"Class war"

[Whoisjohngalt]

I was reading "Communist Manifesto" the other day. I recognised the fundamental errors made in that document, like, the tribal premise that leads to the denial of freedom and in general, dehumanisation.

However, I could not get over the claim that the entire history of the world is filled with class struggles. What does that mean and, nevertheless, is there any refutation for this claim?

On the whole, I felt the this document was a total "twisting of history" to suit the Communist Parties' hunger for power over common human beings.

[edit: added link to gutenberg edition]

Edited January 3, 2007 by Whoisjohngalt

[softwareNerd]

...the claim that the entire history of the world is filled with class struggles.

I haven't read "Communist Manifesto", so I'm not sure whether Marx gives examples of what he calls "class struggles". Leaving aside "class", what does he mean by "struggle"? Is this something going on inside people's minds, or is it something manifested externally in the form of rebellions and wars?

From my cursory knowledge of world history, most such real "struggles" were between rulers of one place and rulers of another place, not between the upper and lower classes within any particular place. Could you list a few of the concrete examples that Marx provides, ideally from different areas of the world and different periods.

[entripon]

Given my very basic understanding of Marx, his "class struggle" is simply the supposed clash of interests between the hardworking, selfless proletariat who just want to make a living for their families and the greedy, exploitative capitalists who want to bleed them for all that they're worth. The "refutation" is simply to recognize that there is no such conflict of interests. The ultimate source of wealth and prosperity is not physical labor but innovation, discovery, proper business management, etc - i.e. mental labor. The capitalist can always find another worker, but the worker needs the capitalist to develop the infrastructure and promote the innovations that make physical labor valuable in the first place.

[aequalsa]

I was reading "Communist Manifesto" the other day. I recognised the fundamental errors made in that document, like, the tribal premise that leads to the denial of freedom and in general, dehumanisation.

However, I could not get over the claim that the entire history of the world is filled with class struggles. What does that mean and, nevertheless, is there any refutation for this claim?

On the whole, I felt the this document was a total "twisting of history" to suit the Communist Parties' hunger for power over common human beings.

[edit: added link to gutenberg edition]

I read that a long time ago, but I believe it was the hegelian dialectic applied to history in general. The kings(land owners) ruled over the guildsmen workers(bourgeoisie) . They struggled against the kings and became more powerful. Once they became wealthy enough, they were the ruling class and ruled over the workers in their factories. Communism is the next step where the workers take power from the factory owners. So once the workers take over and become beauracrats and rule over the peasants, I wonder who rises up to take the power from them? Oh...right...the mafia, if we take the USSR as an example.

The whole premise rests on an equivocation between political and economic power. He was a putz. It has always shocked my how such a naive philosophy based on such a simple error in thinking has taken such a deep hold on the world and caused so much damage.

[bobsponge]

<<<The whole premise rests on an equivocation between political and economic power. He was a putz. It has always shocked my how such a naive philosophy based on such a simple error in thinking has taken such a deep hold on the world and caused so much damage.>>>

I agree. The whole impression I got when I read TCM was that it was written by a jilted, whiny, jealous teenager who was simply outraged at having no power, while deserving none. The same sort of high-school angst I felt when I was 17 and unable to do the things that adults can, living under mom's roof, demanding respect and having earned none.

Perhaps what has made it 'stick' is that it appeals to that mindset, and so many people in the world never mature beyond that level. I am the only rational objectivist (and non-socialist) I know of that sprang from the public-school ashes of my graduating class, and those who I have had contact with never grew out of their myopic high school worldview.

[gags]

The whole premise rests on an equivocation between political and economic power. He was a putz. It has always shocked my how such a naive philosophy based on such a simple error in thinking has taken such a deep hold on the world and caused so much damage.

If nothing else, his Manifesto certainly demonstrates the power of philosophy and the deadly consequences of philosophical errors.

[Whoisjohngalt]

Thanks for all your replies. softwareNerd, aeuquelsa has given the example given in the CM.

I really got the idea of some Muslim preacher preaching Jihad when I read the CM.

Ultimately, the social dogmas that socialists believe are as nebulous as theistic beliefs.