conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me a description for a story titled The Communist Manifesto about DIV><B>the, German, Friedrich with the genre: Politics & Social Sciences, Politics & Government.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: <DIV><B>the author</B> (1818-1883) was a German philosopher,&#160;economist,&#160;sociologist, and&#160;revolutionary socialist.<B> Friedrich Engels</B> (1820-1895) was a German&#160;philosopher,&#160;social scientist,&#160;journalist, and&#160;businessman.<BR /> &#160;</DIV>
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What could be a title for a story about Communist, Manifesto, German with the genre: New, Used & Rental Textstorys, Social Sciences?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: A title for this story could be 'The Communist Manifesto'
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the first four paragraphs for this story.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Communist Manifesto
  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 and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
  Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
  II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
  To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me five more paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
  He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
  For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
  Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.
  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 legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident, that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the last three paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Such inventions, regardless of where they originated, spread throughout the world. "As in material, so also in intellectual production," Marx wrote. "The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property" (page 68). That circumstance will be more and more true for growing middle classes in places like China and India, especially if the second great globalization that began after the Second World War endures.
  While the Federalists supported a strong central government, the Anti-Federalists saw this as a threat to personal freedom and the liberties so hard-won from England. This split, between the desire for local control and the idea of a centralized power, is one of the major causes of the Civil War.
  The ideal introduction for students, aspiring citizens, and general readers to documents as relevant today as they were when first drafted more than 200 years ago.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the first five paragraphs for this story.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Communist Manifesto
  They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.
  Section 2 has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.
  The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats,* against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.
  In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
  In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me five more paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
  The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
  Otto Prince von Bismarck (1815–98) became Prime Minister of Prussia 1862–71 and then, after defeating both the Austrians and the French, first Chancellor of the newly founded German Empire (the Second Reich) 1871–90
  François Guizot (1787–1874) was a French liberal historian and, from 1840 until the February Revolution of 1848, premier of France.
  In the 1840s, given the impact of Chartism upon the industrial regions of Britain and of the 1830 Revolution in Paris, soon followed by the revolt of the silk-workers in Lyons, it seemed self-evident that a revolutionary crisis would proceed from those areas in which the forces of production were most developed, the most industrialized regions of the world. But after 1870, as the relations between classes in Western Europe grew more placid, Marx (but not Engels) seems to have switched his hopes to Russian populists and the possibility of a revolution that would begin in the East. This trend was greatly reinforced by the proclamation of a socialist revolution in Russia in October 1917, unsupported by a proletarian revolution in the West.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the last four paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Engels captured the drama, but did not grasp the seriousness of Schelling's challenge to Hegel's philosophical starting point. On Schelling's philosophical importance to the Young Hegelians, see footnote 135 below.
  Bauer remained a committed republican if not a democrat until after the failure of the 1848 revolutions.
  In 1848 Considerant served in the National Assembly and on the Luxembourg Commission. He was exiled from France in 1849 and participated in the foundation of a Fourierist Community near Dallas, Texas. When Napoleon III allowed him to return he settled in the Latin Quarter, where he lived until his death in 1893.
  In the Marxist tradition little attempt was made to connect Marx's interest in precapitalist societies with his theory of communism. Instead, these manuscripts were treated as evidence of the rigorous and scholarly procedures attending Marx's elaboration of a materialist science of history. It was also considered important, doctrinally, to minimize Marx's commitment to the politically unacceptable 'asiatic mode of production'.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the first five paragraphs for the story.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Communist Manifesto
  They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.
  Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.
  The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats* against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.
  In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
  In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me five more paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.
  The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats* against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.
  In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
  In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.
  In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the last five paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
  In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
  In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
  Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
  The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Reverse the sentences.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: They have a world to win.. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
  The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
  Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
  In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
  In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the first three paragraphs for this story.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Communist Manifesto
  However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details become antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes" (See "The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association," 1871, where this point is further developed). Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the Earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
  The present translation is by Mr. Samuel Moore, the translator of the greater portion of Marx's "Capital." We have revised it in common, and I have added a few notes explanatory of historical allusions.
  Since the above [the Preface to the German edition of 1883—J.C.I.] was written, a new German edition of the Manifesto has again become necessary, and much has also happened to the Manifesto which should be recorded here.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me five more paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: And there is no hint of anything resembling recognition of "reasonable pluralism" in Marx and Engels: that is, of irreducibly divergent and sometimes contrary perspectives within which values arise, leading to different ways of evaluating arguments and evidence, specifying different obligations, rights, utility, perfectionist ends, and personal commitments, and leading people to make conflicting claims on one another. Their admittedly sketchy picture of the realm of freedom as allowing for "the free development of individualities," in which each will have the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions,42 is oddly frictionless and individualistic. Under communism, each will be subjugated "to the power of the united individuals," and it will be "impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals, insofar as reality is nevertheless only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals."43 There is no suspicion here that individuals might continue to adhere to mutually incompatible worldviews that are not amenable to rational resolution, while rooted in and capable of sustaining social and communal conflicts. That is doubtless why Marx and Engels saw no virtue in preserving a distinct public or political sphere in which such differences among citizens might be contained within mutually acceptable rules.
  Together these clues suggest that the monetary exchange of goods and services, or commodification, has, in Marx's view, several interrelated effects upon individuals and their social relationships. People cease to view others with respect, treating them instrumentally, as means to their respective ends, and they come to view one another "in one particular aspect only" and become indifferent to their unique individualities, to their many sidedness and the complexities of their characters and lives. They come to see both persons and objects as substitutable, and they become indifferent to the differences between them. And personal qualities and relations among people, once money enters the picture, cease to be a "specific expression" of "real individual life": they lose their particularity and become artificial and inauthentic. Monetary exchange thus engenders a kind of corruption that, Marx clearly believed, debases or distorts the value of the good or service being exchanged. He also clearly believed that this in turn generates a kind of contagion of "callous 'cash payment,'" impairing or degrading otherwise well-functioning and potentially flourishing activities and relationships. It is as though once a single good is bought and sold, this leads to a market regime for that good, which, in turn, leads to a market regime for everything people value, which, in turn, spreads across the surface of the globe.
  What exactly was it, one wonders, apart from their fundamental critique of exploitation, that was at the heart of Marx and Engels's critique of bourgeois market relations? Was it the dominance of instrumental attitudes, treating people as means, not ends? Was it indifference, the willingness to substitute workers for one another, without concern for the manifold differences among them and the complexities of their several lives? Was it the readiness to compare the incomparable, reducing the rich variety of human value perspectives to ranking on a single scale? Or was it specifically the ranking in terms of money, setting a price on everyone and everything?
  Further, more wide-ranging questions arise beyond these. Can there be "bourgeois" market relations without exploitation? Can there be nonexploitative market relations that are not bourgeois? Are there forms of "market socialism" that are feasible and desirable? And is it true—and if so under what conditions—that commercialization crowds out what is intrinsically valuable about a good or service for the individuals involved and that it can in turn crowd out what is intrinsically valuable about that good or service for others, and that the contamination then spreads to other, even most or all, goods and services?
  Richard Titmuss, for instance, claimed that selling blood crowds out altruism, diminishing the scope for giving it and thus also other worthwhile things in society. Therefore "private market systems... in the United States and other countries deprive men of their freedom to choose to give or not to give," thereby "discouraging and downgrading the voluntary principle. Both the sense of community and the expression of altruism are being silenced."51 And the economist William Baumol argued that there are services "in which the human touch is crucial, and are thus resistant to labor productivity growth"; they resist standardization because "treatment must be tailored to the individual case," and "quality is, or is at least believed to be, inescapably correlated with the amount of human labor devoted to their production."52 Baumol's original examples were the performing arts, but he then extended them to other services, such as teaching, doctoring, and policing. But, as Colin Leys has argued, in the medical field, for example, capitalism involves a relentless pressure to "wean customers from services onto consuming material goods and providing the labor component themselves... consigning any small residue to 'high-end markets,' or leaving them to (increasingly) beleaguered state provision."53 Hence the growing consumption of drugs and painkillers, the speeding up of the consultations, and the very fragmentation of medical services.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Reverse the sentences.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: "53 Hence the growing consumption of drugs and painkillers, the speeding up of the consultations, and the very fragmentation of medical services.. consigning any small residue to 'high-end markets,' or leaving them to (increasingly) beleaguered state provision... But, as Colin Leys has argued, in the medical field, for example, capitalism involves a relentless pressure to "wean customers from services onto consuming material goods and providing the labor component themselves."52 Baumol's original examples were the performing arts, but he then extended them to other services, such as teaching, doctoring, and policing."51 And the economist William Baumol argued that there are services "in which the human touch is crucial, and are thus resistant to labor productivity growth"; they resist standardization because "treatment must be tailored to the individual case," and "quality is, or is at least believed to be, inescapably correlated with the amount of human labor devoted to their production. Both the sense of community and the expression of altruism are being silenced. in the United States and other countries deprive men of their freedom to choose to give or not to give," thereby "discouraging and downgrading the voluntary principle... Therefore "private market systems. Can there be "bourgeois" market relations without exploitation? Can there be nonexploitative market relations that are not bourgeois? Are there forms of "market socialism" that are feasible and desirable? And is it true—and if so under what conditions—that commercialization crowds out what is intrinsically valuable about a good or service for the individuals involved and that it can in turn crowd out what is intrinsically valuable about that good or service for others, and that the contamination then spreads to other, even most or all, goods and services?
  Richard Titmuss, for instance, claimed that selling blood crowds out altruism, diminishing the scope for giving it and thus also other worthwhile things in society.
  What exactly was it, one wonders, apart from their fundamental critique of exploitation, that was at the heart of Marx and Engels's critique of bourgeois market relations? Was it the dominance of instrumental attitudes, treating people as means, not ends? Was it indifference, the willingness to substitute workers for one another, without concern for the manifold differences among them and the complexities of their several lives? Was it the readiness to compare the incomparable, reducing the rich variety of human value perspectives to ranking on a single scale? Or was it specifically the ranking in terms of money, setting a price on everyone and everything?
  Further, more wide-ranging questions arise beyond these. It is as though once a single good is bought and sold, this leads to a market regime for that good, which, in turn, leads to a market regime for everything people value, which, in turn, spreads across the surface of the globe. He also clearly believed that this in turn generates a kind of contagion of "callous 'cash payment,'" impairing or degrading otherwise well-functioning and potentially flourishing activities and relationships. Monetary exchange thus engenders a kind of corruption that, Marx clearly believed, debases or distorts the value of the good or service being exchanged. And personal qualities and relations among people, once money enters the picture, cease to be a "specific expression" of "real individual life": they lose their particularity and become artificial and inauthentic. They come to see both persons and objects as substitutable, and they become indifferent to the differences between them. People cease to view others with respect, treating them instrumentally, as means to their respective ends, and they come to view one another "in one particular aspect only" and become indifferent to their unique individualities, to their many sidedness and the complexities of their characters and lives.
  Together these clues suggest that the monetary exchange of goods and services, or commodification, has, in Marx's view, several interrelated effects upon individuals and their social relationships. That is doubtless why Marx and Engels saw no virtue in preserving a distinct public or political sphere in which such differences among citizens might be contained within mutually acceptable rules."43 There is no suspicion here that individuals might continue to adhere to mutually incompatible worldviews that are not amenable to rational resolution, while rooted in and capable of sustaining social and communal conflicts. Under communism, each will be subjugated "to the power of the united individuals," and it will be "impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals, insofar as reality is nevertheless only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals. Their admittedly sketchy picture of the realm of freedom as allowing for "the free development of individualities," in which each will have the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions,42 is oddly frictionless and individualistic.And there is no hint of anything resembling recognition of "reasonable pluralism" in Marx and Engels: that is, of irreducibly divergent and sometimes contrary perspectives within which values arise, leading to different ways of evaluating arguments and evidence, specifying different obligations, rights, utility, perfectionist ends, and personal commitments, and leading people to make conflicting claims on one another
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the last four paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Europe, , , , , , , , , ; class politics in, , , , , ; democracy in, , , ; Eastern, , , , –72, ; European law, ; revolutions in, , , , , , , , ; Western, ,
  Germany, , , , , , ; class relations in, , –76, , ; East Germany, ; socialism in, –97, , , ; uprisings in, , ,
  Marxism, , , , ; as ideology, , , , –68, –72, , , ; as intellectual tradition, , –27, , , , ; and left-wing thought, –5, , , –30, , , , ; Western Marxism,
  State, , , , , , , –56, , –75, , , , ; and bourgeoisie, , , , –28, , , ; and denationalization, –97; and proletariat, , , ; state industry,