Is Marx's Communist Manifesto a reaction against the evils of the Industrial Revolution or for it?
443333
The Communist Manifesto was more in response to capitalism that grew out of the industrial revolution. He and his cowriter of the Manifesto devised an economic plan based on communal property and work. On paper, communism is a beautiful idea. It does not, however take into account greed and laziness. \n\nOn paper, the steet sweeper who has four kids is given all he needs by the government. Regardless that he does not contribute much to society, he takes all he needs. By the same token, the surgeon, who saves lives daily, and has spent years going to school for his trade, only makes enough for his wife and he to live on. There is no incentive under communism to do better.
180577
I think there is some bed effect and obstacles for industrial revolution but there is good effect too. I think industrial revolution makes people to walk beyond his capacity, achieve his goal within his lifetime, enrich the world with smooth time and good harmony
465458
Is Marxism relevant. Hmm. that's a subjective term. Relevant to what? To our economy, to our life, to our pocketbook, to our banking system, to the stock market, what? \n\nOr are you asking if Marxism is alive and well; where, in Russia, Germany?\n\nOr are you asking is Communism relevant today? But of course, there's more to Marxism than just Communism.\n\nMarxism lost popularity after the deline of Marxism in Russia, but his ideas are still in effect today and still influential in both political and academic cirlces. \n\nIt's very difficult to understand why. Marxism is great if you're part of the ruling class, but just doesn't work for the masses. So either we have some great conspiracy going on in the U.S., or the masses don't care; maybe both. \n\nThere are 10 Planks to the Communist Manifesto, and at least eight, and probably nine of the Marxist Planks are in effect in the U.S. And it isn't even covered up or secret, but neither is it blazened across the media screens and tabloids what a great discrepency our laws are in with our Constitution, and how our founding beliefs are in direct opposition to what exists in Washington today, but nobody seems to recognize it or care.\n\nAlways for the same reason, every time, every great nation in the history of mankind has only lasted for 200 years before complacency sets in. And when that happens, the few in power take advantage of the lethargy, and seize it all, take complete control, and squeeze it until it throws up on itself.\n\nThose in power have already bypassed the Constitution, made it almost non-existent, and the power of the Federal Government is now unlimited. The death of a great nation is upon us, and yes, Marxism is near the helm and at the root of the deception.
208570
The Real Social Impact of Stalin’s Rule over Russia.\n\nThe First Five Year Plan:\n\nBy squeezing profits out of the agricultural sector, heavy industrial production increased from 300-600 percent. \n\nBelieved rapid industrialization was the only way to preserve socialism. \n\nIndustrial labor force was created overnight as men and women were put at work.\n\nThe number of women in the industrial work force tripled in the decade after 1929.\n\nIndustrial production also increased between the years 1929-1932.\n\nStalin forced collectivization and confiscated land. By 1938, private land was almost eliminated. \n\nThe Second Five Year Plan:\n\nSucceeded in reducing the Soviet Union’s dependence on foreign imports (heavy industry, machinery, metal works)\n\nThe industrial development and collectivization brought growing urbanization to the country. \n\nComintern(Communist International):\n\nStalin wanted it to promote the unity of working classes everywhere and cooperate with existing worker organizations. \n\nIt must seek to sever the ties between Communist parties and social democratic parties. \n\nAs a result, socialism in Europe was badly split between communists and democratic socialists. (ruined the triumph of fascists movements; Germany.\n\nThe New Soviet Estate:\n\nStalin was committed to the liberation of women.\n\nTheir double burden became heavier during his reign. \n\nThey held full time jobs while doing household chores and taking care of the children.\n\nThe family was glorified as the mainstay of the socialist order.\n\nThe independence of women was challenged as a threat to Soviet productivity. \n\nMassive Loss of Human Life\n\nBecause of the collectivization, 25 million peasants suffered. At least 5 million peasants died between 1929 and 1932. Collectivization ripped apart village life, ruined families, and sent homeless peasants into exile. \n\nAbout 300,000 people were put to death. (engineers, managers, officers of the navy, etc.)\n\n7 million people were placed in labor camps. \n\nThey dealt a severe blow to the command of the army.\n\nIt also resulted in the shortage of qualified industrial personnel, therefore, slowing growth of industry.
809059
That depends on your definition of communism.If it has anything to do with what happened in the soviet union and china then i'd say :bad.If you want to keep an open mind and believe that all people should be paid the same and a generous amount then :good.Communism can be whatever we want it to be we can take the old ideals that were good about it and leave the bad behind.Or start over from scratch.There's no law that says we can't.To those who would have a knee jerk reaction to the mere mention of communism and dismiss it altogether I would ask you;what do you know about it other than what other people have told you to believe?Are you ready to think for yourself and actually read the manifesto and really try to understand what Marx was trying to accomplish?Are you open to the idea of social democracy?After intense scrutiny of Marx's work I've come to \nthe conclusion that what he really wanted was a system of social credit.Unfortunately some very bad people took his ideas and distorted them until they were unrecognizable and called it communism anyways and it got bad rap.In a democracy I think it's important to think creatively and critically about the choices we make politically and consider all the options if we are to have a sane and fair system of government.Communism is a viable option if we do it right.
577751
First of all, Communism has never truly been achieved.  Communism is Karl Marx's idea on how to control the masses which he wrote about in his book "Communist Manifesto".  It involves everybody working for everybody, no religion, and an overall unified society.  Socialism is what was seen in the Former Soviet Union, in China now.  It involves ideas of everybody working for the whole, but is a very far cry from Communism.  To Compare to the United States: liberals and extreme leftists are socialists.
1031335
It is almost a paradox that Marx's earlier writings, from around 1840-50, were more prophetic than his later writings, such as Das Kapital, 1867.  These earlier writings are extremely well thought out and contain many of the theses by which Marx will begin to identify historical events as proof for what he thought.  In Das Kapital, of course, Marx believed that capitalism would quickly collapse under its own weight.  Perhaps he was rushing things a bit.\nHowever it was in the earlier writings where Marx perhaps learned from his anti-Hegelian stance.  nevertheless, he used the dialectic method of Hegel and would often say that hegel had things upside down.  He owed a lot to the great man who died in 1831, I think. \nThe early writings, the result of his outgrowing The Essence of Christianity's materialism (Feuerbach) talk about the efforts of the naturally alienated aristocracy to rid themselves of the middle class.  The middle class, no longer assured of survival, would then rise up and achieve control, turning government into a perfect democracy.  Marx uses the word "democracy" with great ease and equates it with his concept of communism.  This is interesting stuff, especially "The Poverty of Philosophy" in which he notes the limitations of philosophy to be able to make any real change! Also read "The Jewish Question."\nMarx's dream almost came about in the European revolutions of 1848.  It was that year that he published the Communist Manifesto with Engels.  (Somehow I doubt whether Engels wrote much of anything in this or later works for which he received credit, but I may be wrong.)\n\nHowever the revolution was put down, country by country and things settled down to pretty much the same way things had been, except that this was probably the early origins of various Europeans pushing each other around a bit.  \nMarx kept writing these idealized articles, centered around the recognition of equality of all peoples and the use in history of the Hegelian dialectic.  Marx was kicked out of Prussia, France and Belgium, I think, and went to England.  After 1850, Marx took a decidedly different turn: he began to use historical records to prove the truth of what he was espousing.  In writing Das Kapital, Marx put the final touches on all the historical reasons as to how and why Capitalism would collapse and the workers woud rise up in unison and share the wealth fairly for the first time.  Das Kapital is an exceedingly boring book except to scholars who have nothing else to do.  Marx essentially let his family starve in order to write it.  I seem to recall he even used the American Civil War as a precedent for the fall of capitalism.  He was much better at philosphical theory than he was at interpreting historical events.\nUltimately, one might say that Marx might be partially vindicated as we begin to have a one world economy.  As the United States exports more and more of its manufacturing and middle class jobs, the middle class is eroding at an alarming rate.  Marx believed that there was a limited supply of capital and he may have been right.  However if one views the Mexicans (et al) who come across the border to work as nothing much more than slave labor, that shows that the world has a bit more cheap labor it will exploit before the great revolution.\nIf there is one thing that Marx understood concerning economic principles, it was that the three parts of economics consisted of production, distribution and consumption.  It was Marx who pinpointed the crux of the difficulty in this as distribution.\nOne can say what one wants about his later explanations of history.. and he was clearly mistaken about so many instances he tried to use....those early writings are just as sharp and clear and on the mark as any philosophical writings since Hegel.
879440
The Black Book of Communism. Its over 800-pages (but there are small chapters and summaries about people such as Castro.)\n\nThis book has world-wide claim, it was written by people who've come from communist countries and have studied it for a living. It's quite brilliant. I've read most of it. It's not pro-communist so if you are a commie, you'll get offended by the truth.\n\n\n\n-\n\nWhy the hell did I get 2 thumbs-down? Does everyone love communism here?
915490
In the Communist Manifesto, he (with Friederich Engels) writes:\n\n"The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history\nof class struggles."\n\nSo, in answer - the role of class struggle in history is history itself. All of history is that of class struggles.\n\nSays Marx.
1137541
Free enterprise\nor\nFind a communist utopia somewhere
526092
"By making economic success an end rather than a means to other ends, governments and people have lost sight of the fact that economic growth was supposed to have a higher purpose – stability, increased standards of living, increased social cohesion for all, without exclusion". this is the myth of Capitalism, it generates wealth but the trickle down effect is minimal, enough to prevent revolution. globalisation is capitalism on a world wide scale and once again those who have dominant control are the majority share holders. Multi nationals have major shares and ownership in national resources in different countries. like a plague they strip it of its value with little benefits to the its hosts. Marx was right in predicting the value of human labour as the new commodity.
648011
Well... one of the key features of Marxist Commnism (referring to German writer Karl Marx who published Communist Manifesto in 1848 to rally Socialists under a Communist banner), social classes were eliminated.  This happened to a lower degree under Lenin and Stalin in 20th cent. USSR
967940
Marx's conflict thoery is a fun one.  Or Durkheim's on solidarity.  George Ritzer is a great source to start with.
432309
Quick summary.  I hope it helps.\n\nIn structure, the new Encyclical begins with a description of the historical situation which prevailed in 1891, the emergence of hyper-industrialism, the accelerated division of Western societies into rich and poor, the spirit of revolution, based largely, but not exclusively, on class war and Marxist philosophy.\n\nJohn Paul II then outlines the essential principles promulgated by his predecessor - among them, the natural right to the ownership of private property (and the limit placed on that right); the right of workers to form trade unions and of employers to form parallel organisations; the right to an adequate period of rest, recreation, safe and hygienic conditions of work; the right to a just wage (sufficient for an entire family) guaranteed by the State; the right to religious freedom. Those rights, says John Paul II, are as unchallangeable today as they were then.\n\nThe latter is a not-unimportant point in present day Australia and New Zealand where, under the slogan of the "de-regulation of labour" (allegedly to complement the preceding de-regulation of the financial exchanges), the real purpose is not so much to limit the power of the unions according to law, but to smash them.\n\nThe third section of the new Encyclical traces the social history of Western societies since World War II, which the Pope characterises as "a situation of non-war rather than genuine peace!" Of this the main features were the loss of freedom of half the European continent to Communist totalitarianism; the consequent vast flow of refugees and of other migrants; the arms race whose economic cost alone made it impossible to realise many aspects of social justice; terrorism and counter-terrorism, de-colonisation.\n\nThe third chapter of the Encyclical is entitled "The Year 1989", the decisive turning-point, marked by the collapse of the Communist bloc "accomplished almost everywhere by means of peaceful protest, using only the weapons of truth and justice!" Nobody, writes the Pope, ever believed that the overthrow of the Communist empire could have been achieved by anything short of war. He rightly adds, however, that the inefficiencies of the Communist social and economic system, based on a denial of the right to property and freedom of production was a major contributing factor to the result.\n\nReligious roots\nWhat, in the end, overthrew the Communist system, however, was the indomitable urge of a new generation which knew that it had been robbed of any knowledge of the meaning of life and wished to regain "the religious roots of their national cultures ... and the person of Christ Himself." Here, it is possible to believe that the Pope has perhaps generalised too widely from forces he observed - and helped to create - in Poland.\n\nThe Pope does not make the mistake of believing that this is the happy "end of history", as the American writer, Francis Fukuyama put it: "Much hatred and ill-will have accumulated. There is a real danger that these will re-explode after the collapse of dictatorship." The condition of near civil war in Yugoslavia, as well as the many ethnic conflicts in the Soviet Union would serve as illustrations to fill in the Pope's picture.\n\nThe dangers which the Pope foresees are of a possible revival of totalitarian controls, the domination of new societies by consumerist practices, and the rise of religious fundamentalism, which is perhaps natural granted the apocalyptic nature of the age.\n\nAs for remedies, the Pope went back to apply the principles of Rerum Novarum to a completely new and highly technological age.\n\n(1) The right of private property is insisted upon as the foundation of economic well-being and progress, to be accompanied however by measures which will share the proceeds in the interest of relieving poverty and distress.\n\n(2) This qualification is all the more necessary, since the explo
119324
Socialist thought grew out of alarm at the new institution of wage labor which came along with industrialization (in the craftsman era, workers controlled the means of production and were not subordinate to owners).  Early socialist thought focuses on replacing wage labor with either workers cooperatives (most early socialist thinkers) or nationalization (a few).\n\nKarl Marx found early socialist thought to be politically naive and with a shallow understanding of capitalism and the larger forces of history.  He declared his own analysis to be "scientific".\n\nEconomically, Marx argued that politics is the struggle of classes to design rules and institutions that serve their economic interests and that as an economy modernizes old institutional relations become barriers to further development.  In the more technical parts of Das Kapital, he tried to explain the process of wage determination (via the now antiquated and discredited labor theory of value), the price system, structural change in the economy, the process of capital accumulation and growth, the effects of technological change, the business cycle and periodic and supposedly intensifying crises of overproduction.  He argued that capitalism would polarize wealth and tend towards monopoly (or oligopoly).\n\nPolitically, Marx advocated that trade unions merge into large units and serve as the basis for a labor-based political party, that this party should seek to win control of parliaments democratically (Marx wrongly assumed this would be easy, even automatic given their numbers and the false assumption of homogeniety of interest), and begin socializing the means of production,with markets present for long to come.  In early writings, Marx called for gradual nationalization of firms (through peaceful buyouts if possible), but later in his life he instead preferred the establishment of networks of worker's cooperatives, which he assumed would prosper under a labor government.  \n\nContrary to widespread misinformation, Marx did not believe a country NECESSARILY had to develop a mature capitalist economy before making a transition to socialism.  Given the situation in various countries, the process could start very early if a labor or even peasant party could control the parliament.  Freedoms of speech and organization were regarded as the lifeblood of labor parties' rise.\n\nIn short, Marx's political ideas were very far removed from the reactionary positions of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc, which is not to say he was right, just not properly associated with that political tradition.
349355
Communism:  From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. \n\nMarx (and Engels) based this on a class system divided into the beugiose  (boo-sua-zee) and the proletariat. It was called a "dictatorship of the elite".  The former being less than 10% of the poplulation with more than 90% of the wealth, the latter 90% of the population a poor, uneducated, working class which they called a "system of wives in common".  The Soviet Union was the first great experiment here and you see what happened.  Mao was closer to this model in theory the Soviets more Socialist.  Both based thier systems on the model from the Communist Manifesto.  BTW, Marx and Engles lived in england and Engles came from a very wealth industrial family. \n\nFacism: Not even close.  Read about Moussilini (El Deuc'e) and Hitler.
214502
he wrote the communist manifesto, which stated his ideas for the ideal goverment, no goverment, call communism. his ideas were the ideas of lennin and his party when they overthrew the provisional government in russia during ww1