Impoverished Eritrean school-kids have higher test scores than Canada, Denmark, and Czech Rep
- Thread starter Asrafael
- Start date
sure bro, cadans dont work hard, look at the dcotors in the NHs, its sually foreiners from kenya, NFD kenyam, india, paksitan etc
also Oagdne by nature is a very stand alone conservtive group, when somalis refused to share the somali community, the quitely built their own community and edcuated their kids,
hawiye and Mj and 1door refused to share a community, i do not blame them though, they fought in somalia,
but yeas, the single greatest thing a parent can do is push their kids,
i was beaten as a kid if i went out on Saturday even aged 13, yet my friends went out, i was expected to read quran dugsi, then tuition then come home and revise and then work in the family business,
every Ogaden family i knew were tough on their kids, i was amazed my Friends would go out aged 12/13 and come home late on weekends, whilst i was punished, pushed and told i was expected to be something,
at aged 9 i was told you will do medicine, no ifs not buts, no coconuts, iots the Ogaden way, Ogaden by nature have this very Indian like conservative, you are expected to almost worship the fmaily,
so aged 14 i negotiated to do economics and maths, 4 years before i did university, all the family members would call and ask what i will study at university, my awow, ayeeyo from africa, abtis, uncles, edos etc and aunts,
before i started driving and tkaing younger siblings to tution aged 19, mum would take all of us to tuition, every weekend, after she came back from one of our business she worked at opening,
i was beaten black and blue for not reading my quran or forgetting an ayat, from memory
all the Ogaden kids behaved like indians/chiense, we obeyed parents, girls were never beaten but the boys were karbahsed,
also i know so many Ogaden who sent their kids to garrisa, jigjiga , kismayo years before it became fashion in UK,
there was a very strict regiment when growing up,
we were told what to do, perform at school and never ever go out outside of the community,
Ogadenka are ruthless, my family knew every move i made, but it saved me, several somali and foreign friends went to prison for rape and murder, whilst i was in the family business, they murdered an afghan because one 1door dude got a dirty look, he stabbed him and they kicked him or stabbed him too,
Ogaden fathers are very involved in their family, i noticed something most Somalia do not do, my dad raised his own kids when the first wife died, so did my great gradndad in the late 1940s, when asked why not get remarried your wife died, he said step mum may beat my kids, 6 of my abtis all took their kids after divorces fearing the new step dad may beat them, spcieally sicne some of the step dads were not Ogadens, god forbid what if they rape the girls/? so awow and ayeeyo told them take the kids and raise them, how many fathers of somali asli do yuo know raising their own kids in the west or kenya?
it made me the man i am today though, really tough, insha Allah my kids will expect the same,
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
What fucking reactionary bullshit the rashidun caliphate was welfare state with the Bayt al mal (the house of treasury) was always empty because of the welfare state and the basic income. Capitalism is inherently unislamic i’ve Mentioned the Hadith in my thread “Any Leftists in forum.” Tomas
Sowell is a libertarian ie a retard. I bet you’re on Cayr right now.
you are confused son, rashiduun treasury was not empty, in fact no income tax yet people refused zaka/charity so much so it was returned to Umar and Uthman and Cali, RA to all
things went down hill for Muslims when it became royal family like the abasid dynasty later on went ton spending spree
learn some history, and sowell is a genius, first read his books then insult him, but first read his books and no i work full time alhamdulilah, i make thousands each month,
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
I’m not even a Marxist but Marx never said that in Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto.
True sxb. Too few somalis think or plan ahead for their kids. I plan to do the same for my kids to keep them off the streets.
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
That was because Wealth inequality was low unlike in the current capitalist system.
5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property)
We all know Marx wanted to get rid of private property, but he was remarkably frank about wanting to abolish these things, too.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Jon Miltimore
Culture Karl Marx The Communist Manifesto Private Property Family Individuality Eternal Truth Nations History Communism
One of the remarkable things about The Communist Manifesto is its honesty.
Karl Marx might not have been a very good guy, but he was refreshingly candid about the aims of Communism. This brazenness, one could argue, is baked into the Communist psyche.
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims,” Marx declared in his famous manifesto. “They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.”
Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, readers are presented with a pure, undiluted vision of the author’s ideology (dark as it may be).
Marx’s manifesto is famous for summing up his theory of Communism with a single sentence: “Abolition of private property.” But this was hardly the only thing the philosopher believed must be abolished from bourgeois society in the proletariat's march to utopia. In his manifesto, Marx highlighted five additional ideas and institutions for eradication.
1. The Family
Marx admits that destroying the family is a thorny topic, even for revolutionaries. “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists,” he writes.
But he said opponents of this idea fail to understand a key fact about the family.
“On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie,” he writes.
Best of all, abolishing the family would be relatively easy once bourgeois property was abolished. “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”
2. Individuality
Marx believed individuality was antithetical to the egalitarianism he envisioned. Therefore, the “individual” must “be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”
Individuality was a social construction of a capitalist society and was deeply intertwined with capital itself.
“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality,” he wrote. “And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”
3. Eternal Truths
Marx did not appear to believe that any truth existed beyond class struggle.
“The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” he argued. “When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.”
He recognized how radical this idea would sound to his readers, particularly since Communism does not seek to modify truth, but to overthrow it. But he argued these people were missing the larger picture.
“‘Undoubtedly,’ it will be said, ‘religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.
There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.’
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.”
4. Nations
Communists, Marx said, are reproached for seeking to abolish countries. These people fail to understand the nature of the proletariat, he wrote.
“The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”
Furthermore, largely because of capitalism, he saw hostilities between people of different backgrounds receding. As the proletariat grew in power, there soon would be no need for nations, he wrote.
“National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”
5. The Past
Marx saw tradition as a tool of the bourgeoisie. Adherence to the past served as a mere distraction in proletariat’s quest for emancipation and supremacy.
“In bourgeois society,” Marx wrote, “the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”
Why Do Socialists Hate Families?
04/26/2019Jonathan Newman
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.
One of Ludwig von Mises’s most important contributions was to point out that economic calculation is impossible under socialism. Meeting consumer demands requires that factors of production are allocated to the right lines of production in the right quantities at the right time — and that they are combined in the right ways to produce what consumers want and need. Entrepreneurs make these decisions in a market economy, but they are dependent on the prices of factors of production to make their decisions. They must compare these prices to the anticipated prices of the consumer goods to be able to say yes or no to any production plan.
Socialism, however, means that private ownership of the factors of production is abolished, which means there can be no exchange of factors of production. No exchange means no prices, which are vital bits of information for entrepreneurs in a market economy. Whoever is in charge of making production decisions in a socialist regime will be “groping about in the dark” without the use of market prices for the factors of production.
This is why socialist experiments always end in disaster. The death toll for socialist experiments since the USSR is easily beyond 100 million. Resources are wasted instead of used to make food, medicine, shelter, energy, clothing, and other necessities.
Interestingly, another key tenet of socialism, besides abolishing the ownership of the factors of production, is abolishing the family. This is strange because the traditional nuclear family seems like it could be used in producing convincing socialist rhetoric: it is a good example of social bonds without private property, prices, and “capitalist exploitation.”
Yet, Marx, Engels, and many of their modern followers are anti-family. Marx and Engels write in The Communist Manifesto:
Abolition of the family! [...] On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Marx and Engels make a distinction between bourgeois and proletariat families, but “both will vanish” once communism is realized, apparently because — according to Marx — bourgeois families are predicated on exploitation. Men exploit their wives and parents exploit their children, all for “private gain.”
Engels writes in Principles of Communism:
What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.
The communist society includes the public education of children and a breakdown of social norms on monogamy, family responsibilities, and dependence on any individual. According to ReviseSociology.com:
Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.
Modern Marxists argue that families are just propaganda channels for capitalism. Families instill acceptance of hierarchy and give the bourgeoisie a way to “reproduce class inequality” through inheritances. To this end, Engels approvingly quotes Marx in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:
The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus), but also serfdom, since from the beginning it is related to agricultural services. It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state.
For Marx, the family represents a microcosm of capitalism. But why didn’t he identify it as a microcosm of socialism to argue that if socialism is feasible at the family level, then it could be feasible at a larger scale?
After all, family members do not use prices to convey information to each other about the demands for food, yard work, what vacation to go on, vacuuming, board games, transportation to events, or other things family members do for and with each other. While there are some items and rooms in the house that are used more often by one family member than the others, we do not really have justiciable “private property.” I am not accumulating IOUs from my daughter every time I provide food for her.
Exceptions to this norm or ideal are just that: exceptions. Sometimes parents pay their children to do certain chores, but we can hardly call that payment a market price. It’s more of an educational exercise to teach children responsibility and the value of money earned. No one could argue that these “prices” are the foundation for the family’s economy, preventing them from falling into calculational chaos.
04/26/2019Jonathan Newman
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.
One of Ludwig von Mises’s most important contributions was to point out that economic calculation is impossible under socialism. Meeting consumer demands requires that factors of production are allocated to the right lines of production in the right quantities at the right time — and that they are combined in the right ways to produce what consumers want and need. Entrepreneurs make these decisions in a market economy, but they are dependent on the prices of factors of production to make their decisions. They must compare these prices to the anticipated prices of the consumer goods to be able to say yes or no to any production plan.
Socialism, however, means that private ownership of the factors of production is abolished, which means there can be no exchange of factors of production. No exchange means no prices, which are vital bits of information for entrepreneurs in a market economy. Whoever is in charge of making production decisions in a socialist regime will be “groping about in the dark” without the use of market prices for the factors of production.
This is why socialist experiments always end in disaster. The death toll for socialist experiments since the USSR is easily beyond 100 million. Resources are wasted instead of used to make food, medicine, shelter, energy, clothing, and other necessities.
Interestingly, another key tenet of socialism, besides abolishing the ownership of the factors of production, is abolishing the family. This is strange because the traditional nuclear family seems like it could be used in producing convincing socialist rhetoric: it is a good example of social bonds without private property, prices, and “capitalist exploitation.”
Yet, Marx, Engels, and many of their modern followers are anti-family. Marx and Engels write in The Communist Manifesto:
Abolition of the family! [...] On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Marx and Engels make a distinction between bourgeois and proletariat families, but “both will vanish” once communism is realized, apparently because — according to Marx — bourgeois families are predicated on exploitation. Men exploit their wives and parents exploit their children, all for “private gain.”
Engels writes in Principles of Communism:
What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.
The communist society includes the public education of children and a breakdown of social norms on monogamy, family responsibilities, and dependence on any individual. According to ReviseSociology.com:
Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.
Modern Marxists argue that families are just propaganda channels for capitalism. Families instill acceptance of hierarchy and give the bourgeoisie a way to “reproduce class inequality” through inheritances. To this end, Engels approvingly quotes Marx in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:
The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus), but also serfdom, since from the beginning it is related to agricultural services. It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state.
For Marx, the family represents a microcosm of capitalism. But why didn’t he identify it as a microcosm of socialism to argue that if socialism is feasible at the family level, then it could be feasible at a larger scale?
After all, family members do not use prices to convey information to each other about the demands for food, yard work, what vacation to go on, vacuuming, board games, transportation to events, or other things family members do for and with each other. While there are some items and rooms in the house that are used more often by one family member than the others, we do not really have justiciable “private property.” I am not accumulating IOUs from my daughter every time I provide food for her.
Exceptions to this norm or ideal are just that: exceptions. Sometimes parents pay their children to do certain chores, but we can hardly call that payment a market price. It’s more of an educational exercise to teach children responsibility and the value of money earned. No one could argue that these “prices” are the foundation for the family’s economy, preventing them from falling into calculational chaos.
I can’t say why Marxists so dislike the family except to say that it’s only fitting that the people so wrong about human nature would be wrong about the institution of the family. But it’s worth exploring how families can thrive without prices when macroeconomies crumble without them.
Knowledge
One answer is that families are kind of like Crusoe on his island. Crusoe can allocate factors of production toward his wants and needs without prices because they are his wants and needs. He knows exactly how much time to work toward the production of coconuts and berries because he knows he prefers the marginal unit of one food to the other.
Family members do not share a mind, but they are intimately aware of what the other members want and need, more so than anybody outside the family. This is sometimes communicated directly, like when deciding on what to cook for dinner, but it is also something learned over time. After spending so much time with somebody, you become like an expert entrepreneur who is able to anticipate the other’s preferences.
This doesn’t scale up to the national level, obviously. I do not have intimate knowledge of what some random individual in Wisconsin will want to eat seven months from now, but this is the sort of anticipation entrepreneurs make on a daily basis, many times unknowingly by producing capital goods in intermediate stages of production years before the random Wisconsinite even realizes he is hungry. As said before, they can only make these production decisions with the help of market prices for the factors of production.
Care
Another reason families don’t fall apart without prices is that family members actually deeply care about each others’ wellbeing, and sometimes they do know what’s best for you even when you disagree. It’s not enough to say that a mother knows what her child wants and needs, she must also want the best for her child. Thus, families overcome (or are pretty good at dealing with) a knowledge problem and an incentive problem.
While I don’t want the random Wisconsinite to go hungry seven months from now, it’s not a high priority for me. I don’t have anything against that guy in Wisconsin, it’s just that I can only care about so many causes, and my family is more important to me, due to quite a few factors including proximity, my religious beliefs, my own subjective preferences (frankly), and the expectations of friends and other family.
Market economies overcome this with prices. By offering to pay for various goods and services, I offer an incentive to others to provide for me. This works vice versa in a division of labor, and it works beautifully. The most famous passage in the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith describes this phenomenon:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
The dictators, central planning boards, and workers’ collectives of socialism cannot care for each individual like we care for our family members, and they cannot care for each individual’s specific wants and needs like entrepreneurs in a market economy can, even if it is a profit motive. I’d rather a greedy capitalist sell me the food I want than a central planning board arrange for my starvation in the name of free food.
Outside Information
Finally, families are little price-free islands in a sea of prices. We can easily refer to market prices to help us make decisions in the home as a family. While there are no prices within the household, there are prices outside the household that help us economize resources. This is how socialist countries can last as long as they do. They rely on the prices of various goods and services in other countries. Even firms need external markets for factors to be able to properly reckon profits and losses and make investment decisions.
In this sense, Marxists are right to refer to families as units of consumption. My wife and daughter’s happiness is my happiness. We have the same budget, so we know our individual spending choices impact each other. Large purchases are only made with consensus. Therefore, the unity of the family is a positive, not a negative like the Marxists suggest.
This cannot work at the national level, as we have seen. Or, it does work, but only for a short while and at a severe disadvantage to having market prices both outside and inside the country. Nations are not “units of consumption” like individuals or families with a single budget and closely aligned preferences over a commonly-owned set of resources.
Conclusion
These ideas on how families survive the economic calculation problem imply that strong, thriving families are ones in which the members know a lot about each other, care a lot about each other, and are unified in their decision-making. Knowledge about each other can only come by many shared experiences and honest communication. Care for each other can be rooted in shared religious beliefs and the duties and affections that come from the shared faith. Unity naturally flows once these are established.
Jonathan Newman is Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at Bryan College. He earned his PhD at Auburn University and is a Mises Institute Fellow.
Contact Jonathan Newman
Knowledge
One answer is that families are kind of like Crusoe on his island. Crusoe can allocate factors of production toward his wants and needs without prices because they are his wants and needs. He knows exactly how much time to work toward the production of coconuts and berries because he knows he prefers the marginal unit of one food to the other.
Family members do not share a mind, but they are intimately aware of what the other members want and need, more so than anybody outside the family. This is sometimes communicated directly, like when deciding on what to cook for dinner, but it is also something learned over time. After spending so much time with somebody, you become like an expert entrepreneur who is able to anticipate the other’s preferences.
This doesn’t scale up to the national level, obviously. I do not have intimate knowledge of what some random individual in Wisconsin will want to eat seven months from now, but this is the sort of anticipation entrepreneurs make on a daily basis, many times unknowingly by producing capital goods in intermediate stages of production years before the random Wisconsinite even realizes he is hungry. As said before, they can only make these production decisions with the help of market prices for the factors of production.
Care
Another reason families don’t fall apart without prices is that family members actually deeply care about each others’ wellbeing, and sometimes they do know what’s best for you even when you disagree. It’s not enough to say that a mother knows what her child wants and needs, she must also want the best for her child. Thus, families overcome (or are pretty good at dealing with) a knowledge problem and an incentive problem.
While I don’t want the random Wisconsinite to go hungry seven months from now, it’s not a high priority for me. I don’t have anything against that guy in Wisconsin, it’s just that I can only care about so many causes, and my family is more important to me, due to quite a few factors including proximity, my religious beliefs, my own subjective preferences (frankly), and the expectations of friends and other family.
Market economies overcome this with prices. By offering to pay for various goods and services, I offer an incentive to others to provide for me. This works vice versa in a division of labor, and it works beautifully. The most famous passage in the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith describes this phenomenon:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
The dictators, central planning boards, and workers’ collectives of socialism cannot care for each individual like we care for our family members, and they cannot care for each individual’s specific wants and needs like entrepreneurs in a market economy can, even if it is a profit motive. I’d rather a greedy capitalist sell me the food I want than a central planning board arrange for my starvation in the name of free food.
Outside Information
Finally, families are little price-free islands in a sea of prices. We can easily refer to market prices to help us make decisions in the home as a family. While there are no prices within the household, there are prices outside the household that help us economize resources. This is how socialist countries can last as long as they do. They rely on the prices of various goods and services in other countries. Even firms need external markets for factors to be able to properly reckon profits and losses and make investment decisions.
In this sense, Marxists are right to refer to families as units of consumption. My wife and daughter’s happiness is my happiness. We have the same budget, so we know our individual spending choices impact each other. Large purchases are only made with consensus. Therefore, the unity of the family is a positive, not a negative like the Marxists suggest.
This cannot work at the national level, as we have seen. Or, it does work, but only for a short while and at a severe disadvantage to having market prices both outside and inside the country. Nations are not “units of consumption” like individuals or families with a single budget and closely aligned preferences over a commonly-owned set of resources.
Conclusion
These ideas on how families survive the economic calculation problem imply that strong, thriving families are ones in which the members know a lot about each other, care a lot about each other, and are unified in their decision-making. Knowledge about each other can only come by many shared experiences and honest communication. Care for each other can be rooted in shared religious beliefs and the duties and affections that come from the shared faith. Unity naturally flows once these are established.
Jonathan Newman is Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at Bryan College. He earned his PhD at Auburn University and is a Mises Institute Fellow.
Contact Jonathan Newman
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
It is widely known that when Umar (RA) ask Abu Bakr (RA) to appoint a guard for the treasury he replied why should it need a guard when it is always empty. Why would be always empty when the Muslim where conquering the richest empire of the time.
may Nacalad be on that yahuuud Marx,
his ideas are responsible for 200 million direct deaths, Cambodia, Russia, Ukraine, china etc , he hated reglion and fmaily,
feminism, Maoism, communism, Stalinist, Leninism all the horns of the devil Marx,
nacal ay ay ah,
if your a socialist/ communist you indirectly worship marx,
his ideas are responsible for 200 million direct deaths, Cambodia, Russia, Ukraine, china etc , he hated reglion and fmaily,
feminism, Maoism, communism, Stalinist, Leninism all the horns of the devil Marx,
nacal ay ay ah,
if your a socialist/ communist you indirectly worship marx,
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
The author is a trump supporter and the that quote is not the abolition of family but bourgeois family5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property)
We all know Marx wanted to get rid of private property, but he was remarkably frank about wanting to abolish these things, too.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Jon Miltimore
Culture Karl Marx The Communist Manifesto Private Property Family Individuality Eternal Truth Nations History Communism
One of the remarkable things about The Communist Manifesto is its honesty.
Karl Marx might not have been a very good guy, but he was refreshingly candid about the aims of Communism. This brazenness, one could argue, is baked into the Communist psyche.
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims,” Marx declared in his famous manifesto. “They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.”
Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, readers are presented with a pure, undiluted vision of the author’s ideology (dark as it may be).
Marx’s manifesto is famous for summing up his theory of Communism with a single sentence: “Abolition of private property.” But this was hardly the only thing the philosopher believed must be abolished from bourgeois society in the proletariat's march to utopia. In his manifesto, Marx highlighted five additional ideas and institutions for eradication.
1. The Family
Marx admits that destroying the family is a thorny topic, even for revolutionaries. “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists,” he writes.
But he said opponents of this idea fail to understand a key fact about the family.
“On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie,” he writes.
Best of all, abolishing the family would be relatively easy once bourgeois property was abolished. “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”
2. Individuality
Marx believed individuality was antithetical to the egalitarianism he envisioned. Therefore, the “individual” must “be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”
Individuality was a social construction of a capitalist society and was deeply intertwined with capital itself.
“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality,” he wrote. “And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”
3. Eternal Truths
Marx did not appear to believe that any truth existed beyond class struggle.
“The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” he argued. “When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.”
He recognized how radical this idea would sound to his readers, particularly since Communism does not seek to modify truth, but to overthrow it. But he argued these people were missing the larger picture.
“‘Undoubtedly,’ it will be said, ‘religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.
There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.’
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.”
4. Nations
Communists, Marx said, are reproached for seeking to abolish countries. These people fail to understand the nature of the proletariat, he wrote.
“The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”
Furthermore, largely because of capitalism, he saw hostilities between people of different backgrounds receding. As the proletariat grew in power, there soon would be no need for nations, he wrote.
“National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”
5. The Past
Marx saw tradition as a tool of the bourgeoisie. Adherence to the past served as a mere distraction in proletariat’s quest for emancipation and supremacy.
“In bourgeois society,” Marx wrote, “the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
Not all socialist are Marxist.
bring sources/evidence, not something out of your imagination,
do you have written sources? bring them, or you lie,
i know my Islamic economics old boy,
also being a socialist is against Islam, for the end point of socialism is communist and that is to ban marriage, religion, family and gender, hence why Marxism gave birth to communist atheism and feminism,
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
Feminism and the like are not socialist . Socialism is a economic policy. I am as conservative as a salafi when it comes to social issues
a salafi that supports socialism is like a fat dude that wants the local fast food shops to all be shut,
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
You said all socialist and communists worship Marx I was simply correcting you
Idow
The revolution shall come comrades.
I was talking about social issues such LGBTBBAksjdkeklfkd+ and feminism.
Trending
-
-
If a street interview were conducted in Somalia, asking people their opinions on marital x**gis, what do you think their responses would be?
- Started by Fobnimo Till I Dhimo
- Replies: 38
-
