Had this document written by Karl Marx become common knowledge, would history be what it is?

Question

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

by Karl Marx

Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

Private Property and Communism

Excerpt (see web link above for full text):

"Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism.[30] Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, [Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes – and the latter’s abomination is still greater – the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head."

Craps so far. Please read the document completely before answering.

Dawn : "With Freedom of religion it allowed the people to be creative, innovative and free thinkers. Gave the government something to do besides police peoples thoughts. Telling them what to believe, how to worship, and what to think. So let's keep religion out of politics. "

Before the atheistic industrial magnates threatened the rule of the Monarchy in England in the 1700s, there was the Monarchy, a religious theocratic dictatorship. Religion did not propel invention nor did it create the USA. The captains in industry forced english parliament into existence, a peace offering from the monarchy and a spectacle for the peasantry......does anyone notice the critcal tone of Marx towards these communisms.

A reasonable answer n0witryto, but most of the working class were illiterate in those days and it has been 150 years since. It COULD have become common knowledge along that duration, but ... Understandably you are critical of his style as you do not know the origins of his method nor the formal conditions in his childhood. So you are correct in so far that illiteracy and the negation of the formal education required for preparation to interpret the work would render it ineffectual. If the peoples condition were literate in Hegel, the logical precondition for Marxs method, would Marxs understanding for communism be the same?

You are correct, monopolization of economic control is not very conducive for democracy, but which other direction is there? Certainly multi level governant democracy is better than right to vote for share ownership (a.k.a. stock holding democracy), but that is not what document is about. see the link. The 'right to' clause in respect to property is alienated from labour so that self value and property become an uncertainty and it is something the person is able neither to reject nor reconcile.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/bublitz.htm

On alienation for property
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm#PR65
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/ch05.htm#108
'Therefore in primogeniture landed property, exact private property, becomes an inalienable good, thus a substantive characteristic which constitutes the very private personality and universal essence of self-consciousness of the class of...'

Answer 1

Most people had a feeling that opposed these beliefs. It is much like why we have politicians. We need to argue through different ways of doing things. It is not a fair system. But it is the best we have at present. I believe the system generally improves the way the masses can make it work. And the way it is working is not something that could have been drastically altered by any idea or concepts. It is a multifaceted system. There is a lot going on at the same time. We are changing all the time.

Answer 2

Karl Marx is a terrible writer. By writing long, technical sentences full of long words and complex phrases he only confuses most people. Had anyone tried to read this complicated piece in the late 1800's, he would surely have discarded it as trash, rendering it impotent to history. So, no, this document would not have made any difference to history.

If Marx had been able to make his point with a writing ability of Steinbeck or Hemingway then history may indeed have been different. But I do not believe that communism can stand the clarity of reasonable writing and that its premises must be obfuscated with thick layers of rhetoric and bluster. Through stunning oratory, confusing dialectic and numerous firearms the masses were converted (as if they had a choice).

While I have slogged through some Marx, it is always very distasteful because I so dislike his philosophy. Any study of business shows immediately the HUGE fallacies of a centrally controlled government with no personal property rights, so while his work may be viewed as beneficial compared to cruel dictatorships and robber barons, I think even he would be very interested in modern capitalism.

Good question, however.

Reply (partial): I have only read a few excerpts of Hegel's and truly am not familiar with (or a fan of) his style or method; but I did slog through some of it but could not get far since I disagreed with so many of his points along the way.

But I naturally distrust anything manmade that is very difficult to understand or master. I believe that intentional, unnecessary complexity is the tool by which many people swindle others, as in Option ARM Mortgages or selling derivitives on the stock market (this is despite my liking of capitalism). Pure Marxism had little to do with the Bolshevik revolution; the Bolsheviks took over by the sword, used whatever philosphy justified their looting of the ruling class AND allowed them to get permission from commoners and soldiers returning from WWI. Once they had the military and the commoners on their side they had control of Moscow.
This shift in power was summed up well in a popular song:
"Meet the new boss;
Same as the old boss"

But the more I read it, the more I think Marx did not intend for the total dissolution of private property, but for people to naturally act as good stewards of the land for the benefit of all rather than for their own greed. Yet his perspective demands that the capitalist be ultimately greedy, short-sighted and must exploit the labourer to the maximum extent. This perspective has not endured the test of time, in America at least. Many employees do just fine and have a much greater standard of living than Russia or China.

Nice chatting with you.

Answer 3

Who knows what history might or might not be. Each person is a multiple factor.
However - Marx makes a singular, uncharacteristic error in the logic of this particular piece. He moves from woman/wife as "private ownership." To the commune woman shared which he equates next to prostitution. Then by a dazzling dance, makes the prostitute private again. Shame on you, Karl.
That aside, the failure of communism is not gender, but general selfishness which communism seeks to check through platitudes, slogans, and so forth. Unsuccessfully - cf China today.

Answer 4

when asked why did all the inventions take place in the USA.
It looks like by accident something would have been invented somewhere else. From the airplane to automobiles to sewing machines, electricity, cotton gin, assembly line. factory's.
the explanation: The other governments spent all their time and resources trying to make the people believe what they wanted them to believe. Using force to control the masses.
With Freedom of religion it allowed the people to be creative, innovative and free thinkers. Gave the government something to do besides police peoples thoughts. Telling them what to believe, how to worship, and what to think. So let's keep religion out of politics.

Answer 5

i dont know but screw capitalism