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

[icanhelp1]

Wrong. LMFAO

It’s sarcasm LMFAO

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

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.

Why?

Because everyone thinks that it is the problem of those they didn't vote for...

Do you have any hard questions?

 

[JohnEngelman]

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

At least in principle.

I have disagreed with the Communist Party members I have known and liked, but we disagreed agreeably.

 

[LittleDixie]

 

[Trump2024]

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.

Apparently you haven’t read about what life was like in the USSR prior to its implosion due to Reagan’s bankrupting it with his arms race. “Blue collar” workers stood in lines just to buy a loaf of bread, automobiles were out of reach financially for most and those that did buy them found them to be vastly inferior to those produced in the West and very unreliable. One only needs to look at the size of the Russian economy today relative to the West’s to see the folly of communism. But keep believing in your fallacy that rewards mediocracy.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Apparently you haven’t read about what life was like in the USSR prior to its implosion due to Reagan’s bankrupting it with his arms race. “Blue collar” workers stood in lines just to buy a loaf of bread, automobiles were out of reach financially for most and those that did buy them found them to be vastly inferior to those produced in the West and very unreliable. One only needs to look at the size of the Russian economy today relative to the West’s to see the folly of communism. But keep believing in your fallacy that rewards mediocracy.

Two of Marx's assertions were right. He was mistaken about everything else. Communism does not disprove Marx's two accurate assertions. Communism proves that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a socialist economy.

 

[Ezkaton]

Democrats: The communist manifesto and socialism make more sense than they used to. We should go as totalitarian with our wokeness as possible, until all children are forced by federal decree to transition by age 5. And finish their surgeries by age 10. That's PROGRESS!!!

Also Democrats: We haven't moved left AT ALL!!! It's the right wing who has moved to the extreme right with their fascist ideas about free speech and commerce.

 

[Ezkaton]

Nevertheless, unregulated capitalism does concentrate wealth at the top.

Then why has it never happened??

Why is wealth concentration at the top almost EXCLUSIVELY something that happens as a result of the abuse of power and tightly correlated to authoritarianism???

Right or left, the more power the government has to control the economy and thus take wealth and put it where it wants?? The more concentrated the wealth gets.

It's almost like absolute power corrupts absolutely or something like that..........

It does experience increasingly destructive economic downturns.

Again, where has this ever happened??

The last two major downturns in the US economy are a direct result of our governments actions/policies.

Since the election of Ronald Reagan we have ignored those Marxian truths to our misfortune.

They are Marxist and backwards enough to be so.... but they aren't truths. They are the exact opposite of the truth.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Then why has it never happened??

Why is wealth concentration at the top almost EXCLUSIVELY something that happens as a result of the abuse of power and tightly correlated to authoritarianism???

Right or left, the more power the government has to control the economy and thus take wealth and put it where it wants?? The more concentrated the wealth gets.

It's almost like absolute power corrupts absolutely or something like that..........



Again, where has this ever happened??

The last two major downturns in the US economy are a direct result of our governments actions/policies.



They are Marxist and backwards enough to be so.... but they aren't truths. They are the exact opposite of the truth.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the richest fifth of the United States had eight times times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989 the ratio was more than twenty to one.

The stock market crash of 1929 happened because of government inaction. The stock market was insufficiently regulated. Stocks were rising in price that had not paid dividends in years. People borrowed money to buy stock. When the stock rose in price they sold the stock and put the rest of the money into the bank. Obviously a system like this only works when the stock market is rising. When the stock market began to sink speculators could not pay off their loans. Banks failed. People who made their money the honest way lost their life's savings.

 

[Ezkaton]

The stock market crash of 1929 happened because of government inaction.

Yes, there is an ebb and flow to the economy.... free or not.

But the downturns aren't ever increasing in free economies, sometimes they are minor, sometimes they aren't. Visualize it into a chart of any kind and you'll see the ups and downs.

Ever increasing downturns are a heavily regulated economic issue.

You can look at pretty much any documented free economy or free markets history and every socialist shit hole that's ever been tried and see this objective reality.

The stock market was insufficiently regulated.

Nor banking at large. And I don't think anyone except a microscopic minority of anarchist and anarcho-libertarians is arguing for a totally unregulated economy.

That being said there is a huge difference between regulating against dangerous and or destructive practices/policies in an otherwise free economy (liberalism) and Marxist socialism where the state IS the economy and there is ZERO freedom of commerce to the extent tens of millions are starved to death because control freaks just have some insane burning need to have that much regulation and control.

As for the charts I'm glad that the top 30% of the country is killing it, good for us!! If it weren't for all the frivolous regulations more people could join in our prosperity but that would just be too much freedom for most Americans to handle.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Yes, there is an ebb and flow to the economy.

But the downturns aren't ever increasing. Sometimes they are minor, sometimes they aren't.

You can look at pretty much any documented free economy or free markets history and see this.

Visualize it into a chart of any kind and you'll see the ups and downs.



Nor banking at large. And I don't think anyone except a microscopic minority of anarchist and anarcho-libertarians is arguing for a totally unregulated economy.

That being said there is a huge difference between regulating against dangerous, destructive and or fraudulent practices/behaviors/policies/actions in an otherwise free economy (liberalism) and Marxist communism where the state IS the economy and there is ZERO freedom of commerce to the extent tens of millions are starved to death because control freaks just have some insane burning need to have that much regulation and control.

As for the charts I'm glad that the top 30% of the country is killing it, good for us!!

In 1929 the Republicans had dominated the United States since the inauguration of Warren Harding eight years earlier. The Stock Market crash did not just happen. It cannot be blamed on the Democrats. Under Jimmy Carter there was a six month recession. Unemployment reached 7.8%. Under Ronald Reagan there was a sixteen month recession. Unemployment reached 10.8%. Under Carter an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year. Under Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs created per year.

Beginning with Reagan the economy has been de regulated. The top tax rate declined from 70% to 28%. Recessions have become longer and deeper. They are followed by jobless recoveries when gross domestic product (GDP) rises, but unemployment remains high. That is what Karl Marx predicted.

 

[Ezkaton]

In 1929 the Republicans had dominated the United States since the inauguration of Warren Harding eight years earlier. The Stock Market crash did not just happen. It cannot be blamed on the Democrats.

I'm not trying to blame it on a party in particular.

It was a somewhat new style of economy unlike anything that had really ever been seen and there was no way for the government to know exactly what kind of new fuckery needed to be regulated against in it until after it saw it.

Hell they're still trying... mostly because they are the source of most the fuckery at this point but still.

Under Jimmy Carter there was a six month recession. Unemployment reached 7.8%. Under Ronald Reagan there was a sixteen month recession. Unemployment reached 10.8%. Under Carter an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year. Under Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs created per year.

So??

Beginning with Reagan the economy has been de regulated.

Cut taxes does not make us a de-regulated economy.

And no, we haven't deregulated, again it's the exact opposite, we've added literally millions of pages of regulations at the federal and state levels. Outside of a few specific instances which can be counted on one hand we've added regulations across the board since the 70's.

The top tax rate declined from 70% to 28%.

GOOD! People shouldn't have 70% of their labor value taken from them. 20% at most and EVERYONE should pay the same rate on every dollar they make. Property/wealth taxes should be illegal.

Recessions have become longer and deeper.

All the modern ones directly at the hands of the government.

08'... bad paper written on feel good Clinton do-gooder housing programs.

And the current one? Government assassination of the US economy over covid panic.

They are followed by jobless recoveries when gross domestic product (GDP) rises, but unemployment remains high.

Thanks to all those regulations that make employing anyone even at the minimum wage level an overpriced fucking nightmare.

Automate and let those no/low skill folks fuck for their dollar elsewhere.

Skill and talent that make me money are the only ones worth the hassle.

That is what Karl Marx predicted.

But Karl Marx was wrong as to the reason. It wasn't the free commerce that did it.

It wasn't the free market that did bleeding heart housing for poor people who can't afford it programs that led to the housing collapse and subsequent cascade into the 08' shit storm.

It wasn't the free market that then charged the working taxpayers a cool couple trillion dollars to bail the richest people ever to exist out of their fuck up. That was Bush, Obama and a Democrat congress who bailed them out.

It wasn't the free market that shut down the US economy, but only for the little/unimportant people....the rich/elite got to keep right on going.... because Covid.

It wasn't the free market that then charged the taxpayers what... 5.2 trillion bucks so 800 billion could get distributed to those in need and the rich/elite filled their pockets with the rest.

That was Trump, Biden and a Democrat congress.

Government actions and regulation against commerce is NOT the free market.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I'm not trying to blame it on a party in particular.

It was a somewhat new style of economy unlike anything that had really ever been seen and there was no way for the government to know exactly what kind of new fuckery needed to be regulated against in it until after it saw it.

Hell they're still trying... mostly because they are the source of most the fuckery at this point but still.



So??



Cut taxes does not make us a de-regulated economy.

And no, we haven't deregulated, again it's the exact opposite, we've added literally millions of pages of regulations at the federal level and in most state, including most red ones.



GOOD!



All the modern ones directly at the hands of the government.

08'... bad paper written on feel good Clinton do-gooder housing programs.

And the current one? Government assassination of the US economy over covid panic.



Thanks to all those regulations that make employing anyone even at the minimum wage level an overpriced fucking nightmare.

Automate and let those no/low skill folks fuck for their dollar elsewhere.

Skill and talent that make me money are the only ones worth the hassle.



But Karl Marx was wrong as to the reason. It wasn't the free commerce that did it.

It wasn't the free market that did bleeding heart housing for poor people who can't afford it programs that led to the housing collapse and subsequent cascade into the 08' shit storm.

It wasn't the free market that then charged the working taxpayers a cool couple trillion dollars to bail the richest people ever to exist out of their fuck up. That was Bush, Obama and a Democrat congress who bailed them out.

It wasn't the free market that shut down the US economy, but only for the little/unimportant people....the rich/elite got to keep right on going.... because Covid.

It wasn't the free market that then charged the taxpayers what... 5.2 trillion bucks so 800 billion could get distributed to those in need and the rich/elite filled their pockets with the rest.

That was Trump, Biden and a Democrat congress.

Government actions and regulation against commerce is NOT the free market.

Because of Republican tax cuts for the rich the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product has risen from 32% at the end of President Carter's administration to 129% at the end of President Trump's administration.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

That is why Republican tax cuts for the rich are not good.

 

[Ezkaton]

Because of Republican tax cuts for the rich the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product has risen from 32% at the end of President Carter's administration to 129% at the end of President Trump's administration.

Only in part, the irresponsible spending and overt corruption by both parties make up the vast majority of that "because".

Not tax cuts for everyone.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

That is why Republican tax cuts for the rich are not good.

They aren't tax cuts for the rich, they are tax cuts for all.

Trumps tax cuts for example were one of the biggest boons for the American middle class in the last 40 years.

Why is people keeping more of what they earn such a problem for you?? What is not good about it??

 

[JohnEngelman]

Only in part, the irresponsible spending and overt corruption by both parties make up the vast majority of that "because".

Not tax cuts for everyone.



They aren't tax cuts for the rich, they are tax cuts for all.

Trumps tax cuts for example were one of the biggest boons for the American middle class in the last 40 years.

Why is people keeping more of what they earn such a problem for you?? What is not good about it??

The rich always get the lion's share of Republican tax cuts.

Anyone who remembers the Reagan administration should remember that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. Military spending increased from $143.69 billion a year under Carter's last year in office to $309.66 billion a year during Reagan's last year in office.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countri...97U5_d3qFV4B1NlE3Y4U4t-XjlH4mCDHkEZyAJcUaZxOY

It was unnecessary to increase military spending during the Reagan administration. The United States was at peace. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan.

 

[Ezkaton]

The rich always get the lion's share of Republican tax cuts.

That's a function of having a progressive taxation system and because the rich pay the most taxes, not because republicans are evil masterminds oppressing the poor.

Why is people keeping more of what they earn such a problem for you?? What is not good about it??

Anyone who remembers the Reagan administration should remember that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. Military spending increased from $143.69 billion a year under Carter's last year in office to $309.66 billion a year during Reagan's last year in office.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countri...97U5_d3qFV4B1NlE3Y4U4t-XjlH4mCDHkEZyAJcUaZxOY

It was unnecessary to increase military spending during the Reagan administration. The United States was at peace. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan.

I disagree, I think maintaining a strong if not superior military is a worthwhile endeavor and one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government. And we GOT SOMETHING FOR IT!!! That's a big part of the reason we have military superiority today.

That's a valuable asset to the nation.

Also, a drop in the bucket compared to the covid butt fuck the (D)'eez just pulled on us or the "too big to fail" scam Bush and the (D)'eez screwed us for.

And we didn't get much of anything as a nation from either of those. American governance/legislation has been a total fucking disaster of a train wreck for nearly 30 years.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I disagree, I think maintaining a strong if not superior military is a worthwhile endeavor and one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government. And we GOT SOMETHING FOR IT!!! That's a big part of the reason we have military superiority today.

That's a valuable asset to the nation.

Also, a drop in the bucket compared to the covid butt fuck the (D)'eez just pulled on us or the "too big to fail" scam Bush and the (D)'eez screwed us for.

And we didn't get much of anything as a nation from either of those. American governance/legislation has been a total fucking disaster of a train wreck for nearly 30 years.

Despite our bloated military budget we could not defeat the Taliban in twenty years. We could not defeat the Vietnamese Communists in ten years. The U.S. military is an expensive government spending program that does not work. Someone should tell the Masters of War to do more with less. The only reason we spend so much on that wasteful boondoggle is that military contractors are major donaters to the Republican Party, and the military is the Republican jobs program.

 

[Ezkaton]

Despite our bloated military budget we could not defeat the Taliban in twenty years. We could not defeat the Vietnamese Communists in ten years.

Political losses, not a combat loss due to military inability.

The VC lost nearly, and the Taliban lost every single engagement.

The U.S. military is an expensive government spending program that does not work.

It does work though. It's one of the only ones that does work.

Someone should tell the Masters of War to do more with less.

Like in Europe??

Where they talk shit and then look to the USA and scream "DO SOMETHING!!!" every time they fail to keep their back yard in order??

Yeaa.....

The only reason we spend so much on that wasteful boondoggle is that military contractors are major donaters to the Republican Party, and the military is the Republican jobs program.

That might have been True in the 70's and 80's but the military is a bipartisan Spend-O-Thon and has been since the first gulf war.


Can you actually argue in favor of communism or is "I hate republicans, republicans BAD!!! Even when it's Democrats doing it!! I hate the USA!!!! " maximum partisan hackery the only thing you've got???

 

[pecksniff]

Like in Europe??

Where they talk shit and then look to the USA and scream "DO SOMETHING!!!" every time they fail to keep their back yard in order??

Yeaa.....

You know what the problem is there: No NATO member, including the U.S., dares engage Russia directly, for fear of nuclear escalation. The most we can do is what's being done now: Send Ukraine lots of weapons.

But, this situation has broader application: For similar reasons, it is not likely the U.S. will ever again fight the kind of war where victory goes to the side that can put more troops in the field.

 

[icanhelp1]

Political losses, not a combat loss due to military inability.

The VC lost nearly, and the Taliban lost every single engagement.



It does work though. It's one of the only ones that does work.



Like in Europe??

Where they talk shit and then look to the USA and scream "DO SOMETHING!!!" every time they fail to keep their back yard in order??

Yeaa.....



That might have been True in the 70's and 80's but the military is a bipartisan Spend-O-Thon and has been since the first gulf war.


Can you actually argue in favor of communism or is "I hate republicans, republicans BAD!!! Even when it's Democrats doing it!! I hate the USA!!!! " maximum partisan hackery the only thing you've got???

pEOPLE

You know what the problem is there: No NATO member, including the U.S., dares engage Russia directly, for fear of nuclear escalation. The most we can do is what's being done now: Send Ukraine lots of weapons.

But, this situation has broader application: For similar reasons, it is not likely the U.S. will ever again fight the kind of war where victory goes to the side that can put more troops in the field.

We said those very words in 1990, one year later we face down the 4th largest military in the world with ground troops. When mad men engage in war anything can happen.

 

[pecksniff]

pEOPLE

We said those very words in 1990, one year later we face down the 4th largest military in the world with ground troops. When mad men engage in war anything can happen.

But we won the Iraq War by superiority in armaments, not in numbers.

 

[icanhelp1]

But we won the Iraq War by superiority in armaments, not in numbers.

700,000 american troops?

 

[pecksniff]

700,000 american troops?

In a country where the whole male population was subject to conscription. Hussein could always field more troops.

 

[icanhelp1]

In a country where the whole male population was subject to conscription. Hussein could always field more troops.

Saddam had Russia's best equipment.

 

[ll74]

Saddam had Russia's best equipment.

No..he didn't. He had a few equipment pieces from Russia because they saw an opportunity.