Skip to main content

Competition & Progressive?

By
I couldn't make it past "The Principles of Communism" without several questions that may or may not appear obvious to others, but as for me, I need to know before moving along and taking the rest in. For example, competition, appeared to be one of the devils of society, one that communism must crush in order to be successful. Competition according to Engels was partially at fault for classism. This made me wonder how we conceptualize competition in our society today. Is this a cultural phenomenon. I remember as a child competition showed its face every day, from getting a star in the elementary school classroom to fighting to be a the top of the class in high school or winning the swim meet. How does a society function without competition? What are the detriments of competition? Is all competition evil?
Secondly, a lot of aspects of communism seemed to be very modern and progressive. For example, the idea of globalization was already mentioned: "In this way, big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into contact with each other..." Also, the idea that the Earth did not belong to anyone and the need for absolution of private property seemed to be progressive as well. "Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock" is another progressive idea. Finally, the idea of the family in communism seems to me to be very modern. However, what I don't understand is the role of the woman. I don't understand the "community of women". What role does the woman play in a communist society? Is she valued and respected? How is this different from a democratic society? Is the difference significant?

One last note....when reading about the proletariat, I keep thinking about people who lived paycheck to paycheck today....any ideas?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t
2 comments
Read more