communist manifesto Watch

zunair
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
what is communist manifesto?
1
reply
Serano
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
Hello comrade
5
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
It's a novel by Groucho Marx.
5
reply
zunair
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
what is the theme of this novel? what is the purpose of this pamphlet or novel??
0
reply
zunair
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
if all previous history had been characterized by class struggle,why would class conflict end with the victory of the proletariat in a communist revolution?????? please answer me as soon as possible.
1
reply
LordBerkut
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
Maybe you should read it.
0
reply
DYKWIA
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
It is an evil little book.
16
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
It has a piece of Voldemort's soul in.
7
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by zunair)
what is communist manifesto?
Are you a Mighty Boosh fan by any chance?

"Drum n Bass?", "What is Drum n Bass?" Ahh, I do hope they make another series.
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by zunair)
if all previous history had been characterized by class struggle,why would class conflict end with the victory of the proletariat in a communist revolution?????? please answer me as soon as possible.
The basic idea is that class difference (and thus class conflict) emerged as humans advanced into economic and social divisions beyond their hunter gathering origins (otherwise known as 'primitive communism'). From that point onwards, it is suggested, human civilisations have undergone a series of (ultimately) directional transformations which have 'sought' the reconciliation of organisational and technological advance with the 'internal contradictions' and conflicts emergent in those transformations. Marx and Engels' argument was that those contradictions and conflicts will not be 'worked out' until human civilisation passed out of a capitalist and into a socialist era headed for communism and an ultimate return to conditions in which there is no class division.

Only time will tell, of course, but on the basis that industrial capitalism has only been around for 200 years or so, has been radically transformative, self-transformative and crisis ridden, it's not very safe to assume that it represents a stable end point of human economic and social organisation.
reply
chefdave
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by Oswy)
The basic idea is that class difference (and thus class conflict) emerged as humans advanced into economic and social divisions beyond their hunter gathering origins (otherwise known as 'primitive communism'). From that point onwards, it is suggested, human civilisations have undergone a series of (ultimately) directional transformations which have 'sought' the reconciliation of organisational and technological advance with the 'internal contradictions' and conflicts emergent in those transformations. Marx and Engels' argument was that those contradictions and conflicts will not be 'worked out' until human civilisation passed out of a capitalist and into a socialist era headed for communism and an ultimate return to conditions in which there is no class division.

Only time will tell, of course, but on the basis that industrial capitalism has only been around for 200 years or so, has been radically transformative, self-transformative and crisis ridden, it's not very safe to assume that it represents a stable end point of human economic and social organisation.
Marx and Engles made a fundamental mistake with their analysis though as they combined two seperate factors of production (land and capital) into one - capital. Once you make that crucial error there's no going back as productivity is attacked as much as genuine parasitism.
0
reply
dungeonkeepr
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
Go read the book, I think it's available for free online. It's super short, too, so it won't take you more than a couple days.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by chefdave)
Marx and Engles made a fundamental mistake with their analysis though as they combined two seperate factors of production (land and capital) into one - capital. Once you make that crucial error there's no going back as productivity is attacked as much as genuine parasitism.
Land is capital, fixed-capital, and as private property (aka monopolisation) it constitutes the foundation of all other forms of capital generation and accumulation. Under capitalism nothing material is produced (whether we're talking about spinach pies or spanners) without it being dependent on someone's private ownership (i.e. someone's monopolisation) of pieces of the earth or its resources, you can't separate them. Any subsequently accumulated non-land capital is built upon that originating earth-based injustice.
reply
chefdave
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Oswy)
Land is capital, fixed-capital, and as private property (aka monopolisation) it constitutes the foundation of all other forms of capital generation and accumulation. Under capitalism nothing material is produced (whether we're talking about spinach pies or spanners) without it being dependent on someone's private ownership (i.e. someone's monopolisation) of pieces of the earth or its resources, you can't separate them. Any subsequently accumulated non-land capital is built upon that originating earth-based injustice.
Land isn't capital though, it's land. I agree that capital formation is hindered by the appropriation of the commons , but Marxists in general make no allowance for this and instead plough on attacking anyone that isn't a landless peasant. Even if they made their money honesty.

One small (but fundamental) ideological tweak and Marxism would have something useful to say.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by chefdave)
Land isn't capital though, it's land. I agree that capital formation is hindered by the appropriation of the commons , but Marxists in general make no allowance for this and instead plough on attacking anyone that isn't a landless peasant. Even if they made their money honesty.

One small (but fundamental) ideological tweak and Marxism would have something useful to say.
I strongly disagree. Under capitalism land very much is a form of capital, it's specifically referred to as 'fixed-capital' (you must know this). Marxists attack the private accumulation of land because it represents a clear monopolisation of resources and of productive potentials which result in either exploitation or alienation of the non-owning class. We don't regard private ownership (i.e. the monopolisation) of the earth as being an 'honest' activity but as a pernicious injustice.
reply
chefdave
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by Oswy)
I strongly disagree. Under capitalism land very much is a form of capital, it's specifically referred to as 'fixed-capital' (you must know this). Marxists attack the private accumulation of land because it represents a clear monopolisation of resources and of productive potentials which result in either exploitation or alienation of the non-owning class. We don't regard private ownership (i.e. the monopolisation) of the earth as being an 'honest' activity but as a pernicious injustice.
There's an affinity between the left and right because they both use the neo-classical definition of capital which has all but erased the importance of land, this is a grave error. Marxists attack the capitalist class for monopolising the means of production and alienating the proletariat in the process, while I agree with the general sentiment the devil is in the detail. Capital (as in tooling or machinery) is created when the three factors of production land, labour and capital- combine in a useful way, and because of this it cannot be monopolised - it's recreatable. Land and natural resources can be monopolised though because they weren't produced in the first place, they're a gift of God or nature depending on your overall outlook.

Capitalists may define land as 'fixed capital' but really they're flattering themselves. I don't see why Marxists should follow their lead and use the same flawed definition, surely Marx himself would appreciate a more scientific approach?
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by chefdave)
There's an affinity between the left and right because they both use the neo-classical definition of capital which has all but erased the importance of land, this is a grave error. Marxists attack the capitalist class for monopolising the means of production and alienating the proletariat in the process, while I agree with the general sentiment the devil is in the detail. Capital (as in tooling or machinery) is created when the three factors of production land, labour and capital- combine in a useful way, and because of this it cannot be monopolised - it's recreatable. Land and natural resources can be monopolised though because they weren't produced in the first place, they're a gift of God or nature depending on your overall outlook.

Capitalists may define land as 'fixed capital' but really they're flattering themselves. I don't see why Marxists should follow their lead and use the same flawed definition, surely Marx himself would appreciate a more scientific approach?
Dude, I'm never, never going to agree with you on this point. Tooling and machinery under capitalism is generated through conditions which ultimately rely upon the monopolisation of the earth and/or its resources, whether we're talking about the food workers have to buy or the minerals from which their tools are manufactured and a whole load of other things besides - it is all traceable to monopolised land-capital. There's no meaningful separation. Seriously, you'll have to try and convince someone else of your position.
reply
chefdave
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by Oswy)
Dude, I'm never, never going to agree with you on this point. Tooling and machinery under capitalism is generated through conditions which ultimately rely upon the monopolisation of the earth and/or its resources, whether we're talking about the food workers have to buy or the minerals from which their tools are manufactured and a whole load of other things besides - it is all traceable to monopolised land-capital. There's no meaningful separation. Seriously, you'll have to try and convince someone else of your position.
Why? Land-capital makes no sense, you may as well argue that labour-capital is the driving force behind economic alienation or land-labour. Land is the mother monopoly as it provides the foundation for almost all other monopolies, to attribute scarcity to any form of genuine capital formation then is sheer philosophical recklessness.

Sometimes I think it's a make work programme for both the left and right, they don't want to resolve their difference using appropriate terminology because it'll end the bun fight and give them nothing to do.
0
reply
Alfred_Milner
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by chefdave)
Why? Land-capital makes no sense, you may as well argue that labour-capital is the driving force behind economic alienation or land-labour. Land is the mother monopoly as it provides the foundation for almost all other monopolies, to attribute scarcity to any form of genuine capital formation then is sheer philosophical recklessness.

Sometimes I think it's a make work programme for both the left and right, they don't want to resolve their difference using appropriate terminology because it'll end the bun fight and give them nothing to do.
Land isn't fixed capital - it's a fixed asset. The only capital expended insofar as land is concerned is cash; it's the land improvements that is invested in the land which can be construed as fixed capital. It's a technicality - is it important? Probably not - pretty much all these definitions are a bit outmoded nowadays.
0
reply
Niassuh
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
Aww someone already made a comrade joke
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1648)
78.78%
Leave (444)
21.22%

Watched Threads

View All