Introduction by the Saker: regular readers of the blog will have noticed the extremely interesting contributions by the guest author Straight-Bat (if not, see here, here, here or here). Since I noticed that Straight-Bat identified himself as a Marxist, I decided to ask you the following question: In your recent submission to the Saker blog, you referred to yourself as a “Marxist”. What is a Marxist anyway? Is that different from “Communist” or “Socialist”?
What follows is Straight-Bat’s extensive and most interesting answer. Now, before the inhabitants of the left side of the Bell Curve accuse me of being a crypto-Commie or something equally insipid, I want to clarify that I do not consider myself a Marxist at all. In fact, I outlined my personal views about this ideological system in two separate articles (see here and here). Personally, I will just say that the best intellectual tooklit to understand the nature of the US society and history is class warfare as desribed by Marx and his successors (including Lenin on imperialism). I can find the “diagnostic” part of Marxism-Leninism very useful while not at all agreeing with the “prescriptive” parts. Needless to say, the militant atheism of Marxism-Leninism is deeply abhorent to me: the blood of innocent Christian (and other!) martyrs will forever stain the Marxist ideology. But that is already changing (as seen in Cuba or Venezuela). Furthermore, I expect that other Marxists might disagree with Straight-Bat’s views and I hereby invite them to reply to him in the comments section.
I am deeply grateful to Straight-Bat for taking the time to discuss such a overlooked and almost totally misunderstood topic.
Andrei
PS: this is only the first part of my Q&A with Straight-Bat, the next one will be posted after Straight-Bat and myself read the comments below. I also add might add some follow-up question
First of all, thank you for providing me this opportunity to discuss about socialism, communism, and Marxism on The Saker blog-site. Allow me to start the discussion with an apparent digression. I would like to draw your attention to few historical realities of European societies, to start with, and then respond to your questions directly:
(A) Voice against Exploitation and Inequality – Echoes from the Past
Ever since the human civilization ‘invented’ exploitation and inequality and applied it against sections of a society, the exploited and discriminated section of the community rebelled against the powers that be. In the ancient world, slaves and peasants (the poor marginalised classes of ancient society) repeatedly revolted in every region of the known world [refer links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion].
Among the organisers of such rebellions, Spartacus (111 – 71 BCE), a Thracian gladiator, has been considered as the most remarkable one. In the Third Servile War, Spartacus organised a major uprising against the Roman Republic – the failed uprising was the most prominent symbol of oppressed people fighting for their freedom against the Roman oligarchy. Voltaire, the French philosopher described the Third Servile War as “the only just war in history.”
Between 300 and 1500 CE, the Christian Church promoted a ‘communitarian’ living and ‘egalitarian’ lifestyle for its institutionalised team of monks and clergy. Apparently, the Christian religious leaders felt the ethical necessity of going down to the standard of living of the plebeian and serf population (the majority population who were either destitute or impoverished in terms of income and living standard), before approaching them for religious discourse. Eventhough in reality, most of the clergy led a quite comfortable life (owing to the fact that, the Church owned more than 30% of total arable land in the then Europe).
During the late Feudal era in the early 16th century, when the European society was still comprised of three social classes – the Nobility, the Clergy, and the Serfs/Commoners – an English humanist Thomas More raised voice against poverty and extreme inequality of largest part of the population i.e. commoners. ‘Utopia’, the book published by More in 1516 CE became the first of its kind – in the book he proposed, almost everything except personal items should be owned by the community, and money would be abolished. During the English Civil Wars, a group of peasants claimed land was common property (and not for personal profit), and they engaged in digging and planting on land that was not legally owned by them – they were called ‘The Diggers’. An English political party was formed during the Revolution of 1648 CE – ‘The Levellers’ demanded the abolition of aristocracy, and proposed the foundation of a ‘Republic of Equals’, under the name of ‘Christian Society’. Oliver Cromwell executed the principal leaders of the group to obliterate the ideology. Around 1524 CE, a German protestant clergyman Thomas Müntzer became a leader of peasants’ rebellion who fought and died alongside a ragtag army of around a hundred thousand peasants – Müntzer pointed out that the control of all resources by the Nobility was the root cause of poverty among the commoners.
(B) European Activists against Capitalist Exploitation – Rise of Socialism and Communism
At the beginning of 19th century, the economy of the UK and West European mainland states functioned not only with a modest ‘agriculture’ that generated surplus produces for towns and cities, but also a booming ‘trade’ within Europe as well as trade with European colonial empires across the world. In parallel, ‘Industrial economy’ (including mining) grew at a fast pace churning out textile, other consumer products, and industrial machineries and other products all of which had ‘market’ in Europe as well as colonies across the world. By the mid-19th century, the West European powers had well-established colonial empires all over the world (with the exception of East Europe and contiguous land controlled by Russian and Ottoman empires); while only a few countries like Ethiopia, Iran, and China still maintained independent state administration (with their economy under total influence of the major West European colonial powers). However, different European countries had different degrees of dependence on ‘agricultural economy’ (and industrialization), and hence actual labour employed in agriculture and surplus employable labour varied widely. As per Eric Hobsbawm (refer his book, ‘The Age of Revolution’), “Thus it was estimated in the early 1830s that the pool of surplus employable labour was I in 6 of the total population in urban and industrial England, 1 in 20 in France and Germany, I in 25 in Austria and Italy, 1 in 30 in Spain and 1 in 100 in Russia”. Hobsbawm wrote, the rural population ‘had to be torn away from their roots and allowed to move freely’ ‘by liberating the peasant from non-economic bonds and duties like villeinage, serfdom, payments to lords, forced labour, slavery, etc’, only then ‘would they migrate into the towns and factories where their muscles were increasingly needed.’ But, when the free labour migrated to the industrial towns of Europe, what lifestyle they had to get adjusted to? Engels wrote in his ‘Condition of the Working Class in England’, “One day I walked with one of these middle-class gentlemen (new bourgeois – added by interviewee) into Manchester. I spoke to him about the disgraceful unhealthy slums and drew his attention to the disgusting condition of that part of town in which the factory workers lined. I declared that I had never seen so badly built a town in my life. He listened patiently and at the corner of the street at which we parted company, he remarked: And yet there is a great deal of money made here. Good morning, Sir!” And, the new bourgeois as well as old aristocracy felt that those industrial workers in towns, peasants in villages, and surplus unemployed population are destined (by God, so to speak) to remain destitute. Henri Baudrillart, the French economist argued during his inaugural lecture at the College de France in 1853 CE that “INEQUALITY was one of the three pillars of human society, the other two being PROPERTY and INHERITANCE” (refer the book, ‘The Age of Revolution’ by Eric Hobsbawm).
Soon, ‘Industry’ became the prime mover for the growth of economy in not only West Europe, but also in East Europe, as well as Anglo, French, Dutch colonies across the world. If the employment and income profile of any of these societies in the first half of the 19th century is even vaguely outlined, its components can be identified as:
- Aristocracy, State officials, and Clergy;
- Rich landowners reigning supreme in the rural agrarian economy;
- Most of the rural people belonging to agrarian economy where small (landed) peasants and unemployed (landless) labour coexisted;
- Merchants of the mercantile economy, utilising their surplus profit to create new industries (as a result of which, industrial economy developed);
- Burghers like shop-owners, professionals in law-medicine-education, erstwhile guild-members etc. leading traditional urban life;
- New category of townspeople, the poorly-paid workers in the industrial facilities (90% of them migrated from villages) and unemployed labour who were forced to live in squalor;
I guess, combination of category (i), (ii), (iv), (v) would have represented maximum around 5 – 7% of the total population (higher figure in UK and lower figure in other countries of West Europe), most of whom were wealthy due to family wealth by inheritance plus income from own initiatives. The brute majority of population were actually leading a wretched life in rural and urban regions. The social activists, philosophers, and thinkers across Europe raised their voice against such travesty of natural justice!
French Enlightenment era thinker, Jean-Jacques Rousseau is credited with influencing the socialist thought a century before 1848 revolutions broke out in Europe. In ‘Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men’ in 1755 CE he said, “The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying ‘This is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race have been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men, ‘Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.’” In a response to M. Bordes, Academician of Lyons titled as ‘having to do with the discourse on the sciences and the arts’, in 1758 CE Rousseau wrote “Before these terrible words mine and thine were invented; before the existence of this cruel and brutal species of men called masters, and of that other species of rogues and liars called slaves; before there were men so abominable as to dare to have too much while others were dying of hunger; before mutual dependence had forced them all to become cunning and jealous traitors… I would like someone to tell me what their vices and crimes could then possibly have consisted of… I am told that people have been long disabused of the chimera of a golden age. It should be added that men have been long disabused of the chimera of virtue!” Through his theory of ‘Social Contract’, Rousseau suggested to define a civil society where all persons will be voluntarily united by a general will, (volonté générale). Encyclopaedia Britannica states, “More than the sum of individual wills, it is general in that it represents the public spirit seeking the common good, which Rousseau defined as liberty and equality, the latter because liberty cannot subsist without it.” Rousseau’s republic is a result of the general will – he, interestingly, adjusted the concept of ‘natural rights’ suggesting that, the republic hence formed, represent an exchange of rights whereby people give up natural rights in return for civil rights (representing the ‘collective force of the community’). Rousseau described the abstract idea of ‘political man’, “Whoever dares undertake to establish a people’s institutions must feel himself capable of changing, as it were, human nature, of transforming each individual, who by himself is a complete and solitary whole, into a part of a larger whole, from which, in a sense, the individual receives his life and his being, of substituting a limited and mental existence for the physical and independent existence. He has to take from man his own powers, and give him in exchange alien powers which he cannot employ without the help of other men.”
Other Enlightenment thinkers and social-activists in France like Étienne-Gabriel Morelly (who proposed that, “nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work”), Abbé de Mably (who suggested equality as the law of nature and made argument that the introduction of the concept of property had destroyed the golden age of humankind. To him, private property serves to one’s belligerent or selfish instincts, hence abolition of private property is justified), and Jean Meslier (the French Catholic priest was the first declared atheist of modern era; Meslier proposed creation of a commune for all the people of a region in which everybody would work and wealth would be held in common) basically assumed that abolition of private property and redistribution of wealth could solve the inequality in society. Nicolas de Condorcet thought lack of land and capital were the reasons of suffering of poor people – however, Condorcet was inclined to believe that, a future rational society where human rights and justice would be maintained could be developed only through scientific knowledge.
During the French Revolution, François-Noël Babeuf and Sylvain Maréchal advocated egalitarian distribution of wealth, abolition of private property, and collective ownership of land. Maréchal composed the ‘Manifesto of the Equals’ in 1796 CE that primarily reflected Babeuf’s political ideas, “The Agrarian law, or the partitioning of land, was the spontaneous demand of some unprincipled soldiers, of some towns moved more by their instinct than by reason. We lean towards something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of property! No more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all. We declare that we can no longer put up with the fact that the great majority work and sweat for the smallest of minorities. Long enough, and for too long, less than a million individuals have disposed of that which belongs to 20 million of their kind, their equals. Let it at last end, this great scandal that our descendants will never believe existed! Disappear at last, revolting distinctions between rich and poor, great and small, masters and servants, rulers and ruled. Let there no longer be any difference between people than that of age and sex. Since all have the same faculties and the same needs, let there then be for them but one education, but one nourishment. They are satisfied with one sun and one air for all: why then would the same portion and the same quality of food not suffice for each of them?” Babeuf was executed in 1797 CE for coordinating insurrection against the then French government. ‘Babeuf’s Defence’ that was written during his trial, immortalised his thoughts: “ By its origins, the land belongs to no one, and its fruits are for everyone.
“ The institution of private property is a surprise that was foisted upon the mass of simple and honest souls. The laws of this institution must necessarily bring about the existence of fortunate and unfortunate, of masters and slaves.
“ The law of heredity is supremely abusive. It produces poor men from the second generation on. The two children of a man who is sufficiently rich divide up his fortune equally. One of them has only one child, the other has a dozen. Each of these latter children then has only one-twelfth of the fortune of the first brother, and one-twenty-fourth of that of the grandfather. This portion is not sufficient to provide a living. Some of them are obliged to work for their rich first cousin; thus emerge masters and servants from among the grandchildren of the same man.
“ The law of alienation is no less unjust. This man who is already the master of others descended from the same grandfather pays arbitrarily for the labour that they are obliged to do for him. This wage is still not enough to enable them to subsist; they are obliged to sell their meagre portion of the inheritance to him upon whom they are now dependent. Thus they have been expropriated; ……
“ A third cause hastens the emergence of masters and servants, of the overly fortunate and the extremely unfortunate: it is the differences in wage and esteem that mere opinion attaches to the different forms of production and industry. A fantastic opinion of this sort leads people to attribute to the work-day of someone who makes a watch twenty times the value of that of someone who plows a field and grows wheat. The result is that the watchmaker is placed in a position whereby he acquires the patrimony of twenty ploughmen; he has therefore expropriated it.
“ These three roots of public misfortune, all the progeny of property-heredity, alienation and the diversity of value that arbitrary opinion, as sole master, is able to assign to the various types of production and labour – give rise to all the vices of society. They isolate all the members of society; they make of every household a little republic consecrated to a murderous inequality, which can do nothing but conspire against the large republic.”
In post-Revolution France, Henri de Saint-Simon proposed reorganisation of society in a collectivist mode to solve the problems in society – different from every other thinkers, he proposed industrial class consisting of entrepreneurs, bankers, managers, scientists and, labourers should collaborate in productive work that would contribute to the wellbeing of society. For him, able people who benefit from the work of others while avoid doing work themselves form idling class, which is a threat to the industrial class. After Saint-Simon’s death in 1825, his followers led by Amand Bazard and Barthélemy Enfantin began to drift towards radicalism – they suggested abolition of private ownership of the means of production resulting in collective ownership of all “instruments of labour, land, and capital” and abolition of noble privileges and inheritance. Their socialist program was “To each according to his ability and to each ability according to its work.” The Saint-Simonists frequently referred to the opposition between the bourgeois and the proletariat. The word ‘socialism’ first appeared in France in 1832 in ‘Le Globe’, a Saint-Simonist newspaper founded by Pierre Leroux used the term. In a pamphlet ‘What is Property?’ published in 1840 CE Pierre-Joseph Proudhon declared that “Property is theft”. In ‘Confessions of a Revolutionary’ published in 1849 CE Proudhon wrote: “Capital” […] in the political field is analogous to “government”. […] The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them. […] What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit.” Proudhon wanted a free association of individuals to replace the (coercive and vindictive) State, and was the first person to declare himself an ‘anarchist’. Proudhon’s followers separated into individualist anarchism, collectivist anarchism, Anarcho-communism and Anarcho-syndicalism. Étienne Cabet proposed replacing capitalist production system with workers’ cooperatives. Cabet’s book ‘Le vrai christianisme suivant Jésus Christ’ in 1846 CE described Jesus’s mission to establish social equality, he was the first thinker who said Jesus wanted to build a communist society. Cabet described a communist society with collective property, universal obligation of work, and ideal social life in ‘Voyage et aventures de lord William Carisdall en Icarie’ (‘Travel and Adventures of Lord William Carisdall in Icaria’) published in 1840 CE – the word ‘communist’ derived from a French word communaute which means common ownership of property. The socialist thinker François Marie Charles Fourier favoured the creation of ideal community (‘phalanxes’ established in buildings with four levels where the richest had the uppermost apartments and the poorest had a ground-floor residence; wealth would be determined by one’s job; jobs people might not enjoy doing, would receive higher pay; basic needs of every individual would get fulfilled). He neither believed in abolition of property nor had faith in revolutionary movement. Another revolutionary socialist, Louis Auguste Blanqui favoured a just redistribution of wealth. He proposed that the revolution should be carried out by a small group which would establish a temporary dictatorship to permit the implementation of a new order, and after this political power would be handed over to common people. The insurgents who established the Paris Commune in 1871 CE elected Blanqui as the president of the commune. Since Blanqui was already under arrest by the Thiers government, he was prevented from taking an active part. Marx was convinced that Blanqui was the leader that was missed by the Paris Commune.
To promote social equality, British social-activist Thomas Spence propagated common ownership of land and welfare support for women and children among commoners. Spence delivered a lecture (published as a pamphlet ‘Property in Land Every One’s Right’ which was renamed later as ‘The Real Rights of Man’) in November 1775 CE at the Philosophical Society in Newcastle in which he proposed, “Hence it is plain that the land or earth, in any country or neighbourhood, with everything in or on the same, or pertaining thereto, belongs at all times to the living inhabitants of the said country or neighbourhood in an equal manner. For, as said before, there is no living but on land and its productions, consequently, what we cannot live without we have the same property in, as in our lives.” Charles Hall, a British doctor vividly described the effects of (industrial) civilization on the poor of that era in his book ‘The Effects of Civilization on the People in European States’ that was published in 1805 CE. According to Hall’s estimates, the rich one-fifth of society consumed seven-eighths of what was produced by the poor; he suggested that, “the wealth of the rich and the misery of the poor increase in strict proportion”. Hall deduced that exploitation of industrial labour was so severe that they “retained only the product of one hour’s work out of eight“; he was a proponent of progressive taxation to tackle the inequalities of society. Thomas Paine published ‘Rights of Man, Part the Second, Combining Principle and Practice’ in 1792 which detailed a representative government to remedy the distressing poverty of commoners through progressive tax measures. In the pamphlet ‘Agrarian Justice’ published in 1797 CE, Paine introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income through an inheritance tax on landowners. Robert Owen, British industrialist became wealthy by managing one of Britain’s largest textile mills at New Lanark, Scotland. Owen tested his social and economic ideas like youth education, child care, and 8-hour working at the mill before divesting his shares in 1813 CE. He published ‘A New View of Society’ in the same year to document the principles behind his philosophy of socialism and advocating industrial workers’ rights and child labour laws, and free education for children. He advocated small, local collectives/ cooperatives which would be the building blocks of socialist community – he and his sons set up a cooperative colony in New Harmony, Indiana, USA in 1825 CE. He believed that, “the members of any community may by degrees be trained to live without idleness, without poverty, without crime, and without punishment; for each of these is the effect of error in the various systems prevalent throughout the world. They are all necessary consequences of ignorance.” Even though he lost his wealth in the failed community experiment, he vigorously promoted industrial equality, free education for children and good living conditions in factory townships throughout his life. In his ‘Paper Dedicated to the Governments of Great Britain, Austria, Russia, France, Prussia and the USA’ Owen wrote in 1841 CE: “The lowest stage of humanity is experienced when the individual must labour for a small pittance of wages from others”. His tireless efforts culminated in the Cotton Mills and Factories Act of 1819 CE in Britain. ‘Socialism’, an English word was first time used in UK in 1827 CE in an Owenite Cooperative Magazine. John Stuart Mill, the British economist deviated from laissez faire theory and advocated limited interference (without rejecting liberalism altogether) – he proposed that, an ideal society should possess “a well-paid and affluent body of labourers, no enormous fortunes, except what were earned and accumulated during a single lifetime”.
Jean Charles Leonard de Sismondi, a Swiss economist coined the term ‘proletariat’ to refer to the working class created under industrial capitalism. Sismondi was not in favour of extreme social reform, but wished ‘technological advances’, ‘limited production’ (which means less ‘competition’), and ‘continuation of private property’ should be the way forward. Sismondi was the first liberal critique of the policy of laissez-faire economics, he said, “The Roman proletariat lived almost exclusively at the expense of society. One could almost say that modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat, from the share which it deducts from the reward of his labour.” A German socialist revolutionary Wilhelm Christian Weitling promoted the doctrines of communism with his activities and publications. Weitling’s work ‘Das Evangelium eines armen Sünders’ (The Poor Sinner’s Gospel) was published in 1845 CE, but the Swiss authorities arrested him and prosecuted for blasphemy on account of having depicted Jesus as a communist. Like Cabet, Weitling traced the concept of communism back to the early Christianity.
Chartist movement between 1838 and 1858 CE was the first organised labour movement in Europe. In 1837 CE, six members of British Parliament and six working men (one of them William Lovett from the London Working Men’s Association) formed a committee, which published the People’s Charter in 1838 CE. This set out the movement’s six main aims that included suffrage to all male adults, secret ballot, annual elections for Parliament etc. Chartist movement transformed into trade union movement for more equitable distribution of income, and better living conditions for the working classes. The earliest trade unions were those of printers, weavers, tailors and the like. It was noted that, the leaders of Chartist movement in Leeds city “consisted of a joiner turned handloom weaver, a couple of journeymen printers, a bookseller, a wool comber”. Such ‘artisans’, ‘mechanics’ and ‘handworkers’ were mostly the agitating union members. After 1848 Revolution the Chartist movement faded.
Until now, I’ve drawn a brief sketch of what is termed traditionally as ‘early socialism’ and ‘early socialists’. The above paragraphs which very briefly outline the key thinkers, significant thoughts, and significant movements during the period between 1500 and 1847 CE, clearly point out towards few definitive trends:
(1) Each of the individual thinkers had few commonalities even if their thoughts varied widely:
(a) Opposition to extreme inequality in the society, which was a direct fall-out of agrarian capitalism (that flourished with land ownership concentrated with a small land-owning class) and industrial capitalism (which flourished with ownership of means of production overwhelmingly with a small class of entrepreneurs)
(b) Opposition to total ownership of properties and natural resources by a small group of elites (land-owners, industrialists, merchants)
(c) Concern for better wage and income, as well as better living conditions of the poor section of society – industrial workers and peasants
(2) No two contemporary thinkers espoused the same set of beliefs and plans of action. For example, while Blanqui favoured armed insurrection followed by temporary dictatorship to create new egalitarian order, Blanc favoured gradual reforms carried out by the existing rulers; while Proudhon denounced personal property as ‘ theft ‘, Saint-Simon favoured continuation of private property
(3) There were thinkers-cum-activists who had even self-contradictory beliefs and ideology that would hardly make them eligible to be counted as a socialist – Fourier supported the institution of Monarchy, Mill was in favour of laissez faire liberal capitalist policy, Sismondi favoured continuation of private property but all of them would propose alleviation of poverty in the society (reasons of which could be traced back to the factors they support !!)
(4) Seven distinct categories of thoughts and movements can be noted as mentioned bellow:
(a) Philosophers who highlighted inequality and injustice, inquired reasons for that, and suggested private property must be abolished to redress the social grievances. [Rousseau, Morelly]
(b) Thinker-cum-activists who were perturbed with inequality and injustice, and organised revolutionary movements to seize State power (they believed, private property must be abolished to address social problems). [Babeuf, Blanqui]
(c) Thinker-cum-activists who highlighted inequality and injustice, and advocated going back to the early community-based Christian life where private ownership of property would be abolished. [Cabet, Weitling]
(d) Thinker-cum-activists who wanted all-round individual freedom and suggested that, State and private property should be abolished through anarchist revolution. [Proudhon]
(e) Economists who observed inequality and injustice, and suggested modifications in the existing liberal capitalist economy and private ownership of property (without renouncing it) to find ways to redress. [Sismondi, Mill]
(f) Thinker-cum-activists who observed inequality and injustice, and proposed that scientific progress and/or technocracy (without abolishing existing property ownership) would resolve those issues. [Condorcet, Saint-Simon]
(g) Thinker-cum-activists who hated inequality and injustice, organised cooperative communities and campaigned for reformation in State policies (without abolishing existing property ownership) for better life. [Owen, Fourier]
It can be concluded that, till 1847 CE, the early socialist activists were defined further in three sub-categories:
1. ‘Socialists’ – (f), (g), combination of (f) and (g)
2. ‘Communists’ – (b), (c), combination of (b) and (c)
3. ‘Anarchists’ – (d), combination of (d), (f) and (g)
It was also quite common to lump all the three sub-categories into ‘Utopian Socialism’ or ‘Utopian Communism’ ignoring the wide differences of opinion that occurred among them. However, the MOST FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS SINCE EARLY MODERN ERA HAVE BEEN:
(a) FOR THE COMMUNISTS, ABOLITION OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY (CAPITAL ASSETS AS MEANS OF PRODUCTION) HAS ALWAYS BEEN INDISPENSABLE. They believed/ believe that, ‘equality’ (as far as possible) could never be achieved if private ownership of (capital) property persist
(b) FOR THE COMMUNISTS, REFORMATION OF STATE POLICY FOR BETTERMENT OF POOR PEOPLE HAS NOT BEEN A PREFERRED SOLUTION. They believed/ believe that, poor majority people could never attain ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ if State power remain with aristocrats and rich minority people.
Before 1848 CE revolutions struck Europe, two German thinker-cum-activists, who considered themselves as communists, met during 1844 CE while they were in Paris – thereafter, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels collaborated for rest of their life, in order to establish their thoughts that came to be known as Marxism (an unambiguous version of communism). The Communist Correspondence Committee (Kommunistisches Korrespondenz-Komitee) was an association of socialists founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1846 CE with committees in Brussels (headquarters), London, Cologne, Kiel and Paris with the aim of politically and ideologically organising the ‘early socialists’ of different European countries to form a revolutionary proletarian party. The League of the Just (Bund der Gerechten) was founded in 1836 CE by Karl Schapper who was in close contact with Marx and Engels. The Communist League, the FIRST MARXIST COMMUNIST PARTY with an international presence was established in June 1847 in London, Britain through the merger of the League of the Just and the Communist Correspondence Committee. It was on behalf of this party that, Marx and Engels wrote the ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’ late in 1847. The Manifesto declared (Translated by: Samuel Moore in cooperation with Frederick Engels, 1888) the demands of the Communists as:
“… in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c…”
Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, Heinrich Bauer, Friedrich Engels, Joseph Moll, Wilhelm Wolff were named as the members of ‘The Committee’ which represented the Communist Party in Germany. However, al revolutionary groups were smashed by European states, Marx and Engels were forced to flee Germany and they settled in England. The Communist League was formally disbanded in November 1852 CE, following the Cologne Communist Trial. Hence, even if Marx and Engels represented one of the ‘communist’ groups among the early socialists, both of them mostly used the term ‘socialist’ in their works – it helped them to avoid uncalled for legal problems. Socialism was the word predominantly used by Marxists until WW-I, after which Lenin made the decision to restart use of the term communism (renaming the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party to the All-Russian Communist Party). In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels led a scathing attack on most of the ‘Socialist’ and ‘Anarchist’ thinkers and activists for lack of robust ideology, foresight, and plan of action:
Manifesto of the Communist Party – Chapter III. Socialist and Communist Literature
Feudal Socialism –
” In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.
” In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; …. The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner….
” One section of the ‘French Legitimists’ and ‘Young England’ exhibited this spectacle.
” In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated….
” In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high-falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honor, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits. [Note by Engels to the English edition of 1888 — This applies chiefly to Germany, where the landed aristocracy and squirearchy have large portions of their estates cultivated for their own account by stewards, and are, moreover, extensive beetroot-sugar manufacturers and distillers of potato spirits. The wealthier British aristocracy is, as yet, rather above that; but they, too, know how to make up for declining rents by lending their names to floaters or more or less shady joint-stock companies.] “
Petty-Bourgeois Socialism –
” In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society.
” In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the peasant and petty-bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes, should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England…..
” This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labor; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty-bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth…..
” this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. “
German or “True” Socialism (i.e. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism in Germany – by interviewee)
” The Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that were the expressions of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.
German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits (men of letters), eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance and assumed a purely literary aspect…..
” The French Socialist and Communist literature were thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome “French one-sidedness” and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy…..
” The fight of the Germans, and especially of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.
By this, the long-wished-for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things those attainments was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.
” While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things….
” And on its part German Socialism recognized, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine. “
Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
” A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society…..
“ We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.
” The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.”
“ A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”
In the same Manifesto, Marx and Engels, however, categorized followers of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, and others (like Cabet – by interviewee) as ‘Critical-Utopian’ and opined that “these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class”, before pointing out that these Socialist and Communist utopians “want to improve the condition of every member of society even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without the distinction of class” and “they still dream of experimental realization of their social Utopias, of founding isolated “phalansteres”, of establishing “Home Colonies”, or setting up a “Little Icaria” – duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem – and to realize all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois”. Marx and Engels noted that these Socialist and Communist utopians, “violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class … The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Réformistes”.
In the ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’ Marx and Engels wrote, “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.” Unlike other socialists, Marx and Engels determined, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another”. Before the 1848 Revolutions, Marx and Engels not only founded the world’s first Communist party and published the Communist Manifesto (identifying those ‘socialists and communists’ who were harming the proletariat with their ideologies and programs) with a list of demands on behalf of the proletariat class, but they also identified the bourgeois class as the ultimate enemy of the proletariat (except Britain, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands in other European countries bourgeois were still struggling against the combination of the feudal aristocracy and petty-bourgeois burghers). Marx pointed out in ‘On the Jewish Question’ published in 1844 CE that, the Jews (Marx meant the Jew bankers-merchants-industrialists) were at the forefront of bourgeois capitalism:
“ What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money…
“ The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power…
“ The contradiction that exists between the practical political power of the Jew and his political rights is the contradiction between politics and the power of money in general. Although theoretically the former is superior to the latter, in actual fact politics has become the serf of financial power…
“ Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it…
“ The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature…”
(C) Marx-Engels, and Marxist Communism
By now, the readers are clear about what is meant by ‘SOCIALISM’ and ‘COMMUNISM’ and how Marxism (founded by Marx and Engels) critically examined multiple strands of both the ideas. It is time to explore in detail the complete meaning of MARXISM (itself a particular form of communism that was not only theorised by Marx and Engels, but they founded the first Marxist communist party as well). Close scrutiny of the works, letters, and activities of Marx and Engels till their death reveal that both of them jointly and individually:
- strived to explore the ideas/concepts of almost ALL the preceding and contemporary thinkers in the fields of philosophy, economics, politics, and state governance, and pointed out their true intellectual and practical contributions as well as the reasons for their failure towards building a society free from exploitation
- strived to analyze the historical developments of (European) society, state, and economy and its impacts on the living conditions of different groups of society (i.e. class), and put forward a theory that, in essence, suggested the Modus Operandi how the majority population got exploited by the minority population within the existing framework of ‘State’
- drew from the ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ ideas born in the French Revolution, ideas of political economy disseminated by British economists, and German philosophical ideas, in order to develop a complete set of ideas which they called scientific socialism, commonly called Marxism. Interestingly, more often than not, Marx’s (and Engels’) ideas were in the form of ‘critique’ of existing theory and system
- put their best efforts to bring ALL contemporary thinkers-cum-activists under a single platform for a joint struggle against the states and bourgeois class; like true leaders, Marx-Engels duo always looked out for ‘opportunities’ to organize the toiling masses across Europe
A brief discussion on various facets of three theoretical constructs of Marxism follows below:
(1) Dialectical Historical Materialism
‘Dialectical’ ‘Historical’ Materialism had been defined by Marx in the preface of “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” in 1859 CE, “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.”
The interpretation of the 1859 Preface has been one of the most controversial issues in Marxism. While Lukács (1971) and Gramsci (1971) focussed on the ‘dialectical’ method thereby losing much of the ‘historical’ perspective, Cohen (1978) and other analytical Marxists discarded the dialectical method for a determinist historical reading. A balanced analysis is the need of the hour. It must be mentioned that the concept of historical materialism completely demolishes belief-system theories like creationism and intelligent design, which base their concepts on religion and god but do not conform to concepts of biological evolution.
Hegelian philosophy was the starting point for Marx. Hegel’s dialectical idealism – evolution and development of idea/ spirit and human consciousness in history happened through conflicting intellectual forces that interacted (famously described as ‘thesis’ + ‘antithesis’ == ‘synthesis’), and these continuous dynamics shaped the historical process – was turned upside down by Marx. Marx replaced idea/ spirit by the real world, and intellectual forces with social forces, thus arguing primacy of matter over mind. Thus Marx’s conclusion that material conditions dictated history radically differed from Hegel’s belief that national ideas and cultures act as driving force of history. In view of Marx, in each historical epoch economic production and exchange involve a different set of ‘forces of production’, ‘relations of production’, and accumulation of capital – the change in mode of economic production and exchange in each epoch instigate the change in social behavior and human character. In ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’ published in 1880 CE, Engels succinctly described Historical Materialism as, “The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.” An important point that may be noted – it was Feuerbach who first critiqued Hegel by insisting that philosophy should begin with the material world, and suggested that existence preceded thought. Feuerbach argued that religion and God diverted human beings from realizing their own (humanly) capabilities. Hence religion is such a form of alienation, which separates human beings from their ‘species essence’; Feuerbach believed that religion is an intellectual mistake and through persuasion, it can be rectified. Marx accepted much of Feuerbach’s account, but he moved further and argued that since Feuerbach failed to understand the reason why people suffer from religious alienation, he couldn’t explain how it can be transcended. Marx told religion is a response to alienation in material conditions of people’s life, and ‘therefore it cannot be removed until human material life is emancipated’. (Interestingly, Aristotle explained in his book Metaphysics, “man begins to philosophize when the means of life are provided”).
Engels postulated three laws of dialectics from his reading of Hegel’s Science of Logic, in his work ‘Dialectics of Nature’:
- The law of the unity and conflict of opposites
- The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
- The law of the negation of the negation
As described by Marx and Engels, economic structure or foundation includes (i) the ‘material forces of production’ which contains ‘means of production’ and labour, (ii) the ‘relations of production’ that represents the social, political, legal arrangements that regulate production and distribution. (A ‘means of production’ whether ‘subjects of labor’ like raw materials, natural resources including source land, energy, water or ‘instruments of labor’ like tools, machinery, factory including land, other infrastructure which go into production of any material whether a grain of wheat or a car and service like electricity supply to 5G communication is drawn from natural resources, while the processing is done by a team of people and supervised by technical specialists – i.e. labor). Above the economic structure, grows superstructure, which completely and appropriately reflects the political, cultural and legal consciousness corresponding to the economic foundation. The relations of production – political, cultural as well as legal relations established by individuals or groups of individuals among themselves – squarely depend on the mode of production. Each of the historical epoch had its necessity in the development of the productive forces, and then after a stage each entered into contradiction with their further development, and finally, a new epoch emerged out of the preceding epoch. Engels, while writing to Borgius noted, “Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base. It is not that the economic position is the cause and alone active, while everything else only has a passive effect. There is, rather, interaction on the basis of the economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself.” (Refer ‘Marx-Engels Correspondence 1894’).
So, what are the historical epochs that are characterized by a different mode of economic production and exchange? Human civilization is not an old story, as described in Wikipedia, “Homo sapiens emerged in Africa around 300,000 years ago from a species commonly designated as either H. heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis …. The “out of Africa” migration took place in at least two waves, the first around 130,000 to 100,000 years ago, the second (Southern Dispersal) around 70,000 to 50,000 years ago. H. sapiens proceeded to colonize all the continents and larger islands, arriving in Eurasia 60,000 years ago, Australia around 65,000 years ago, the Americas around 15,000 years ago…”
“Until about 12,000 years ago, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers. The Neolithic Revolution (the invention of agriculture) first took place in Southwest Asia and spread through large parts of the Old World over the following millennia. It also occurred independently in Mesoamerica (about 6,000 years ago), China, Papua New Guinea, and the Sahel and West Savanna regions of Africa. Access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools for the first time in history. Agriculture and sedentary lifestyle led to the emergence of early civilizations.” [ Refer link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human ]
The first period of ‘hunter-gatherer society’ was characterized by extremely slow development of the means of production (stone tools), and a nomadic mode of existence. Societies didn’t have a state or property, neither money was used as a medium of exchange. A group of people was able to hunt and/or gather enough to sustain themselves, the concept of surplus didn’t arise. The hunter-gatherer mode of production was the original ‘universal condition’ of humankind – termed primitive communism. In certain parts of the world primitive society still survived. Richard Leakey wrote in ‘The Making of Mankind’ (pp. 101-3), “Hobbes’s view that non-agricultural people have ‘no society’ and are ‘solitary’ could hardly be more wrong. To be a hunter-gatherer is to experience a life that is intensely social. As for having ‘no arts’ and ‘no letters’, it is true that foraging people possess very little in the form of material culture, but this is simply a consequence of the need for mobility. When the Kung move from camp to camp they, like other hunter-gatherers, take all their worldly goods with them: this usually amounts to a total of 12 kilograms (26 pounds) in weight, just over half the normal baggage allowance on most airlines. This is an inescapable conflict between mobility and material culture, and so the Kung carry their culture in their heads, not on their backs. Their songs, dances and stories form a culture as rich as that of any people.”
For most of human history, the process of development of human society has been excruciatingly slow. ‘The Economist’ remarked on December 31, 1999 “For nearly all of human history, economic advance has been so slow as to be imperceptible within the span of a lifetime. For century after century, the annual rate of economic growth was, to one place of decimals, zero. When growth did happen it was so slow as to be invisible to contemporaries – and even in retrospect it appears not as rising living standards (which is what growth means today), merely as a gentle rise in population. Down the millennia, progress, for all but a tiny elite, amounted to this: it slowly became possible for more people to live, at the meanest level of subsistence.”
The second period of ‘slave-owning society’ after 10000 BCE witnessed production of a surplus above the need for everyday survival. The Ancient mode of production could get activated because of the advancement of forces of production that gave rise to agriculture and animal husbandry. With growth in production and productivity gains more surplus got generated (which would get appropriated by the leading families in a community), property relations and classes developed, and as classes developed political activities spawned and state formed. Starting from ‘tribal chief’ of a community the political landscape accommodated ‘monarch’ of a kingdom. These things emerged gradually – starting from an embryonic stage and finally consolidating as a class society. Slave society was considered as the first class society formed of citizens and slaves. Slaves were people either from the same community who were converted into slave by wealthy families because of convoluted commercial dealings, or from other communities who became prisoners of war. Both state and aristocratic wealthy families were large-scale patrons of slavery. Slaves were exploited intensely for most of the work whether non-productive household or productive work (agriculture or craftsmanship). Slaves were denied rights for property ownership and citizenship.
While Asia Minor and southern Europe became home to ‘slave-owning society’, Mesopotamia, Persia, Indus valley and Indian subcontinent, Huang Ho valley and mainland China exhibited a different type of social formation with the Asiatic mode of production. After 5000 BCE, there was rapid advancement of forces of production that improved productivity creating a surplus in agricultural produces above the need of everyday survival. Property relations and classes developed along with aristocratic families. State formation was almost always a function of economics which was driven by wealth accumulation of aristocratic families. Beginning with ‘head’ of a community the political establishments included empires with highly complex administration. But through all the political and military changes, subsistence agriculture of peasantry (at the bottom of social hierarchy) in the rural regions ‘survived virtually unchanged for millennia’ dominated by the seasonal cycles. The village commune, the basic building block of the oriental societies, was entirely self-sufficient because the lifestyle involved only bare minimum necessities. Towns sprang up along trade routes, either on the banks of rivers, or in oases – traders and artisans (like blacksmiths, carpenters, weavers, goldsmiths, shoemakers, masons) created ‘bazaar’. ‘People are taught to look up to the state with feelings of awe and reverence, as a force standing above society’. Money existed but had limited use. A primarily agricultural economy, which didn’t allow ownership of private property like land – the king/emperor of kingdom/empire was the ultimate owner.
The fourth period of ‘feudal society’ after 500 CE witnessed a very slow advance of productive forces (especially in harnessing water and wind energy) but the overall collapse of the productive forces across Europe. A new society with the feudal mode of production took shape (while Asiatic mode of production continued in Asia). Feudal society’s class relations were marked by the presence of serfdom. The majority of population (commoners) were serf tied to feudal lord and his estate, they performed the activities related to agriculture and animal husbandry. The lords swear their allegiance to the monarch (in lieu of monarch’s acceptance of feudal lords’ ownership of the land). Absence of centralized bureaucracy and standing army were key features of the era, which also saw the Church as the largest owner of arable land (about 30% of total) in Europe. Artisans (who organized themselves in ‘guilds’) using simple tools produced simple commodities. In ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’ published in 1880 CE, Engels wrote “Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy.” Merchants traded on (surplus) agricultural produces and cloth manufactured within Europe and imported spice and other exotic goods from Asia. This merchant class would grow in size and eventually form the bourgeois in the next era.
The fifth period of ‘capitalist society’ cohabited with the feudal mode of production since around 1400 CE, and finally, it replaced old society completely. In ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’ published in 1880 CE, Engels defined capitalist mode of production as “Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.
A. Severance of the producer from the means of production. Condemnation of the worker to wage labor for life. Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in the production as a whole.
C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. Industrial reserve-army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard-of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production and products — excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital — which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange.
D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.”
Marx and Engels viewed class struggle as the spontaneous outcome of the dialectical nature of history, which aggravated with the advent of capitalism. Two basic classes in the capitalist system – bourgeois (the owners of the means of production) and proletariat (the workers) – have an antagonistic relationship, and the ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’ suggested that, “the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable”.
Marx pointed out the key reasons of the class struggle as, “In agriculture as in manufacture, the transformation of production under the sway of capital, means, at the same time, the martyrdom of the producer; the instrument of labor becomes the means of enslaving, exploiting, and impoverishing the laborer; the social combination and organization of labor-processes are turned into an organized mode of crushing out the workman’s individual vitality, freedom, and independence.”
Under capitalism, the bourgeois class became the owner of almost all means of production and commoners (who lost all assets that has some significance as capital) became proletariat resulting in class struggle. In order to transform the relations of production completely in favor of their class, the bourgeois hijacked the revolutions in Holland, England, France, and British colonies in North America between 16th to 18th centuries CE.
Application of the theory of historical materialism to analyze capitalist society proposes the following:
- the modern state and legal system are part of the ‘superstructure’ that facilitate the accumulation of capital by the ruling capitalist class through loyal relations of production (economic policies, institutions, division of labour, and exploitation of labour class)
- Under capitalism the forces of production have experienced spectacular development. Marx and Engels in ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’ wrote, “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. …. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.“
- In future, when the existing relations of production no longer support further progress in the productive forces (for further accumulation of capital), a major social turmoil will take place which should end up in revolution
To Marx, the higher-stage of communist society is a free association of producers which has successfully negated all remnants of the capitalist society. “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Marx-Engels suggested: there would be a two-stage transformation of capitalist society into a communist society:
- The stage 1 transformation >> Capitalist society (bourgeois democracy) to socialist society (through dictatorship of proletariat)
- The stage 2 transformation >> Socialist society to Communist society (classless society)
“In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”, as mentioned in the Manifesto.
(2) Critique of Capitalist Economy
As a critique of capitalism, while providing insights into its working principles, and propensity to crisis, Marxism remains unsurpassed. Marx began with an indictment of the classical political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, exposed its limitations as well as the contradictions of capitalism itself, and expounded on the inevitability of its collapse. Das Kapital was the result of penetrating analysis of the economic system prevailing in mid-19th century England. It was a system of private enterprise and competition that arose in the 16th century from the development of sea routes, international trade, and colonial rule in America, Africa and Asia. Its rise had been facilitated by changes in the forces of production, the adoption of mechanization, and technical progress. The wealth of the societies that brought this economy into play had been acquired through an “enormous accumulation of commodities.” For Marx, ‘human being’ was the supreme agenda – he wrote in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, “Man is first of all a natural being. As a natural being and a living natural being, he is endowed on the one hand with natural powers, vital powers…; these powers exist in him as aptitudes, instincts. On the other hand, as an objective, natural, physical, sensitive being, he is a suffering, dependent and limited being…, that is, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, independent of him, but are the objects of his need, indispensable and essential for the realization and confirmation of his substantial powers.” He watched with horror the ultimate debasement of humanity in a capitalist mode of production. He stated in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, “Political economy, therefore, does not recognize the unemployed worker, the workingman, insofar as he happens to be outside this labor relationship. The rascal, swindler, beggar, the unemployed, the starving, wretched and criminal workingman – these are figures who do not exist for political economy but only for other eyes, those of the doctor, the judge, the grave-digger, and bum-bailiff, etc.; such figures are spectres outside its domain. For it, therefore, the worker’s needs are but the one need – to maintain him whilst he is working and insofar as may be necessary to prevent the race of laborers from [dying] out. The wages of labour have thus exactly the same significance as the maintenance and servicing of any other productive instrument, or as the consumption of capital in general, required for its reproduction with interest, like the oil which is applied to wheels to keep them turning. Wages, therefore, belong to capital’s and the capitalist’s necessary costs, and must not exceed the bounds of this necessity.”
Although production is common to all forms of society in all historical epochs, production for exchange is not so. In peasant societies of feudal era before the development of capitalism, people lived off the crops they produced, and exchange played almost no role (except for an insignificant group of rural artisans). An insignificant amount of surpluses were sold at the local market. Under capitalism, most of the producers (including peasants) produce commodities not for themselves, but for exchange. A commodity is a product of labor that is produced for the purpose of being exchanged and not for the personal use of the producer(s). To underline the difference between production in general and production for exchange, Marx used the distinctive terms of use-value and exchange-value (related respectively to natural-material conditions and monetary-exchange valuations). Use-value is something that satisfies a human want. It has the quality of being useful. A mobile phone has a use-value in that it is a device that allows us to talk to other phone users. However, a use-value need not be a physical thing. It could be a service. Again, not all use-values are products of human labor – people inhale air to live, but no labor is involved in its production. But almost all products of human labor have nevertheless use-values. On the other hand, exchange-value reflects the value of a commodity when one commodity is exchanged for another. A commodity is a physical or service item that is produced for sale in the market. It has a use-value that also has an exchange-value, namely something that can be sold. The seller of commodities is only interested in the price it will fetch. The buyer, however, is interested in the use-value and also how much it costs. The dual characteristics of a commodity – use-value and exchange-value – are intertwined because of which if a commodity has no use to anyone, then nobody will buy it and it cannot be exchanged.
Labour and Value: To describe how labor contributes to creating value, Engels stated in ‘Synopsis of Capital’:
“Just as a commodity is something twofold: use-value and exchange-value, so the labor contained in it is two-fold:
- on the one hand, as definite productive activity, weaving labor, tailoring labor, etc.- “useful labor“;
- on the other, as the simple expenditure of human labour-power, precipitated abstract (general) labor.
The former produce use-value, the latter exchange-value; only the latter is quantitatively comparable (the differences between skilled and unskilled, composite and simple labor confirm this).
Hence, the substance of exchange-value is abstract labor and its magnitude is the measure of time of abstract labor”
“The value of a commodity in the use-value of another is its relative value. The expression of the equivalence of two commodities is the simple form of relative value” in the equation x quantity commodity a = y quantity commodity b. Further, if z quantity commodity c can be exchanged with x quantity commodity a, that would mean:
x quantity commodity a = y quantity commodity b = z quantity commodity c,
which in turn means all three commodities are exchangeable among themselves.
“Here, the commodities are given the general relative form of value, in which all of them are abstracted from their use-values and equated to x quantity commodity a as the materialization of abstract labor; x quantity commodity a is the generic form of the equivalent for all other commodities; it is their universal equivalent; the labour materialized in it represents in itself the realization of abstract labor, labor in general.”
Stripping away the use-value from commodities leaves only one quality in them – they are all products of labor. Hence a commodity possesses value only because abstract/general human labor is embodied in it. And the magnitude of its value is measured by the quantity of value-forming material – labor hours – contained in it. Intuitively it might appear that the idler worker would produce a more valuable commodity – in reality however the labor effort being discussed here is not individual, but social labor.
The sentence very often ascribed to Marx: ‘labor is the source of all wealth’. It is wrong as we note Marx wrote in Capital volume I, “labor is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labor. As William Petty puts it, labor is its father and the earth its mother.” Thus Marx didn’t overlook the role of Nature in the production process, but he kept it out of account in the determination of value (he wanted to deduce abstract/general human labor in commodities after chipping away all components of the use-value). On the contrary, Marx argued that the classical liberal economists treated the natural parameters of production (raw materials, energy, fertile soil, water etc.) as ‘free gifts of nature’ to capital which resulted in the exclusion of social and ecological costs from the costs of production.
British economist Adam Smith followed by David Ricardo first recognized that the value of a commodity was determined by the labor effort required for its production. However, Ricardo could neither distinguish between useful labor (for creating use-value) and abstract labor (for creating exchange-value) nor recognize the social character of the value. “Even its best representatives, Adam Smith and Ricardo, treat the form of value as something of indifference, something external to the nature of the commodity itself. The explanation for this is not simply that their attention is entirely absorbed by the analysis of the magnitude of value. It lies deeper. The value-form of the product of labor is the most abstract, but also the most universal form of the bourgeois mode of production; by that fact, it stamps the bourgeois mode of production as a particular kind of social production of a historical and transitory character. If then we make the mistake of treating it as the eternal natural form of social production, we necessarily overlook the specificity of the value-form, and consequently of the commodity-form together with its further developments, the money form, the capital form etc.” Marx stated in Capital, Volume I.
Exchange of Commodities and Money: In ‘Synopsis of Capital’, to describe how money came into being to enable exchange of commodities, Engels wrote, “A commodity is a use-value for its non-owner, a non-use-value for its owner. Hence, the need for exchange. But, every commodity owner wants to get in exchange specific use-values that he needs, to that extent, the exchange is an individual process. On the other hand, he wants to realize his commodity as value, that is, in any commodity, whether or not his commodity is use-value to the owner of the other commodity. To that extent, the exchange is for him a generally social process. But, one and the same process cannot be simultaneously both individual and generally social for all commodity owners. Every commodity owner considers his own commodity as the universal equivalent, while all other commodities are so many particular equivalents of his own. Since all commodity owners do the same, no commodity is the universal equivalent, and, hence, no commodities possess a general relative form of value, in which they are equated as values and compared as magnitudes of value..
“Commodities can be related as values and, hence, as commodities only by comparison with some other commodity as the universal equivalent. But only the social act can make a particular commodity the universal equivalent – money…
“Money, as the measure of value, is the necessary phenomenal form of the measure of value immanent in commodities – i.e., labor-time…
“Since all other commodities are merely particular equivalents of money, and money is their universal equivalent, they are related to money as particular commodities to the universal commodity. The process of exchange gives the commodity which it converts into money, not its value, but its value-form.”
Now, it is advantageous if a particular commodity assumes the universal equivalent form – the type of commodity to which the universal equivalent form will stick to, is determined by various circumstances. Eventually, precious metals like gold and silver served as the universal equivalent form, and that came to be known as money. It won’t be out of place to mention that, (a) gold and silver as ornamental materials, have been important articles of exchange since ancient times, (b) these precious metals maintain their quality under the normal environment of air-sunray-water, and (c) these precious metals can be worked upon to change its form and weight. As a matter of fact, gold and silver coins and bars became the money commodity in most of the capitalist countries during 19th century in Europe. Estimated value of the supplies of money in the industrialized countries was estimated in 1831 CE as Gold – £111,600,000 and Silver – £414,000,000 while in 1880 CE it was Gold – £658,500,000 and Silver – £420,300,000. Between 1880 and 1908 CE, £1500,000,000 worth of gold coins and £1000,000,000 worth of silver coins were coined in various currencies. Marx, in Capital, assumed gold to be the only money commodity for the sake of simplicity. The value of gold fluctuates, hence in practice the standard of price is fixed by law (in 19th century European countries).
Price is the money-nomenclature of the magnitude of value of a commodity (as a measure of value, money transforms the values of commodities into certain imaginary quantities of gold). At the same time, it is the expression of the exchange-ratio of the commodity with the money-commodity i.e. gold (as a standard of price it measures the various quantities of gold with a certain quantity of gold which is accepted as a unit, for example one gram of gold).
In ‘Synopsis of Capital’ Engels mentioned, “The circulation of commodities is the starting point of capital. Hence, commodity production, commodity circulation, and the latter’s developed form, commerce, are always the historical groundwork from which capital arises.” The elementary circulation of commodities functions as: Commodity Money Commodity (C M C), which denotes ‘to sell commodity in order to buy another commodity’. One sells a commodity, which is a non-use-value for him/her, in order to obtain money that would be spent for procuring other commodities that represent use-values for him/her – consumption is the purpose, ultimate object is use-value. Let’s discuss a simple C M C cycle depicting circulation of commodities that concerns a carpenter, a tailor, a butcher, and a baker residing in a town operating their small business:
The circulation of commodities imparts a continuous movement to money that pushes it farther from the starting-point, in order to make it pass from one hand to another. There exist two special instances in the above scheme – (a) there is no buyer for Coat, hence the tailor needs money to sustain in situations where commodity exchange doesn’t work due to lack of demand, and (b) there is a demand for carpentry tool box that is beyond the capability of any of the community members, hence it needs to be imported.
A second form of circulation of commodities exist: Money Commodity Money’ (M C M’), which denotes ‘to buy commodity in order to sell’. Final point of this cycle is not a commodity, but money – the purpose is not consumption, ultimate object is exchange-value. The money thrown into circulation at its beginning is not spent, but merely advanced. It returns to its original owner. Let’s discuss a basic ideal rice trader’s business:
Since sale value is more than purchase value, M’=M+∆m. This ∆m earning for the rice trader, is surplus-value. The value originally advanced remains intact in circulation, and adds to itself a surplus-value thereby expanding itself – money converted into capital. However, when the real world is considered (as against an imaginary society where a class of merchants sells commodities to a class of consumers which only buys and does NOT sell), sellers and buyers combine into a system where every family buys and sells (earning a surplus while selling and losing the same amount while buying) resulting in a scenario where “commodity circulation creates no new value”. Let’s go back to the rice trader’s case study, trace the realistic transactions, and sum up the total value across all protagonists – first, starting before the rice trader purchased from the peasant, second, ending after the rice trader sold to the carpenter:
The above case-study shows that, greater value with merchant at the end of commodity circulation cycle is NOT derived from an increase in values, but from a reduction in the values in the hands of the other protagonists. Thus merchant capital doesn’t create surplus-value in a society. The historical beginning of the appropriation of surplus-value occurred this way through the appropriation of alien values: (a) merchant’s capital by means of circulation of commodities – M C M’, (b) usurer’s capital by means of opportunistic extortion – M M’. Not only the economic system got distorted due to capital assuming the form of merchant’s or usurer’s capital, but it also created a conflict with contemporary moral conceptions in ancient and medieval era. Usury was denounced by ALL religious scriptures except the Jewish. Trading was also not treated with high esteem, except that the rulers needed tax receipts generated from trading.
Surplus-labour and Surplus-value: In the modern era, the commodity producer produces surplus-value by adding labor efforts, and by staying within the sphere of circulation – the whole process is driven by industrial capital in a gigantic scale. The above-mentioned representation M C M’ should therefore be modified as: M C … C+∆c M+∆m. Here the industrialist procures commodity C, he/she employ laborer who gives the effort to add surplus-value ∆c to the commodity, the modified commodity C+∆c is sold by the businessman/ industrialist at M+∆m thereby realizing surplus-value. So, labor-power has to appear in the market as a commodity. “But, for the owner of money to find labor-power in the market as a commodity, it must be sold by its own possessor- that is, it must be free labor-power. Since buyer and seller as contracting parties are both juridically equal persons, labor-power must be sold only temporarily — since in a sale, en bloc, the seller no longer remains the seller, but becomes a commodity himself. But then the owner, instead of being able to sell commodities in which his labor is embodied, must rather be in a position where he has to sell his labor-power itself as a commodity”, commenting on the process of how labor power converts money to industrial capital as analyzed by Marx, Engels noted this in his ‘Synopsis of Capital’. A person would sell his labor-power as commodity when he is divorced from the means of production like land, machinery, and tools.
In ‘Capital’ volume 1, Marx defined labor-power as “by labor-power or capacity for labor is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.” Labor-power presupposes the availability of required quantity and quality of the means of subsistence (food and nourishment, clothing, dwelling, entertainment, etc.) in order to replace the energy expended during working and to be able to work on the next day. Engels noted this in his ‘Synopsis of Capital’, “Labour-power has an exchange-value which is determined, like that of all other commodities, by the (socially necessary – added by the interviewee) labor-time required for its production, and hence for its reproduction a well. The value of a day’s labor-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of its owner to keep the worker alive and well (in a state of normal capacity to work next day). This depends upon climate, natural conditions, etc., and also on the given historical standard of living in each country and for each particular epoch. Moreover, his maintenance includes the means of subsistence for his substitutes – i.e., his children – in order that the race of these peculiar commodity owners may perpetuate itself. Furthermore, for skilled labor, the cost of education.’’
Marx stated in ‘Capital’ volume 1, “The total labor power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labor power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labor power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The socially necessary labor time (SNLT) is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.”
Suppose that production of commodities (as means of subsistence) takes five hours to produce. Accordingly the first five hours of any working day would be spent on producing value equivalent to the value of the wages (as payment to the worker) – SNLT. Next three hours or so for which the worker puts effort is known as surplus labor, producing surplus-value for the capitalist. For Marx, labor-power is the only commodity which can produce more value than it is worth – so, labor-power is called as variable capital. The instruments of labor (machinery, tools) do not alter the magnitude of its value in the production process, only pass their value on to the finished commodities – all of these are known as constant capital. The theory of surplus-value shows that profit is the result of the labor performed by the worker over and above that necessary to create the value of his/her wages. “Surplus value is produced by the employment of labor power. Capital buys the labor power and pays the wages for it. By means of his work, the laborer creates new value which does not belong to him, but to the capitalist. He must work a certain time merely in order to reproduce the equivalent value of his wages. But when this equivalent value has been returned, he does not cease to work, but continues to do so for some further hours. The new value which he produces during this extra time, and which exceeds, in consequence, the amount of his wage, constitutes surplus value.”
Let’s look into the following case study involving a handloom owner, and a weaver. The loom owner buys the means of production (subject of labor – cotton, instrument of labour – spindle), and pays the weaver (i.e. buys his labor-power) to work up the cotton at the loom to produce yarn.
Assumptions – (a) The means of subsistence necessary for the worker’s maintenance can be produced in 4 hours of SNLT. Such an amount of labor time is equivalent to a wage of 2 units of money. The capitalist buys the labor-power at its value paying 2 units for the working day; 2 working hour represent 1 unit, 1 working hour represent 1/2 unit of money
(b) 1 kilogram of yarn is spun out of 1 kilogram of cotton;
(c) Each kilogram of cotton represent 2 working hours labor, and would therefore cost 1 unit of money;
(d) 1 spindle is consumed in the spinning of every 100 kilogram of cotton;
(e) Each spindle embodies 20 working hours labor, and would therefore cost 10 units of money;
(f) In a working hour 2 kilograms of cotton are spun, therefore in 6 hours 12 kilograms spun under normal socially necessary conditions of production;
(g) Working day at factory consists of 8 working hours.
Under these circumstances how much value would be embodied in a pound of yarn? The value of the cotton and the spindle consumed in its production. This passes into the product without curtailment or augmentation. To this transmitted value is now added the value which the work of spinning imparts to the cotton
The value of 1 kilogram of yarn = the value of (1 kilogram of cotton + 1/100th of a spindle + 1/2 working hour)
= 1 + 1/10 + 1/4 = 1.35 units of money.
In 4 hours (SNLT) 8 kilograms of yarn are spun, the value of which is
= 1.35 x 8 = 10.8 units of money.
For 8 kilogram of yarn the capitalist spent
= 8 kilogram of cotton + 8/100ths of a spindle + 1 unit of labour-power (working-day)
= 8 + 0.8 + 2 = 10.8 units of money.
So far, the capitalist couldn’t create any surplus-value for him from the production process. He/she has bought the use-value of the labor-power for the whole day; and therefore he/she has the right to utilize the use-value to the utmost. After a further 4 hours, at the end of the working day, the capitalist reckons again.
In 8 hours 16 kilograms of yarn are spun, the value of which is
= 1.35 x 16 = 21.6 units of money.
For 16 kilogram of yarn the capitalist spent
= 16 kilogram of cotton+ 16/100ths of a spindle+ 1 unit of labour-power (working-day)
= 16 + 1.6 + 2 = 19.6 units of money.
Hence, the capitalist earned (21.6 – 19.6) i.e. 2 units of money as surplus-value. “As a value-creating process, the labor process becomes a process of producing surplus-value the moment it is prolonged beyond the point where it delivers a simple equivalent for the paid-for value of labor-power”.
Price and Profit: Marx clearly delineated value from price and profit, by pointing out the sharp distinction between production of surplus-value and realization of profit as net income. As it happened since 15th century CE, selling a product in a market itself would be a challenging task where competitors exist – so, the commodity may be produced containing surplus-value, but selling that output to realize that surplus-value is not an automatic process. Until payment from sales is received by the capitalist, it is uncertain how much of the (produced) surplus-value will actually be realized as gross profit. Finally, interest and tax would have to be paid from the gross profit to arrive at net profit. Marx stated in ‘Value, Price and Profit’, “Rent, interest, and industrial profit are only different names for different parts of the surplus value of the commodity”. The magnitude of net profit realized as money will differ from the magnitude of surplus-value produced in manufacturing depending on market demand and prices fluctuations.
Marx went into great detail to examine various factors which could affect the production and realization of surplus-value. He regarded three types of competition as crucial for the purpose of understanding the dynamics of realization -competition among capitalists, competition between capitalists and workers, and competition among workers. His conclusion was that employers will aim to ‘maximise the productivity of labor and economize on the use of labor’, to ‘reduce their unit-costs and maximize their net returns from sales at current market prices. The main method, as Marx suggested, was mechanization to raise the fixed capital outlay in investment and simultaneous reduction in variable capital i.e. labor-power.
How does the mechanism of the movement of prices operate in a capitalist society, as per Marx?
Let’s discuss a case study of a luxury car assuming the average selling price as $100,000. Enterprises working at average social labor productivity, produced cars at a cost of $85,000, realizing $15,000 in gross profit i.e. 17.6%. The possibilities are:
Option 1 – plants operating below the average productivity of labor:
Assuming expenses to produce a luxury car as $90,000, gross profit will be $10,000.
Option 2 – plants operating above the average productivity of labor:
Assuming expenses to produce a luxury car as $80,000, gross profit will be $20,000 which indicates 25%.
Average profit is an abstract idea, an average figure around which the gross profit rates of different enterprises and different manufacturing plants of an enterprise fluctuate. The capitalist competition favors those enterprises which realize more than average profits. Capital flows toward the enterprises and branches which realize more profits and flows away from those which realize profits below the average. This ebb and flow of capital is the way through which that equalization of the rates of profit is effected. This ‘abstract average rate of profit’ is the ratio of ‘the total mass of surplus value produced by all workers in a given year and in a given country’ to ‘the total mass of capital investment in that country’.
What is the formula for the rate of profit, as per Marx?
If surplus-value is denoted by S, constant capital is denoted by C, and variable capital is denoted by V,
(Gross) profit rate = Ratio of surplus-value and total capital = S/(C+V).
Another formula, surplus value rate = S/V, specifies the way in which the ‘produced value’ is divided between workers and capitalists. If, S/V equals 1, this means that the ‘produced value’ is divided into two equal parts – one part going to the capitalist (as gross profits which further breaks down into net profit, interest, tax), and the other going to the workers (in the form of wages, and bonus). When the rate of surplus value is 1, the 8-hour working day essentially means that a worker spends 4 hours of (SNLT) to produce the value equivalent to wages, and provides 4 hours of labor in which they supply free labor-power to create the surplus-value to be appropriated by the bourgeois capitalist.
Now, if S/V (i.e. surplus value rate) increases, both numerator and denominator S/(C+V) (i.e. gross profit rate) increase. Under certain conditions where the two increases occur in a certain proportion, the value of the fraction will remain the same. In other words, an increase in the surplus-value rate may neutralize the effects of an increase in the organic composition of capital (i.e. V). Let’s do a simple analysis on the effect of increasing constant capital:
Stage 1: Total value of production = 1C + 1V + 1S
Gross profit rate = 50%
Surplus value rate = 100%
Stage 2: Total value of production = 2C + 1V + 1S… after C is doubled
Gross profit rate = 33.3%
Surplus value rate = 100%
Further, if surplus value goes up from 1 to 1.5, gross profit rate rises back to original figure.
Total value of production = 2C + 1V + 1.5S
Surplus value rate = 150%
Gross profit rate = 50%
Hence, increase in surplus value rate can neutralize the effect of the increase in constant composition of capital, on gross profit rate. But, the question would be raised – if constant capital C is increased continuously, can surplus value go down continuously, so that the gross profit rate remains the same? No, while there is no limit whatsoever to the increase in the constant capital C, variable capital V can only go down up to a certain level (say, from 8 working-hour per day to 1 working-hour when total automation rules the capitalist economy). This indicates that, in the long run, the fall in the average rate of (gross) profit is inevitable.
Did Marx examine the relation between price and market?
Contrary to what Marxist scholars like Ernest Mandel, Ben Fine proposed (that ‘Marx advanced two different theories of market-value determination: a theory of market-value for sectors without rent, and a theory of market-value for rent-bearing sectors’), Fabian Balardini proposes in ‘Demand and Market-Value in Marx’s Theory of Rent’ that, “Marx advanced a unique theory of market-value determination that applies to all sectors (with or without rent) where market-value is determined during periods of market disequilibrium by the changes in production conditions in conjunction with changes in demand.”
(3) Environmental Critique of Capitalism
The German scientist Justus von Liebig advocated an ecological critique of British agriculture capitalism between 1855 and 1865 – Liebig accused them of “’systematically leaching the soil of nutrients, thereby requiring that bones be imported from the Napoleonic battlefields and catacombs of Europe, and guano from Peru, to replenish English fields.” (Refer ‘Marxism and Ecology’, John Bellamy Foster published in Monthly Review, December 01, 2015). Foster also wrote in his book ‘Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature’ published in 2000, “With trade and expansion, food and fiber were shipped longer distances. The nutrients of the soil were sent to cities in the form of agricultural produce, but these same nutrients, in the form of human and animal waste, were not returned to the land. Thus there was a one-way movement, a “robbing of the soil” in order to maintain the socio-economic reproduction of society.”
Marx defined the labor process itself as “Labor is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature. He confronts the materials of nature as a force of nature. He sets in motion the natural forces, which belong to his own body, his arms, legs, head and hands, in order to appropriate the materials of nature in a form adapted to his own needs. Through this movement he acts upon external nature and changes it, and in this way he simultaneously changes his own nature … It [the labor process] is the universal condition for the metabolic interaction [Stoffwechsel] between man and nature, the everlasting nature-imposed condition of human existence, […]”. Marx identified a rift in this metabolism and on this basis, he developed the theory metabolic rift, pointing to the “irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism, a metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life itself.”
Beginning in the 1880s, the British zoologist E. Ray Lankester (Marx’s close friend) and his student, the botanist A. George Tansley proposed an ecological critique of capitalism, and founded the British Ecological Society. Marx’s concepts of the ‘universal metabolism of nature’, the ‘social metabolism’, and the metabolic rift have proven invaluable tools for modelling the complex relations between capitalist productive systems, and the ecological systems in which the productive systems are embedded. Marx’s environmental critique intertwined with his critique of capitalist economy offers historical materialism a unique perspective on the current ecological crisis.
Marx detailed the historical background of how capitalism impacted ecology by breaking down the traditional natural sustainability, he wrote in ‘Capital’ volume I, “Capitalist production, by collecting the population in great centers, and causing an ever-increasing preponderance of town population, on the one hand concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the circulation of matter between man and the soil, i.e., prevents the return to the soil of its elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; it therefore violates the conditions necessary to lasting fertility of the soil. By this action it destroys at the same time the health of the town laborer and the intellectual life of the rural laborer. … Moreover, all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the laborer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country starts its development on the foundation of modern industry, like the United States, for example, the more rapid is this process of destruction.” In ‘Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective’ Paul Burkett wrote, “Value and capital treat wealth as homogenous, divisible, and quantitatively limitless, thereby contradicting nature’s qualitative variegation, ecological interconnection, and quantitative limits.”
The most significant reality of nature is finite material resources and space. Power of science and technology, as harnessed by capitalist economy (primarily capitalist commodity production, power generation, infrastructure construction etc.) treated the limitations of nature as mere barriers to be surmounted – thus the ‘ecological foundations of human existence’ have been systematically undermined during past over five centuries. Central to this whole dynamics of ecology destruction was/is capital’s intrinsic characteristic of endless accumulation. Foster noted in ‘Marxism and Ecology’ article, ‘Capital as a system was intrinsically geared to the maximum possible accumulation and throughput of matter and energy, regardless of human needs or natural limits’. Hence, contradiction continues to grow between the imperatives of environmental flexibility and economic growth. Exponential growth in economic output across the world can’t occur without expanding rifts in the ecosystem.
Foster also noted in the same article that, ‘an “environmental proletariat” will almost inevitably emerge from the combination of ecological degradation and economic hardship, particularly at the bottom of society’. Alerting against that, Marx was extremely categorical regarding the ideal human-environment relations, “From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.” Marx proposed that in a future communist society humans could themselves govern their relations with nature through collective control, he stated in ‘Capital’ volume III, “Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production.… Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature.”
‘Environmental Critique of Capitalism’ as elucidated by Marx has been a prophetic standpoint. The environmental degradation and destruction carried out in 19th and 20th centuries by the industrial economy (mostly owned by the private capital, balance owned by the state capital) across the world has a lot to do with increasingly unbalanced ecology and weather (heat wave, flood, drought, rainfall etc.). The entire cycle of capitalist economy has been the key contributing factor for the overall ruin of the planet earth since the middle of 20th century.
The beauty of Marxism is that, at every step of each of the three theories, the historical evolution had been traced, a teleological view of historical change had been presented by both Marx and Engels ostensibly to transcend the barriers of past and present (and draw the future)! Pointing out to the history of commodity-money-labor and mode of production, Engels noted in his ‘Synopsis of Capital’, “the relation between money owner and labor-power owner is not a natural one, or a social one common to all ages, but a historical one, the product of many economic revolutions. So, too, do the economic categories considered up to now bear their historical stamp. To become a commodity, a product must no longer be produced as the immediate means of subsistence. The mass of products can assume commodity-form only within a specific mode of production, the capitalist mode, although commodity production and circulation can take place even where the mass of products never become commodities. Likewise, money can exist in all periods that have attained a certain level of commodity circulation; the specific money-forms, from mere equivalent to world money, presuppose various stages of development; nevertheless, a very slightly developed circulation of commodities can give rise to all of them. Capital, on the other hand, arises only under the above condition, and this one condition comprises a world’s history.
A brief discussion on three concepts that permeate across all aspects of Marxist theory and philosophy:
(1) Alienation of labor
In ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844’, Marx identified four dimensions of alienated labor in capitalism:
- The actual producers create a product that they neither own nor control; thus, immediate producers are estranged from the product of their labor;
- In reality, the worker is forced to work in ways that are mentally and/or physically sapping; hence, immediate producers are separated from their productive activity;
- In the capitalist society, economic relations drive individuals to view others as ‘merely means to their own particular ends’; hence, immediate producers are separated from other individuals of society;
- The capitalist society discourage individual human capacities for ‘free, conscious, and creative work’ by forcing him/her to adhere to capitalist economic relations; thus immediate producers are separated from their own ‘self’, from their human nature
The idea of alienation plays a central role in the whole of Marx’s work spanning across whole life. As per Marx, the life of the worker would depend on things that he/she has created but those are not owned by him/her; instead of finding his/her fair existence through labor efforts, he/she loses it in this environment which is external to him/her. Thus a worker is deprived of humanity. “The generic being (Gattungwesen) of man, nature as well as his intellectual faculties, is transformed into a being which is alien to him, into a means of his individual existence”. Nature, his/her body, his/her spiritual essence become alien to him. “Man is made alien to man”.
Marx, in ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844’, “Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself a human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.”…
“Man makes his life activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from animal life activity. It is just because of this that he is a species-being. Or it is only because he is a species-being that he is a conscious being, i.e., that his own life is an object for him. Only because of that is his activity free activity. Estranged labor reverses the relationship so that it is just because man is a conscious being that he makes his life activity, his essential being, a mere ‘means’ to his existence.”…
“From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation.”
Through a process of losing their quality as human products, the products of labor become fetishes, that is, alien realities to which both the individual who possesses them and the individual worker who is deprived of them submit themselves. In the capitalist economy, this submission to things is disguised by the fact that the exchange of commodities is expressed in money. The fundamental economic alienation is accompanied by secondary political and ideological alienations, which offer a distorted rationalization of a material world in which the relations of individuals with one another are also distorted and, indeed, estranged. We can’t avoid going back to Marx – in ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ he stated in the preface as bluntly as possible, “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
(2) Primitive accumulation of capital
The capitalist converts at least a portion of surplus-value into capital. “Employing surplus-value as capital, reconverting it into capital, is called accumulation of capital.” Money is NOT in itself capital, but becomes capital ONLY when it acquires the capacity of self-expansion. When money functions as just the means of circulation of commodities, it doesn’t possess any power of self-multiplication; similarly if money is stored as an idle reserve, it can’t expand. Hence, Money becomes capital through a process of capitalist mode of production during which it expands in the course of its circulation – ‘Value therefore now becomes value in process, money in process, and, as such, capital’. (Capital, vol. I)
Marx not only exposed the true working principle of capitalist economy based on exploitation, but he also identified how the primitive (initial) accumulation of capital happened long before it could propel the industrial capitalism in 18th century. In Capital volume I, Marx wrote, “The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre…
“The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power.”
In a letter to N F Danielson the Narodnik economist, dated February 19, 1881 Marx wrote about the ‘drain’ of resources from India during British rule: “What the English take from them annually in the form of rent, dividends for railways useless to the Hindus; pensions for military and civil service men, for Afghanistan and other wars, etc., etc. – what they take from them without any equivalent and quite apart from what they appropriate to themselves annually within India, speaking only of the value of the commodities the Indians have gratuitously and annually to send over to England – it amounts to more than the total sum of income of the sixty millions of agricultural and industrial laborers of India. This is a bleeding process, with a vengeance!”
“The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter’s wand, it endows unproductive money with the power of creation and thus turns it into capital, without forcing it to expose itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury … As the national debt is backed by the revenues of the state, which must cover the annual interest payments, etc., the modern system of taxation was the necessary complement of the system of national loans… Here, however, we are less concerned with the destructive influence it exercises on the situation of the wage-laborer than with the forcible expropriation, resulting from it, of peasants, artisans, in short, of all the constituents of the lower middle-class. (Marx, 1990: 919-921)”
Marx emphasized the centrality of dispossession (enclosure of agricultural land and expropriation of peasantry from farmland) in the genesis of capitalist social relations, and connected it to other events like public debt and the fiscal system contributed to the capitalization and accumulation of wealth. David Harvey prefers the term “accumulation by dispossession” to “primitive accumulation”. He argued (2003) that capital actively “creates” its outside at one point in time and space to destroy at another, when faced with a crisis of over-accumulation. Harvey and other Marxists emphatically made the point that accumulation of capital is a continuous process.
The fact of the matter remains same whether it was carried out in 16th century England, or 18th century France, or 18th century USA, or Russia during 1990s, or India during 2010s – manipulation, coercion, and force applied by the state apparatus enabled the oligarchy and wealthy capitalists to continue accumulation of capital:
- enclosure of agricultural land
- direct loot of precious metals from colonies
- plantation business in colonies using slaves
- skewed trading rules with colonies that favor export from occupying power
- genocide of aborigines to occupy agricultural land and mines
- skewed investment rules with former colonies that favor former occupying power
- acquisition of agricultural land for industrial and infrastructural projects
- privatization of government-owned large assets like utilities, mines, manufacturing plants
- privatization of essential services like education and healthcare
- change in fiscal policies by government to favor capitalists
(3) Contradictions of capitalist economy
Marx argued that there are fundamental contradictions within the capitalist system which will lead eventually to its being superseded by another system having a different mode of production. Thus if capitalism proves to be ‘the end of history’, the final stage of human society, as envisaged by Francis Fukuyama, then Marxism will be finally repudiated. In Marx’ view, the defeat of capitalism would be the natural consequence of capitalism’s success:
- The more vigorous the process of accumulation of capital becomes (through increasing mechanization and automation technology, minimizing the costs of labor in production) the less it needs workforce – an increasing part of the proletariat population would no longer be needed in capitalist production process, a ‘reserve army of workers’ would get created in industry and agriculture across all countries, finally this will result in low purchasing power of common people;
- In the long run, as the process of accumulation of capital continue unabated, there would be decline in the average rate of (gross) profit culminating in a crisis of capital accumulation; the average rates of (gross) profit in the advanced capitalist countries are much lower than they were 100 or 150 years ago, this is also true for interest rates, both David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill perceived this tendency of capitalism; that, in turn, would result in a sharp reduction in productive investments – mass unemployment would become a norm rather than the exception, restructuring of capital in terms of takeovers-mergers-closures will happen to restore profitability;
- The more competitive the process of capitalist business turns (through cost optimization, marketing campaigns) the monopoly capital becomes more pronounced – an increasing part of the petty-bourgeois class would become idle, and monolithic families representing monopoly capital would seek more direct control of the state apparatus across all countries;
- A logic of permanent exponential growth of business in order to achieve endless accumulation of capital, is the working principle of capitalism, but it can’t work out successfully in a planet which contains LIMITED land and resources – initially, there would be overproduction of finished commodities, and finally, a day will come when raw material and fuel won’t be easily available for endless production, by then the ecosystem would be completely ruined which in turn would adversely impact lifestyle of common people across all countries;
Periodic economic crises is an intrinsic feature in the capitalist system, and that remains insurmountable. Crises demonstrate the fundamental contradiction in the capitalist system. To overcome such crises, the capitalist system continuously tries to adjust and re-adjust – thus we notice only a slowing down in investment activity following a fall in the profit and interest rates, and on the other hand, hectic investment activity for rapid expansion when profit rate experience a rising tendency. However, such adjustments can’t resolve the inherent contradictions in the long run.
In ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844’ (translated by Martin Milligan from the German text) published in 1932, Marx stated, “In an increasingly prosperous society only the richest of the rich can continue to live on money interest. Everyone else has to carry on a business with his capital, or venture it in trade. As a result, the competition between the capitalists becomes more intense. The concentration of capital increases, the big capitalists ruin the small, and a section of the erstwhile capitalists sinks into the working class, which as a result of this supply again suffers to some extent a depression of wages and passes into a still greater dependence on the few big capitalists. The number of capitalists having been diminished, their competition with respect to the workers scarcely exists any longer; and the number of workers having been increased, their competition among themselves has become all the more intense, unnatural, and violent. Consequently, a section of the working class falls into beggary or starvation just as necessarily as a section of the middle capitalists fall into the working class.
Hence even in the condition of society most favorable to the worker, the inevitable result for the worker is overwork and premature death, decline to a mere machine, a bondservant of capital, which piles up dangerously over and against him, more competition, and starvation or beggary for a section of the workers”
Finally, who is a Marxist communist?
The idea that ‘theory and practice must be united’ sometimes gets misrepresented or misunderstood or both. Application of theory (or an appropriate derivative) in political activity is the correct way of life for a Marxist communist. This is NOT to say that every Marxist communist must be engaged simultaneously in interpreting theory as well as conducting street-corner meetings. Who does what where is something that depends on the roles and responsibilities of a Marxist organization. Every activity and each category of role has full potential to make important contributions to the cause of Marxism and can’t be simply dismissed.
A Marxist communist must fulfill five minimum basic criteria before he/she can be called as such:
- One who understands and accepts the Marxist philosophy of ‘dialectical’ ‘historical’ materialism, critique of capitalist economy, and environmental critique of capitalism. A Marxist needs to increase the horizon of knowledge throughout his/her life, and more importantly, share knowledge with the younger generation on a regular basis;
- One who believes and participates in the social and political movements organized around the basic tenets of Marxist communism. A Marxist needs to practice what he/she preaches, as a minimum become a compassionate human being who extends support to the cause of commoners;
- One who understands the background of significant criticisms against Marxist communism and knows how to handle the same. True Marxists need to accept the fact that, Marx and Engels didn’t get enough time to finish most of their planned thesis, neither had they done justice to all the subjects they touched upon:
(a) anti-God – in his book ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’ written in 1843 and published in 1844 Marx stated, “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Only the last sentence of the quote would be used as a ‘proof of concept’ by every non-Marxist academician, media personality, politician, businessperson, apart from the people who belong to religious institutions to highlight how ‘evil’ Marxism can be. A Marxist needs to accept (rather than argue without robust logic and knowledge) that Marx touched upon the subject of God and religion as part of his socio-economic philosophy, but he didn’t intend to write in-depth about religion, and the existence of God, nor he insisted that one has to become anti-God in order to criticize the religious establishment (which was part of ruling oligarchy in every society in every era). Neither Marx nor Engels put a condition that one has to be an atheist to become a Marxist communist – on the contrary, Engels criticized the Paris Communards for their membership criterion which required one to be an atheist;
(b) bloody revolution – in ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’ Marx and Engels stated, “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat”. Thus the founders used the word ‘revolution’ in two senses – firstly, a complete change of a system/society, and secondly, the overthrow of political order (which may become violent). In 1872 CE, in a speech at Amsterdam, Marx said, “We know that heed must be paid to the institutions, customs and traditions of the various countries, and we do not deny that there are countries, such as America and England and if I was familiar with its institutions, I might include Holland, where the workers may attain their goal by peaceful means. That being the case, we must recognize that in most continental countries the lever of revolution will have to be force; a resort to force will be necessary one day in order to set up the rule of labor.” (Article ‘Marx, Engels and the vote’ by Duncan Hallas, Socialist Review, June 1983). So, Marx never preached about the inevitability of bloody revolution – he was open about the possibility of both electoral means as well as armed struggle, depending on country and era;
- One who accepts that Marx, Engels, and Lenin developed robust concepts and theoretical framework that are ‘only general guiding principles that must be applied differently in accordance with the prevailing conditions and characteristics of a specific country in a specific era. Lenin wrote “we do not consider the theory of Marx to be a complete, immutable whole. We think on the contrary that this theory has only laid the cornerstone of the science, a science which socialists must further develop in all directions if they do not want to let themselves be overtaken by life.” (Lenin. Collected Works. Lawrence & Wishart. Vol. 4);
- One who would not inherit and/or own a business operation involving investment of substantial capital and significant sales turnover (quantification is difficult and debatable, but doable – say, total equity capital more than one hundred thousand US Dollars, total workforce more than ten persons, and annual sales more than two hundred thousand US Dollars) in any sector of economy: primary, secondary, or tertiary that will propel him/her into the bourgeois capitalist class. That sums up my position as, petty-bourgeois class is welcome to the Marxist communist movement. Indeed, ‘a provisional coalition between the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie rebelling against a capitalism’ should be a long-term strategy for Marxists.
And, a true Marxist must be able to dream of a world where:
- The fetish of ‘private ownership’ will be buried and the concept of ‘community ownership’ will be resurrected (for assets/property that can be used as means of production). This has nothing to do with personal / family belongings and properties like flat/bungalow/car etc. A human being who has some privilege in society (due to whatever reason) tends to amass wealth through private ownership. It is against the fundamental reality of the earth and nature. Every means of production whether the subjects of labor (raw materials, natural resources including source land, energy) or the instruments of labor (tools, machinery, factory including land, other infrastructure) which go into the production of any material (from a grain of wheat to a battle tank) and service (from mobile communication to electric supply) is drawn from natural resources while the processing is done by a team of people with different skill sets (Labour). Hence, any enterprise (family, business, kingdom etc.) that uses such ‘produced materials’ and ‘produced services’ directly or indirectly utilize natural resources and social labor efforts. How then, can any human being claim ‘private ownership’ of anything on the earth?
- Yet another fetish, that of ‘state apparatus’ will be buried, and the concept of ‘community governance’ will be resurrected in the proposed ‘confluence of humanity’. It can’t be disputed that in spite of sincere efforts by few political outfits across the world to create a humanitarian facade of ‘state apparatus’ since many centuries, that resulted in the creation of benevolent despot (in few cases, in the desired form) and hypocrite monster (in most cases in the worst form, in most part of the history). So the introduction of a ‘community governance’ will do away with the recurrence of unpleasant memories. The theoretical edifice built for the super-structure of ‘state’ (on the basis of the idea of ‘social contract’ expounded by the humanist and rational thinkers of modern Europe) could never convert the wolf into a sheep. In reality, ‘State’ is that institution built over the base (comprising of the forces of production and relations of production) to ensure that the dominant class of bourgeois capitalists can (a) own the banking and other means of production, (b) appropriate the surplus generated from the prevailing mode of production, (c) pass on these positions to their next generation along with the accumulated wealth.
- The significant praxis of modern society and sophistry of modern civilization revolves around the ubiquitous idea of ‘capital’ and ‘commodity’. Without the ‘private ownership’ of means of production, ‘capital’ and ‘commodity’ would have already lost their sheen. In the new world, the cult of ‘capital’ and ‘commodity’ has to be controlled to such an extent that, apart from small producers and traders, there would be no private-controlled business that could create a scenario of monopoly capital in a sector or large accumulation of capital with a capitalist. ‘Money’ will be mainly used as a ‘medium of exchange’. The rigged system of capitalist commodity production has robbed mother earth of its resources and converted the vast majority of people into wage-slaves and debt-serfs – humanity needs a cessation of this insanity.
- The integrity of the natural ecosystem would be maintained in order to make it sustainable. The wanton destruction of the quality of land, water, and air for the short-term gains (of the modern industrial economy) at the expense of long-term sustainability must end. Measures like a shift away from power generation using polluting materials like coal and tar-sand oil to solar and wind, cutbacks in non-social expenditures like military, massive afforestation etc. should be promoted by UNO. The animal and plant kingdoms must be able to live without fear of extinction – it must be acknowledged that mother earth belongs to all.
- Every human being (irrespective of his/her background identity like age, sex, ethnicity, language, religion, region, state) will become free from hunger-disease-insecurity-injustice, will spend time in socially useful productive work, can indulge in literature-art-music-cinema, can do research in science-mathematics-social science-life science, can seek knowledge of ‘life’-‘society’-‘world’-‘universe’, can seek entertainment, travel and pleasure at leisure time, without any of these things being morally or physically harmful to any section or people of the society. In other words, an alt-world is possible where complete dignity, widest possible freedom, and maximum possible development for every citizen of this planet would become reality.
Even though Marxism cannot be defined by specifying few doctrines, or by identifying its practical method, Marxism does have ‘a distinctive and determinate identity’, and each of the aspects of the identity helps us to appreciate what Marxism is. Having said that, I must state that, Marxist communism has a consistent outlook about past history and society. Marx and Engels cautioned against becoming dogmatic and sectarian while looking ahead. There may be differences of opinion about ‘correct’ interpretation of a Marxist tenet – as long as the other opinion does NOT hurt overall Marxist philosophy, the same should be recognized as valid for the specific society at the specific time.
Another crucial aspect that must be mentioned here is: after Marx and Engels initiated the intellectual process of construction of the system what we call as ‘Marxist communism’ way back in 1840’s, dozens of socio-political leaders, and hundreds of economists, philosophers, and social scientists contributed to the development of the edifice in the long 20th century. Lenin and Mao paved the way following which Marxist communist ‘theory’ arrived at its intended destination of ‘reality’. Lenin followed by Mao dazzled the modern history with the most profound and fundamental contribution towards building the praxis of ‘Marxist communism’ – not only they sat down to write the ‘implementation manuals’ diligently, they organised the common people to struggle against the oligarchy, and they re-established their states with Marxist communism as the guiding principle.
Marx in ‘Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844’ had a dream of humanist communism, “Communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species.”
No one summed up Marxism and its goals better than Eric Hobsbawm (refer The Age of Revolution), “But it was not until Karl Marx (1818-83) transferred the center of gravity of the argument for socialism from its rationality or desirability to its historic inevitability that socialism acquired its most formidable intellectual weapon, against which polemical defenses are still being erected. Marx derived this line of argument from a combination of the Franco-British and the German ideological traditions (English political economy, French socialism and German philosophy). For Marx human society had inevitably broken primitive communism into classes; inevitably evolved through a succession of class societies, each in spite of its injustices in its time ‘progressive’, each containing the ‘internal contradictions’ which at a certain point made it an obstacle to further progress and generating the forces for its supercession. Capitalism was the last of these, and Marx, so far from merely attacking it, used all his world-shaking eloquence to trumpet forth its historic achievements. But capitalism could be shown by means of political economy to possess internal contradictions which inevitably made it at a certain point a bar to further progress and would plunge it into a crisis from which it could not emerge. Capitalism, moreover (as could also be shown by political economy), inevitably created its own grave-diggers, the proletariat whose numbers and discontent must grow while the concentration of economic power in fewer and fewer hands made it more vulnerable to overthrow. Proletarian revolution must therefore inevitably overthrow it.”
My 2 cents:
What is referred to as Cultural Marxism is in fact Cultural Capitalism. I submit that it is obvious that Cultural Marxism=Woke Capitalism=Capitalism. Equality in meaning for these are all of the same type. Which raises the obvious question:Why type are they?
Answer:Type=White Liberal Greedy Cheating Capitalist Pig Class….The most vile scum in the whole of the Universe!!!
@War for Blair Mountain
“Cultural Marxism=Woke Capitalism=Capitalism”
Let’s make 4 cents.
In US, “woke” movement was MSM instant darling from day one. Dead giveaway that it is fake. Fabricated. Not real. MSM repeatedly called it “left” until it sticked. Whoever experienced leftists goverment know that woke has nothing in common with left side of political spectrum.
The real left, like Socialists gained wide public support, large enough to become visible through media fog. To counter this, Deep State launched multiple motivational campaigns targeted at marginal but very loud and motivated groups like Me too, feminists, LGBT,… etc. Then granted them prime time coverage falsely calling them “leftists”. Endless tide of handpicked repulsive creatures completely muffled real leftists, turning their ideas into travesty.
All those marginals are complete clueless that they’re used as expendable pawns. Inevitable backlash will strike them at full speed when currently shocked majority retaliate.
Maybe Deep State want that to happen. Fashistic oligarchies always hated marginal groups.
Yeah but at least the story never ends.
@ Blackring,
Your point of view on woke/cultural Marxism/socialism is same as that of mine. Zionist-Capitalist funded multiple programmes to discredit Marxist movements, of which “Frankfurt School” was a prominent one …. All movements like LGBTQ (…. up to Z) are part of that.
I agree.
You are right, there are 2 types of left, the real left (which is after a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which is explained in Nahuel Moreno’s book called “Revolutionary Dictatorship of the proletariat” and the fake left which supports a welfare capitalist system with a human face
I do not expect many comments because this is too wide a field. It has been the subject of academic literature and discourse which would fill a huge library. Straight Bat just gives a run down of the most prominent socialist thinkers and it is already far too much to answer to in this limited space here.
The only short comment which comes to my mind is that stateside (!) organized and controlled socialism has been proven to be ineffective. And I believe that total material equality would not make people any happier because we are all different in what we are capable of, what we desire and how much we are ready to do to achieve goals – learning, being industrious and ready to take financial risks.
If Socialism means nothing but the violation of free market principles….you are so completely wrong to the point of clueless….
What if it meant failure of free mkt principles, and always leads to fascist communism.
Slowly, quitely,1000 people at a time, the U.S. is becoming socialist.
Do you really believe that two liners without content do justice to Marxism?
““Just as a commodity is something twofold: use-value and exchange-value, so the labor contained in it is two-fold:
on the one hand, as definite productive activity, weaving labor, tailoring labor, etc.- “useful labor“;
on the other, as the simple expenditure of human labour-power, precipitated abstract (general) labor.
The former produce use-value, the latter exchange-value; only the latter is quantitatively comparable (the differences between skilled and unskilled, composite and simple labor confirm this).”
This is argument by assertion; there is no argument or evidence to connect the two statements.
@Thomas,
” it is already far too much to answer to in this limited space here ”
You should feel free to put forward detail response, The Saker blog-site encourages exchange of views. Since I have included all salient aspects of Marxist theory in addition to its historic development (within Socialist and Communist philosophy), you have every right to mention your detail views.
In principle I’m a libertarian but in principle only because man in his development is not ready for complete freedom. A pity, mankind will have to experience a thousand more years of hardships before things (the human brains) get better.
There is right and wrong in Marx’s works but to lay it out here in an academic style (which the subject requires) would subject me to working on it some weeks. And why should I as I have nothing new and original to attribute. The subject is thoroughly exhausted in academic discourse.
Dealing with serious economics and sociology in the comments section of a blog falls quite short of a reasonable objective. For an example see War for Blair Mountain above.
@Thomas,
Libertarianism is probably most interesting one among the ‘philosophies’ of political economy … while ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’, ‘communism’ each has a definite stand, ‘libertarianism’ comes with both shades strikingly different – thus ‘right’ and ‘left’ both exist. I could never understand this phenomenon. (i know, ‘socialism’ as a principle stands opposite to ‘capitalism’, even though most of the leftist political parties that call them as socialist, are actually fake entities serving Zionist-Capitalist masters before fading out as French Socialist party did, their official philosophy remained anti-capitalist; but how could Libertarians managed to travel in two boats moving towards two poles!).
Probably you can give some key principles on libertarianism here sincerely in this forum as exchange of views.
Three key principles of Libertarian economics (Austrian School of economics):
1. The state/government is a thieve and robber
2. Only real money like gold provides the conditions for economic long term prosperity and avoids the cycles of boom and bust
3. Legitimate property is “sacred”. In the case of land and natural resources the very first appropriation creates property. Property also pertains to the own physical body – a very important distinction
__________________________
I recommend some authors who have written in English:
Ludwig von Mieses – not an easy read
Friedrich August von Hayek (his name and reputation utterly abused by the neoliberals like Milton Friedman)
Murray N. Rothbard
Hans Hermann Hoppe
@Thomas,
You are right Libertarian – they come very near to Liberal Capitalism with one difference i.e. minimum importance to ‘State’.
Well, even though I’m in completely opposite camp I like Rothbard’s book on Federal Reserve.
and I like Richard Wolf and Michael Hudson, modern Marxists. We are not so far apart. I admire the Chinese system, a free market economy within principled rules which are to guarantee social cohesion and wellfare for all.
As I said before, it’s too early to give up on state power but its control is the decisive factor.
@Thomas,
Michael Hudson and James Petras are my favourite!! We have a very fundamental commonality.
I can guess that, Austrian school dislikes Keynesian way of liberal capitalism, but I’m really surprised that right libertarians can even like Hudson! If you understand the historical fact that property (as capital/means of production – not your flat/fbunglow/urniture/car) has been accumulated by force-exploitation-injustice, you will drop the idea of ‘property as symbol of liberty’ and become a Marxist communist.
I look forward to that day!
This is a good example of how runaway verbosity totally undermines communication. In a world where terms like Marxist, Socialist, Communist are bandied about like dogmatic bludgeons devoid of meaning except as emotional triggers, the question “What is a Marxist anyway? Is that different from “Communist” or “Socialist”?” demands a clear concise answer. The successful Communist countries of East Asia seem to have evolved their own definitions that aren’t what westerners assume.
@Andreas,
” demands a clear concise answer.”
Probably you haven’t read this write-up – a clear concise answer has been provided in section B of the essay, and I wanted to highlight that by writing in caps:
” However, the MOST FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS SINCE EARLY MODERN ERA HAVE BEEN …”
Marxism as a theory of economic class conflict is quite alright. If some of the details are wrong…well it’s besides the point. At least Marxist theory recognizes pure-unadulterated Capitalism as inherently destructive-and therefore immoral.
Who would want to export Capitalism to human colonies on Mars and throughout the Universe? For the record, historically, the Space Program was the most manifestly violation of Milton Friedman’s pure-unadulterated free market principles-as are the existence of pc and ipad computers we type our comments into-onto the internet (another massive violation of free market principles)……Free market violations come first-capitalism comes later….and Jeff Bezos gets all the profits and demigod power over America’s Working Class-Native White Variety. And this is how Capitalism really works.
There is no proper scale for pure-unadulterated Capitalism…for Capitalism violates the human scale…There must be severe legal and moral restraints on Capitalism-otherwise Capitalism becomes a metastatic tumor on organic Human Nations and the life support biota of the Planet Earth…
Capitalism is a psychopath…just like Mike Pompeo….
@ War For Blair Mountain,
I can’t agree more. Capitalist economy has indeed destroyed this planet to enrich few millions of Zionist-Capitalists while converting billions into paupers and debt-serfs !
Interesting that Wiki totally went around the Palestinian revolts around 1948 and after, till the present day. In 1948, some 800’000 Palestinians were forcefully evicted from their homes, by Eastern Europeans, with many Arabs Semites outright slaughtered. It is known as the Nabkha in the Arab/Muslim world. While the world stood by, mind you.
Wiki can be biased.
If you ask me, I would say that the future of Socialism is Socialism w/ Chinese Characteristics. Which I firmly believe will lead the world possibly to the next millennium.
Now, if you want additional great information and trust Wiki, one of history’s most learned Sociologists who also had a big effect on the Occidental world was Ibn-Khaldun. He was also a great Arab philosopher and historian.
My two cents.
If socialism, true socialism can be demonstrated anywhere is it not in these words?
“All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.” Acts 2:45
A family is a family no matter how big a nation is and if that isn’t certainly true where the Jewish people are concerned? Maybe if the rest of the world saw itself as brothers and sisters of Adam and Eve which God surely does wouldn’t that add something to the debate? A debate which God Himself took up with His warnings to them about never allowing the cries of the widows and orphans to reach His ears. The Promised Land was their private property so imagine widows and orphans suffering for want and even slavery?
No wonder they suffered so terribly from climate change especially in the 6th Century BC. Droughts especially!
A lesson for all yes?
Acts 4:35 and Acts 11:29 now come into view—-“From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs” and this is the Bible —-in agreement—with Marx’s conclusion of Communist Manifesto. To toss out what Marx pens is likewise to throw out the Book of God’s inspired Word?? Now to settle matters —there was one couple ( husband and wife) who sold their land but kept back a portion ( good what—following Adam Smith’s Invisible hand and gaining profit ) BUT they both met with Death—they had lied to the Holy Spirit —–clear and cited.
@ Jean and Straight-Bat
Yes, thank you i did read that and did again and do need further reading. However, ‘in agreement’ I find that difficult to believe. For according to Carl Schurz a political leader of the 19th century said this about the man:
“I have never seen a man whose bearing was so provoking and intolerable…Everyone who contradicted him, he treated with abject contempt. It is said of those who knew Marx that he hated people as individuals.”
One cannot have the kind of socialism proposed in scripture as Marx tried to pen and live with so much hatred . No way!!! He was an atheist and hes trying to do what legislate politically for a philosophy that mirrors the scriptures while at the same time hating people to the core? Doesn’t it get worse to for he declared:
“The idea of God is the keystone of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”
which unfortunately was followed by the likes of Krushhev’s and his own family a son-in-law Alexi Adzhubei, who said this:
“Every flirtation with God is an unutterable abomination.”
Further when it comes to family the cornerstone of life and honoring ones mother and father we have instead this:
“The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child becomes all the more disgusting.”
Marx and Engels:
“Their ends can be attained only by the forceable overthrow of ‘all’ existing conditions.”
Further can it be said that God was Himself a capitalist? I mean on economic growth and wealth and such the children of Abraham were promised a land from the Red Sea clear across to the River Euphrates. Isn’t that something?!?!?!?! Add to this all of the other magnificent promises made to them kind of makes me think wow would that then mean these people would have been in possession of all of the oil wealth of the world? Did God know something but alas look what happened? Hmmm, God a capitalist? And in His worldview the entire people would or were to profit from it’s wealth and power not some select oligarchy who would treat the rest of his children as their personal serfs to work and be the slaves for them. But isn’t that what they desired and got when asking for a king to rule over them? The beginning of the end unfortunately with characters Ahab and Manasseh?
@Gerry,
“For according to Carl Schurz a political leader of the 19th century said this about the man:
“I have never seen a man whose bearing was so provoking and intolerable…Everyone who contradicted him, he treated with abject contempt…”
I don’t know if Schurz ever contributed anything to the intellectual discourse. He certainly fought during 1848 revolutions ( i think as a 18 year old lad) and then escaped to USA to make career in Republican Party. How does it matter if Schurz or somebody else “didn’t like” Marx ? What has this to do with Marx’s intellectual contribution?
“Doesn’t it get worse to for he declared:
“The idea of God is the keystone of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”
Instead of picking up from book ‘Day Dollar is Dead’ or similar name, please give name of book/article written by Marx where he mentioned this statement and context of the same. Btw, i have used quotations heavily, but every time from books written by Marx-Engels.
“Further can it be said that God was Himself a capitalist? I mean on economic growth and wealth and such the children of Abraham were promised a land from the Red Sea clear across to the River Euphrates.”
I thought only Jewish religious books and Jews (oligarchs) are ‘original’ capitalists (Marx wrote a complete book identifying Jews as money-worshipper), but your statement gives me new food for thought !!! I thought Jesus fought against usury, exploitation and injustice, and hence I held him at highest esteem – but if Christians believe God as a capitalist , then i will despise such God (of Jews).
How much sleep I have lost over this article and my only reply is to quote from what I found here:
Gerrard Winstanley:
“In the beginning of time God made the earth… Not one word was spoken at the beginning that one branch of mankind should rule over another, but selfish imaginations did set up one man to teach and rule over another… Landowners either got their land by murder or theft… And thereby man was brought into bondage, and became a greater slave than the beasts of the field were to him. https://www.marxist.com/parasitical-landlordism-and-the-marxist-theory-of-rent.htm
A good example I might add was of course Pharaoh who plundered the people treating himself as their god to be worshiped. He paid the price however, and the Israel of old was saved and born into the world was its first political theocracy. The God and Father who said this:
For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you. Deut. 15:6
and
Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. Deut. 23:19-20
is the same who said this:
Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.” 1 Samuel 8:9
and this:
3 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Matt. 23:23
All of this came from the same intellect and heart. So what were we not given a political system that worked for all? It seems to me yes we were given and climate change was apart of that don’t you know!
but I learned something in my youth that has come screaming back at me today 45 years later:
My people will accept all of the good things that exist in my word while neglecting and even rejecting the hard and difficult things it must say.
Yes, doesn’t that indeed sum up everything where religion is concerned?
And here some other interesting quotes i came across in my studies:
George Soros:
“The main enemy of the open society, I believe is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.
Sir Josiah Stamp:
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with a flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again.However, take that power away from them and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they out to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money. ”
Karl Marx:
“Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history.”
as for Dr. Willard Cantelon who i might add was Oxford, the thesis of his book called The Day the Dollar Dies date of publication 1973 is about exactly this ‘the course of history.’ A course which is taking us where? To being chipped electronically in either ones right hand or forehead. Literally a One World Government! To make a long story short one need only listen to this interview here:
https://youtu.be/v6NiBgjNOTQ
this was prophesied long ago and Cantelon ended with those immortal words by Dostoevsky about controlling ones conscience and bread and he noted back in 1973 banks and bankers were already experimenting with invisible ink. And today we have the technology don’t we to fully implement the last great welfare state or big brother as they say on a truly global scale!!!
but alas I’m still losing sleep because Marx and Rothschild’s, Warburgs were from a family of Rabbi’s?
I’m terribly troubled and perplexed by this aren’t you?
By the way on this formation of a One World Government we have:
https://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-israel-supreme-court/
Hmmm, who are all the people depicted in that photograph for this world court house?
@Gerry,
” I’m still losing sleep because Marx and Rothschild’s, Warburgs were from a family of Rabbi’s ”
How does that matter? It would be a racist’s dream to suggest that all Jew families are money-worshipping bankers and businesspersons …. Marx was a Jew, but it was Marx who first pointed out the Jewish business interest had terrifying sinister effect on European society.
Finally, Marx-Engels, Lenin, Mao are to be judged by their contributions in Marxist communist theory. Stalin, Zhou EnLai, Ho Chi Minh are to be judged by their contributions to practice of Marxist communism.
@Gerry,
If you read secton B of this article you would note that among the European thinkers, Cabet and Weitling actually proposed communism based on the Bible. And, interestingly Marx was an atheist but believed in spiritual consciousness (you may refer his book ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844’ published posthumously)!
Jean has already responded to you, telling how Marx-Engels got into the famous phrase “From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs”
Marxism always seems to be ‘freedom’ at the point of a gun, economic treachery, designed by the debt bankers, a controlled economic rebellion, similar to setting the slaves free from their chains, so they can become wage slaves in the factories!
I would suggest that freedom begins not with the equalisation of land, but the equalisation of capital. We can never be free until we can monetise our personal collateral, as interest-free assets, with the Title to our collateral, held in Trust for us, until our loans are repaid. Our monetary supply then arises as an asset lake, owned by our sovereign nation. It is the imposition of usury which builds the hated psychopathic empires which destroy the social fabrics of our world!
@Ric G,
” I would suggest that freedom begins not with the equalisation of land, but the equalisation of capital. We can never be free until we can monetise our personal collateral, as interest-free assets ”
What and how much capital common people own ? A flat, a bunglow, a car ? As long as you continue to repose your faith in money as capital you would be exploited … for generations !
Critique of Capitalist Economy and that is all it was! Good to see an article on the subject !
As a critique of capitalism, while providing insights into its working principles, and propensity to crisis, Marxism remains unsurpassed.
1637, 1797, 1819, `37, `57,`84, 1901, `07, 1929, `37 `73, and 1987…92, 97, 2000, 2008/9, 2020!
A list of capitalist crashes all you have to add is a few revolutions, civil wars and world wars and interventions to enrich the mix!
Capitalism is inherently unstable!
In the last half century Capitalists under neoliberalism ( which inhabit both all significant political persuasions in the collective west ) have been the working out a radical different situation; the capitalists have made an enormous amount of money basically by figuring out how to take advantage of this enormous new mass of poor but capable workers.
Some capitalists did it by bringing in immigrants low-wage desperate immigrants to their own countries. Other capitalists did it in the reverse way move their production out of the old centers of capitalism into China India Brazil etc.
This is a major change and the reason it plunges capitalism into a structural crisis is that while it makes a very small number of people very very wealthy, basically they’re substituting low wage workers for higher wage workers, it also presents itself as a fundamental crisis for the mass of the working class in Western Europe, North America and Japan.
They are being told you are going down to the level of the third world . We’re moving production into the hands of these third world workers.
@michael lacey,
Critique of capitalist economy represents 66% of Marxist communism – balance dialectical historical materialism + environmental critique of capitalist economy ….
Rest I agree with your point. Negative impacts of capitalism for the planet and it’s inhabitants (both industrially advanced core countries and peripheral ones) would be beyond imagination by 2100 CE ….
According to my life philosophy, there are only two types of People: The Doers and the Don’ts.
The Doers are like the Farmer who is making a lot of hard work hoping it will bear a good harvest. If the harvest succeeds they will have to save their harvest in order to survive through the winter and the spring.
I compare this group to the libertarian settlers in America and post WWI Farmers in northern Europe.
The Don’ts are like the hunter gathers who only hunts and gathers when they are hungry.
Straight-Bat compares the social life of the hunter gathers with Communism.
A more modern form of Communists is people who do not need to hunt or gather food anymore. They are instead spending their time discussing, making plans, inventing new or finding foreign expressions for common occurrences. You will often find them employed in public jobs where no one is held personally accountable for their lack of efforts.
Modern Communists are like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA
Common for both Libertarians and Communists, is that we are both screwed, if we don’t stand together, and fight our enslavement by the Elite.
I therefor suggest that all Communists stops talking, get up from their fat a++ and join the Revolution while there is still is food and heat to be had, instead of waiting until they get hungry and cold.
I’m not sure there is really much difference between Capitalism and Communism in their current forms, at least the end results of both, which seem to be success for a portion of time and then distress and dis-function over time, which is a normal result of systems. They degrade. What always fascinates me regarding the debate between socialism, fascism, communism and capitalism, each of whom denigrate the other systems, which IMHO are more political than not, is there is not often a discussion about banking, specifically Central Banking and how monetary policy (s) are conducted. It seems that constant conflict benefits one group over the others, and they could care less what the differences are.
Marxism is the attempt to control productive people by unproductive people.
There, I said it one sentence.
“Marxism is the attempt to control productive people by unproductive people.”
I’m preety sure that is definition of feudalism.
I agree with both Little Black Duck and Blackring.
If Fascism is a network of people bound by corruption or blackmail, to exploit their fellow man, Then:
Classic feudalism is a Fascist Elite sucking the labor out of the serfs.
Communist feudalism is a Fascist network of “public servants” sucking the life out of the serfs.
A minor complaint to Little Black Duck.
You have actually destroyed this great debate.
This debate could have gone on for days, and when done after several sessions, we would all feel that we have accomplished something big.
And her you come along destroying our expected achievements in one sentence.
You will never be a good Communist.
For the modesty of my studies this is both comforting and rings transversal.
If the short answer looks easy, I certainly would appreciate a deeper view on Leninism by same author (more than if he considers himself Leninist or not), that is if our host agrees with the expansion of the next instalment in that direction.
@VdG,
In near future, there would be part 2 of this interview – that will include Lenin’s role. Actually, i mentioned here in the concluding lines, ” Lenin and Mao paved the way following which Marxist communist ‘theory’ arrived at its intended destination of ‘reality’. “
Industrialism has presented mankind with an unprecedented ‘crisis’. Industrial machinery (regard computers as ‘machinery’) has presented us with the ability to produce Plenty beyond the dreams of Midas. If distributed properly, there is enough surplus wealth that no one on the planet needs to experience poverty. This is a Good Thing.
However, there is a problem (hence the ‘crisis’). This efficiency of production has meant that fewer and fewer people are needed to produce the goods. This, along with a general growth in population, has meant that there is a larger and larger ‘pool’ of unneeded people (in a production sense). Again, this is potentially a Good Thing.
This is where it gets tricky. We are facing a fundamental restructuring of society in acknowledgment of the above facts. Change is coming, one way or another. We could be heading towards a “Star Trek” semi-utopia, where lack is basically unknown. On the other hand, we could be heading down into a “Dune” universe, where the Harkonnens have created the ultimate negative Ruling Class. Or, we could just self-destruct in Class Wars. We just don’t know, from our present viewpoint.
Personally, I don’t think that any of the current labels – Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc. – will fit that future. They all fit a society based on Scarcity. We are facing (with luck) a society based on Plenty…
(P.S. There is an un-looked-for additional Path, that of Raising of Consciousness. It has many names, depending on the faith/religion. Many problems ‘go away’ with that path. It is my preferred path…)
@Goshawks,
” If distributed properly, there is enough surplus wealth that no one on the planet needs to experience poverty ”
Precisely that is what Marxist theory stated and proved. But the question remains who does that distribution and how …. Communist Party got created in most of the advanced and many peripheral countries – due to various reasons, they could not achieve the target.
” We are facing (with luck) a society based on Plenty ”
That’s true only in Europe and Anglo countries. Most parts of Asia, Africa, Latin America are still in poverty.
“Personally, I don’t think that any of the current labels – Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc. – will fit that future. They all fit a society based on Scarcity. We are facing (with luck) a society based on Plenty…”
I would say that it is all relative: Are you talking long term, short or medium? Short term, yes there is plenty to eradicate hunger and everybody gets the basic needs met, if Marxism-communism is applied instead of liberalism. Long term, the capacity of the earth to replenish just can’t afford our current living standards and number of people. Of course, we will have to adapt to what earth capacity is, no matter what, the sooner the better. Civilization in a not-so-far future might not be an option anymore. Also, massive die-off seems very likely. So, in any event, our continuation, be it civilizational or tribal, will be imbued with “hive intelligence”. Communal consciousness.
I would like to come back to the notion of plenty. It seems that Marx was dreaming about such a communism that restores the harmonious play between Man and Nature to co-work and bring about that abundance. I believe “the first step” is true humility. This is where “humus” and “human” share their roots. It is a stepping in the heart. It is an act of devotion. In India, a sadhu said: “it is easier and safer to walk the path of Bhakti, devotion, worshipping Nature and feeling Her embrace, than Jnana, the path of knowledge”. Of course it is not either or. It is both Spirit and Nature dancing together. It is just more grounded to worship the feminine pole, Shakti ( energy/matter, all the existing) than to worship the masculine pole, Shiva ( Cosmic consciousness, the non-existant that “gave it all”). Worshipping the abstract is dangerous as it is not solid ground (even maths), because it feeds our righteous tendency, our tendency to believe. Then, there is a risk to be stuck, mistaken or to doubt, luckily or unluckily.
That Sadhu said that “ filling a bucket with tears is an indication of being on the path of devotion”. Anyway, it is interesting that Marx and Engels had that paradox going between Mind and Matter, Spirit or Nature, which dictated which. The chicken and the egg thing. Consciousness creates matter which recreates consciousness.
Apparently we are submerged in materialism at the expense of “spirituality”, and yet, the imbalance might be paradoxically the other way around: the virtual took over reality. Even though I am a bit turned off by the ambiguous role he is playing, Harari exposed pretty well the evolution of man in “ Sapiens” and the resulting imbalance of power as well as the very concrete collective imaginary human world view/ subjective reality dominating the objective reality. Culture is eating up Nature. Sorry, I am not phrasing it well. We are in a “conundrum “ of reaching “homo deus” stage at the expense of Godliness. I think it is that Lucifer rebellion at play, “ forever after” (No exit until the Yes exit of death… and so on). As most know, Lucifer, instead of receiving and conveying infos from the Source, as the archangel, Lucifer thought he was clever enough to make his own decisions and commands, to orchestrate it all.. But when mistakes started showing up, he wouldn’t take responsibility for them… fucking Pride. So, it is our paradoxical journey of innocence/guilt, no matter which path we take. As was said in a previous comment of a previous article, that “ insupportable Pride” leaves one with nothing and no one “. Just perpetual Hell of denial, shame, blame, pretend and everthing else… Yes, desires and pleasure too. It is a journey. Maybe Lucifer principle is in fact what runs Nature? There is a book on that.
I don’t think i am going too far off track . Yes, Marxism is the topic, which is the analysis of capitalist system, and its final version of liberalism. A French communist philosopher, Clouscard ( spelling?) in the late sixties showed quite well the permissive strategy to let freedom and desires “rule” the profit making game in an Evil-commercial culture, creating and orchestrating alienation, loneliness,powerlessness, sense of inadequacy… and yet with “the promise” that, if we buy into it, we will find happiness, that that culture ironically destroyed. And of course a very seductive delusion we can roll in. In that satanic realm, there is idolatry, cult of self, a possessed quality of endless desires, sacrifice of others first… Fear. Yes, it is not black and white. It is in truth paradoxical. Somebody said: “ the Spirit of Truth resides in the waters ever changing”. Where am going with that? I don’t know.
Back to sustainability, I would like to share that image that fits the global level: there is an ecological sealing and a social/economic floor. The room in between is our spacious sustainability… the “trick” is that the floor is above the sealing. “ De gré ou de force”, the natural order will set things in their proper place. The longer we stay “high”, the lower we will crash. We know it. How ironical we feel so powerless, when as a specie we are almost all mighty, or so it seems. OK, time to get out in the sun! Here in northern wisconsin we have to act on it quick, otherwise it’s gone. Thanks Straight-bat for that big meal you served us, allowing our sharing.
Truly appreciate Straight-Bat’s effort at identifying and distinguishing Marxist communism from other philosophical and ideological lineages. I think this is a good cursory history of Marxism’s place in the history of social struggle and it’s adherent philosophies.
My question to Straight-Bat would be, do you think Marxist analysis can be removed from the goals of Marx the communist/moral philosopher? As The Saker notes in his introduction, the Marxist framework of class conflict is still a very effective toolkit. While Marx obviously envisioned this analysis to to be used to advance Communism, could it be put to work in the opposite direction? Can one be a Marxist and not a communist, not that such a specimen would admit it.
@Dftbs,
” My question to Straight-Bat would be, do you think Marxist analysis can be removed from the goals of Marx the communist/moral philosopher? ….
Can one be a Marxist and not a communist, not that such a specimen would admit it. ”
Very very interesting and thought-provoking question. Well, my response is – resoundingly NO. Marx himself stated, the main task is to change the capitalist system of exploitation, not by another type of exploitation, but by a humanist communism (… echoes from the past can still be heard if you try to hear the murmur of ancient religious leaders like Gautam Buddha and Jesus Christ )….
Btw, your point is exactly implemented by the followers of great trioka of socialism (different from communism and Marxism, as described in this writing) Owen-Fourier-Saint Simon – the Socialist parties of Europe analysed and understood everything but wanted to change nothing …. On other way they became ‘fake’ socialists …. Marx understood this tendency in 1848 and pointed it out in the Manifesto.
Either Communism or Destruction – that’s the way forward for humankind …. And, our next generation has to decide it by 2100 CE …
Thank you for the clarity and forthrightness of your response. I would say that I agree with your historical outline in the initial article, and with the supposition of Marx’s response to my question. Moreover, I am sympathetic to that response. Yet it’s due to this personal agreement that I find my question still nagging, can Marxist analysis be removed from Marx’s (communist) goals?” Is it a tool, like hammer which can be used to build and destroy alike?
I think that the directness of Marx’s position to “change the capitalist system of exploitation, not by another type of exploitation, but by a humanist communism ” is a credit to his moral clarity but also reveals where the adherent’s faith overpowers the scientific vision of the man. Marx feels that the scientific nature of his communism should overwhelm all rational(and moral) objections to it. While we may agree, this neglects the opposition to him (even within the “Left”) in his own time, and throughout history. Whether that opposition is based on an ignorance of self-interest (as in the case of reactionary proletariat) or in an acute awareness of self-interest (the capitalists), it is a formidable opposing force.
It seems apparent that the large organized segments of the Capitalist class operate under the basic premises identified by Marx, including the acknowledgement of the class conflict and the diminishing rate of profit (I believe that realization is why even non-Marxist like our host on the site ascribe analytical value to Marxism, it explains the behavior of a powerful contemporary group). Of course these capitalists wouldn’t identify themselves as Marxist any more than most Catholic priests of the late 17th century would say they were Newtonians, despite their feet being firmly planted on the ground. I would even venture that it was Marx identifying the historical nature of class conflict that informed the “Hegelian” spirt of the age and consolidated the atomic consciousness of the simple capitalists into the greater Capitalist class.
As to the 21st century, I am optimistic. You have the most prosperous nation on Earth being run by explicitly Marxist Communists; the sort of Marxists that recognize Marx couldn’t and didn’t know all, but he left an analytical tool which they’ve demonstrated has great practical value.
” Marx feels that the scientific nature of his communism should overwhelm all rational(and moral) objections to it. While we may agree, this neglects the opposition to him (even within the “Left”) in his own time, and throughout history.”
Yes. There was/is opposition to his ideas. I will try to analyse the same in part-2 specifically for 21st century.
” I would even venture that it was Marx identifying the historical nature of class conflict that informed the “Hegelian” spirit of the age and consolidated the atomic consciousness of the simple capitalists into the greater Capitalist class ”
I guess long before Marx was born, the Capitalists were united as a class (and were waging battles with feudal aristocracy).
” You have the most prosperous nation on Earth being run by explicitly Marxist Communists; the sort of Marxists that recognize Marx couldn’t and didn’t know all, but he left an analytical tool which they’ve demonstrated has great practical value.”
Yes. Even Marx didn’t claim to be Mr. know-all. He ALWAYS stressed for change, if required keeping the final destination intact. And, i feel CPC is worthy successor to keep the red flag flying high
Good stuff Straight-Bat, thank you for taking the time. I’ll look forward to your next contribution>
Marx’s ideas can be read by capitalists and while they may not be able to change the outcome that doesn’t mean they won’t try or that their efforts will have no consequences that matter. I’m thinking of the WEF ‘Great Reset’ crowd.
@johny conspiranoid,
” Marx’s ideas can be read by capitalists and while they may not be able to change the outcome that doesn’t mean they won’t try or that their efforts will have no consequences that matter.”
You have raised an extremely important point. Actually bourgeois capitalists study Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao probably more seriously that Marxist communists do. And it had been that way ever since 1848 CE – after publication of the MANIFESTO bourgeois capitalists knew that their era would end. They have been resisting since then … Well, even if it takes another century, the capitalist economy and society would SURELY become part of history, for humankind can’t retreat any further – it already has it’s back on the wall !!!
Um ridículo que hipnotizou”mentes” e “corações” ou os seus iguais através do domínio da mídia, imprensa e meios intelectuais foi “alçado” a profeta do igualitarismo falso e sem sentido? Através dos seus devaneios atraiu pessoas frustradas das mais variadas matizes para levar a diante o projeto dos seus.
Propriedade comunitária? Eu por acaso quero dividir um quarto com um desajustado? Voltaire com poucas palavras ridicularizou os devaneios ingênuos de Rousseau. Os filhos de Sião pegaram e vendaram o intelecto e os guiaran a serviço de seus interesses. A razão floresceu no Iluminismo e não devido as maquinações perversas dos agentes da riqueza e exploração sem escrúpulos.
De maneira simples é desnecessário perder tempo lendo centenas de livros se temos os países nórdicos como exemplo clássico de evolução e racionalidade. Por acaso Dinamarca, Holanda, Noruega… precisaram da Bíblia ou do marxismo para serem evoluídos como nação e sociedade? A razão que margeia a civilização e barbárie que levou esses estados e povos a irem além.
Google translation,MOD:
Has a ridicule that hypnotized “minds” and “hearts” or their equals through the domination of the media, press and intellectuals been “raised” into a prophet of false and meaningless egalitarianism? Through her daydreams she attracted frustrated people of the most varied shades to carry out her project.
Community ownership? Do I happen to want to share a room with a misfit? Voltaire utterly ridiculed Rousseau’s naive musings. The children of Zion took and blindfolded the intellect and guided them in the service of their interests. Reason flourished in the Enlightenment and not because of the perverse machinations of unscrupulous agents of wealth and exploitation.
Simply put, it is unnecessary to waste time reading hundreds of books if we have the Nordic countries as a classic example of evolution and rationality. Did Denmark, Holland, Norway… did they need the Bible or Marxism to be evolved as a nation and society? The reason that borders on civilization and barbarism that led these states and peoples to go beyond.
@Pavlvs,
” The children of Zion took and blindfolded the intellect and guided them in the service of their interests. Reason flourished in the Enlightenment and not because of the perverse machinations of unscrupulous agents of wealth and exploitation. ”
” Did Denmark, Holland, Norway… did they need the Bible or Marxism to be evolved as a nation and society? ”
The above statements are expressing diametrically opposite propositions! it was exactly those Zionist-Capitalists i.e. “unscrupulous agents of wealth and exploitation” who built the entire west European economy-society-country after industrial revolution in mid-18th century.
So what did you try to convey?
Obrigado pelo questionamento. Dentre tantos comentarista neste espaço sou o mais pequeno e o menos inteligente. A revolução francesa trouxe para o cidadão do planeta “Liberdade, Igualdade e Fraternidade”. Os filhos de Sião usurparam o sufrágio universal e de maneira peversa inventaram o “marxismo” para assim sacrificar centenas de milhões de pessoas em seu altar de ouro. Hoje dominam você e cada participante deste espaço. Dominam a esquerda, direita e todas as matizes políticas. Fenomenal! Você pensa por si só ou segue os ditames intelectuais impostos pelos donos da riqueza e controle da pobreza?
Thank you for posting this. I will be reading this when things slow down for the holidays.
I am currently not a Marxist, but Marxism-curious & this will be worth the time to read.
@Jerry,
Appreciate your stand – even if you don’t consider yourself as a Marxist, you would like to read and understand this ‘beast’… Unlike most other ‘educated’ ‘intellectual’ ‘know-all’ people.
The Zionist-Capitalists have been screwing up this planet for about 5 centuries – academia and media owned by them has created a veil of deception in every sphere of life, so that as soon as a baby is born he/she is fed with a staple diet of how Marxist communists were/are responsible for all ills in the erath …. The child grows into a man/woman cursing the Marxist while the Zionist-Capitalist laughs all the way to bank – ever since 1848 CE ….
Keeping eyes-ears-conciousness open can only show the humankind the way forward.
Hi, great expose’. I agree that it was too much of an answer to the question. I had to skip parts. I “trust” that it was the right thing to do: eventually missing information but ultimately not burning out. So I did get to the end of the article. And I am glad I did, for my favorite morsels were served then: “Without the ‘private ownership’ of means of production… In the new world ( aka Marxist communist), the cult of ‘capital’ and ‘commodity’ has to be controlled to such an extent that, apart from small producers and traders, there would be no private-controlled business that could create a scenario of monopoly capital in a sector or large accumulation of capital with a capitalist. ‘Money’ will be mainly used as a ‘medium of exchange’. The rigged system of capitalist commodity production has robbed mother earth of its resources and converted the vast majority of people into wage-slaves and debt-serfs – humanity needs a cessation of this insanity”. And a chunk of Marx dream : “Communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence”. Maybe civilization can integrate into wilderness after all? Utopia?Permaculture? That little piece of his dream leaves me satisfied ( no indigestion) and with a sense of reconciliation. A sense of communion. The redemption of Lucifer through Jesus’ communism. That reminds me of the ending of the last act of the old Disney Fantasia, where/when we see the tiny candle lights of a procession in the dark and the humongous spirit of Evil shrinking at the scene. It gives me hope, even if I have none. Satisfied and reconciled with Marx also, as I won’t read “das kapital” and can appreciate his dreamer’s quality better than I can follow his analysis.
I think there is no short simple answer to the question. I think each culture develops its own definition that it will embody the best it can, unless it rejects it, like in the US, keeping it as a useful demonized threat, in order to keep the same monopoly game going.
I appreciated the mentioning of the Chinese paysants organized as autonomous organisms. I believe that organization is still in place in modern China. It is the first Pilar of the sovereignty of the people. Another Pilar is their true political involvement in selecting among themselves the one who will be representing them and then be part of a group at a broader level, the county let’s say, which will select one representative again among themselves… and so forth until the top level. And those elected ones are accountable to fulfill their mandate: “imperative mandate”. Versus “representative mandate” that allows the elected to take decisions about unspecified or non agreed upon by the the people he/she represents. Like in the west… Anyway, there is a lot in that long article to speak about… and it is late. The “ chimera of virtue” is a topic I find interesting to reveal the perversion of the liberal system. I would like to talk about the Trinity, expressed under so many forms, like “ liberty, equality, fraternity”. As he kind of mentions it, if one component of the Trinity is distorted, then the other ones would suffer. I would like also to talk about the difficulty to use words, when they are getting systematically distorted in order to confuse the people and get away with lies again and again. Among so many words, “socialism” is the one , I find, that can be the most misleading. Also, now that the monopoly game is almost over in the west, it seems that Davos and Co would like to drop the “ idea “ of private property and lull people into happiness, “without possessions”… almost like “ imagine” by John Lennon. Perverts.
OK, we won’t redo the world tonight, and rest is crucial. Good night.
As a student I remember studying in the British Library which was then part of the British Museum about 100 years after Marx. It was designed as a panopticon and Marx apparently always used to sit in the same seat when he was working on Capital. That set was U7 which I always made a point of sitting on. Anyway this was bye-the-bye. My attraction to Marxism was its political economy, the 3 volumes of Capital and the Grundrisse, thousands and thousands of words, which generally speaking has been sadly largely unread, except by people who took the trouble to read the works.
Marx was in fact very much in the tradition of British political economy, starting with Adam Smith, then David Ricardo and Marx along with John Stuart Mill. Unfortunately that current of political economy – marginalism 1870 – was set up to discredit the radical political economy, and it unfortunately succeeded. Suffice it to say that the marginalist theories dominate the academic and business world with a little seasoning of Keynes and Schumpeter. Modern academic economics is frankly akin to a type of medieval scholasticism which is fixed and unchanging and totally divorced from the real world of economic theory and practise. Which is why the world is in the state that it is.
But there is a Spanish saying which is applicable to Marxism. The night and the Jesuits always come back. The same could be said of Marxism.
Francis Lee: Adam Smith may be the least read and yet most abused British economist!
Smith believed that the wealth of a nations resides in the labor or small farmers / guild producers and that merchants / manufacturers are a barren / unproductive class. Towards the latter, Smith is vicious. These gather ostensibly for merriment “but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or some [government blessed] contrivance to raise prices.” Wealth of Nations page 137)
@Eric,
Thanks for such a multi-faceted response. I can imagine an equally compelling article penned by you on ‘socialism and its abuse’ (by Davos & Co. – i call them Zionist-Capitalist).
” I agree that it was too much of an answer to the question.”
Even i agree. But, believe me, after spending many decades in profession, having experienced the filth-greed-immorality-corruption during the 1980’s till 2010’s when world-wide Zionist-Capitalists decimated the Soviet camp, and kept on beating the drum about ‘end of history’, i felt it’s my duty to at least tell few persons what is truth what is deception (they can in turn spread further). Hence this big article – it only provides the key messages of Marx and Engels. People can spend couple of days to digest this!
” unless it rejects it, like in the US, keeping it as a useful demonized threat, in order to keep the same monopoly game going ”
Yes. The entire ‘circus’ in USA is all about how monopoly capital can continue its loot of that country (now that industrial base of USA hollowed out due to offshoring … labour theory of value indeed shows capitalists will continue to go for low-cost labour) and how different groups of Democratic leaders and Republican leaders would get share of loot (from Zionist-Capitalists!
” And those elected ones are accountable to fulfill their mandate: “imperative mandate”. Versus “representative mandate” that allows the elected to take decisions about unspecified or non agreed upon by the the people he/she represents. Like in the west ”
This is why, in China, the money budgeted for developmental projects is spent to address REAL necessities of the society unlike all other countries with ‘votocracy’.
Too long, didn’t read it in full (just skimmed). It might have been better to split this bombshell of a text into multiple parts, where each part can be read separately (with any pre-requisite information explained in a few words accompanied with a link to the part where it is explained in full). Maybe a wiki-style split would have helped.
Some notes of no particular relevance:
* Heavily-regulated capitalism (as capitalism is currently understood) seems to be the way to go in short- and medium-term. A lot of things in that 10-point list in the middle of the article can be replaced with “progressive tax on X” or “heavily-regulated X”.
* On the ownership of the means of production. One interesting modern wrinkle on this is that the company owns the means of production, but the company is also owned by someone. Thus the question is not in who owns the means of production (the company does), but who owns the company. If you enforce that at least X% (probably 49?) of the company must be owned by its essential workers (people who produce the goods/services, or enable the producers to work), you get something like communal ownership in a practical way. Accordingly, you have to sell your shares of the company when you leave, and you gradually acquire (not sure how, exactly) the shares after getting a job there (presumably, there’s a pool of shares where they are kept when people leave, and new shares are created when the company expands). You get a salary, plus the part of company earnings.
* Monopolization seems to be a bane of capitalism. Small business can be ethical (doesn’t have to be, but can be if the owner decides so). Corporations almost inevitably turn into slow AIs – dim-witted artificial entities that exist outside of society for the purpose of expansion and profit maximization, and regard the humans working inside of them as some kind of gut flora (at best) or as unnecessary pests (at worst). Axing monopolies (or at least making them government-controlled, if hey can’t be taken apart) seems like a very easy hack to fix modern capitalism right now.
* Universal employment has to be understood in context of bullshit jobs and worktime limits. As the population grows and labour efficiency increases, it might become necessary to either create completely new jobs (right now it’s often “bullshit jobs” (look it up), but they don’t have to be such) that didn’t exist before, or shorten the normative work day. Otherwise you can’t make everyone work – there won’t be enough jobs for that.
Excellent!!! Marxism is THE analysis&critique of capitalist society and prevail over it. If you read Marx&Engels whith a fair, open mind, you are in great danger of becoming a marxist!
@FMG,
” If you read Marx&Engels with a fair, open mind, you are in great danger of becoming a Marxist! ”
Couldn’t agree more!
Another generation …. And then people will be forced by mother nature to go back to the nature again – not by moving to forest but by learning to live within means doing away with extravaganza …. Mother earth has provided means of leading a simple life, there is no place for greed.
My cousin once removed is Karl Marx. My brother (youngest) is dead, killed on our Father’s (decorated via Lyndon B. Johnson, 1975, more Huey Helicopter hours Indochina War) birthday Sept 10, 1986. He wrote a book, “The Coming Fourth Reich”.
First, Marx (Karl) was a proletariat and he fathered a large family of children that he could’t support. He died a pauper. His message “People of the world unite, all you have to lose are your chains”. DAS KAPITAL…
2008, blowing the whistle on the ongoing Banking (FED) System’s PONZI since 1913, did me GREAT HARM …
https://www.azquotes.com/author/2894-Marcus_Tullius_Cicero/tag/money
WAKE UP
The League of Gentlemen wrote “The Communist Manifesto” but, of course Marx was a big name thus, he and Engels’ names were used. The same boss as old and new decide. Follow the money, obscene profits in this time?!
The Capitalist System does not honor the proletariat. The proletariets are who cocreate true capital as working class.
@BiloxiMarxKelly,
” Follow the money, obscene profits in this time?!
The Capitalist System does not honor the proletariat.
The proletariets are who cocreate true capital as working class.”
You are right in all three statements.
We know these facts. Marx and Engels pointed these out long back…. Unless proletariat of all hues consciously organize and overthrow the capitalist class (who are industrialists, bankers, traders, non-communist politicians) proletariat will not get respect and share of economic production.
First of all, the historical facts of truth, which history has written in the events of the time, indicate the awareness that Bolshevik Communism-Trotskyism, and Stalinism and Mao Zedong communism cannot be represented analogously. Bolshevism insisted that socialism must destroy everything in a perfectly coordinated movement and re-establish world rule or the establishment of the NWO. Stalinism insisted that socialism go its own way and be applied in one country, which was also accepted by Mao Zedong. That is why we now have Bolshevism-Marxism in the 21st century. Moses Mordecai aka Karl Marx, is essentially the basis of the Levitical priests-Pharisees-Rabbis. aka Karl Marx was raised with a father who converted to Christianity, converts as needed for infiltration into the Roman Catholic Church, Marx’s grandfather was the chief rabbi in Cologne, his father crossed -a convert to preserve Judaism, so 6-year-old Moses Mordecai Levi was given a Christian name Karl Henrich, who went to the Jesuit school, which was converted into a secular high school, at the same time went to the Talmudic school, where he taught the doctrine that Jews should rule the world. So Moses Mordecai has the essence of Jesuitism, Talmudism and Frankfurtism in one man. Hence his statement: If you want to thoroughly destroy one nation, you can only do so through Woman – Declare parents terrorists and take away their children for re-education. The father of this idea is Marx, the destruction of the family, then the special separation of children and parents is the main goal of Bolshevism, at least today you see that. Then the Bolshevism-Red Symphony, which was destroyed as the Russian Revolution, is the destruction of the people and its intellectual essence, after 70 million Russians were killed, Stalin finally saw it and the Great Purge cleansed Bolshevism, cleansed the command staff of the Bolshevik army, police and security services and intelligence , then purged the intellectual supporters of the Bolsheviks and it was 20 million people, so only a great crime could defeat a much bigger crime or only a beast could defeat a bigger beast and Russia was saved. Mao Zedong organized a people’s revolution against the Kuomintang and saved China – thanks to Stalin and Mao Zedong today you see the leading nations on the planet earth. You can also see the reflection of Bolshevism in America or the collapse of the United States, but I sincerely hope.
@zina,
You found 70 million Russian to be killed … Give the source of infomation.
Link [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_Census ] shows 67 million Russians in 1897 CE – how much new addition was there in 20 years ? At the most 50%, if baby-making was done insanely and death rate was controlled. If 70 million were killed by Bolsheviks, then who were living in Russia after 1917 Russian Revolutions ? Were most of them ghosts ??
Also, provide the source of your inputs – i couldn’t understand anything !
It appeared as AI troll message filled with words but no meaning ! Sorry.
@zina,
You found 70 million Russian to be killed … Give the source of infomation.
Link [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_Census ] shows 67 million Russians in 1897 CE – how much new addition was there in 20 years ? At the most 50%, if baby-making was done insanely and death rate was controlled. If 70 million were killed by Bolsheviks, then who were living in Russia after 1917 Russian Revolutions ? Were most of them ghosts ??
Also, provide the source of your inputs – i couldn’t understand anything !
It appeared as AI troll message filled with words but no meaning ! Sorry.
?? (s)
——————
I do not know for what reason the last sentence is not complete, and please show it in full: “You see another reflection of Bolshevism in America or the collapse of the United States, but I sincerely hope. Not now, although very real, Awakened Americans no longer support the idea the powers and resources of the police are taken away, nor the efforts of the Democrats that education is racism, all lives are important. “
I suggest that Rousseau wasnt just a naive philosopher but an agent of influence.
One of his tasks was to aid the european powers to enslave the colonials by encouraging primitivity. He didnt explicitly use the term ‘noble savage’, sometimes attributed to him, but he did it implicitly in other words.
This is also a recurrent theme among 20th century aristocratic marxists who likewise encourage primitivity rather than development of competitive education.
Few of the actors are independent of the imperial masters.
Hired by Venice, Voltaire ‘s task was to ridicule the related constructive ideas of Leibniz.
Marx himself would never have been based in Britain unless the capitalists had wanted communism to spread. Of course he understood that they could easily have silenced him.
Subsequently, during the 20th century it was confirmed in all the lasting communist nations that Britain and their anglophile stooges in the US had decisively supported the revolutions.
Since Marxists are systematically blinding themselves to this they are not just useful fools but actually undermine many positive alternative and less ideological routes of development.
And leftists, for seemingly selfish career purposes, like to make people helpless and dependent on leftists handouts, instead of encouraging people to become achievers.
Perhaps also because an achiever means someone embarking on an individualistic digression from the collectivist ideals?
While it isnt possible to prove that all marxists are cynical in any of the abovementioned manners it is clear that they hardly ever like to encourage individualism.
“Marx himself would never have been based in Britain unless the capitalists had wanted communism to spread. Of course he understood that they could easily have silenced him.”
“Subsequently, during the 20th century it was confirmed in all the lasting communist nations that Britain and their anglophile stooges in the US had decisively supported the revolutions.”
I tend to believe that the Rothschild had their view on the oil in Mesopotamia and so did the Germans. On both sides the “zionists” were at work, so, whoever would win the war would also reward the Talmudic Jews and give them a chunk of land there supposedly. I think the British were already in Palestine. I think The Rothschild despised Jews but they owed them a favor, as previously, fleeing Austria/Hungary, a rich Jew came to them with his fortune to put into their hands… Anyway, it is not surprising if Marx, as zina mentioned, was sheltered and sponsored by the British. To get rid of the Tzarist Russia by waging a revolution, weakening the country, was convenient for England which looked at big Russia as a possible thread to its colonies in India.
Just rehashing info.
That doesn’t take away anything from what Marx contributed with his analysis. But, yes, it adds ironically on his contribution, as he was used by the “ Zionist/ capitalists” and served their cause, consciously or not.
As far as Adam Smith, I can only gossip sort of, as I haven’t read any of his writings, but, I heard ( from good source: Dany Robert Dufour, in “ baise ton prochain”) that he was an hypocrite who picked up the evil recipe of liberalism that Mandeville had exposed clearly very early 1700’s. “Man-devil” publications were blasphemy and got burnt as they revealed the perversion and the “ chimera of virtue” at the core of liberalism. So, my take on it, is that Adam smith wrapped liberalism in a “ good natured, loving B.S” , knowing perfectly well it’s pervert and vicious nature. Just like a good Puritan. When Petrel pictures him as vicious at the non-productive abusers, he appears then to be virtuous whereas he is just vicious, in the sens of a pervert. He might have hypnotized himself into believing he was really virtuous. Then he could feel righteous anger facing unfair matters, whereas, on the other hand, he was sugar coating liberalism. RIP.
In the US, it seems that it is better to not even use the word “communism”. Too much propaganda have run for too long. It is a dangerous and sad situation in general. I think our best option is to tap into communal needs in order to rally people, not unlike religion, but more daily life physical needs. Solidarity, more than charity. Good neighbor cooperation. I am longing for community living. I have done it in the past, on the west coast or southwest. Now, I am recovering from a crippling autoimmune disease and feel uneasy about not being a “work force element”. I am on S.S.I benefits for now. It is quite different from my quite autonomous nomadic life style. More time on the couch reading articles and figuring what I am doing, one day at the time. This final sharing is just to bring a little touch of who I am in addition to what I stand for. Thank you all.
Adam Smith, I believe, was an agent of influence in the service of the East India Company.
Like several other wellknown figures and Smith’s role was to con Britains rivals to let the British dump their industrial goods using freetrade so the rivals would never have a chance to catch up by developing a native industry.
I dont know how much that meant for India but Britains exploitation of India must rank as an even more insidious machination in that they sabotaged Indias native industry to be able to sell to them.
There is an interesting debate about the amount they siphoned during the colonial era.
By assuming a compound interest of something like 5% some marxist researchers come up with the number of 45 trillion dollars.
What is interesting to me is that all those sober researchers who critisise this kind of calculation dont seem to notice that they are thereby admitting that Britains strong emphasis on banking speculation and fiat money may be likewise critisized. Our usury good your usury bad!
@petergrfstrm,
” Marx himself would never have been based in Britain unless the capitalists had wanted communism to spread.”
I’ve grown too old to accommodate these ‘standard’ propaganda against Marx, Lenin, Mao – among many such lies and damn lies ‘these leaders were helped by Rothschild, Rockefeller, other Zionist bankers to further Zionist-Capitalist cause’ is a favourite one of anti-Marxist academia and media …. It provides me good entertainment, since Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao – these four figures, in real terms of power/capital harmed the interests of global Zionist-Capitalists the MOST – so they are most hated among the banking and business elites.
What can be a better way to confuse the communists globally??
Quite the opposite is true. But to mention only ‘zionists and bankers’ only goes to show how little information has reached you. The jews were being played just like the rest of Britains rivals. For Britain did not want the jews to have any other capitalist partner capable of weakening the pound or dollar.
And in particular not the industrious germans.
Tsar Russia had the biggest oil production and the fastest industrialisation (albeit from a modest level) and the imperialists needed to put an end to that. Marx wasnt the only one who the british tried to direct against Russia but classwar means in practise that the middle class is held back which makes a nation less competitive. A US parliamentary hearing from 1919 let an expert answer a question about why the US was helping the bolsheviks by saying well we dont want Russia to be a competitive capitalist rival.
In order to learn interesting info about the so called civil war in Russia read Nikolai Starikov’s ‘The liquidation of Russia – Who helped the reds to win the civil war?’ (English translation from 2018)
Moreover The Pilgrim Society took control over the US beginning when Edward VII was coronated and this takeover was very extensive after WW2.
Carroll Quigley who exposed much of that anglophile network still never mentioned its name!!
But he does explain the role of Rhodes Scholars, Britains lojal helpers
That network stated on its initiation that it wasnt about religious pilgrimage but more about anglosaxon unity with the longterm goal to bring back america in Britains fold.
And one of the stated means was to take control of the US state department. And to control all the media.
And that they did. And later in the 50s and 70s they used that vehicle to bring Castro and the Sandinistas to power. In the cuban case three US ambassadors confirmed it under oath and documents showing Castro’s known communist sympathies were withheld from Eisenhower by Alan Dulles, the Cia-boss!
The Cia helped the rebels, one ambassador even mentions in a later book that the Cia handed over weapons to the rebels! While already paid weapons to Battista were withheld.
In the hearings that ambassador said there isnt much purpose to try to promote alternatives when the Cia is obstructing it.
But there is an anomalous context to consider.
Namely that during that era there was also officially an ongoing american manned space program and that leads us to another hidden truth which isnt generally appreciated so I wont go into those details. However it is a fact that the US organised a US-USSR Trade and Economic Council during 1972-1989 with a short break in the early 80s during the Afghan war. And Nixon signed a little known deal in which he agreed to let the Soviets obtain all the products and services they desired. Why? Well in my view that was probably a bribe for not revealing certain things about the manned space program.
Later the nominally anticommunist organisation John Birch Society published Nixons document and lamented this perceived treason. Until recently that doc was still on archive.org but now someone has removed it. It is apparently still a sensitive issue.
Now since both Cuba and Nicaragua are small countries it is at least possible that to an extent these cases were part of a deal and that those revolutions might otherwise have met with more interior resistance within the ranks of the americans. But as it was the anglophile networks had no problem bringing it about during Carter’s period. As you know resistance emerged in the form of the Iran-Contras drama. But this doesnt mean Carter himself had been decisive.
The hawk Brzezinsky was his advisor and still let it happen.
But to more fully appreciate what went on one needs to go into that anomalous context and I skip that here.
But the earlier case of China cannot be explained away like that.
The Pilgrim Society used the nominally christian organisation YMCA Young Mens Christian Association as a cover for training Maos young communists from about the time when Sun Yat Sen died from some cancer tumour in 1925.
Sen complimented Marxism for its way of formulating society’s pathological condition but critisised it for permanenting the pathology and Andre’s short summary of his views sound like they would be somewhat similar.
In those days aristocratic socialist Bertrand Russel and the american John Dewey, both influencers within those previously mentioned anglophile networks, were lecturing in China and were also arguing that they didnt want China to be capitalist. At some point Mao and his colleagues were in the audience.
Eventually George C Marshall, who had a Rhodes scholar for advisor, withheld weapons for Chiang thus sealing his faith in the struggle against the reds.
Officially the US supported Chiang Kai Shek but secretely they supported Mao and just like they did in Russia they brought about the revolution.
Both in WW2 and in the Korean war MacArthur acted in the way you would expect from somebody intending to win. But in the Korean war those anglophile networks prevented it.
The Pilgrims did not want america to emerge too strong.
So Britain leaked info about american strategy and made China dare to resist.
There was actually never an idependent Soviet infiltration or communist infiltration in the US.
It was always under Pilgrim control. Senator McCarthy too late realised that there was such a british link but was then already out in the cold and died soon afterwards
In Vietnam likewise there were sometimes restrictions about where to bomb and this was perceived as making it harder to attack the north vietnamese
I have no sympathy for the western imperialists and what they are up to.
I am just repeating what they have said and it does look like there are internally obstructive forces against what otherwise would have been a more fearsome and effective military machine.
And I think it is worth mentioning since those anglophile networks have recurrently acted in this manner. The motive I believe is driving this phenomenon is simply that the British didnt want the US to be able to go it alone and be too strong.
It also happened during WW2 where Britain attempted to let Japan match the US better than would have been necessary. In the 20s Britain made the US commit to a one-sided disarmament concerning part of the navy in order to make Japan comparatively stronger.
Britain withheld the most critical decrypted japanese telegram before Pearl Harbour.
The US hadnt decrypted it and the US lost some time for preparing the defence.
Roosevelt wanted the war against Hitler but he didnt necessarily need the extent of damage which happened at Pearl. But the anglophile networks infiltrating everything in the US power structure clearly did want more bloodshed to get the US parliament along with Britains aims.
A digression but it provides you with more detail about the pattern characterising Britains operations. And thereby also gives you a hint about why Britain despite offical rethoric actually wanted the US to face powerful communist enemies.
Hi Peter, thank you very much for your comment. I would like to hear more of those stories and, at the same time I find myself satisfied by your “ tour d’horizon”. You did a great job at showing the City of London moderating US hegemony behind the scene. What is your take on the string pullers behind the possible civil war in the US.?
Is it a war between patriotic elite, Anglophiles and zionists ? It is nice to get some light on crucial events… it is “comforting”… I notice being a bit sarcastic. It is both sick and also sanity-seeking to be able to debate about who is to blame about such horrific times coming., instead of jumping on my feet and get out of here! Just like the frog in the pot. Comfy in doom. Big wave of karma coming at us. “As above so below”style: what our empire armies did in foreign countries, it will do in the interior of its own country. Unless ?…. What can we do? Probably organize our sustainability locally. Meditate and open to the power of our Soul. Be well.
Good morning straight bat, i hear your point about « they most harmed the elite interests and therefore were most hated ». Yet it is not just that simple. Different levels of interests, conflict of interests…
Hatred in crooked politics is almost a given. You choose to use somebody you despise, he does the dirty job but gets also his way sometimes and that provokes more hatred. Control freaks wanting total control get more often irritated than average and so generate more hatred. I find hatred an interesting « emotion » as it is the direct result of repeated unpleasant sensations. It is where meditation can make a big difference in observing calmly our sensations and eventual reactions instead of concentrating dislikes into hatred. Interesting that this hatred process is similar to the hoarding power process, greed. In both, pleasant and unpleasant experience, equanimity is the key for Peace. Key for moderation, fairness… key for communal living!
Somebody in the comments mentioned Marx, the person, being quite full of hatred. At a psychological level, I can easily see why it would be: when you focus so hard with your mind in analysis mode, using the alphabet technology, you build some criticism, righteousness and perfectionism that are bound to clash with others , with some hatred.
Both the hatred thing and the affiliation to Zionist/ Rothschild shenanigans are not necessarily anti Marxism propaganda. Marxism stand by itself ( i am cautious though with « ism ». Like in « truism », there is a gap between the object and the observation. If having to choose between, I would pick Marxism over Marx, and Christ over christianism. I know, that opens a big debate. And it is not either or). As far as Marx/Marxism, I think it is more about not throwing the baby with the bath water. The word Propaganda is often used these days, just like the word «conspiracy« , as a way to dismiss a pointing finger, a whistleblower, any element not part of the established main propaganda. This morning, in an article from the Saker francophone, some retired high rank US military guys were warning against propaganda and a possible coup, split of military power, civil war, and calling for intensifying and applying law enforcement and control mechanisms to make sure other Capitol Hill/ Trump episode would not happen.
This Warning was conveyed by the Washington Post. It is a classic Main propaganda message.
Using an « actual fact » or situation, flip the perspective (the wolf crying wolf on others) and bring the agenda.
It seems that, the message was basically that: there are some propaganda pockets, potential protestors and army insurrection cases. Our law system is just. Our government in place is legit. In the name of security, we need to be a dictature ( obeying the dictates of our legit government).
Logic is obviously not necessarily true. But when it is based on false premise, it is a necessary lie.
OK, life goes on. Snowing here. Walking the dogs is my agenda.
To be continued…
Be well.
@ petergrfstrm, Eric,
Good Morning!
I have noted your points. In a write-up there are lines to be read AND there is reading between the lines…. I will address your points in the part II of the interview (when Russia, China will be taken).
We will continue.
Stay Safe.
Marxists and Socialists generally focus on the unequal possession of capital / income by a few and the dire poverty of workers. Their remedy for the inequality is to transfer capital to some public institution and then distribute the income generated in equal measure. Alas, the various marxist solutions tried over the last century seem to have wasted huge amounts of capital and concentrated whatever income was generated as inequitably as ever in the hands of politicians.
But what if the business capital were held and managed by the workers themselves?
Take the example of Taiwan in 1949 — as Chinese Nationalists fled to the feudal backwater whose land was held by 20 families and received rents equivalent to 50 – 70% of crop yields. Taiwan in the 1950s was doomed but for Japan then governed by General Douglas MacArthur. He recommended that Taiwan’s famers purchase their farms at 2.5 times the average crop yield over the next 10 years. The program was acceptable to 432,000 farm families, who would now pay 25% of crop yield and own their property outright in ten years.
What about the 20 super-families? The once land-poor elite received industrial bonds and rapidly began investing in promising manufacturing ventures. And who would work these factory floors? Who would purchase the goods? Why the younger children of the newly wealthy farmers.
The economic results of MacArthur’s program have been outstanding. Taiwan managed 50 years of high growth, unemployment rarely rising above 3%, literacy rose from 45% to 93%, life expectancy rose from 59 years to 74 years, living space per person went from 4.6 meter square per person to 23.8.
Was this merely an Asian fluke? What about central Italy, specifically Emilia-Romagna around Bologna? The district had had a history of faming co-operatives. But these were suppressed by Socialists in the 1920s.
After WWII, with the disgrace of Socialism, the co-operatives revived, mostly as family run businesses — one child raising pigs, milk cows, cattle, grapes another a small trucking business, another making cheese or hams, wine, balsamic vinegar. The co-operative economic model reinforces family and civil society.
Emilia-Romagna’s 90,000 co-operatives supply 35% of the region’s GDP, keep wages 50% higher than the rest of Italy. Such is the quality of product that the region’s hams and cheeses are International best sellers.
What about manufacturing? Let us review a once impoverished mountain area in northern Spain.
The left-leaning region was devastated by the Spanish civil war of the 1930s. A local parish priest began an industrial training school and encouraged his graduates to purchase a failed stove factory as a co-opt. From such humble origins the co-opt, known as MONDRAGON, now employs 100,000 people in Spain, with assets in excess of 33 billion euros and revenues in excess of 17 billion euros a year. The co-opt operates a social insurance program, training institutes, industrial research centers and a university — all without government support. Every worker in MONDRAGON is a member of two organizations: The General Assembly GA and the Social Council SC. The GA functions as the supreme governing body of the co-opt, the SC functions as the labor union on the basis of one-worker-one-vote.
With such success of localized and dispersed capital ventures who needs centralized marxism?
Should we think of communism as a cult of death, hate? Maybe. Im not a fan anymore, too old for that.(last pioner generation in Yugoslavija).
There are graves in every cave around..this is not eco at all, what would Greta say about this mess.
Marxism is materialistic same as capitalism..small lies, big lies, statistical lies. Is economy real science?
Im economist and I say NO. There is no spirit there, exept smell of money.
So red tape from capitalistic, socialistic system are smelling the same paper..their god is the same thing.
And how many proletarian masses gave their blood for better future…too many.
My grandparents(all) were quite decent commies, hated catholic church, not stealing a lot, worked hard…but many were stuffing all they could, filling bank accounts abroad, robbing assets of public companies. They fucked up all they could – whole generation.
They dont believe in KARMA, but she will come with a hammer&sickle…there will be tears and despair in the land of Death.
I would love to see that, but from the distance.
@Petrel,
Sorry i missed out your post. It’s interesting, and calls for response.
You mentioned 3 cases (Taiwan since 1950s, northern Spain since 1940s, Italian cooperatives after WW-II) and posited a question “With such success of localized and dispersed capital ventures who needs centralized Marxism?”
Well, there are two points that shows you are viewing only partial economic system, and forgetting about the impact of overall capitalist system:
(1) localized and dispersed capital ventures across the world (dozens of these in every country with medium/large population) operate within overall capitalist economy – hence, the positive impacts of such small-medium ventures and cooperatives are restricted to select community in select regions of a country; the negative impacts of overall capitalist economic system CAN’T be avoided. During 2010s, an acronym got developed in American MSM – PIGS, which denoted Portugal-Italy-Greece-Spain combined as European countries who were suffering from economic troubles …. PIGS contain 2 countries you named – that means the successful regional ventures are subset of overall economy
(2) localized and dispersed capital ventures across the world certainly keep a small environmental ‘footprint’. But overall capitalist economy continues to impact the environment negatively…. Could successful regional ventures stop the destruction of ecology ? No – it’s insignificant compared to the overall capitalist ventures !
Strait-Bat —
The “idea flaw” in both Marxism and Capitalism centers on a myth that economic decisions are best made by “super managers” at the “top” — be these Politbureau politicians, or executives of General Motors / Ford / General Electric and so on. Actually the decisions made by such “super managers” are invariably founded on systemic lies generated by their bureaucracy below. Clearly, decisions based on lies fail.
The immense success achieved by Taiwan’s 432,000 farm families, Emilia-Romagna’s 90,000 micro-business families and MONDRAGON’s 100,000 industrial families stands as a repudiation of the Marxist / Capitalist “idea flaw.” All of these families understand precisely the economic challenges they face and can quickly adjust procedures to operate more efficiently and realize gain.
There is no reason why the governing principles of an entire nation could not be established to spread such a granular / dispersed economic model — which Adam Smith lauded in “The Wealth of Nations.”
“There is no reason why the governing principles of an entire nation could not be established to spread such a granular / dispersed economic model — which Adam Smith lauded in “The Wealth of Nations.””
Except that the richest section of society will capture the state and funnel wealth in their own direction.
I am really impressed. I’ve been reading Uncle Karl and you completely understand him. How that man could think! As can you.
I like what you said about belief. El commandante never had an issue with believers from what I’ve read. I was kind of daydreaming about him and Guevara and Jose Marti.
@Lasttruebeliever,
” I was kind of daydreaming about him and Guevara and Jose Marti”
Many many Marxist communists all over world join you dreaming about Marti and Fidel-Che … Latin America has developed two specific ways of leftist movement – firstly, communists/socialists who view Marxist principles with high seriousness, second, social democrats who espouse socialist principles but avoid Marxism.
Personally I’m optimistic about the first group (Cuba-Venezuela-Bolivia-Nicaragua has political groups of this nature).
I’m going to read the other articles you have written. I suppose I may be a Marxist in some ways as I really admire his brilliant, penetrating thinking and his essentially living martyrdom in service to humanity. And his religious jokes are priceless. I think of him as a spiritual grandchild of Jesus of Nazareth. My brother called me a radical a few years ago and I was really shocked…his dialectical materialism is pretty powerful as far as it goes…(uncle Karl’s) and it truly goes a long way.
I differ perhaps from uncle Karl personally in that in the first instance of “drawing a distinction” my distinction was “god is” and of course everything seems to follow almost inexorably from the distinction one first draws…
I live in canada . One good thing common and rural Canadians seem to have is the capacity to follow an order…I consider myself a small a american. I don’t know many others that do…Norman Bethune comes to mind…I admire your penetrating thought and strength in philosophy.
Remember what Parma Sambhava said though: “naught save mind is conceivable “.
@Lasttruebeliever
You write about Marx “his essentially living martyrdom”
He actually said he had the best working conditions of his life there (ie under the protection of the british capitalist empire).
Would martyrdom allow some oppositional figure to unobstructed and openly produce the means for bringing them down?
@Lasttruebeliever,
You are most welcome! My articles are essentially lengthy analyses on Russia, China, India, and West Europe.
Karl Marx was an atheist but spiritual man. But Marx-Engels never brought personal belief into communist movement. In 20th century Marxist communist movements, indeed, identified religion as enemy, but that WASN’T due to believer-nonbeliever stuff, that was 100% due to the fact that religious institutions (as beneficiary of feudalism + colonialism + early capitalism) were anti-communist in letter and spirit.
I like what you say about religious institutions. Very apropos. I have run afoul of them over my lifetime.
One more comment and I’ll let this drop.
I like some old English poetry, especially William Langland’s Piers Plowman. He wrote going on about a thousand years or so and the things he was railing about in his fabulous poem against the church (R.C) ARE STIll being done. We went over to our neighbours next door and the elderly Italian lady was bemoaning the parish priest continually dunning her via visits to her home etc. for money. I shouldn’t have been but I was still shocked. I myself have been pursued by queer priests…
On the other hand I love the simple people and the believing parish priests who soldiered on manfully. Most of the people couldn’t read and that was a big issue…
Thank you for your wonderful teaching effort.
“Needless to say, the militant atheism of Marxism-Leninism is deeply abhorent to me: the blood of innocent Christian (and other!) martyrs will forever stain the Marxist ideology”
Sr. Raevski, no quedará en su corazón un poco de piedad y de compasión para los miles de mártires que fueron perseguidos, torturados y quemados vivos por los cristianos?
Por los miles de hijos de Dios que durante veinte siglos fueron esclavizados, sometidos a servidumbre, y aterrorizados con la amenaza de sufrimientos terribles por toda la eternidad para que ni siquiera tuvieran el consuelo de que su sufrimiento terminaría con la muerte?
Por la mitad de los miembros de nuestra especie a los que los cristianos le han negado incluso su condición humana y racional?
Por la destrucción de miles de obras de arte y compendios del saber humano que fueron destruídos por los fanáticos cristianos?
Por la persecución permanente de todo intento de ampliar el conocimiento del mundo?
Comprendo su piedad por los mártires cristianos que sufrieron y murieron a manos de los fanáticos que adoraban a otros dioses,(o a ninguno), pero ese sufrimiento es solo una lágrima en el océano de lágrimas del sufrimiento que los cristianos causaron en nombre de su Dios.
Por mi parte considero incomprensible como, bien entrado el siglo XXI, y después de varios cientos de años en que la mente humana pudo ampliar su comprensión del mundo sin la tutela de la religión, como puede haber personas sensibles y cultas que todavía siguen sometidas voluntariamente a esa parte pre-racional de la mente humana de la que nace la religión.
Aparte de las cuestiones religiosas, sigo con mucho interés sus artículos y los de sus invitados, que me parecen extraordinariamente instructivos.
Saludos cordiales
José Domínguez
Great article but I’m surprised that no mention is made of the Socialist Labor Party’s Daniel De Leon who figured out how to get from Marx and Engels to the classless society they wanted — and that was through his concept of socialist industrial unionism. Looking around at everything, the class conscious emancipation of the workers by themselves is still what we need. Thanks for posting this, Saker, I learned some new things.
@street worm,
Thank you.
Please note that this is part 1 of the interview. In next part it would come as a part of how Marxist communist movements were organised across the industrially advanced countries.
” Looking around at everything, the class conscious emancipation of the workers by themselves is still what we need.”
That’s what the proletarians lack !!!
I would like your take on what appears to me as a missing element in this discussion, or perhaps I have simply missed the reference. There has been a discussion here of starting and/or organizinf a Marxist Party. I would suggest there is already an array of ‘Marxist’ parties another or more is, in my opinion not required to advance the struggle for Socialism in todays world. What appear to be lacking here is a discussion of tactics and praxis.
The working class is the crucial element as we know. But it needs a greater level of organization and Marxist leadership. There must be a more concentrated effort by Marxist/Leninist Communists in this development.
Organized Labour is, and must be the force that ultimatley brings Imperialism to its’ knees, barring apolyptic disaster. Greater attention must be brought to the strengthening of the Labour movement.
Organized labour is also the force that will bring peace to the world. Communists and Organized Labour do not start wars, Imperialism starts wars, Communists and workers prevent wars.
An academic discussion here is of great value and is need but having said that it is the working class in an organized form under the guidance of Marxists’ that is what is ultimately needed.
@ I.R. Currie,
” I would suggest there is already an array of ‘Marxist’ parties another or more is, in my opinion not required to advance the struggle for Socialism in todays world. What appear to be lacking here is a discussion of tactics and praxis.”
I can’t agree more. Already too many ‘Marxist’ parties exist.
The tactics and praxis for Marxist movements in 21st century will be taken up as part of the part 2 of this interview. Expect your inputs.
Thank you very much for this abridged introduction to Marxism. It clearly covers a vast swath of disciplines and history and it is indeed difficult to summarize. You did it very well.
One observation regarding one of the last points
“One who would not inherit and/or own a business operation involving investment of substantial capital and significant sales turnover (quantification is difficult and debatable, but doable – say, total equity capital more than one hundred thousand US Dollars, total workforce more than ten persons, and annual sales more than two hundred thousand US Dollars) in any sector of economy”
This is almost impossible to attain in real life. Organizing a Marxist party (or a party that takes into account the right of workers, employees and ordinary people) entails leaders with substantial wealth to launch into politics. It is very hard to set up an organized “workers party” having a meagre income. With just a capital of a few hundred thousand US dollars, no one can resist the blacklisting and legal pressure of challenging the elite’s interests.
@ Andres,
” It is very hard to set up an organized “workers party” having a meagre income. With just a capital of a few hundred thousand US dollars, no one can resist the blacklisting and legal pressure of challenging the elite’s interests.”
You have hit where it hurts!
I understand what do you mean, and i lack a comprehensive response. I can, however, tell you why i mentioned as a prerequisite to become a communist – i’ve seen bourgeois owners of medium sized companies become members of communist party to further their business interests, they donate handsome amounts for ten to may be, hundred times more returns from business deals. Such unscrupulous elements not only give bad name to communist party, and more importantly, proletariat members of the party gets dissociated from Marxist movements.
Straight-Bat
Firstly, thank you and congratulations on a very enlightening piece. I am somewhat in awe at your ability to distil a lucid and compelling argument from such a vast amount of information on such a massive topic.
One way I try to make sense of Marx is to think of him as three men: a political economist and philosopher, an activist and a journalist. I think he was least successful as an activist; perhaps this is linked to his seeming reluctance to imagine and describe a communist future in any great detail. I suspect that he was happiest as a journalist; surely he must rank as one of the most garrulous letter writers in all of history. For me, it is Marx’s analysis of capitalism’s inherent contradictions that is the most crucially important element of his political economy. Without that I would find it much, much harder to think about what a better future might look like.
I am curious that, as a Marxist, you are nevertheless okay with people privately owning condos and cars. Come the crisis of collapse in the West, surely the first thing to become useless will be the motorcar since even if fuel is available (I doubt it) nobody will be able to afford it. And the first thing to be repossessed will be the family home (since in most cases it will be mortgaged). As I understand it, among the reasons that Russians were able to ride out the existential nightmare of the nineties were that nobody owned their homes (so no mortgages and so no repossessions) and few owned motorcars so everybody just continued to use the very good public transport that continued to function. So most retained shelter through a roof over their heads and mobility to get to jobs ( if they still had one) and shops and schools.
I would be very interested to know your thoughts on the success Iran has had in combining socialism with religion and nationalism as the three main pillars of its society. Perhaps you might be able to touch on that in your second installment.
Thanks again for yet another wonderful piece of writing. Best wishes.
@ Sarcophilus,
Thank you so much for your kind words and appreciation. I owe my ability “to distil a lucid and compelling argument from such a vast amount of information” primarily to my father (left this world long ago). Another point is that, i found Marxist communism is LEAST understood among even its followers, which means there is a necessity of writing a simple, brief but complete write-up – when The Saker asked me about an interview on my understanding about Socialism-Communism-Marxism, i found a platform to write what is it! Actually Marxist movements have been most viciously manipulated during past 150 years or so, – if there was one Pol Pot who carried out mass killing as part of ‘adherence to ideology’, if there was one Brezhnev who took ‘economic determinism’ as the bible, if there were two khruschevs who sold out ideology+country to the Zionist-Capitalist clique, then there were HUNDREDS of manipulations done by the Zionist-Capitalist camp to denigrate and destroy Marxist communists. I thought these things need to be written down – if Saker comes up with part 2 interview.
The three roles you identified about Marx is absolutely correct, and i’m one with you about “he was least successful as an activist”.
” I am curious that, as a Marxist, you are nevertheless okay with people privately owning condos and cars.”
This statement from you is a ‘popular’ query – Marx-Engels made it crystal clear that Marxist communism does NOT mean sharing of house-furniture-car or any other personal/family belonging. They meant property which is used as capital / means of production. In fact communism proposed by others like Cabet proposed such extreme level of communitarianism of which Marx said ‘utopian’.
Having said that, i agree that too much personal property puts pressure of ecology – hence humankind must change track from capitalist endless accumulation to ‘living in nature’.
” I would be very interested to know your thoughts on the success Iran has had in combining socialism with religion and nationalism as the three main pillars of its society.”
Part 2 will have to accommodate too many areas, it may include stuff like briefing on key theories of Lenin, Mao, Gramsci, Russian revolution, Chinese revolution, 21st century Marxism etc. etc. , plus as you suggested current era in Iran (prima facie i can say that, political party or movement with nomenclature ‘socialist’ are co-opted to work with global banking elites, hence they can’t make long-term impact. Not sure about Iranian case). Actually theory and practice of Marxist communism are like two oceans – how much we can swim in it remains a really challenging task !
Excellent, bat. New understanding of much in this sphere for me whose only knowledge of communism came from my asking a priest, “isn’t that communist?”, after reading that communal sharing or death bit in the bible and that very old priest literally jumping down my throat. But no explanation ever given except commy-bad.
Question though, for all it’s ideals, and at heart I think we’re all pretty idealistic, are there, apart from China & Russias now functional take on the theory, are there success stories like the northern Spanish, Italian and Taiwanese as noted above?
I’d rather go with a philosopher king, Tito may be dead but I’m holding out for a hero!
What comes now to the west is terrifying in its abject inhumanity. I am not saying we don’t deserve to be sifted, but the overt rainbow coalition, border jumping hordes, incumbent dollar collapse and Deagels prediction of US population down to 100 million by 2025, (most by suicide), and a few more factors that shall remain unamed have me battening down for something more than a Stalinesque purge, more killing fields, and imminent imho.
@Jay bee,
” What comes now to the west is terrifying in its abject inhumanity.”
Yes…. Liberal capitalism (and woke version of that) would like to convert Europe into Euroafrica so that cheap labour can be lined up for industry! All in the name of human rights and democracy.
And, no, the future society can’t be run by kings … it has to be representatives of people.
Straight-Bat (and The Saker),
Thank you very much for this wonderful article. I will put it in a pdf or epub to re-read it later in my reader device.
Just one question, are you familiar with the works of Karl Polanyi, in particular “The great transformation” ?
Thanks.
@Fernando Pablo Espósito,
Thank you for the kind words! Please read and tell others – humankind is at crossroads, people need to come back to nature (as Marx told) in order to survive!
Ohh! Yes, Polanyi is my favourite scholar…. “The great transformation” by Karl Polanyi is a magnificent work, a MUST-READ for anybody seriously wants to know about modern Europe.
I have always been intrigued by Marxist political economy: Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of Capital 2000 + words as well as the Grundrisse another 900 words. There are another 3 volumes of ‘Theories of Surplus Value’ in which Marx engaged in polemics with Smith, Ricardo, himself, and John Stuart Mill. There were all the French theorists as well including Sismondi and Rodbertus. There was also the earlier works on Alienation and Reification (the latter being a discussion by Lukacs). Marx’s had other political interests such as the Civil War in the, France, and British rule In India. Not forgetting Engels of course, his long-term side-kick famous for his journalism in his work, ‘The Working Class in England – 1844.’
As young men Marx and Engels were involved in separatist movements in the Rhineland. Things began to get too hot for them and they moved to England – Marx to London and Engels to Manchester – where the political climate was more liberal. This is where the great political economy was formulated.
The 18th and 19th century were a flowering period for political economy. I suppose it started with Adam Smith then David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill with Marx the final elaboration, in his later works (see above)
However the bourgeois class* was decidedly not enamoured of the ‘labour theory of value’ as formulated and promulgated by the Marx-Engels duo. The great counter-revolution in economics was staged by a group called the ‘Marginalists’ namely, Carl Menger, William Stanley Jevons and Leon Walras. Of course this trio was greeted with ecstatic reviews and their theories have dominated the western discourse which has been enthroned in the ivory towers of academe, with perhaps of the fleeting intervention of Keynes and Schumpeter.
Unfortunately Marxist political economy has been eclipsed by marginalist theory for at least 150 years and represents the corner stone of late-capitalism although increasingly in decline throughout the west. To get the flavour of Marxist political economy there was a very good summation by the Belgian Marxist Ernest Mandel, who is unfortunately no longer with us.
P.S. * By bourgeois capitalist class were typified by Smith and a fortiori David Ricardo and J.S.Mill as being essentially a parasitic excrescence, on the body politic. Aristocracy, who lived off of ground rent rather than productive value of the manufacturing class.
but the capitalists and their supporters led by USA (before that european)are waging (have waged) hybrid war against communism .
why would they do that if there was no influence?
@ Francis Lee,
Marx couldn’t pen down most of what he (and Engels) planned. However, the combination of Capital + ToSV can be easily considered as the pinnacle of the ‘labour theory of value’ (in absence of other forceful presentation).
The marginalist theory (‘marginal utility’ and ‘marginal rate of substitution’) provided the European bourgeois capitalists a wonderful ‘bypass route’ towards endless accumulation of capital – he got freed from the moral hazard of committing a ‘sin’ against a fellow human being, he could now claim that all surpluses were from his endeavours of providing satisfaction to the customers (labour is just one parameter of the entire process). Academia was/is part of the beneficiary of capitalist economy – they were/are beating the ‘marginalist’ drum for their indirect masters (after all Smith-Ricardo-Mill, and certainly Marx, didn’t sing to the tune of the British industrial capitalists of 19th century)…. I think not only Menger-Walras, but Marshall also contributed to the ‘marginalist’ construction.
Personally, i feel, outstanding Marxist economists need to address the ‘marginalist’ points through Marxist economic philosophy – some amount of modification in the LToV, if required, shouldn’t become an obstacle ….
“It must be mentioned that the concept of historical materialism completely demolishes belief-system theories like creationism and intelligent design, which base their concepts on religion and god but do not conform to concepts of biological evolution.”
Evolution does not have to exclude intelligent design because evolving processes can be intelligently designed, e.g. computer modelling of eco-systems and the weather.
@johny conspiranoid,
” It must be mentioned that the concept of historical materialism completely demolishes belief-system theories like creationism and intelligent design, which base their concepts on religion and god but do not conform to concepts of biological evolution.”
I think, dialectical historical materialism has been assigned undue credit. Actually the credit of demolishing the religious belief systems goes to the evolutionary hypothesis/theory developed by Darwin and other evolutionary scientists.
Of course, the dialectical historical materialism doubled down on that platform. But as a whole, Marxist communist praxis attacked the negative impacts of socio-political and socio-economic influence of established religions rather than personal faith (whether an atheist or believer in God).
“Feuerbach argued that religion and God diverted human beings from realizing their own (humanly) capabilities”
Religion and God are two different things. One of them might divert human beings from realizing their own capabilities while the other one does not.
“labor contained in it “, ” precipitated abstract (general) labor.”
I can’t work out the meaning of these expressions.
“as the simple expenditure of human labour-power, precipitated abstract (general) labor.
The former produce use-value, the latter exchange-value; ”
Why?
“only the latter is quantitatively comparable (the differences between skilled and unskilled, composite and simple labor confirm this).
Hence, the substance of exchange-value is abstract labor and its magnitude is the measure of time of abstract labor””
Why?
A kind of economic phlogeston. I notice that this is Engels’s tuppence worth and I wonder how Marx figured it.
Thanks Straight-Bat. Great introduction to Marx, was not aware of his extensive philosofical contemplations.
Found this part most valuable. Only ever heard the short form, which is misleading.
“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
@iR.47,
Thanks for your kind words.
Exactly opposite to what the Zionists Capitalists had been propagating and campaigning about the so-called anti-religion stand of Marxism, Marx was a deeply spiritual person who decried the oppression under the façade of religion.
Think about it sincerely and honestly – whether God exists as per monotheist philosophy or polytheist philosophy or pantheist philosophy OR God does not exist as per atheist philosophy should NOT have any bearing on the well-being of the society. In reality, however, in the name of God, in the medieval society, the largest section of poor and uneducated people were under oppressive political economic system, a system which ensured extraction of wealth and power for the sections who ‘managed’ religion and state ! Marx was exactly against this !!
Wow what a super great article, this is almost like a book, a scientific thesis. And a proof of why most people in the USA and in other countries still vote for capitalist parties, instead of voting for marxist patties, is that the media, schools, churches and most anti-communism institutions have great mind manipulating power against most people. Capitalism has never worked to produce wealth and happiness for the majority, even in USA, since 1776, the majority of americans have been poor. Only anti-communism liberal progressives like Thom Hartmann and other anti-communist progressives defend capitalism. But capitalism has never worked to produce any wealth for the majority. All capitalist countries have a lot of poverty and the majority are poor
I have a blog with all the basic books of marxism, communism, socialism ideology of Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Rosa Luxemburg, Bakunin etc, with links to whole books on PDF file, and people can use that blog as an on-line communist university it is http://communist-books.blohgspot.com/ I will add more books later, I would like to add the 2 parts of this article if Straight-Bat lets me. Thanks
PS: By the way according to Nietzsche Jesus Christ and the first christians were real the original founders of communism, and Jesus Christ and the first christians are the ideological fathers of the French Revolution and marxist socialism
PS 2: A good idea for the marxist left would be to win the millions of christians of the world to communism, by telling christians that Jesus was the founder of communism and the Kingdon of God on earth is really a world communist system, if christians accept that historical truth, the left would rise in popularity because people love Jesus
@KnoxvillePutinistMarxist,
I would like to add the 2 parts of this article if Straight-Bat lets me
I’m okay with your request. However, you have to also take permission from The Saker (who owns the blog-site).
Wishing you and your companions all the best.
Thanks a lot, these two articles are a great introduction to socialism and it explains where did socialism come from and the positive benefits of an authentic socialist workers state which is not perfect but it would be a lot better for the majority of people than a capitalist state. I will ask The Saker if I can add these 2 articles to my blog
I made a mistake, when writing the address of my blog, it is here https://communist-books.blogspot.com/
Hello all, according to Nietzsche, Jesus Christ and the first christians are the real fathers of the ideology of communism, socialism and all leftist revolutions (including the French Revolution) so a good idea to attract people and christians to communism is to tell christians that Jesus and first christians are the real fathers of all leftist revolutions and of leftist ideology. The left should be more creative, i even read an article on Counterpunch.org that said that the left should hire George Clooney (haha)
By the way here is a song about the founder of communismhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqPit1E_MKw
And here is article about how communists go to heaven:
https://zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/view/1011
PS: In Philippians 2:3-4 it says that we should think about others more than our own self, that is an anti-Ayn Rand, anti-individualism, anti-capitalism verse of the Bible: (You know how people in the USA behave, not looking around them not even saying to their neighbors, specially white collar high income workers who are ultra-egocentric and do not even smile to others when they are doing their grocery shopping, the radical individualism of people mowing their lawns and driving their cars. This country needs a high dose of anti-individualism thinking:
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” -Anti-Republican Party, anti-Individualism, anti-Ayn Rand part of the Bible Philippians 2:3-4
@KnoxvillePutinistMarxist,
according to Nietzsche, Jesus Christ and the first christians are the real fathers of the ideology of communism, socialism and all leftist revolutions (including the French Revolution) so a good idea to attract people and christians to communism is to tell christians that Jesus and first christians are the real fathers of all leftist revolutions and of leftist ideology.
Wow! You are absolutely on the spot … read the section ‘B’ of this interview part 1 where i mentioned the communism of Cabet and Weitling originated from Christ’s ideology ….
I will add to your point – Gautama Buddha predated Jesus to follow this philosophy. Gautama Buddha was the first communist, and his concept of Buddhist ‘Sangha’ was the first historical commune!
My father was a humanist and naturalist first, and communist thereafter (my biggest learning from him was that, Marx was the complete humanist). My father’s favourite poem “Abou Ben Adhem’ became my favourite also – it tells that Almighty loves them who love humanity!
ABOU BEN ADHEM …. By Leigh Hunt
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the presence in the room he said,
“What writest thou?”—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, “The names of those who love the Lord.”
“And is mine one?” said Abou. “Nay, not so,”
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, “I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men.”
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest,
And lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest.
Hi again, sorry for my late reply. What a beautiful poem, you know i believe that we are heading toward interesting times, like the Bob Dylan song (The Times are changing), I also believe in extraterrestrials, In fact there was a Trotskist Posadas who wrote an article about how extraterrestrials might help the overthrow of world capitalism, here is the link.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/posadas/1968/06/flyingsaucers.html
The philosopher Nietzsche also wrote that people should be warriors, and Marx also said that the working class should fight class wars that would last 10,20,30 years. And Jesus was also a warrior, in fact there is a part in the New Testament where Jesus said that he didn’t come to this world to bring peace, but fighting because of his cause (world communism and class war). If most humans were warriors, and not peaceful conformist slaves it would be a lot easier to overthrow capitalist states