved by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its object, the more petty, hateful, and galling it becomes."
This is a fascinating comment that sounds rather angry. Up to this point, I have read such language and anger in only one other book, and that is the Anarchist Cookbook, among others. The capitalist state does tend to encourage a larger lower class, as with what is happening to America at this point in time. What I don't see is an understanding to the alternative in the same amount of experience that Marx has with capitalism. Capitalism is, or at least in my opinion, a very Darwinian mindset, and that what I believe that Marx doesn't understand (and how could he, has he seen the effects that communism has on development?)
I believe that Marx fails to grasp (to an extent) something that many Americans today greatly value. If I don't enjoy working in a factory, only producing and consequently lowering my own wages the more I produce, couldn't I choose a different path? Might I choose to go to college and work for something that I enjoy?
What I believe is an uninsightful look into capitalist behavior as compared to a communistic approach shows that Marx is suggesting that people in a capitalist society don't in fact have a choice as to what they "fall in to" as a profession. The beauty of capitalism is the constant change and reform that is goes under. The sexual reproduction within itself ensures that a variety of ideas and concepts are constantly being shuffled and revolutionized at a ferocious rate, while keeping the total structure's stability fluctuating, but ever improving for the people and technology. Communism is, on the other hand, an asexual approach, in which the only change or reform is the revolt of the people, and the only children that Communism bears is a total collapse in its structure only to beget a sturcture that is just as rigid and demoralizing as the first.
Arthur Turner 10:00 class (this gives me extra credit right?)
"Nevertheless, for the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:-
ReplyDelete....
3. Abolition of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.
......"
I don't agree with this. Ancestors have worked hard to get what they deserve and though their descendents haven't necessarily earned any inheritance, it would be a favor to the ancestor to pass it down to their loved one upon their death so they see their hard earned money going to someone they care about, not put into a fund which they may not agree upon.
I also don't think it right to confiscate the land of emigrants. Though they may have not originally been from the land, it wouldn't be fair to disregard their hope for a better future just because they weren't blessed to have come from a country with opportunity, etc. That being said, I find this deeply similar to the illegal aliens from Mexico. I feel that they should have a chance to better their lives but this should in some way be regulated. Their future should be bright just as long as it doesn't make the original people of the land's future bleak.
-Becca Mogen