Communist Manifesto in PDF

Comments

35 responses to “Communist Manifesto in PDF”

1. Julian

   Most, if not all socialist/communist states don’t fully apply the principles of those ideologies (one proof: there should be no classes in communist states, but you wrote “Socialist countries both Communist style and Western European style have a poor and more restricted middle class”). North Korea is not a good example of socialism either. In fact, I guessed it is a communist state.

   If we don’t count the pollution, the street gangs, the drug trafficking, some backward legislation (such as in the bible belt), the eternal debt and bill-paying routines of most Americans, the economic crises, the high obesity rate, and other issues, yes, the United States is a perfect country. And guess how you got your ‘wealthy’ middle class and the abundance of goods you enjoy? Surely not thanks to equally developed capitalist countries. Many things are from poor countries or socialist/communist states, -return to my first point, they are mostly fake socialist/communist states-. Clothes from Cambodia, Vietnam, China (plus electronics there), diamonds from Africa, petroleum from Nigeria, etc. Speaking of Africa, I think most african countries are somehow capitalist as Thomas Sankara and others like him were killed, which explains their high standards of living, right?

   Now let’s talk about socialism and communism. Yet they won’t let everybody be super rich in the first place, their goals are somehow that. Somehow, because it won’t be about having millions of dollars in your bank account, but having free access to healthcare and education (socialism), and later, abundance of goods wouldn’t limit anyone so they could have free access to the goods they would need (communism). If I remember well, Marx thought that the production capacities would greatly exceed the needs of the population, and anyone who would work would do it for fun, not because they won’t be able to give a cup of juice to their kids the next month. There we get to your high standards of living, without the capitalist model.
   Certainly, in the beginning, there will be an emphasis on work and the “American Dream” won’t be possible for years. Today, why socialist/communist states are in bad condition, it is because either they deal with capitalist countries (sweatshops and more), are pressured by capitalist countries (Cuba) or are led by tyrans -tyrans are not exclusive to soc/com states-.

   I hope there is still enough decency on this website so my comments won’t be erased or ignored by you or others.

   Anything to say?

   Reply
   1. Julian

      I think I have to retract some of the things I said on N Korea here. They do have an ideology called Juche but I have been fast to say it is not marxism or socialism, basing my claim on a vague reading of some texts. In fact, marxist socialism is the stage before reaching the stage of communism (stateless, classless and with no private property); I knew that but I mixed things up at the time I wrote it was communist instead of socialist, and I have yet to study N Korea and its ideology to understand its position towards marxism, or its adherence to it.

      There have been no replies for a long time here, I guess that’s a silent goodbye from some of you. Goodbye to you then. Come back when you want, if you ever will.

      Reply
2. Mariann

   Julian said, “If I remember well, Marx thought that the production capacities would greatly exceed the needs of the population, and anyone who would work would do it for fun, not because they won’t be able to give a cup of juice to their kids the next month.” This is so typical … ah yes, that utopia where the population would have excess and so anyone who would work would do it for fun! What utter fantasy! There will always be slackers and always be those who must carry the load for those who won’t. That is reality. Your thinking, like Marx is unreal.

   The author asks, “Someone please explain it to me?” Those top notch liberals who promote socialism, are the ones who would hate it most if it ever really was brought home. The liberal elite want to convince all victims (those they create to be victims) that it is time to redistribute those goods of all the wealth of the evil ones (those republicans, those Koch brothers, those…) Funny, if they truly were committed to this ideology, would they not be first to do so and look more like a Mother Theresa vs. a Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore, most of Hollowood, Reid, Pelosi, Soros, any major league player, etc.? They don’t want socialism for all they want socialism for anyone that isn’t rich and liberal. They want to stir up anger, jealosy, hatred, while they enjoy playing with their elite friends. How well they have indoctrinated through the “public” school system and fill universities with the same nonsense.

   Julian has quite obviously been mislead and could not recognize truth. They stopped teaching critical thinking long ago…but it is making a comeback (a real liberal education, not indoctrination).

   Reply
   1. Julian

      First of all, you have to define what you mean by liberal as there are many currents. But mostly, according to the first lines of Wikipedia (no time for more research), liberals are in favor of individualism and free trade (laissez-faire economics) which are exactly what I don’t want. And if you want my opinion on First World politics and economics, they are mostly crap in my eyes. I have never been to public US, Canadian or European schools, I don’t follow your Hollywood stars (except for their acting skills), …

      Second, I know the communist stage is difficult but I just wanted to say what I knew. The possible stage is socialism. Yet a form of communism has already existed in ancient communities and “uncivilized” people such as the Natives that the Europeans gladly massacred after 1492. They had to work, but mostly for what was useful to them, and the resources of nature were available for everybody. Same thing for many African communities. I don’t say communism is possible in the next years because there are a lot of problems to handle. And one of them is greed because no one having sweatshops hiring poor people will ever want to give up their super profits.

      In fact, I have not been indoctrinated, but most in the Western World are. Yes, the relative freedom you enjoy there is amazing, but there are many aspects to the question. Most anti-socialists and anti-communists will show the economic “success” of the West to “prove” capitalism, but that doesn’t prove anything. Look at your people. Some don’t work that much and earn billions. Others are stressed to death everyday because of the mortgage, the bills, the recession etc. Plus, how do you think you got your apparent liberty and abundance? Through exploitation of poorer people (I don’t say poor countries, yet they are included). Today you are apparently free because the goods and infrastructures you have are available largely because of massive exploitation of other countries, some of which being virtually socialist, but most are in fact capitalist (Africa, South America…) as your countries. Can you explain their poverty?

      Trying to tell me that I don’t have critical thinking is certainly not nice, but I understand you might be hostile to conflicting views as much as I could be hostile too. That’s a common tactic used by conservatives and others. Please forget about ad hominem attacks, they won’t affect me.

      (correction about my last post: N Korea is not communist but socialist. All “communist” countries are in fact socialist as there is no state in communism but their aim is to become communist)

      Reply
   2. Julian

      Correction again: N Korea follows an ideology called Juche. Apparently they removed all mentions of Marxism-Leninism from their constitution and other official texts.

      Reply
3. Vic Biorseth

   Julian:

   I’m afraid you’re lost in the ideological weeds.

   To understand Marx, the author of the Communist Manifesto, you have to understand who he read, which would be Machiavelli. (Try catholicamericanthinker.com/Refuting-Marx.html#NICCOLO-MACHIAVELLI). You might also read Hegel. (Try catholicamericanthinker.com/Refuting-Marx.html#HEGELIAN-DIALECTIC). Those were his heroes, and he was building upon their work. Marxism – which includes the whole notion of Communism – is a strategy aimed at the assumption of dictatorship, pure and simple Everything else is window dressing, false history and psychological tools for the recruitment of useful idiots. All the Manifesto ever did was set workers against their own employers and sow the seeds of animosity, envy, hatred and division. Exploitable chaos, for the would-be dictator.
   catholicamericanthinker.com/Contents.html#THE-MARXISM-PAGES for an elaboration on Marxism, in all its variations.
   catholicamericanthinker.com/Contents.html#THE-ANTI-CAPITALISM-PAGES for an elaboration on Capitalism = the Free Market.

   Reply
   1. Mariann

      Thanks Vic! Illness has struck, again. You’re a hero! God bless you.

      Julian, read the links…quite excellent.

      Reply
   2. Julian

      Well, definitely, you have a serious problem with ad hominem attacks. Suggesting that I am ill or calling me a useful idiot don’t prove your point. Do you think you are honest and logical like that?

      Plus, you gave me four links leading to an AMERICAN and CATHOLIC website. I am quite sure it is biased. I screened one of the articles, the first one, and something caught my eyes: capitalism is natural. Well, what is natural is not necessarily the best. Following the argument of this statement, dying at 40 years old is natural and we should not be vaccinated, go to the doctor, get health insurance or anything similar. They are all unnatural things used to make us live longer.

      If you believe in evolution, as the Catholic church doesn’t deny it anymore, you will have to explain to me how the first microorganims employed others and got rich upon others’ work. If you are a creationist, I don’t remember that Adam or Eve exploited the other. (They were , which you are not, and your clothes are unnatural). And in Acts, God did not seem to oppose the communist lifestyle of the disciples who sold everything they owned and shared the benefits (a guy and his wife even got killed for being capitalists, as they lied to keep profit). So, what are you choosing?

      Free market is not good because there is “free” in it. Free market implies that you can produce (by any means you want), sell or buy any good as long as it is economically beneficial. So if your neighbor is dying of starvation but producing food won’t bring enough money to you, you would rather produce an expensive t-shirt and sell it to a well-fed teenager. On that case, I guess the state-planned market is better in many cases, if it is well-oriented. In Cuba and the Soviet Union, apart maybe in times of crises, everybody has (had, in the case of the USSR) a house and food to eat -rationed food or not-. In a champion country of free market such as the US, there are millions of homeless people and more empty houses thanks to the free market.

      Workers being enraged at employers is normal. At the time of Marx, workers lived in poverty, worked in in awful conditions and for more than eight hours a day, children were employed, etc.

      In communism, there is no dictatorship. In fact, there is no state at all. The so-called “communist states” are in fact socialist states ruled by one party, the communist party, which theoretically wants to establish communism later.

      By the way, if you want to bring the numbers of victims of communism, as many of you like to do so, please remember that mercantilism, which is capitalism at its infancy, enslaved Africa and America. And today, capitalism reigns in sweatshops, mines in Africa (Congo…) and takes land away from peasants everywhere.

      Reply
   3. Ros

      Yes, it was dictatorship Marx wanted, but it was the dictatorship of the proletariat ie. the 99% in modern parlance. Get your facts right please

      Reply
4. K.Frat

   For a good while I was wondering if this article was a joke or not. I just can’t get my head around some of the things that were stated. “Fun, free America”? Really? America isn’t all lollipops and sugar plums and trying to paint it that way isn’t helping anyone. We are not the worst country out there but we definitely are not the best. Also, A “play on emotions of class struggle”? Are you saying you don’t think class struggle is real? If you don’t think class struggle is real or that its not a problem, I would encourage you to take a trip to Philadelphia. The class divide is very clear in that city and it’s blatantly depicted into the communities people live in. It’s obvious who has money and who doesn’t just by seeing the neighborhood they live in.

   One more thing “In a free society where people have access to education and intellectual capital like a skill, training or an idea pay more than physical labor or old fashion forms of capital, why they still play into the hands of class warfare politics. Where people are free to move around the country and sometimes world as can capital, especially their intellectual capital, I do not understand all this ‘yeah its ‘them’ that makes society all wrong’ attitude on the left. Someone please explain it to me?”

   As for free society, I’m not sure what you mean. I can say one thing though, education in US society is not free and that weighs heavily in what kind of job you get in society which eventually effects what “class” you’re in. The only reason class warfare politics exists is because class struggle is a serious issue in America. You’re opinion will be different depending on the way you want to look at it or what party you want to align yourself with, but again if you don’t believe that there is a class struggle I encourage you to visit major cities in the US, they almost always have two side to them, the wealthier side and the poorer side. People have the whole “us” vs “them” ideology because of the “classes” they are in. Money causes a divide between people, there are those who have it and those who don’t. Those who don’t have money can get hostile feeling towards those who do because they feel like the wealthy aren’t helping the poor, but this is all generalizing, not everyone is like that.

   As for the Marxist and Communist thing, I think Julian did and awesome job explaining what it was supposed to be. Communism isn’t a bad idea, it’s just been executed poorly on several accounts that have given it a very bad reputation (North Korea is NOT what communism is supposed to be). I don’t think it would work for American society since we have already built ourselves up as a capitalist country but Communism wasn’t meant to be a bad thing. It’s a good idea when its executed properly but as humans I don’t know if we are capable of such a feat. That’s all I’m going to say on that matter though, I just really wanted to reply to some of the thing that were stated.

   Reply
   1. Julian

      Well said all the way, have fun debating them.

      Reply
   2. Mark Biernat

      I do not know your life experience. I was born in Philadelphia and I know it well. Paint your picture of class struggle and blame the USA.

      Blame the government, your parents or class struggle. Roar like a lion about how we are all victims, but I do not believe it.

      People make what they want of their life. You can do whatever you want with you life. My father lived in a two room apartment and slept on the floor growing up during the depression and English was his second language.

      My father worked his way though school on the loading docks at night and boxing. He made millions just by working hard and using his intelligence. He did not look for an the government to help him.

      My family, my wife and daughter was born in Poland. I lived in Eastern Europe much of my life. If you think communism is in any way shape or form good, please read about Stalin. Read about Poland. Read about the camps and Siberia. My wife in Poland had nothing. Zero, no consumer goods not TV, nothing modern things like cars or hot water. I can not even describe the poverty.

      I have had serious physical problems in my life but I do not use that as an excuse. All the pain and suffering I have been though is nothing more than a challenge for me to raise above that and choose to use my freedom in a way other than looking for abstract reasons I can not succeed.

      Trust me America is fun. Its free and it is a wonderful place to live.

      We have a small plot of land, and we grow our own food. Even if you do not have land you can grow this in a community garden. Last I checked the library is free. You can read any book or use the computer and educate yourself on the skills needed. I did.

      A traditional education is a nice green stamp but better is to have intellectual curiosity and teach yourself what you need to know.

      You can do anything in the USA. You can get a real estate license, you can learn programming, go to school for medical technology, you can make apps. These guys from all over the world buy gas stations and support their family. In the USA to make money it is about desire and hard work.

      Money is not my God. It does not solve the basic issues of life, it is for paying the bills. However, like I said you can grow your own food, raise some chickens and live a normal life on little money. What makes a person happy is not the money they earn but how they live their life.

      Communism and socialism restrict life and make people’s a drudgery rather than an adventure.

      Reply
      1. Julian

         Your father is one who succeeded among the tens of thousands of dockers who remained dockers (or got worse jobs) for the rest of their lives. And be assured that many of them tried to escape but could not, because of the system. How did your father get those millions? I am not sure there was no exploitation in the process.

         You gave examples of some dysfunctions in the Soviet Union, yet they don’t necessarily fit the essence of socialism and communism, but were linked to Soviet policies. When I take examples of dysfunctions in capitalism, they come (inevitably) due to the system and/or are in the essence of capitalism. Or if I take specific examples, it is in order to refute an argument or show that things are not as (un)pleasant as some want to portray them in some countries and in the world.

         So you want to talk about Stalin? Let’s talk about all the capitalist dictators of South America in the 1970s. You want to talk about poverty in socialist countries? Today the poorest countries in the world are capitalist.

         But again, let’s go to the essence of capitalism, socialism and communism.
         Capitalism is all about profit, the accumulation of capital. If a few people become rich (ie, amass capital through others’ labor), capitalism works. No matter if there are homeless people. And capitalism works very well in the world right now, as there are billionaires, even if billions of people live in poverty. By the way, owning a TV is nice, but there are TVs in slums where people starve and are abused in many ways.
         Socialism and communism are about common (or state) property of means of production and of land, and working together to ensure a minimum for all. Stalin’s attempt to collectivize land resulted in mass starvation in Ukraine. The starvation itself does not fit socialism or communism as those promote a minimum for all, and even abundance in the case of communism. But if there were a few people getting rich in the region despite the starvation of that time, that would be capitalism, because capitalism is about accumulating capital.

         I am still surprised to see that many still deny the class conflict. There is no total war right now between the classes in the US, that does not mean there is no serious antagonism. I am not sure those who work all night for meager salaries will just say they have to work harder and use their intelligence to be as rich as Gates. The system won’t allow 100% of the population to be rich, whatever how they work hard and use their brains. In communism, nobody will get rich, but everybody will have a decent house, food, healthcare, education, etc. If you want an example of a successful communist/socialist community, check Marinaleda. No millionaires, no skyscrapers, but they have the essential: solidarity, work, services and peace of mind, while the rest of Spain drowns (but not because Marinaleda exploits or ignores it).
         /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda
         mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/marinaleda-town-few-police-full-5132215
         theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/marinaleda-spanish-communist-village-utopia

         Reply
         1. Mark Biernat

            Thank you for your comments on Communism and economic reality. I understand your idealism but perhaps you can read more about the enlightenment philosophers. The world of Marx is different from the world of today. There is little reason someone who has ambition can not make a happy life in a free society unless they have a physical restriction. No disrespect intended if you disagree, but here goes.

            As you know the Utopian state of the communist dream begins with people sharing their wealth. The ultimate goal is a stateless society where the works share their good, each according to their ability and each according to their needs.

            So do you have a cell phone? I do not. Do you have a TV? Do you have a microwave I do not? I think you should start sharing your wealth with others. Go to inner city Philadelphia and share your wealth. Really, is this not what communism is about? If not then you are part of this hyper-consumption society you do not agree with.

            Capitalism is about helping others with your talents given to you. The other person operating on free will can choose to engage in economic exchange or not. It is their choice.

            My father was an accountant. What is wrong with that? He worked and saved and over a lifetime accumulated wealth.

            I have had physical problems and I do not cry exploration.

            I have a question for you. What is the purpose of government?

            Is government not about protecting the organic rights of humans? Organic meaning not man created. Things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

            Government is not the granter of rights, unless you believe in Kings and dictators. Rights are innate to being human given by our Creator. With these rights, we can choose to do what we want in our lives.

            Read about conscious capitalism. What about a company like Whole foods market, people can work there? What is wrong with that?

            Reply
            1. Julian

               How is the world different today? There have been technological advances but massive alienation is still present, most notably in Africa, Latin/South America and Asia.
               I am not an idealist, but if the ideal world can exist, I am ok with that. I am realistic, I just say what I know about the different systems, both theoretically and practically.

               I haven’t spent much time in a consumerist society yet, and I personally don’t possess much where I live. As for sharing, I have no problem with that. I could go to Philadelphia to do it, or to any poor country. I have shared a lot already. But sharing is not the only thing to be done. If there is so much disparity in the world, we have to question the system and reform/change it. If I go around giving away all my belongings, it will only be a transfer of the poverty status from them to me. By the way, communism is about the common ownership of natural resources, means of production etc, not necessarily personal items. And the production of cellphones/TVs should provide for everybody, if they will be necessary then.

               Wait, what? Capitalism about helping others?? There is a confusion here. Capitalism has as purpose the accumulation of capital, no matter how much disparity there is. If you want to talk about conscious capitalism, this is one step towards socialism. It is nearly impossible, if not outrightly impossible, to have giant corporations which correctly take care of the environment and human beings (+animals). Where will their cheap labor and cheap material come from then? They will probably be reduced to small and average businesses, and socialism does not oppose that.

               I don’t know much about accountants, but I wonder how a regular accountant can become a millionaire. You have to know that due to super exploitation in the South, prices and salaries are high in the North. And maybe he somehow played with contracts and the market (not saying he is dishonest, not all manipulations are made because one is nasty).

               I think you already gave the roles of a government as Jefferson said it. Who is the creator you are talking about? How do you know who s/he is? And how do you know his/her will? If you are talking about the Bible character, he is also a king and a dictator.

               About Whole Foods market, first they keep selling in rich countries where there is already plenty of food (except for those who don’t have the money to buy). Selling food there is not necessarily bad, specially as they propose an alternative to the GMOs… but guess what? They heavily break their rules. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Foods_Market#Criticism_and_controversy
               Plus, you have to question all the chain of production. Organic food is generally good. But how did they produce it? On what land? With what equipment? Was the metal, rubber, plastic of this equipment taken from poor countries? Were the fertilizers taken or produced in bad conditions? So many questions we can ask. I am not saying we have to avoid work because of the system, or nothing will go well, but we have to be conscious and willing to change the system.

            2. Mark Biernat

               Economics is a positive sum game. Under the Marxist model it is a zero sum game, one person loses for another to win. But life is always moving foward and developing and economics at a arms length is a win-win.

               How do you define exploitation? Give me a specific example in the USA how people en masse are being exploited. Further, what is your prescription to end this?
               I do believe you are fairly selfless and share when you can. I do not doubt your personal integrity after reading what you wrote. You have sincere compassion for others. However, I how a society achieve justice, the ultimate societal good, is the question. I believe if you maximize liberty in a society with some restraints, our civilization would benefit, all people. The reason is I do believe people are innately good and do not need to be herded like cattle to happiness.

               Accounting and consulting you make a lot of money based on skills. I have to be honest I make over $100,000 dollars a year without hurting anyone. I pay my taxes, never fired anyone, I think I treat people fair and try to promote good in people. My father, worked for 50 years and never fired anyone. How is all this exploitation. Its numbers on a balance sheet and connecting IT systems. I would not work for any companies I thought were even borderline morally questionable like tobacco or defense contractors. I also sell real estate. I help people fine homes. What is wrong with that? I also write apps, how is that harmful?

               People in developing counties do suffer for many reason, mostly they do not have opportunities of free markets, and it is the responsibility for what is given to us to help those how have not, but not by tyranny,but though creative capitalism and charity. Just look at the difference between North and South Korea and there is your answer.

               About knowing God’s will, ask and wait and you will get your answer.

            3. Julian

               I posted a text but forgot to put it as a reply to yours. I won’t copy it here to avoid wasting space or complicating the thread.

            4. Julian

               My prescription would be communism. No more inequality, no more conflict. I don’t think the alternatives are better.

            5. Mark Biernat

               The problem with communism is, it’s boring. Have you ever been to a post-communist world? It is grey and drab and you notice that there is an absence of entertaining elements like books, phones, computers, travel opportunities, vacations, swimming pools and things that are fun in life. Further the clothing tends not to be as interesting or stylish, wearing the same underwear several times a week with no shampoo is not fun.. That being said that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad life, under a communist system of government like Marx envisions. You can pursue intellectual ideals arts and literature and music. However the point is it simply your choice that is limited if you are born into a certain circumstance and have limited choices that doesn’t make an exciting adventurous life. There are less risks and perhaps inherent dangers, however, there are less choice’s period, which make life magical.

               Boredom is one of the worst things in life. The human spirit in the human mind craves stimulation and to be reaching for higher loftier thin if you restrict liberties guaranteed human unhappiness happiness decreases in human unhappiness increases. So it’s not just about maximizing equality of material goods it’s really a social science which explores the study of how to use material goods to maximize human happiness. gs than simply being satisfied at a rudimentary material level. If you look at my Maslow’s hierarchy of needs communism a satisfied the bottom part of the pyramid that is basic accommodations and I even question if it does not well however what about the other components to what it means to be a human kidney for risk and venture development on all levels including spiritual. This is the great flaw of communism it is very one-dimensional in its understanding of the human psyche.

               In the United States we also had a form of communism early on period when the pilgrims arrived they shared land on the comments. For example on Boston Commons everyone could put their animals to graze. Naturally everybody try to maximize their profit and the Commons were over grace period if material wealth with shared no person had an incentive to do more than they need to. Why should I work for my neighbor’s wife period why should i toil and yet have the fruits of my toils distributed to my neighbors when they are sitting idle period not all humans need the carrot on the stick to motivate them however many people are slothful and slackers. It goes beyond the idea of providing material goods at a basic level you want to be productive and creative in your endeavors. And this was what was lacking in the initial years of the colonists. People starved until they jettisoned the idea of communal sharing.

               We each have different needs. My neighbors only eat packaged food and sit in front of their TV all day. We on the other hand prefer to grow our own food and we often are surfing and traveling and hiking. One is not better than the other, each person has but has a different conception of how they want to live their lives. We have other friends that live in an RV and it’s a family and they travel the states in a homeschooler child. And yet we’ve met other people who live on a boat. Some people that want to travel the world and live in different countries every few years. I have an older friend who likes to go and fish and hunt and trap while another one prefers to spend his time reading books in the library. So we each have a different conception of what life means and what is the meaning of life.
               So I admire your idea of trying to help humanity, but to maximize humanities happiness it does not equate with material Equalization. The role of government is not to make everyone equal. What is to allow people to choose their own life. You would not like it if your parents put your life on a roadmap and determined your limits and crush your dreams. This is what communism does it act as a fraternal state which police’s your desires in this crush is human creativity and the human spirit.

            6. Julian

               This dialogue can be tiring sometimes. At first, some people came, made ad hominem attacks then vanished. Now, you did not give me up, and that’s appreciable, but you ask questions and comment, I answer your questions and correct the misconceptions in the comments, then you move to other things without talking about my answers and corrections.

               Anyway, I had some of the misconceptions you are expressing in your latest comment. I don’t know everything about marxism but let me answer again.

               Many think that communism implies being mindless zombies doing the same things all the time and having to receive some equal rations of food everyday to make people “equal”, which are completely false. I am not sure of the definition of equality in marxist terms but it is not the above. I think it has something to do with the abolition of classes and equal access to the resources and products. By the way, if the role of the government is not to make people equal, why are there countries with the motto “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”? Why did many countries accept the Declaration of Human rights which makes us equal? I am copying the first lines of the Wikipedia on Marx’s theory of alienation :

               “Karl Marx’s theory of alienation describes the estrangement (German: Entfremdung) of people from aspects of their human nature (Gattungswesen, “species-essence”) as a consequence of living in a society stratified into social classes. The alienation from the self is a consequence of being a mechanistic part of a social class, which condition estranges a person from his and her humanity.
               The theoretic basis of alienation, within the capitalist mode of production, is that the worker invariably loses the ability to determine his or her life and destiny, when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of himself as the director of his actions; to determine the character of said actions; to define relationships with other people; and to own the things and use the value of the goods and services, produced with his or her labour. Although the worker is an autonomous, self-realised human being, as an economic entity, he or she is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, in order to extract from the worker the maximum amount of surplus value, in the course of business competition among industrialists.”

               You see? This is somehow what you don’t like about communism, but it is in fact part of capitalism, at least the capitalism practiced at the time of Marx. And communists want the end of alienation, they want the true fulfillment of all individuals. Maslow says physiological and security needs are the base and that without them, the individual cannot pursue his/her goals. Am I right there? In communism, the means of productions of the essential goods to sastisfy those needs are held in common, instead of being owned by a few while the rest of the people has to sell their labour for food. Plus, with the general automatization of production, one will really have the choice to work or have fun in whatever the domain wanted. Let me copy something else again, this time directly from Marx’s The German Ideology:

               “For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic and must remain so if he does not wish to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening,criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.”
               Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/m/marx_karl.html#QQVdC2m6mMsoMG7T.99

               That still won’t stop you from learning something in depth, as you are liberated from alienation and you can pursue your goals, even if it is one goal.
               In a capitalist society, some people manage (or are lucky enough) to get out of the vicious circle, but that’s a tiny percentage: the rich, those who inherited from others, semi-wealthy middle-class, etc. As for the rest, they are often forced to do things they don’t like, or things they like in a way they don’t like, because the system is like that. We can easily imagine the following situation, for which I have examples in my family and my family’s friends. Let’s say you or your parents have a debt, or you live poorly and can’t afford studying medicine (too much time), you will go quick to work in the nearby factory that demands no special expertise, or you will spend just one year and half to obtain a mere certificate at some minor program, or you will get a loan which you will pay for years with interest rates, all that just because you can’t have food or a decent house without the threat of eviction. If this is not slavery, what is it?

               Now, in the US, Canada, Europe and some other places, we can see healthcare programs, 8-hour work days, public education etc. And some will use those to say capitalism is not that bad. In fact, those are socialist elements added in those countries after numerous strikes and protests for each of them. The strikers were often beaten, killed, otherwise intimidated, called communists, bolsheviks, etc. Because asking for decent ways of life is so bad…
               In fact, capitalism was (and still is) a real hell, with 12-hour work days (and more), child labour, dangerous conditions of work, meager salaries etc. Now things seem to be better, while those conditions still exist in the third world and even in some places in the first world. See Imperialism (leninist viewpoint). By those means, those leaving in the first world with all the abundance say that capitalism is great, while in fact, almost everything you have there is a product of exploitation. That’s a global capitalist scheme. The thirld world, China included, is enslaved to give high standardards of life in the North. See again what I said about super profits and super exploitation.

               Many simply see the “greatness” of some successful capitalist countries and compare them to the worst cases of socialist countries, and conclude capitalism is good. This is a huge confirmation bias. Unfortunately, it is hard to avoid all confirmation bias but this one is terrible. First of all, one has to remember that the success of capitalist countries is built on the failure of other countries that provide a big part of the work and resources. Second, the socialist countries of, let’s say, the USSR and their allies, used mostly their resources (later, they became a little imperialistic but far less than the West). They were isolated, sometimes invaded, suffered and still suffer embargoes, but they still managed to get everybody somewhere to live, something the USA has yet to do. They managed to provide free healthcare, free education, work stability… despite being ravaged from time to time with droughts, invasions (for example, Hitler invading the USSR, causing millions of deaths and huge damage), other attacks (interventions in Cuba) and other hardships.
               If you complain about a certain boredom in socialist nations, are you going to cry for capitalist third world countries were people live in slums, get no adequate healthcare, are illiterate, work for survival…? Isn’t that more boring and even insufferable?
               Third thing. I understand a system may need time to be successful. The socialist countries often had major failures at the beginning but quickly improved their conditions despite hardships. What are the excuses of capitalism? After more than 200 years, things are not pink at all. Is it because it is still a beginner or is because its essence is depriving the masses to concentrate wealth?

            7. Julian

               correction on myself: those living* in the first world…
               The ways of life you describe about your neighbors and friends, isn’t that in line with the quote from The German Ideology I provided? The thing is that, in capitalism, such liberty is possible for a few only. In communism, for all.

            8. Julian

               One last thing. I don’t know much about the colonial era, but what you described seems to be a form of primitive communism. Marx and Engels also talked about that. But the communism to be created is not primitive communism. It is based on science, automation of the production and the abundance of goods, not primitive farming or powerless dependence on rain.
               And the success of the colonists later was based on theft of land, genocide, slavery and other forms of exploitation and cruelty. Is it that good?

            9. Julian

               I have finally paid more attention to a few words you wrote: ” It is grey and drab and you notice that there is an absence of entertaining elements like books, phones, computers, travel opportunities, vacations, swimming pools and things that are fun in life. Further the clothing tends not to be as interesting or stylish, wearing the same underwear several times a week with no shampoo is not fun.. ”

               This is hugely false. No books? How do you think they raised the literacy rate to 100% in the USSR and Cuba? All those scientists building the Soyuz and sending Gagarin in space were working with no books? They were kids and students before, they had to have books. There was censorship and propaganda, but saying there were no books is an awful thing.
               I don’t know everything about the countries you are talking about but I think made great efforts to give housing to all citizens in countries that were extremely backward at the times of their revolutions. It is better to live in a grey decent appartment block than in a colorful slum. Again, I think the ‘no vacations, swimming pools…’ is exaggerated.

            10. Iris Clavijo Guibert

                Julian, I am Cuban, 52 years old.Born and grown in the so called socioeconomic communism. I am not going to enter into details, enough facts have been given in the discussion. The only thing I want to state is that it is a cruel way of forcing people to do a set of pre-arranged, unchallenged and unchangeable to do it way of agonizing living. Whatever you see or they show that look great is mere fake and hypocrisy. It is just the ego, the power love, the need of feeling needed, and all those sort of things. It is a complete Machiavelli manipulation of oneself sole, mind, spirit. You are not yourself, you are a created someone. Actually and possibly you will never know who you are or could possibly being in other circumstances. I am not exaggerating, Im not fanatic, I just have seen, feel, taste it and I can assure you with all respect that you are, like many in the world, blinded and unable even to think in the possibility that your opinions are completely mistaken, wrong and worse of all, very dangerous.

            11. Ros

                Modern America is an imperialist European settler state and serves only their interests.

            12. Mark Biernat

                It is a free country. If you want to make money or live off the grid or be a surfer or invent something you can. So what do you mean by this? It does not matter if you are from Europe or elsewhere in ancestory, we had an African American President for example. You can find arguments for exploration and imperialistic motives if you look at anything, if that is the way you want to paint your vision. However, I think America is the land of opportunity that is why so many people want to migrate here.

            13. Rick C.

                Julian wrote: “My prescription would be communism. No more inequality, no more conflict. I don’t think the alternatives are better.”

                Socialism and communism suffer from so many theoretical and practical deficiencies, advocating communism today reveals a real lack of education on the subject of political economy. The bumper sticker mantra “no more inequality, no more conflict” grabbed my attention this morning, however.

                The assertion is that if every person in town had the identical same income and the identical same number of and access to physical possessions, then there would be “no conflict” between any of those persons.

                There is absolutely no evidence that assertion is true — and there is no theoretical reason to think it might ever be true among human beings.

                One woman may say something that offends another woman, causing resentment, dislike, and non-cooperation. One man may hit another man to gain power over his victim – even if the power is psychological manipulation or the infliction of psychic pain.

                There is conflict among infants and toddlers in play areas, long before any of the little tykes have any concepts about money, work, wealth, class, or relations between capital and labor. Among humans conflict is endemic. The notion that equalizing wealth is all that is required to end conflict is fanciful thinking at best.

                In truth, the communist view promises conflict, and indeed promises war, killing, and oppression. As Marx wrote in the Manifesto: “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

                The mind that would kill his neighbor because the neighbor had a swimming pool, drove a nicer car or ran a convenience store, is a mind we can never trust to lead a peaceful conflict-free society.

                Logically the problem is obvious. There is no switch to turn off the Marxist war machine. The leader who would murder “peasants” and “bourgeois” to take their property — the leader who would imprison all persons who harbor bourgeois ideas — has no principled way to know when to stop.

                Lest you think I exaggerate, kindly read the history of Pol Pot in Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge were thoroughly indoctrinated in Marxist philosophy. They targeted people who had property, possessions, books, educations, and even those who wore glasses. They murdered 1/3 of the Cambodian population. (See the films “Innocents Betrayed” and “The Killing Fields”).

                The indictment of communism was fully presented in the book by the French authors entitled The Black Book of Communism. One doesn’t need but a few million men women and children murdered to get the idea that there is something wrong with communism — but the actual numbers of dead approach 100 million, all attributable to communism and its adherents.

                Making the excuse that “it was bad leaders but a good idea” is vain. Reading the Manifesto, we see Marx himself prescribed violence of man against man, and that violence would be justified by monetary or property inequality. That boils down to: “we will take everything you have, and if you resist, we will kill you.”

                The bumper sticker assertion about “no more inequality, no more conflict” is not just a whimsical fantasy. It is a damnable lie that has cost millions of human lives and condemned hundreds of millions of humans to unending poverty.

            14. Julian

                Hello Rick C.
                About the things you said about conflicts and equality, let me quote myself from other comments on this thread:
                ‘Many think that communism implies being mindless zombies doing the same things all the time and having to receive some equal rations of food everyday to make people “equal”, which are completely false. I am not sure of the definition of equality in marxist terms but it is not the above. I think it has something to do with the abolition of classes and equal access to the resources and products.’

                In addition, let me cite the guiding principle of a communist society (not socialist) : “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. This still goes in line with what I quoted above. Having the same access to the resources and means of production, any human can take from them what they need, and why not even more, as it will be a post-scarcity economy. They won’t have to be restricted by the amount of money they could have amassed. They will also have equal rights; no one should face discrimination for being of a different color or gender.
                Also, the conflicts I talked about are mostly conflicts between classes, races, countries and so on, which tend to be large-scale conflicts, and more importantly, unnecessary and vain ones. Classes, countries and governments will no longer exist. As for the interpersonal conflicts between a few people, there is no way to prevent all of them since the early childhood ; we don’t plan on manufacturing babies with the very same DNA. Even then, there could be conflicts. With education, people will learn to resolve conflicts better. Sometimes, some conflicts arise because of the system we live in too. Members of a family struggling to make ends meet in a capitalist society may be more prone to violence or despair.

                Now, about all the violence in communism. First of all, I have never heard about killing someone for their swimming pools or things like that. Communism is not anarchism. Communists don’t think we can jump directly to a communist society. The changes have to be gradual, and that’s why there is socialism before communism. Some parts of them can be sudden and violent ; I have rarely heard of exploiters decidiing to give up everything and do good the next morning, and when they say so, I doubt they will really do it. We would appreciate to have socialism without bloodshed, and I personally don’t like violence. Chavez and Morales got democratically elected, but other leftists got killed or overthrown by doing the same. In opposition to communism and socialism, some people say that if a system is so good, it would come by itself, or it wouldn’t need violence… which automatically nullifies the independence of the US, the French revolution and the progressive rights promoted, the american civil war and capitalism itself. Violence was used for all of them, and even international violence by the US to install capitalist/fascist dictatorships in Latin America. And not only by the US for other countries.

                The Black Book of Coomunism is certainly a politically motivated book, inflating numbers and also attributing catastrophes to the wrong people.
                Mao supposedly killed millions when a drought thwarted all his efforts to increase the production of food for the population. In my memory, he wasn’t a rich capitalist who sold all the food to fill his pockets. The droughts could have had worse consequences if agricultural programs were not implemented before them.

                It also blamed the Ukrainian famine on Stalin, right? Well, for those who like to talk about the ‘Holodomor’, there are two misconceptions about it. First, the famine did not only affect Ukrainians ; many died in other parts of the USSR. Second, the supposed genocide was caused by the kulaks, who I presume were Ukrainians themselves, when they destroyed crops and cattle. Previously, they had hoarded food to increase profits during a period of hardships, then the authorities reacted. The collectivization wasn’t planned to be sudden but gradual. Also, they tried to distribute food in the affected regions but people died anyway.

                As for Pol Pot, while I know little about him and his rule, he and his troops did not kill the third of the population. How would they do that? Well, during the Vietnam war, the US hunted communist forces in the countryside of Cambodia, terrifying populations who escaped to the cities and probably destroying crops and polluting the land. What Pol Pot did was emptying overcrowded cities so the populations could revive the agricultural sector.

                I am not saying those leaders were saints. Political leaders are not fairies, we know that. And I find it funny that you talk about “unending poverty” for communism. Maybe we should talk about all the poverty in capitalist countries now. Actually, most of the world is capitalist, China included. One has to understand that capitalism is not there to serve the people but only the capitalist class. This is well reflected in the global capitalist system creating more and more poverty in the South and accumulating wealth in the North. Even with that, there are homeless people in countries with trillions of dollars. The people in the USSR were not living in high tech suites but the governments always tried to provide basic services and housing to them. Here is a short and interesting piece I found a few days ago: https://gowans.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/seven-myths-about-the-ussr/

                Even if we had to say communism killed 100 million people, how many did capitalism kill? And do we have to include slaves in the 1800s? Do we have to include the country-wide private property King Leopold II had? (Congo)
                According to the World Food Programme, “Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That’s about one in nine people on earth.” Also, “WFP calculates that US$3.2 billion is needed per year to reach all 66 million hungry school-age children” This money is nothing compared to the billions spent on trivial things. Source: https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
                On http://www.poverty.com I can read that “About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations.” I won’t go further on counting deaths by war, disease and other causes (yet many are caused by capitalism) because all those deaths often have combined causes so some people might be counted many times. Hunger is a serious problem, and while we can produce enough food for everybody, the profit motive actually prevents us from feeding those who won’t generate enough profits for the capitalists. Quick calculations give us an estimated number of (21.000 x 365=) 7.665.000 deaths per year. I don’t think this varied much in the recent years, except for the worst during acute famines, so we can multiply it by ten and see that more than 70 millions of people die in 10 years, thanks to capitalism. For how long has capitalism existed? The death toll must be much higher than the supposed death toll of communism, even if we posit that the numbers have not always been as high since the late 1700s.

            15. Julian

                There is something I think I left imprecise in my reply. Emptying some urban areas in Cambodia may have caused deaths, but the majority of deaths were caused by the facts that 1) many left the countryside, therefore they were not cultivating, and 2) the US bombed and probably sprayed chemicals in the cambodian countryside before, destroying food sources and making land unfit for food production. I don’t know much about the Khmers Rouges, and I can’t say I am a fan of them either.

                Actually, in my post you commented, I did not say communist movements were to magically install communism or that every ‘wrongdoing’ was was solely the fault of the leaders. Yes, there is revolution in marxism, I simply say some leaders exaggerated in many aspects. There may be violence in the

                My first reply to you was not perfectly ordered. The parts taken from the WFP can be linked to the death toll part (as they will die in that poverty), but it is mostly about the poverty in capitalism discussed a few lines above.

                About the equalization of wealth you think is part of communism, not only is this not part of it, but also, it would create conflicts anyway. People with different needs or desires might soon be unsatisfied with it and we know that.

                Now, on the subject of killing people for their small businesses, property, possessions, books, educations, or their glasses, there are many of those claims that need clarifications or corrections. What kind of property are you talking about? One shirt is a personal property. Did they kill anybody who wasn’t and did not use a toothbrush? Did they kill anybody with a book on communism? Or grammar books? People who could read their names (education)? I think a lot of this is greatly exaggerated.

                Anyway, let me clarify. The objectives are not to kill anybody who has a slightly better life. We value work and merit in the present world. Many who criticize socialism and communism for supposedly encouraging laziness and living at the expense of others are actually talking of capitalism. In socialism, everybody has to work as they can, and the guiding principle is “… to each according to his contribution”. We can’t blame someone for owning a small business in a capitalist society if that’s what they know they can do to live. What we don’t accept are exploitation, alienation and profiteering. Doing nothing and getting millions of dollars out of the work of others who sometimes can barely survive, just because you own the means of production, is theft, therefore this wealth is illegitimate and can be taken back to serve the society. Also, a classicide would be both counterproductive and exaggerate, the previously rich will simply have to work and become a part of the working class.

      2. John

         We in the west often talk about freedom versus communism. What freedom are you talking about?

         Soon after the Berlin Wall was pushed over, I met a former East German backpacker at a tourist destination in South Australia. I asked about his freedom in his former home.

         He told me that he had been quite free inside the Eastern Block and used to take his holidays backpacking in Vladivostok. He had a job, a home, plenty to eat although some commodities were sometimes in short supply.

         I asked him about his freedom of thought and his reply was simple, “Do you mean like McCarthy in the United states?”

         Reply
         1. Julian

            Good one. Freedoms of speech and thought are controversial subjects in socialist countries but I don’t think Marx wanted the excesses in those countries. In fact, direct democracy and debates are part of the communist society. The excesses can be explained by personal whims or fears of the return of bourgeois ideology.

            Reply
5. Julian

   God will answer… maybe.

   About your jobs and your father’s jobs, I already said I did not accuse you of being consciously nasty. I meant that many, me probably included, with or without our approval, contribute to an unfair system. Reread what I read about the chains of production. I cannot blame someone for eating one orange as they need it, even if it was imported from South Africa, where poverty and malnutrition are still rampant. But by buying it, one implicitly says to the importers that they may continue buying from poor countries. Someone who sells houses may truly be a good person and want to help families and young couples, but the housing sector is partly fueled by importation of building materials from third world countries. Someone who gives a smartphone to their kid may be very kind-hearted, but buying it encourages companies to keep using cobalt from Congo mines where workers live in poverty. Same thing for a man who offers a diamond to the woman he loves, while failing to understand that many african diamonds are collected by people almost enslaved by guerrillas that trade with (western) companies. Abundance and high salaries in the North are results of superexploitation and other factors.

   Yes poor and developing countries have the free market. It may not be written in clear words but it is obvious that they don’t have planned economies like the USSR. Anyway, the free market is not that sweet. I already showed some of the effects of the free market and capitalism (homelessness etc) and the free market itself, even in theory, is not in opposition to these. Socialism would be in opposition to homelessness.
   According to investopedia.com, “A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.” I heard about a certain strategy, and this strategy is not in opposition to the free market. I think it was used already. Here it is:
   There are two countries with free market economies. Country A is either rich or poor, no matter. Country B is poor and the government is not strong enough to block anything, even if they wanted to interfere with the free market. One giant rice producer in country A offers to sell rice at a low price to a wholesaler in country B. But this could be a strategy to win the market, as the price they sell rice in country B is higher than the price the wholesaler will ask, probably because that’s the best they can do with their limited means. Result: the national rice is avoided and the imported rice is bought more and more. Peasant families loose their sources of income, country B’s companies know bankruptcies, etc. This is the free market. They did not spray poison on B’s fields, they did not do anything illegal at all. I think many countries faced such situations.

   In return, let’s say a poor country C or again country B sells something(whatever) to a company in A, at a low price. What many companies do is create subsidiaries based in tax havens that buy this product at a low price so they pay less taxes in B or C, sell it at a high price to the company in A, which sells it to customers at a price near the price it bought it, so its benefits are low and is not taxed hard. I think this is called tax avoidance, but this is completely legal and respects the free market. All companies freely agreed to buy and sell at the prices they did. Africa and other poor countries know this phenomenon very well. They loose the real benefits because the product may be sold at 100 times the price they sold it at. Those benefits go to the subsidiaries in the tax havens, which increases the wealth of corporations, raise salaries in the North, etc. Conscious capitalism or conscious business will probably not work. First, that could reduce the freedom in the market, and greedy investors and companies will not stop in their search for wealth. They will either bribe or kill opponents.

   If you want to compare North and South Korea, please, compare the United States and Mexico (both free market capitalist economies), or the US and extremely poor capitalist countries in the Caribbean such as Jamaica and Haiti, … I understand your point, but things are not that easy, and I cannot take more time to do research and explain the reasons for those differences. Just one thing: N Korea and Cuba face embargoes and other issues, but many will blame communism anyway (N Korea removed Marxism-Leninism from their official documents, they follow Juche).

   “one person loses for another to win”. In fact, that is capitalism, and this happens today. In communism (true communism), means of production and natural resources are owned by all. When a wage worker works hard while the boss becomes rich for much less work, that’s exactly what you said, and there is no such thing in communism.

   I talked about alienation in the third world, but you replied with exploitation in America. Good anyway. One definition of exploitation is “The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work”(Oxford dictionary). Even without the part about benefits, we can see that there are big problems for the working class. For the US, I can cite:

   1) McDonald’s workers (just to cite a stereotypical job)
   2) All minimum wage workers (around 3 million). In fact, there are people who receive less then the federal minimum wage which is US$7.25 per hour. And mininum(and lower) wage jobs rarely include healthcare insurance, and that’s ironic because many of these workers work in healthcare support occupations, while others work in construction and extraction, building and ground cleaning, food preparation, and so on.
   3) A lot of women (no equal pay for equal work).
   4) Illegal immigrants, and I think even some legal ones.
   5) Prisoners. Not all of them, but apparently there is prison labor (supported by the 13th amendment) which benefits corporations a lot. According to some sources, they get less than US$5 per day.

   Reply
6. John

   I don’t think a “failed experiment” is completely accurate. From the very beginning, the “west” supported the “White army” with military aid and funding and imposed total trade and economic sanctions on the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks/Red army. Despite this, the Soviet Union managed to become the world’s second superpower and survived these sanctions for 76 years.

   Imagine now that external governments/countries including Canada and Mexico, cut off money completely at the United States border while funding and other aid was given to some internal US group (not necessarily left wing but perhaps on religious lines) to overthrow the US government. How long could this continue, 76 years or 76 minutes?

   To put things in proper perspective, it is often necessary to try to see things through the eyes of others. Did communism fail or was it defeated in the “cold war”?

   Failure and defeat are not the same thing.

   Many indigenous people from North American (Sioux, Pawnee, Apache et al), Philippines, (Ilocano, Ilongo, Cebuano et al) and Australia (Pitjantjatjara, Kokatha, Tjuroro et al), lived in their own countries in perfect and sustainable harmony with their environments for thousands, if not ten of thousands of years. That is NOT failure. They were defeated.

   It might not be a life you are happy with but those indigenous populations didn’t change for those thousands of years because they didn’t need to.

   Tsarist Russia had to change. Peasants were starving in the streets while Nicholas drove his gold plated car down the road in front of them.

   Think about it. I am not arguing one ideology or the other. I am just pointing out there are more ideologies than our own that are different, not necessarily better or worse.

   Reply
   1. Julian

      Well said sir.

      Reply
7. Brian

   Julian,

   You are the very definition of critical thinking. I appreciate your argument. It is my evaluation that some only read the Communist Manifesto in the literal sense rather than in an analytical sense. One must attempt to read without bias in order to fully grasp what they are reading. For instance, after reading Biernat’s article with on open mind I felt he made some good points. This is what critical thinking is all about.

   I live in the US and capitalism is as Churchill said, “capitalism is the worst form of government except for all those that have come before it.”

   I am self employed with a family of three and our insurance cost are $1800 per month and that is capitalism for you. My point is some believe we shouldn’t strive for change as if what we have is the best life has to offer. And that is unfortunate!

   I had a conversation the other day in regards to the US Constitution and how changes shouldn’t always be viewed as a bad thing; because times change and so do principles and values. Why should we live based on eighteenth century ideas, furthermore, should we live based on middle-ages’ principles?

   Change isn’t always a bad thing, in fact, in many cases it is a good thing. Understanding the struggles of the past and the present can help us create a better future for our children and grandchildren. Perhaps social healthcare and tuition free college would be a good place to start. If one reads deeper into the Communist Manifesto one can get a sense it is about the struggle of those at the bottom of the food chain.

   Continue the critical thinking and always question everything…

   Brian

   Reply