The Communist Manifesto Makes More Sense Than it Used to, by John Engelman

JohnEngelman

Virgin
Joined
Jan 8, 2022
Posts
3,466
When I first read The Communist Manifesto in a civics class in high school I was taught to view it condescendingly. Everywhere blue collar workers were buying homes in the suburbs. They were buying cars. They could support wives who did not need to work, and who could stay home with the children.

When I read The Communist Manifesto again it makes more sense now. Wages for blue collar workers have been flat since 1980. Meanwhile, the stock market sets new records.

In The Communist Manifesto, which was published in 1848, Marx asserted that the natural effects of capitalism are to accumulate wealth at the top, and to experience increasingly destructive economic downturns. Employees are also consumers. Because of modern industry and technology labor productivity increases faster than wages. Employees produce what they cannot afford to buy. This leads to crises of overproduction. This in turn leads to layoffs.

The economic policies of John Maynard Keynes, which were adopted to end the Great Depression, counteracted these tendencies. Progressive taxation, which was advocated in The Communist Manifesto, together with strong labor unions, minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, and a well financed public sector of the economy, spread the wealth that had concentrated at the top. Employees became better consumers. Recessions became less frequent, and less severe.

Keynesian economic policies were discredited during the stagflation of the 1970’s. However, that stagflation was not caused by Keynesianism, but by the increases in the world price of petroleum that were caused by the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Keynesian economic policies were not designed to deal with a shortage of an essential natural resource. Also, a problem during the Great Depression was not inflation, but deflation.

Keynesianism had never been popular with a segment of the Republican Party, because it shifted wealth, prestige, and power from the business community to the government.

The administration of Ronald Reagan took advantage of the popular loss of confidence in the policies of John Maynard Keynes and began reversing these policies. The tax system became flatter. The real value of unemployment compensation and the minimum wage declined. Labor unions became weaker. Membership in labor unions declined. The first result of this was the recession of 1982. Unemployment reached 10.8 percent. Fewer jobs were created per year under Ronald Reagan than under Jimmy Carter.

Since the Reagan counter revolution, employees have suffered jobless “recoveries,” when the gross domestic product rose, but unemployment remained high.

A political thinker should be studied for insight, rather than doctrine. Most of Marx’s assertions are untrue. There is no inevitable progression from primitive communism to slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism. The restoration of slavery in North and South America should have demonstrated that to Marx. Feudalism is never inevitable. It is what happens when an urban civilization collapses. It happened in Greece after thirteenth century BC, when the Mycenaean civilization came to an end.

There is certainly nothing inevitable about the transition from capitalism to socialism to pure communism. If the government is to play a major role in the economy, the government must be competently led. If the government is not competently led, socialism will lead to declines in economic growth and technical innovation, and to a right wing backlash. Karl Marx's goal of pure communism requires too much from human nature to be achievable.

It is not true, as Marx asserted in The Communist Manifesto that “The working men have no country.” Blue collar workers are among the most nationalistic class in most countries. For most people most of the time loyalties of class are less powerful than loyalties of nation, ethnicity, and race. The writings of Marx do not explain the First World War I, the rise of Fascism and Nazism after the First World War, and the fact that from the end of the Civil War to the civil rights movement more blue collar workers in the American South supported the Klu Klux Klan than the labor movement. Those writings do not explain why in the United States the white working class has become a Republican constituency.

Marx’s labor theory of value ignores the role the law supply and demand has in determining prices. Bob Dylan claims to have composed his song “Blowin’ in the Wind” in twelve minutes. Even if it took him longer, that song created more value than a factory worker creates in a lifetime.

Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism is secular mythology.

Nevertheless, unregulated capitalism does concentrate wealth at the top. It does experience increasingly destructive economic downturns. Since the election of Ronald Reagan we have ignored those Marxian truths to our misfortune.
 
The most important thing about Marx is that he never actually described how a Communist economy would work. He seems to have assumed that once the revolution burst the capitalist integument, everything would just fall into place and what to do next would be obvious. Lenin's take on the idea -- the State owns and operates the productive property, the Party controls the state -- would have astonished him, but it is hard to imagine any way to put his ideas in practice that would not.

The second most important thing is that “The working men have no country.” is something most workers have never believed.
 
Karl Marx thought capitalism was good at creating wealth, but bad at distributing it. He thought that eventually in capitalist countries there would be a small class of very rich capitalists, and nearly everyone would be in a large class of poor workers. He thought that the socialist revolution would probably need to be violent, but it would be supported by the vast majority of a capitalist country. The new socialist government would have the popular, fun, and easy task of spreading the wealth around.

In Russia at the time of the Bolshevik takeover there was no wealth to spread around. Even before the destruction of the First World War and the Russian Civil War Russia had been a poor country. Lenin and his Bolsheviks adopted dictatorial policies because they knew that without them they would be overthrown themselves.

Marx did not advocate the totalitarian methods used in his name during the twentieth century. He did inspire them, so he is not wholly innocent. During the twentieth century millions of people were not killed in the name of John Stuart Mill.
 
The third most important thing about Marx is that he tried to create a reliable predictive science of history and got it wrong. For instance, he believed the proletarian revolution would happen first in advanced industrial countries like Germany and the UK. As it played out, the only successful Communist revolutions have been in agrarian backwaters like Russia, China, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam.
 
Karl Marx thought capitalism was good at creating wealth, but bad at distributing it. He thought that eventually in capitalist countries there would be a small class of very rich capitalists, and nearly everyone would be in a large class of poor workers. He thought that the socialist revolution would probably need to be violent, but it would be supported by the vast majority of a capitalist country. The new socialist government would have the popular, fun, and easy task of spreading the wealth around.

In Russia at the time of the Bolshevik takeover there was no wealth to spread around. Even before the destruction of the First World War and the Russian Civil War Russia had been a poor country. Lenin and his Bolsheviks adopted dictatorial policies because they knew that without them they would be overthrown themselves.

Marx did not advocate the totalitarian methods used in his name during the twentieth century. He did inspire them, so he is not wholly innocent. During the twentieth century millions of people were not killed in the name of John Stuart Mill.
🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝
 
"Of course, wages have moved up — not down — in recent decades, even for working people. Looking back at the past three decades, my AEI colleague Michael Strain finds that real median wages have increased by a quarter since 1990. And wage gains have been even better for Americans earning less than the median. Workers at the 10th percentile, those earning less than 90 percent of all workers, saw their wages rise 36 percent since 1990. And over that period wages increased by 34 percent and 29 percent, respectively, for workers at the 20th and 30th percentiles."

https://www.aei.org/economics/chart-of-the-day-wage-growth-for-workers/

"Since it’s hard to grasp the value of $9.38 in 1982 from today’s point of view, we took the liberty of calculating real wages in today’s prices and taking a look at what wages from 1964 onwards would be worth today. As the following chart shows, today’s wages in the United States are at a historically high level with average hourly earnings in March 2019 amounting to $23.24 in 2019 dollars. Coincidentally that matches the longtime peak of March 1974, when hourly wages adjusted to 2019 dollars amounted to exactly the same sum."

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-in-one-chart/
 
The third most important thing about Marx is that he tried to create a reliable predictive science of history and got it wrong. For instance, he believed the proletarian revolution would happen first in advanced industrial countries like Germany and the UK. As it played out, the only successful Communist revolutions have been in agrarian backwaters like Russia, China, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam.
In my view our capitalist form of government has influenced the priorities of our political establishment. Politicians over the years have become more vested in the corporate side than that of their constituency. Politicians have become statist and corporatist, bought off by big corporate lobbyist. Even the purest of politicians over time become subjugated to corporate money and self preservation. Term limits solves many problems by restoring and shifting the original values of politicians back to representing their constituents.
 
Term limiting is also a form of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The people want what they vote for and they should get what they vote for until they don't want it anymore, so, as you can see, I am not a fan of term limits for what I see as the main effect of it is the drive to upward mobility up the political chain and a high turnover at the top when people, many of them good, run out of office options. And those people still need to raise money and you do not raise money from the poor and powerless. I've even seen the ability to raise money referred to as a measure of competence and approval of a politician's peers.
 
"Of course, wages have moved up — not down — in recent decades, even for working people. Looking back at the past three decades, my AEI colleague Michael Strain finds that real median wages have increased by a quarter since 1990. And wage gains have been even better for Americans earning less than the median. Workers at the 10th percentile, those earning less than 90 percent of all workers, saw their wages rise 36 percent since 1990. And over that period wages increased by 34 percent and 29 percent, respectively, for workers at the 20th and 30th percentiles."

https://www.aei.org/economics/chart-of-the-day-wage-growth-for-workers/

"Since it’s hard to grasp the value of $9.38 in 1982 from today’s point of view, we took the liberty of calculating real wages in today’s prices and taking a look at what wages from 1964 onwards would be worth today. As the following chart shows, today’s wages in the United States are at a historically high level with average hourly earnings in March 2019 amounting to $23.24 in 2019 dollars. Coincidentally that matches the longtime peak of March 1974, when hourly wages adjusted to 2019 dollars amounted to exactly the same sum."

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-in-one-chart/
Modern Age is an American conservative academic quarterly journal, founded in 1957 by Russell Kirk in close collaboration with Henry Regnery. Originally published independently in Chicago, in 1976 ownership was transferred to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Age_(periodical)

These assertions are not documented. They come from "Are You Better off Than You Were Forty Years Ago?" by Oren Cass, Modern Age: A Conservative Review, Summer 2021:

The share of never-married adults (ages 25–50) increased from 13 percent to 35 percent from 1980 to 2018; among those in the bottom third of the income distribution, the increase was from 12 percent to 42 percent. The share of young adults (ages 18–29) still living with a parent increased from one-third in 1980 to half in 2020. Children born in the 1940s and ’50s had an 80–90 percent chance of earning more than their parents had by the time they reached age thirty-six, around 1980. By contrast, only half of children born in 1980 were earning more than their parents had at the same age by the mid-2010s. And while thirty weeks of the median male wage were sufficient to provide housing, healthcare, education, and transportation for a family of four in the mid-1980s, by 2018 a full year’s wages would not get the job done.
https://isi.org/modern-age/humane-economy-a-symposium/#OrenCass


inequality.jpg
 
I'm thinking that if you had a valid point, you would be including the graphs of those places where Communism is the underpinning of their economy and clearly demonstrates the superiority of that (incomplete) school of economic thought and how it provides a true "fairness."
 
Term limiting is also a form of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The people want what they vote for and they should get what they vote for until they don't want it anymore, so, as you can see, I am not a fan of term limits for what I see as the main effect of it is the drive to upward mobility up the political chain and a high turnover at the top when people, many of them good, run out of office options. And those people still need to raise money and you do not raise money from the poor and powerless. I've even seen the ability to raise money referred to as a measure of competence and approval of a politician's peers.

People can vote for their preferred politician but after the authorized number of terms runs out move on and get a real job. Familiarity breads contempt. Our political system is in shambles, our country has never been more divided and I blame party loyalty over keeping promises to the constituencies that voted them in.

Until the Mark Zuckerbergs and many other political financiers are regulated and large sums of dark money are flushed out of our political system we have to have a way to introduce new blood and new ideas to our political ranks.

I'm sick of having to live with dirty babies. Serving the people shouldn't be a career move where one starts off as a popper and retires as a multi-millionaire. Your opinions are similar to botboy but the prose is massaged. If that's you BotBoy we'll never agree on this subject matter but we do see eye to eye on many others *chuckle*

Too much dark money in our political system, too many connected politicians are repeatedly voted into office because of being connected. Term limits level the playing field. You put a lot of emphasis on raising money, that's the problem, more time is spent on raising money than correctly representing their constituents. Having lived with the likes of the Kennedy's and the Warrens, I live in MA, there's no chance to remove them because Boston and democrats are still living in the Camelot era where the corrupt Kennedy's reigned supreme. The electorate is not as up to speed as one would think.

Elections aren't term limits. Congress has an overall rating of 20% or lower, the re-election rate is over 95%, why? because incumbents have an enormous advantage making it impossible to get rid of anybody. If the overall rating of congress was over 50+ % I would totally agree with your premise that the people's vote should get what they want, unfortunately congress being at 20% or lower tells me the electorate doesn't know what they want and are not well informed, too easily influenced by corporate media and tech platforms such as Google, Meta, Twitter.
 
Term limits level the playing field.
After the 1994 Republican Revolution I saw an editorial cartoon: The Republican elephant is riding in a carriage with a "Just Married" banner and kicking out an astonished bride labeled "Term Limits."
 
I'm thinking that if you had a valid point, you would be including the graphs of those places where Communism is the underpinning of their economy and clearly demonstrates the superiority of that (incomplete) school of economic thought and how it provides a true "fairness."
I have never said that Communism is a good system. Communism demonstrates that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a socialist economy. If you read my book review about The Communist Manifesto you will see that I am ambivalent about the assertions of Karl Marx. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.
 
If you want to know why the Communist Manifesto seems to make more sense now than it used to, read
Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History, by Kurt Andersen.

During the twentieth century, America managed to make its economic and social systems both more and more fair and more and more prosperous. A huge, secure, and contented middle class emerged. All boats rose together. But then the New Deal gave way to the Raw Deal. Beginning in the early 1970s, by means of a long war conceived of and executed by a confederacy of big business CEOs, the superrich, and right-wing zealots, the rules and norms that made the American middle class possible were undermined and dismantled. The clock was turned back on a century of economic progress, making greed good, workers powerless, and the market all-powerful while weaponizing nostalgia, lifting up an oligarchy that served only its own interests, and leaving the huge majority of Americans with dwindling economic prospects and hope.

Why and how did America take such a wrong turn? In this deeply researched and brilliantly woven cultural, economic, and political chronicle, Kurt Andersen offers a fresh, provocative, and eye-opening history of America’s undoing, naming names, showing receipts, and unsparingly assigning blame—to the radical right in economics and the law, the high priests of high finance, a complacent and complicit Establishment, and liberal “useful idiots,” among whom he includes himself.
 
Last edited:
Serving the people shouldn't be a career move where one starts off as a popper and retires as a multi-millionaire...

Too much dark money in our political system, too many connected politicians are repeatedly voted into office because of being connected. Term limits level the playing field.
We need to get the money out of politics. The way to do that is to have government financed political campaigns. Other democracies do this. We also need more restrictions on lobbying.

When I go to a doctor, or if I need a lawyer I want someone with experience. I feel the same way when I vote for politicians. Term limits interfere with that.
 
We need to get the money out of politics. The way to do that is to have government financed political campaigns. Other democracies do this. We also need more restrictions on lobbying.
Agreed as far as big money out of politics. Zuckerberg infused 400 million dollars into democrat campaigns, that should be illegal or at least limited. Definitely restrict politicians for at least 5 years before starting their next career as a lobbyist. The problem with your solution is that the same politicians stay in power and that power is corrupt and stays corrupt. We don't need career politicians we need good honest managers and protectors of the constitution that put the american people first.

I don't believe in government financed campaigns, to similar to road kill. I prefer political fund raising just put a limit on amounts per donation
When I go to a doctor, or if I need a lawyer I want someone with experience. I feel the same way when I vote for politicians. Term limits interfere with that.
So you'd rather put up with corrupt corporatist politicians that get nothing done. You're not getting your money's worth as it is now, time to cut bait and try something different. I think after 3 terms that's more than enough OJT to learn how to get things done. The original selection process for candidates works. There are many new younger politicians who are showing some gravitas. Congressional politicians are legislators. If the number one politician in the WH has to move out in two terms so can't congressional politicians move on.
 
Last edited:
So you'd rather put up with corrupt corporatist politicians that get nothing done. You're not getting your money's worth as it is now, time to cut bait and try something different. I think after 3 terms that's more than enough OJT to learn how to get things done. The original selection process for candidates works. There are many new younger politicians who are showing some gravitas. Congressional politicians are legislators. If the number one politician in the WH has to move out in two terms so can't congressional politicians move on.
Why are you confident that the inexperienced politicians who would be elected because of term limits. would not be "corrupt corporatist politicians that get nothing done?"
 
Why are you confident that the inexperienced politicians who would be elected because of term limits. would not be "corrupt corporatist politicians that get nothing done?"
First off we don't need experienced politicians as much as we need good honest leaders. I guess I'm tired of old politicians more concerned with self preservation than doing the people's business. Who says they have to be inexperienced politicians. When a politician reaches its maximum limit, time at the top of the heep, it's time to move on, open slots up for new blood, perhaps fresh ideas. Just like the military there's a steady turnover. Do we really need 80 year old politicians that dominate rather than lead. I'm tired of the likes of Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer, Warren, Sanders all whom are staunch party loyalist and lost touch of their constituencies. IMHO nothing more.

I guess we would have to take a chance, but as it stands now it's guaranteed.
 
First off we don't need experienced politicians as much as we need good honest leaders. I guess I'm tired of old politicians more concerned with self preservation than doing the people's business. Who says they have to be inexperienced politicians. When a politician reaches its maximum limit, time at the top of the heep, it's time to move on, open slots up for new blood, perhaps fresh ideas. Just like the military there's a steady turnover. Do we really need 80 year old politicians that dominate rather than lead. I'm tired of the likes of Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer, Warren, Sanders all whom are staunch party loyalist and lost touch of their constituencies. IMHO nothing more.

I guess we would have to take a chance, but as it stands now it's guaranteed.
Never heard Sanders called a "party loyalist" before.
 
Before you go looking for your local CPUSA chapter, JohnEngelman, bear in mind that Communism is distinctly anti-racist.

At least in principle.
 
Before you go looking for your local CPUSA chapter, JohnEngelman, bear in mind that Communism is distinctly anti-racist.

At least in principle.
Yes, but remember he's convinced he's not a racist (as racists usually are).
 
Back
Top