[Wilhelm]

and now have some things that I truly do not like about communism:

"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."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... o/ch02.htm

So religion must be abolished, and freedom and justice must be abolished?

Communism acts in contradiction to all past historical experience? So the communists will ignore all historical precedents from the past and make the same mistakes that governments have done before?

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Bullshit! Marx twists the words to imply that you have to share all your money to people that don't have it only because it is "social power."

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

My family has worked for my welfare, I will not share it by force.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

So I was right after all, communism is about taking everybody down.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

What is so wrong with being married? Burgeois oppression? Ha! Marx was a conspiracy freak or something?

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

Yeah, right. It is to take the burgeoisie down.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Fuck that, some people have earned their property, why will it be taken away?

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

That seems OK.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

My family has worked for me. Some people work for their children, why should they not do it?

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

So you want to leave your fucked up country, and your property is confiscated? Now I see where Cuba comes in, people who want to go away have to desperately get in rafts in shark-infested waters to escape from that torn down country to find a better future for themselves.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Yes, that's alright.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Now I see where Stalin's collectivisation is based. Why should I be obligated to work? In a free market I starve if I don't work, that should be it.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

That sounds OK too.

If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

So it will be to establish another ruling class. That is hypocritical. The aim should be to have no ruling class at all.

That is just the second chapter, I will read the other ones when I have the time.

If anyone here is willing to discuss it, I am going to discuss communism, not capitalism. I know the evils of capitalism, I just think there should be another alternative to capitalism.

[Skullers]

some things that I truly do not like

Communism doesn't care what YOU don't like...

So religion must be abolished, and freedom and justice must be abolished?

It is the desire of our party to realize that which the enlightened minds of all ages and nations wanted to realize: truth and justice. We do not want the truth and justice of the clergy. Ours is the material, empirical truth of applied science which we want first to know and then to practice. Impelled by the necessity of realizing a life worth living, we are interested in various kinds of truth, and especially also in that which is true justice, or in the “moral world.” The world cannot exist without morality and order, not because, as the parson has it, they came from heaven, or that they were, according to professorial wisdom, prescribed by some eternal code of laws, but because they are a universal, palpable need.

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/dietzgen/works/1870s/ethics.htm

Bullshit! Marx twists the words to imply that you have to share all your money to people that don't have it only because it is "social power."

you don't understand.

My family has worked for my welfare, I will not share it by force.

what exactly are you talking about?

So I was right after all, communism is about taking everybody down.

it's about taking the bourgeois CLASS down

What is so wrong with being married?

The old system must be abolished.
1). It doesn't give enough freedom
2). It's based on religion

Yeah, right. It is to take the burgeoisie down.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

Fuck that, some people have earned their property, why will it be taken away?

1). they are parasites
2). the state needs it more than they do
3). no communism yet there

So you want to leave your fucked up country, and your property is confiscated?

there are different kinds of property...

Why should I be obligated to work? In a free market I starve if I don't work, that should be it.

well that's what 'equal obligation of all to work' means: nobody gets to be a parasite and if he doesn't work then he doesn't eat

So it will be to establish another ruling class.

no. to abolish differences between classes by abolishing the old system of production...

[Adrien]

Greetings Guillermo,

I don't think communism is following the manifesto to the letter, it has to be completed with works of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, ... depending on your belief, and slightly adapted in its writing because sometimes he is not very clear.

Well, to me religion must not be "abolished" but must lose all support from the state (it was discussed on other topics) like time on the public channels and financial support. It must also absolutely lose all political influence in the government.

Now with "freedom" and "justice" of course that they must not be abolished under a communist state, we don't need to say it. I don't remember, but maybe Marx is saying here "freedom" and "justice" in the capitalist sense, which would mean freedom for the richs, justice against the people.

And again, don't need to say that communists like logical people would learn from their mistakes and mistakes of previous failed revolutions. Here it's not a matter of being communist or not, man learns from his mistakes.

Now for the rest of the quotations (and especially the last one), you really need to see them precised in for example a book i really like, the State and the Revolution by Lenin. In fact the aim of that book is precisely to take Marx's, Engels's work and develop them, make them clear when they are not, illustrate them and when it is needed add a little correction (once in fact).

[Adrien]

What is so wrong with being married?

Didn't see that one. The problem with the wedding is that it is "too religious", that it is a symbol, a impression of religion into society. Nothing's wrong with seeing people united, but not with wedding, with new civic unions that would be free from any religious connotations.

[jaakko]

Wilhelm,

If you're bourgeois you aren't even expected by Marxists to accept the Manifesto of the Communist Party. And how you dare saying it's "hypocritical"? Manifesto declares the aims of communism in the most straight and honest way possible. It doesn't prostitute itself by trying to convince the bourgeoisie like the utopian socialists did. It states everything clearly.

Wilhelm:

So religion must be abolished, and freedom and justice must be abolished?

Communism acts in contradiction to all past historical experience? So the communists will ignore all historical precedents from the past and make the same mistakes that governments have done before

I will not waste my time on this. Read it again:

The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"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.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

Wilhelm:

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Bullshit! Marx twists the words to imply that you have to share all your money to people that don't have it only because it is "social power."

What is it so hard to understand? It doesn't speak of money, it speaks of property, to be exact, of capital. This is what preceeds your quote in Manifesto:

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

Wilhelm:

My family has worked for my welfare, I will not share it by force.

Oh, sure. If your family owns capital and buys labour power, you're indirectly enjoying the fruits of surplus-value created by workers. Communists don't expect you to give it up.
Maybe you've heard this word: EXPROPRIATION
Wilhelm

So I was right after all, communism is about taking everybody down.

Everybody? You surely have lost perspective. Here's the full quote:

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

These people have always constituted a small minority in all developed capitalist countries, and everywhere they continue to diminish into ever smaller minority.
Wilhelm:

Yeah, right. It is to take the burgeoisie down.

What is this truism about?

Fuck that, some people have earned their property, why will it be taken away?

"Why-oh-why?"... To tell you the truth, communists don't care if you "fuck that". Why will it be taken away? Because it's necessary for the transition from capitalism to communism.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

My family has worked for me. Some people work for their children, why should they not do it?

Do you know how large is the percentage amon bourgeoisie, whose parents are also bourgeois?
Inheritance is to be abolished, because that is one of the most effective ways to liquidate the capitalist class. Inheritance matters to only a small stratum of the people. When it's abolished, it takes only a couple of generations that it won't anymore matter to that small stratum (which formerly benefitted from inheritance) either.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

So you want to leave your fucked up country, and your property is confiscated?

Exactly. I personally know how the monopoly capitalists of my country constantly threaten by moving their property out of the country to get what they want. They use it to make the workers lose confidence in the power of their class. They get intimidated by this threat and it has been effective in making some lose hope in the possibility of socialism ("because we wouldn't be left anything to build it with"). However, there's a solution: When the director general (Jorma Ollila) of Nokia, threatens to leave the country if he don't get this or that, and this is what he's most certainly do in the event of socialist revolution, We'll say "Just pack your bags! We'll take care of your property while you're away. Farewell."

Why should I be obligated to work? In a free market I starve if I don't work, that should be it.

So, what difference does it make? In my country there's a high unemployment rate, because people just don't get jobs. Under socialism, there would be work for all, and the now unemployed would be more than happy to do what they are obliged for the good of the society. There would, however, people being upset because of this "great crime against humanity" - Equal obligation of all to work. It wouldn't be the unemployed section of the proletariat. There's a certain social group with distinct relationship to the means of production, which would rather die than accept the obligation, that is: THE BOURGEOISIE.

So it will be to establish another ruling class. That is hypocritical. The aim should be to have no ruling class at all.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. It would be hypocritical if communists concealed the dictatorship of the proletariat being their aim. Besides, if you had read the below part of the Manifesto completely, you would notice that the abolishment of social classes is the ultimate goal.

If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

[Wilhelm]

OK, the reply from Skullers didn't do much for me.

Jaakko on te other hand, explained to me some things, and I am willing to accept my mistakes.

Oh, sure. If your family owns capital and buys labour power, you're indirectly enjoying the fruits of surplus-value created by workers. Communists don't expect you to give it up.
Maybe you've heard this word: EXPROPRIATION

That's unfair. Do you think that just because I am rich I should be taken down? Communists stereotype the burgeoisie as if all of us were those guys who enslaved people in factories in the industrial revolution.

The taking the burgeoisie down is hypocritical, because according to other parts, it is about taking the proletariat up, so everybody will be on the same level, and classes will be abolished.

Some people work hard to make savings, so they won't have to work in teh future. I don't see anything wrong with that, people should be free to work or not work (which I know doesn't exist right now among the proletariat, but I arepeat I already know about the evils of capitalism).

I think in many other things you are right Jaakko.

About the wedding, which Adrien clarified for me. If two people want to get married, there should be no obstacle for it. Right now, many other options exist without the religious connotation, so it should not be abolished.

I know many communists have told me that abolishing religion is not about banning it, but separating it from state. It is separated from the state in many countries now. I don't see anything wrong with it, but to thehard-liners, wouldn't that be a perversin of Marxism? Marx explicitly states that religion should be abolished, and that happened in the USSR, churches were burn, and church services were banned. Now, they will tell me that didn't happen, but Stalin also erased Trotsky from history books, heh. Now Skullers, is it another "trot lie"?

[jaakko]

Ok... I got a little upset when reading the original piece criticising the Manifesto. I couldn't help it. But I'm always willing to discuss these issues calmly as far as possible. And I'm happy that Wilhelm is being honest and calm, while I certainly didn't like wrote in the initial message of this thread.

Oh, sure. If your family owns capital and buys labour power, you're indirectly enjoying the fruits of surplus-value created by workers. Communists don't expect you to give it up.
Maybe you've heard this word: EXPROPRIATION

That's unfair. Do you think that just because I am rich I should be taken down? Communists stereotype the burgeoisie as if all of us were those guys who enslaved people in factories in the industrial revolution.

Not because you're rich. It has nothing to do with how rich the bourgeois class is. They are to be expropriated because communist society prerequisites taking bourgeois property in the hands of the society. Concretely, in the hands of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But as this state has withered away, it can no longer described as property of the state. Therefore, the more general (applicable to both the socialist transitional stage and the complete communist society) term, 'socially property', is used.

The taking the burgeoisie down is hypocritical, because according to other parts, it is about taking the proletariat up, so everybody will be on the same level, and classes will be abolished.

But it is just a fact that enterprises are privately owned, and taking them under socialist ownership inevitably means the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. Practically there's no way to avoid that if there's going to be socialist re-organisation of economy. Expropriating the bourgeoisie and abolishing the capitalist relations of production liquidates the bourgeoisie as an economic class. Thus economically, the bourgeoisie will then merge with the proletariat. In concrete social reality, that it will take a couple of generations to fully integrate the bourgeois people into the working class. When this job is complete, and all are working for the society as a whole, there won't be social classes anymore.

However, if we're talking of one or more socialist countries in the otherwise capitalist world, the people of these socialist countries remain as part of the world proletariat, they remain proletarians in the world-scale, even if there weren't any class antagonisms left in the socialist countries themselves.

Some people work hard to make savings, so they won't have to work in teh future. I don't see anything wrong with that, people should be free to work or not work

Society is never complete. When people work in a socialist society, the wealth they create is used (except for the part that the worker receives directly) in the further building of the society, instead of ending in some individual's pockets or bank account. Society takes care of everyone, and giving up contributing to the society can be tolerated only in case of those who are not physically and/or mentally capable to do work.

About the abolishment of religion. I don't have any generally applicable recipe for this. Marxism teaches that religion exists because its roots in the 'base' structure of society, and this objective basis for religion's existence gets eliminated during the phase of socialist transition. I think most emphasis should be put on this. And of course education and propaganda. But I acknowledge that in some cases it might be necessary to use more "active" measures (for example if the religious institutions are used as a cover by national reactionary elements or by foreign forces), though this should be avoided if possible. Nowadays in my country religion is so mild that I think it will get marginalised rather quickly, maybe already during the pre-revolution class struggle. Many people belong to Church, but this is more like tradition, to most of them religion isn't very deep (they may "believe" "just in case") and some are just too lazy to leave the Church. Not much of an issue for me. And also, not all communists are atheists (though even the believers don't care about the Church).

[Skullers]

oops clicked submit button 2 times someone delete

[Skullers]

OK, the reply from Skullers didn't do much for me.

all the points in your post were 1-line... i don't write long replies to such things (because of lack of detail)

That's unfair. Do you think that just because I am rich I should be taken down? Communists stereotype the burgeoisie as if all of us were those guys who enslaved people in factories in the industrial revolution.

nonono. i don't think bourgeoisie PEOPLE should be taken down... but the power of the CLASS will disappear when the capitalist economic SYSTEM which gives them power is abolished...

I know many communists have told me that abolishing religion is not about banning it, but separating it from state. It is separated from the state in many countries now. I don't see anything wrong with it, but to thehard-liners, wouldn't that be a perversin of Marxism? Marx explicitly states that religion should be abolished,

IMO it should be separated from the state in more ways, such as the education system being officially anti-religious, criticizing religion, etc... but i would never BAN anything...

in the USSR, churches were burn, and church services were banned. Now, they will tell me that didn't happen, but Stalin also erased Trotsky from history books, heh. Now Skullers, is it another "trot lie"?

i like Stalin not because he was a "dictator" but because of his ECONOMIC policies which brought tremendous progress to USSR... i don't agree with all of his political policies.
I'm not saying it's NOT a trot lie though...

[Deicidus]

Abolishing religion is not the same as abolishing faith. If you have faith, thats cool, very happy for you. The only thing a communist society wants is to get rid of those who lie and profit from those beliefs. Those who use religion to gain political power. Destroying religion is about destroying a State within a State. Religion never saved anybody. It only created disparity and conflicts in the population. Religion was only rich pedophiles that wanted to get in your pockets while prommissing you heaven. The real world is here and right now, lets focus on constructing this one instead of worrying about death all the time.


And as for the bourgeois class. The problem I have with it is not that they dont deserve what they worked for. It's just that when they have more money and ressources than others, they'll have more privileges than the rest of the population. They can send their own kids to richer and separated school system. The poor will have to live his misery, so will his children. A capitalist society puts powers, privilege and property in the hands of those who dont deserve it at all.

Land belongs to no man, but its fruits are for everyone.

[Wilhelm]

The only thing a communist society wants is to get rid of those who lie and profit from those beliefs. Those who use religion to gain political power. Destroying religion is about destroying a State within a State. Religion never saved anybody. It only created disparity and conflicts in the population. Religion was only rich pedophiles that wanted to get in your pockets while prommissing you heaven. The real world is here and right now, lets focus on constructing this one instead of worrying about death all the time.

Yah, that's what happened in the USSR, churches were burnt, and church services were banned. Religious people were persecuted. People should have the right to congregate.

[Sandino]

Yah, that's what happened in the USSR, churches were burnt, and church services were banned. Religious people were persecuted. People should have the right to congregate.

False.

Photos of religious life in the Soviet Union

Religious belief and practice were not banned. It was just that the political power of the church was stripped. This was one of the very positive things about the USSR. Without the support of the state, belief in superstitious nonsense like Christianity plummeted to something like 30%. This contrasts quite strongly with the U.S., where religion and capitalist rule are incestually intertwined, leading the population to believe all kinds of ridiculous superstitious bullshit like creationism.

[TheRedBaron]

@ Wilhelm

So I was right after all, communism is about taking everybody down. ... Yeah, right. It is to take the burgeoisie down.

This thread raises indeed an interesting point, and therefore he deserves to be revived. Evidently the nineteenth century was a period of radical political and social reforms, and they were necessary. But the solutions offered by "The communist manifesto" are clearly unsound. It states that the proletariat can improve its situation, simply by destroying the bourgeoisie (as a class). This statement is not credible. But it does discourage the proletariat to make compromises with the bourgeoisie in order to further its interests. On the contary, the Manifesto fills the proletariat with a violent rage. It tears society apart. In reality progress is only possible by appealing to social justice and equity.

[The Immortal Goon]

There is a rather large historical argument to be made in the background of this that I think is being missed.

The manifesto is a small distillation of a large academic discipline that had been being built, the manifesto is what to do with the knowledge.

It's not so much saying that the proletariat should kill all their bosses tomorrow, but the argument is that history works in certain ways.

You'll note that toward the beginning it goes through a long sequence about how the bourgousie came to power by liquidating the aristocracy and nobility as a relevant class. After this, the way we interacted with the world changed.

In this same way, via the same ultimate process, the proletariat will need to do the same.

[TheRedBaron]

@ The Immortal Goon

There is a rather large historical argument to be made in the background of this that I think is being missed.

It is true that "The communist manifesto" is an analysis of history. It is a matter of opinion whether this abstraction of reality is a fruitful one. Many suppositions in the Manifesto are controversial, which evidently does not enhance its credibility. However, my main objection against the Manifesto concerns its view on human nature. It is stated that the human conscience is determined by the social position within the economy. Thus the ideas of the bourgeoisie become outdated, more or less by definition. In the long run there is no point in compromising with the bourgeoisie. For the bourgeoisie must be defeated in the class struggle, if necessary by means of the dictature of the proletariat.

It's not so much saying that the proletariat should kill all their bosses tomorrow, but the argument is that history works in certain ways.

It is certainly desirable to reflect on history. There may even be human traits which work in a certain way. However, this is all a highly controversial matter. Nowadays, this is the field of research for behavioural economics. This discipline is still in its infancy. Some of those scientists try to formulate rules for policy, but none of them has the haughtiness to derive an alternative social-economic system.

You'll note that toward the beginning it goes through a long sequence about how the bourgousie came to power by liquidating the aristocracy and nobility as a relevant class. After this, the way we interacted with the world changed.

Indeed new institutions were formed. But again, the historic materialism is only a model. In fact, many social-democrats were quick about distancing themselves from it.

In this same way, via the same ultimate process, the proletariat will need to do the same.

Ah, business as usual! But here lies the problem, for the historic model is transformed into a political dogma or doctrine. And this dogma tears society apart, and thus imho does not contribute to the wellbeing of people.

The cruel exploitation of the workers in some firms is attributed to a structural failure of the society. It is said that the personal responsibility of individuals is less relevant for the abuses than the social system. Thus the abuse would be normal in capitalism. The class struggle boosts a strong distrust between the workers and management. It is played down that there is good and bad management, just like there are good and bad workers. It is supposed that the socialization will induce a fundamental change in the willingness of the people.

It is stated that the socialization of the means of production is a prerequisite for the social and human development. Of course the early socialists faced the problem, that this causality can not be proved. Nevertheless, they were willing to take the gamble, which imho is irresponsible, since such interventions might as well disrupt the economy. The intervention could be a dictature, and thus the policy is determined by the power balance instead of justice for all. Entrepreneurs could no longer carry on business, which stifles their freedom in an unacceptable way.

I believe that such a doctrine is harmful. In fact the workers and the management share common interest, notably the survival and prosperity of their firm. In addition, nowadays management often recognizes that in the long run the personal development of the workers is beneficial for their firm.

Evidently people have difficulty in abandoning their doctrine - which is an unfortunate property of doctrines. Some attempts have been made to moderate terms like class struggle and the dictature of the proletariat. But imho this does not make sense. The terms are and remain essentially flawed and unhealthy.

Incidentally, there is this old German joke: how did the two German states divide the legacy of Karl Marx? The German Democratic Republic got The Manifesto and the Federal Republic of Germany got The Capital.