I found it mind boggling to read what Marx had to say about Communism on the topic of the Family. He mentions it when he talks about the many objections to Communism. He believes that familial relations are exploitative and capitalistic in nature. So I guess in old terms, if we all still lived on farms with families of great numbers, parents utilizing the efforts of their children to aid in the workings of that farm, are really just exploiting them. Thats ridiculous, children are housed and fed (I assume of course), and Marx makes it seem like they should be able to reap these benefits and not contribute to making it all happen. I find this selfish and short-sided.
What I find a little confusing, is the end result here. I understand that the goal is to uproot all the Bourgeoisie, and everything they stand for, eliminate private ownership, and stop oppression. I also understand that it seems like the Proletariat just cant seem to destroy enough to find the perfect conditions to build this new society. But here's where I get sticky, who's running the state in the final stage of Communism? Who is responsible for this state centered credit, who inherits all the taxes, in whole, the state will claim power over everything, and who is to say they won't use this power like the Bourgeoisie? A specific group of people will still end up with all the control, and its human nature to take advantage of power with personal advancement in mind.
Rachel S
There will always be social classes. If we uproot one, another one will form. I too noticed this while reading the Communist Manifesto. Even in less industrialized societies, where the jobs and social classes are less defined, leaders are assigned. Although we would all like everyone to be treated as equals, that idea is not possible.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right in the problems you outline in the second para. Consider, however, that Marx envisions two stages: the transitory "dictatorship of the proletariat", and the final, stateless, communism.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same thing when I was reading the Manifesto. In philosophical terms, I understand the concept that there are the good and bad forces of society. The Landowners and holders of resources are "bad" and will make the "good" laborers and lower classes struggle to survive. That sounds fair until you ponder who might be the future leaders and what power will they wield. We saw what has happened to Russia and China and the corruption that always follows. In a way, even fewer people end up wielding more power and the countries often have less and less money to give back to the people. Seems to me the answer is not communism. The answer is human evolution away from self-centered priorities and that is not something you change by government mandate.
ReplyDeleteI thought too that a rule by even those who belong to the Proletariat would just lead to them replacing and taking on the role of the Bourgeoisie. This would in turn create a new upper class, a new lower class, and an endless cycle of overturning and replacing those in power. That transition to the final, stateless communism cannot happen because there will always be those that are in power and those that wish to usurp that power for their own, regardless of the greater good being attained or not.
ReplyDeleteI also found that part about the family to be ridiculous. To me it is almost like freeloading is excepted and even the ones that don't do any of the work will also reap the benefits that arise from other people's hard work.
ReplyDelete