Quote:
Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Jun 10 2005, 04:33 PM
But in examining the actual texts, the Communist Manifesto is the only violent document because it states that ONLY through violence can the revolution of the proletariat occur. This is Marx's opinion and it was transformed into ideology.
|
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Ah, the call for violent revolution. But wait! That's not from the Communist Manifesto, that's from the good old American constitution! Was Thomas Jefferson a closet Marxist? Obviously not, since he wrote his document much earlier than Marx. More likely, Marx was a closet fan of Jefferson; his call for violent uprising was inspired by the US constitution. If the call for violent revolution is in itself harmful, then the US constitution might just be the most harmful document of all time, for inspiring everyone from Marx to Bolivar to Robespierre with its call for violent revolution.
Personally, I agree with the American Constitution: a populace does have the right to overthrow tyrannical governments, and the Tzars of Russia were among the most brutal and autocratic in all of Europe, actually restricting the freedoms at a time when most of Europe was experiencing expanded freedoms. They also led the country into two wars that it got completely routed in.
There were a lot of problems with the Communist Manifesto. But the call for violent revolution is certainly not one of them. It was a reflection of violent political upheaval that was serving to remove all of the old autocratic guards of the old European system, a movement that not only resulted in the spread of communism, but to a much greater degree resulted in the spread of democracy.