TRHS AP Euro

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Marx and Engels: The Communist Manifesto

I will give you this document in class. How I would love to give you this entire book to read...

Comment on this pivotal work in socialist history. Also, consider this following. "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class." What does this statement mean? Do you agree or disagree? Explain.

Due: MIDNIGHT, Thursday, Dec. 7

posted by RJS at 8:04 AM

7 Comments:

  • I believe that Karl Marx has come closer to the truth than any of the social reformers that preceed him. When, throughout history, have countless people been plunged into war because of something other than the fact a ruler or ruling class forced them, whether directly or indirectly? The proletariat, who does the fighting and the work, is only a pawn of the leaders of the country. They are either persuaded through the ideals of nationalism or money to join the army, or pushed to fight their own government in a revolution to throw off its oppression. The ruling class has consistently exploited its working class and then used the results of that exploitation to drive them, with all of their frustration, to do their bidding. If ther ruling class did not exist, would anybody care about the petty plights that have drawn nations into war? Would we even have nations? These are some of the points Marx is making, and the problems that existed during his time have existed throughout history and still exist today. What prevents the many from engulfing the few that control them? What keeps us bound in the system we presently find ourselves in? The few, in this oligarchy of mankind, have found themselves entrusted with the power to persuade the masses with promises of security, security of property, and yet, looking around at what happens on a day to day basis, these promises are not extended to the proletariat, who work for a better life and yet earn only wages, which do not raise their staus to the level they earned, but only give them a ticket back into the consumer cycle where the bourgeois come out on top every single time. In the Communist system, the power of the many is recognized and, not exploited, but glorified as the class that has finally earned its dues. A happier, more comfortable majority left to govern itself would run a considerably more peaceful route when the one thing that has caused the most conflict throughout the ages, class, is abolished.
    You can say i agree.

    By Blogger Victoria, at Wednesday, December 06, 2006 5:34:00 PM  

  • Marx states often states that several ideas held by the communist party that the bourgeois and non-communist proletariat hiss and shrink away in terror at, are in fact already in place, but merely hidden. Such as the dissolving of private property. Marx states that by and large the common person owns not a scrap, that property is pooled around the far fewer bourgeois. As is such with his regards to the 'community of women'. He says such a creature exists in bourgeois society, but by abolishing the bourgeois system of society and production, it will in time cease to exist. It's quite obvious to see how communist dogma would be very seductive to the working class. This is perhaps one of the first instances in which the proletariat have been told they are not only valuable but the most valuable people in society. That it is they who have the true right to rule and the bourgeois have deprived them of this right by exploitation. As for the additional statment, I believe it means when those in power speak the world is forced to listen. I believe one comes with the other. Does not creating the ruling ideas place one in a position of rule? By either creating the ruling ideas or being in a position to rule, one seems inclined to do the other as well.

    By Blogger laura, at Thursday, December 07, 2006 9:24:00 PM  

  • Just as I remember it from two years ago, as a tenth grade Thomas waded through an economics class. Last time I evaluated it on a purely economic standpoint. Now I have a freer reign. Look out, Karl Marx.
    How on earth does Marx justify his attack on what he absurdly calls "burgeois marriage?" A system of wives indeed! Does a vice exist in human marriage. Of course- a vice exists in everything human. But solving the problem starts by ending the vice and attempting to start anew- not by accepting the vice as incorrigible and making it a public, communal system.
    Furthermore, Mr. Marx, society cannot be grouped simply into workers and rulers. For one, the social status differs country to country. Howard Zinn might differ, but America ( and England) both had very (or at least relatively) content working classes at this point. Yes, yes, communism is an international workers organization. Are all workers ready to overthrow their government? Does industry really hurt people that much? Marx speaks of class divisions. Today I live in the most capitalist country imaginable. For thirteen years I have had class divisions based on birth or social rank hammered out of my head by a public school education. I see myself as equal (skilled in some areas, yes, woefully behind in others, can't be perfect in everything you know) with every other student in the school- on the starting point. Any distinctions come as a result of our actions or, on a deeper and copmletely unforseeable plane, our character. One of my close friends is the daughter of our congressman. Another is the son of a lawyer. Another is a cheerful, southern Baptist girl. Where is class distinction now?
    Marx is trying to advocate reform- so of course he is trying to see as much wrong with his society as possible. Workers of the world unite? Please. Workers, do you jobs. If change is necessary, it will occur on a national, not global, level. Communism only results in dictatorship and oppresion- THAT'S what your burgois mean when they cry out at an end of freedom and individuality.
    Finally, I'm not sure how to define ruling ideas. If you mean political strategies, then yes I agree, that's what we elect our rulers for. If you mean popular philosophies or ideas, than I do not. Government has never been able to long control the minds of its people. Humans have a nature of rebellion. Its been around since the first second. No government- no matter how communal- is going to change that.

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:10:00 PM  

  • The most major thing I agree with Marx on is how he looks at social history as a whole, finding the pattern in it, as the situation of the general populace never truly changes, and even in modern democracies, the vast amount of people stay in their offices every time, like those in the Pentagon. I find social history to be looked at in completely the wrong way all the time, as it focuses on differences, saying that the working man was in constantly different situations, and always pointing out the status of women at the time, (suprise, they were oppressed in some way.) No lessons can be learned by looking at social history this way, you have to look at similarities to find anything. There are of course differences, but they are either extremely temporary or basically insignificant, besides perhaps the initial rise of the middle class. Whether or not a lady could lead her husband's castle while he was away doesn't matter. Anyway, the quote we are to reflect on means that the ruling class is the group that dictates the new social groupings to keep the social chain seeming fresh, developing feudalism, slavery, endentured servitude, always stepping back to make the poor think they're more free, until today where you only have wage slavery, keeping the people so poor and contracted that they can't do anything else. Oh, Thomas just posted his comment, so I'll spend a long time disproving all of his remarks.
    Look out, Thomas Batson.
    Firstly, by the definition of marriage, infidelity is a vice, but if you're not married, it is not infidelity, it is society, and no one is hurting anyone's feelings by whoring while they should be on a business trip like the bourgeois world is, instead they have partners, or they don't, but they are no prostitutes, so who cares.
    How can you say that our workers are content? In the past, Colorado and the entire west was almost unprofitable because of the opportunity for anarchism, as it was very easy to blow up railroads and fight the system where there weren't people on every square mile of territory. Now, we still have (much more peaceful) demonstrations for workers' rights against Wal-Mart, low minimum wages, outsourcing, and Mexican laborers. They're just not united. All three friends you name sound as though they are all white and as if they have well-educated parents, according to the details I'm given, it would seem like your argument would be to say all the Hispanics and poor people you theoretically hang out with, not to name three people of your exact class.
    The only reason a worker's revolution would become authoritarian is because a rich person takes the reins midway, which must be closely guarded against.
    Finally, government ALWAYS controls the minds of the people. The Romans were so good at that that we would still think of men in huts with clubs or men with horns on their helmets when we hear Celt or Goth, and group everyone but Romans at that time as savage barbarians. We even have insults named after them, including Vandal and Hun, Attila the Hun being much more civilized and noble than the Roman Emperor. Governments are trusted to no end, as we believe them when they say Iraq has WMD's, or Iraqis hit the World Trade Center, or Muslims are automatically fanatics, unless they're from our good friends Saudi Arabia's land, (who did hit those towers), and this is within six years, with many more lies, like "Rumsfeld not open to change, so he got fired" when he did desire a change of plans. I wish I had more time, this is far too fun.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:39:00 PM  

  • Marx explains all his ideas for a better country with a large amount of background. He uses examples and historical evidence to back-up his points and ultimately draw the proletariat into his system. Marx has probably been the most successful of reformers so far because he was the first to tell the working class that they were the most valuable, not the bourgeois. He predicts the proletarians will eventually gain political supremacy and overthrow the bourgeois. The proletarians would own, control, and handle everything-basically run the government themselves-and then they would reach Marx's main goal; a classless society. Marx also speaks extensively of capitalism and how it only hurts the individual. He states capital is just an affiliation with social status and does not help the proletariat achieve freedom. I think it's interesting how Marx's points about society existed in history, at his time, and today. There will always be conflict between the Haves and Have-nots simply because it is human nature to want something you don't have-hence the name.
    I agree with the added statement because the ideas of those in power are always listened to. If it had been some random factory worker that said "Workers of all lands unite" instead of Marx, the well-educated son of a lawyer, I'm pretty sure not many people would have listened to him becuase he would not have had enough power to put his idea into action.

    By Blogger taylor, at Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:02:00 PM  

  • Marx presented his argument for communism from both the Proletariat and the Bourgeois sides. He is obviously well educated and has thought everything through before slapping it down in a book. He says that the struggle between controllers and the controlled is eternal, and has existed throughout history under different titles and is now know as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Marx says that the main goal of communism is to take the land from the Bourgeoisis. I though it was interesting that he said 'provate property is already done away with for 9/10 of the population' and that 'its existance for the few is solely due to the absence in the hands of those 9/10'. Which is true. the proletariat doesn't own land, so the bourgeoisie does. He also says that communism seeks to eliminate the individual. 'by individual you mean the bourgeoisie'....'this person must indeed be swept out of the way and made impossible'. I definately disagree with this, individuals are required for checks and balances. I forget his name, but the british man who said that people could not be trusted on their own, so they had to save eachother from themselves. If the individual were abolished then everyone would have the same goal and think the same way, when in many cases in order to reach a common goal it is best to think of several different methods and decide how best to reach it.
    "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of the ruling class." So, the ruling class decides how to rule. I agree and disagree with this. I agree because obviously if a group of people is ruling then they are contributing the ruling ideas. However, I think it is refering to the upper class or monarchy, and since it is the government's responsibility to protect the majority (the working class) then usually the ruling ideas are that of the working class, or if not the ruling ideas but the ideas for the best intrest of the community.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:19:00 PM  

  • I saw first off that Marx does make a lot of references to past and bases his theories on historical politics accepting that people tend to repeat themselves or others. Here's my stab at POV: Marx, though probably emotional about his subject, had studied the past and observed actual occurrences on which to base his rather logical ideas. Marx's idea of communism is that a country as a whole gains a single capital and then evenly distributes the capital. Therefore he believes that the Bourgeoisie should be abolished because the country, all of its people, should be a solid working order. (I think) His idea of minimum wage is a bit saying that each laborer should earn enough to sustain themselves, yet my problem with that idea is that different people have different ideas about what 'sustains' them. Such a system couldn't work with the selfish people we know and love today. (I'm probably way off base). Such an interesting idea he's got about property. The rich need it private because they are the ones that have it. The other 90%, the workers, couldn't care about it being private because they have none or very little.
    so about that lovely little quote.
    "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class." I think there's another quote this reminds me off like "the leaders write the history" or something like that... aah well. I guess it's that the leaders and upper classes have most of the say in what is and what comes out of a state's politics. Rather fancy, I must say.
    so about that lovely little quote.
    "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class." I think there's another quote this reminds me off like "the leaders write the history" or something like that... aah well. I guess it's that the leaders and upper classes have most of the say in what is and what comes out of a state's politics. rather fancy, I must say.

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Monday, December 11, 2006 7:13:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home