As I read the Communist Manifesto, some 40 years after I did so originally, I find it strange as upon my second reading it appears to be something more. Every analysis since its inception seems to be rooted in the same arguments or observations, dialectical materialism, and the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Yet, almost conveniently, many people either choose to leave out, or dismiss outright some of the odd things in it, namely free love....
“A SPECTRE is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre. Pope, Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.” Page 8 That is one of the most famous sayings in print. On its face it seems obvious - there is a new game in town and it’s called communism and the current powers are aligned to fight against it....
Marx himself, on page 10, states that: “Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class.” Marx appears to limit his interest in the bourgeoisie who have risen higher with each political advance. Now, if one was interested in class struggle as Marx states, wouldn’t he be interested in the proletariat advancing instead of the bourgeoisie becoming less than? Why limit or reduce one’s ability for gain instead of creating a situation where people can’t attain more?...
According to Marx “The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.” The answer is to destroy everything? Seems counter-productive, don’t you think? Why would someone even think this is a good idea, let alone suggest it?...
By the time we reach page 22, I get the impression that Marx unloads on what the agenda is by using the bourgeoisie as the vehicle. “In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.” Why would you promote the existence of the labourer when he is partially responsible for the creation of capital and it appears he won’t be working much, if at all?...
Page 24, “Abolition of the family!” Not sure that is something I would advocate, but Marx does. Now here is the strange thing; apparently, the bourgeoisie family is “In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.” The family unit is probably the most important bond you could have in your entire life. Why would Marx want to abolish that? would he want to ruin the family unit?...
Page 25 is where Marx tell us “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and Nationality” It seems obvious, no society, no country, no nations, only a citizen of the world. Seems benign enough, right? Not when you see what is necessary for that to happen. As we’ve seen you need to destroy society. Cultural norms need to go out the window, etc., enter mass unregulated immigration from anywhere and everywhere....
Page 27 and 28, have some very specific and notable achievements of the Communists have taken place by the time 2022 rolls around. Nevertheless in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels....
The Fourth Industrial Revolution was written in 2016 by Klaus Schwab and on its face it seems relatively benign. In the foreword, Klaus plainly states on page vii “These rapid advances in technology, however, are doing more than providing us with new capabilities - they are changing the way we live, work, and relate to one another.” I don’t think anyone would disagree with that statement, and therefore the book seems almost gentle in its approach....
It’s clear Klaus has a vision what he wants that society to look like, on page 9 he states: “The premise of this book is that technology and digitization will revolutionize everything, making the overused and often ill-used adage ‘this time it’s different’ apt.” Given our hyper connected world, I’d say he is probably right, but he fails to consider that all of this digitization he touts is based on things that physically exist and allow digitization to happen....