Profile cover photo
Profile photo
CommunistLudicrum
54 followers -
Workers of the World Unite, you have nothing to Lose but your Chains...
Workers of the World Unite, you have nothing to Lose but your Chains...

54 followers
About
Posts

What do you comrades think about:
Buddhists
Daoists (aka Taoists)
And Confucianism?

I only just realised this but Hitler's Birthday is on 20th of April while Lenin's Birthday is 22nd of April.

I don't know why but that made me laugh a little. Because Neo-Nazis would be celebrating Hitler's Birthday 2 days before his rival's Birthday.

My god, could you imagine what it'll be like if their Birthdays was on the same day? They'll be masses amount of Political Movements parading through the streets eventually one group would start fighting.

Today is Vladimir Lenin 148th Birthday. A man who's exceptional courage and Intellectual thinking brought about one of the best Council Republic Nation for the Russian Population.

We shouldn't forget the Great Works he made, his Collected Works comprise 54 volumes, are some of the best works next to Marx and Engels.

For those interested in his Books here's the full list:
Our Immediate Task (1899)
The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899)
What Is to Be Done? (1902)
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (1904)
Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Social Revolution (1905)
Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1909) Philosophical Notebooks (1913)
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1914)
Socialism and War (1915)
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)
The State and Revolution (1917)
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918)
"Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)
The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)

His achievements are well deserved and respected, his Revolution and radical thinking won't be forgotten by academic scholars and his ideas would remain timeless just as his memorial in Red Square for all to witness and praise.

Post has attachment
What the heck is Australia doing in South China Sea? Patrol your own waters not China's...

Post has attachment
Marx's 200th Anniversary is coming up in 5th of May this year in his Birth town of Trier, Germany. The locals are preparing to celebrate his anniversary for all the Great Works he committed in his life...

Post has attachment
Is my eyes playing up? Is the Guardian actually supporting and promoting Marxism? Never thought I see them do that, since all they post is Right-Wing media...

Post has attachment
First time I've seen some Mobilisation of Comrades to destroy something that symbolises Imperialism. Well done Greeks...

Post has attachment
Funny, but so True XD
Geo-Political memes like these are funny XD

Post has shared content
Karl Marx basically argued that there were phases in the historic development of society, each marked by different modes of production - tribal phase, feudal phase and capitalist phase (this fitted well with the socioeconomic developments of the time). And societies naturally pass from 'feudalism to capitalism' before the inevitable emergence of the 'classless socialist society'.

First thing to note here is that Marx was not against 'Capitalism'. In fact, his greatness lies in his ability to view 'Capitalism' as what it is - a stage of society's development which due to its very nature will eventually lead to its own collapse so society can progress into the next stage. What is interesting to note is that Marx refused to speculate in detail about the exact nature of 'what capitalism will transform into (communism)', arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realization of a predetermined moral ideal.

Second, Marx did not set out this 'theory of history' in great detail. Accordingly, it had to be constructed from a variety of texts.

Third, he developed his view of the world, based on 'Materialism' (rather than Idealism). The central message of his theories about society, economics and politics—the collective understanding of which is known as Marxism—is that all human societies progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a dispossessed laboring class that provides the labor for production.

Though Marx himself rejected idealism and religion, the best explanation on why Karl Marx is so revered in academia, comes in the words of Joseph Schumpeter, who describes 'Marxism' as a religion (this definition seems more relevant when you also consider how the understanding of 'Marxism' has evolved based on the interpretation of different analysts).

In one important sense, Marxism is a religion. To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved.

Call Marxist religion a counterfeit if you like, or a caricature of faith—there is plenty to be said for this view—but do not overlook or fail to admire the greatness of the achievement.

Karl Marx was a prophet, he never taught any ideals 'as set by himself'.

As every true prophet styles himself the humble mouthpiece of his deity, so Marx pretended no more than to speak the logic of the 'dialectic process of history'.

He falsified the true psychology of the workman (which centers in the wish to become a small bourgeois and to be helped to that status by political force), but in so far as his teaching took effect he also expanded and ennobled it. He did not weep any sentimental tears about the beauty of the socialist idea. This is one of his claims to superiority over what he called the Utopian Socialists. Nor did he glorify the workmen into heroes of daily toil as bourgeois love to do when trembling for their dividends. He was perfectly free from any tendency, so conspicuous in some of his weaker followers ,toward licking the workman’s boots.

And in order to understand the nature of this achievement we must visualize it in the setting of his own time. It was the zenith of bourgeois realization and the nadir of bourgeois civilization, the time of mechanistic materialism.

To understand the setting of his own time, I divide the next part of this answer into following sections.

- The Theory of History
- A brief historic background of the Era (Pre-Marx)
- The Era of Karl Marx begins
- The Communist Manifesto

The first section briefly explains 'The theory of history' discussed above.

The second and third section briefly explain the important historic events of a time around which the ideas of Marxism were being developed.

While the last section quotes from what is arguably considered Marx's most widely read works 'The Communist Manifesto'; it is considered 'not the best guide to his thought'.

The Theory of History (or theory of historical materialism)

At the core of Marx's teachings is historical materialism and an interpretation that 'communism is inevitable'.

Now according to Marx, human civilization has historically manifested itself in a series of organizational structures, each determined by its primary mode of production, particularly the division of labor that dominates in each stage. There are four stages to talk of here:

1. The first stage of 'Tribal Society', has no social classes at the elementary stage. During this stage, it is also possible to see a slave culture established (particularly as the population increases), leading to "the growth of wants" and the growth of relations with outside civilizations (through war or barter). With slave culture, we see the beginning of class society.

2. The second stage is 'Primitive Communism', characterized by the ancient communal and State ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest. During this stage, the concept of private property begins to develop.

3. The third stage is 'Feudalism'. For Marx, what defined feudalism was that the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of arable land, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom (slavery).

4. The fourth stage is Capitalism. Marx's economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of Labor theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism.

A brief historic background of the Era before Marx

Since, the question concerns the time of Marx, we will ignore the transition from Tribal Society to Feudal Society.

Importance of the years which had passed before Karl Marx had grown into a socially conscious youth, can be summarized by two major events that marked the transition of (certain European) societies away from feudalism and towards capitalism:

1. The Great Revolution in France

The French Revolution in brief - https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-French-Revolution-so-important/answer/Vanita-Ashar

What was the French Revolution? - https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-French-Revolution

2. The Industrial Revolution in England

Social and Economic impact of the Industrial Revolution - https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Industrial-Revolution/answer/Vanita-Ashar

The Era of Karl Marx

Karl Marx was born in 1818, in Prussia. The son of a Jewish lawyer, he studied law and philosophy at the universities of Berlin and Jena and initially was a follower of G.W.F. Hegel, the 19th-century German philosopher who sought a dialectical and all-embracing system of philosophy.

In England by 1815, the Luddite movement, whose sole purpose was the destruction of the machine, was succeeded by a more conscious struggle. The new revolutionary organizations were now motivated by the determination to change the political conditions under which the workers were forced to exist. Their first demands included freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of the press.

Additionally, the movement in favor of creating organizations and unions through which the workers might defend themselves against the oppression of the employers, and obtain better conditions for themselves, higher wages, etc., became lawful. This marks the beginning of the English trade union movement. It also gave birth to political societies which began the struggle for universal suffrage.

Meanwhile, in France in 1815, Napoleon had suffered a crushing defeat, and the Bourbon monarchy of Louis XVIII was established. The era of Restoration, beginning at that time, lasted approximately fifteen years.
Having attained the throne through the aid of foreign intervention (Alexander I of Russia), Louis XVIII made a number of concessions to the landlords who had suffered by the Revolution. The land could not be restored to them, it remained with the peasants, but they were consoled by a compensation of a billion francs.

It also tried to withdraw as many of the concessions to the bourgeoisie as it was forced to make. Owing to this conflict between the liberals and the conservatives, the Bourbon dynasty was forced to face a new revolution which broke out in July, 1830.

The 1830s were the impressionable and formative years of his adolescence, when Marx came under the influence of the stirring events of the era. These years were still revolutionary years. However, between the 1830s and 1840s were also a time of great industrial progress and growth in both Britain and France, but not everyone in the population shared in the new wealth.

The revolutions of 1830 and the Reform Movement of 1832 provided more political and social power to the disenfranchised but wealthy bourgeoisie, yet only an eighth of adult males could vote in Britain. In France the percentage was even lower.

Additionally, in countries around the world, faith in private capitalism was greatly shaken by the economic crisis of the 1930s; a quarter of the working population in the United States, Germany, Britain and France found themselves out of work. The traditional doctrine of Laissez Faire, or nonintervention by the state in the economy was durably discredited.

As workers continued to live in terrible conditions while the rich got richer, Laissez Faire economists argued that the world had to be this way, because if the workers had easier lives and higher wages, they would simply produce more children, glutting the labor market and driving wages down and unemployment up.

Workers, and the thinkers who championed the cause of workers, found fault with this explanation of the system, and suggested other ways of organizing society.

Observing the plight of workers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote their influential works on Communism - The Communist Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms.

The authors argue (some excerpts from The Communist Manifesto):

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative.

Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

*All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.*

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In Communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.

In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom!

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Terminology:

(i) By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor.

(ii) By proletariat, the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live.

Sources & Further Reading:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history

- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2014647/Karl-Marx-John-Maynard-Keynes-Ten-greatest-economists-Vince-Cable.html

- http://digamo.free.fr/ten10.pdf

- http://eh.net/book_reviews/farm-to-factory-a-reinterpretation-of-the-soviet-industrial-revolution/

- http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev/summary.html

- http://www.sfponline.org/Uploads/91/19-1uploadtowebsite.pdf

- https://www.marxists.org/archive/riazanov/works/1927-ma/ch01.htm

- http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1848/section7/page/3/

- http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marx-publishes-manifesto

- https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/modules/marxstages.html

- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#1

- https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

Post has shared content
Karl Marx basically argued that there were phases in the historic development of society, each marked by different modes of production - tribal phase, feudal phase and capitalist phase (this fitted well with the socioeconomic developments of the time). And societies naturally pass from 'feudalism to capitalism' before the inevitable emergence of the 'classless socialist society'.

First thing to note here is that Marx was not against 'Capitalism'. In fact, his greatness lies in his ability to view 'Capitalism' as what it is - a stage of society's development which due to its very nature will eventually lead to its own collapse so society can progress into the next stage. What is interesting to note is that Marx refused to speculate in detail about the exact nature of 'what capitalism will transform into (communism)', arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realization of a predetermined moral ideal.

Second, Marx did not set out this 'theory of history' in great detail. Accordingly, it had to be constructed from a variety of texts.

Third, he developed his view of the world, based on 'Materialism' (rather than Idealism). The central message of his theories about society, economics and politics—the collective understanding of which is known as Marxism—is that all human societies progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a dispossessed laboring class that provides the labor for production.

Though Marx himself rejected idealism and religion, the best explanation on why Karl Marx is so revered in academia, comes in the words of Joseph Schumpeter, who describes 'Marxism' as a religion (this definition seems more relevant when you also consider how the understanding of 'Marxism' has evolved based on the interpretation of different analysts).

In one important sense, Marxism is a religion. To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved.

Call Marxist religion a counterfeit if you like, or a caricature of faith—there is plenty to be said for this view—but do not overlook or fail to admire the greatness of the achievement.

Karl Marx was a prophet, he never taught any ideals 'as set by himself'.

As every true prophet styles himself the humble mouthpiece of his deity, so Marx pretended no more than to speak the logic of the 'dialectic process of history'.

He falsified the true psychology of the workman (which centers in the wish to become a small bourgeois and to be helped to that status by political force), but in so far as his teaching took effect he also expanded and ennobled it. He did not weep any sentimental tears about the beauty of the socialist idea. This is one of his claims to superiority over what he called the Utopian Socialists. Nor did he glorify the workmen into heroes of daily toil as bourgeois love to do when trembling for their dividends. He was perfectly free from any tendency, so conspicuous in some of his weaker followers ,toward licking the workman’s boots.

And in order to understand the nature of this achievement we must visualize it in the setting of his own time. It was the zenith of bourgeois realization and the nadir of bourgeois civilization, the time of mechanistic materialism.

To understand the setting of his own time, I divide the next part of this answer into following sections.

- The Theory of History
- A brief historic background of the Era (Pre-Marx)
- The Era of Karl Marx begins
- The Communist Manifesto

The first section briefly explains 'The theory of history' discussed above.

The second and third section briefly explain the important historic events of a time around which the ideas of Marxism were being developed.

While the last section quotes from what is arguably considered Marx's most widely read works 'The Communist Manifesto'; it is considered 'not the best guide to his thought'.

The Theory of History (or theory of historical materialism)

At the core of Marx's teachings is historical materialism and an interpretation that 'communism is inevitable'.

Now according to Marx, human civilization has historically manifested itself in a series of organizational structures, each determined by its primary mode of production, particularly the division of labor that dominates in each stage. There are four stages to talk of here:

1. The first stage of 'Tribal Society', has no social classes at the elementary stage. During this stage, it is also possible to see a slave culture established (particularly as the population increases), leading to "the growth of wants" and the growth of relations with outside civilizations (through war or barter). With slave culture, we see the beginning of class society.

2. The second stage is 'Primitive Communism', characterized by the ancient communal and State ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest. During this stage, the concept of private property begins to develop.

3. The third stage is 'Feudalism'. For Marx, what defined feudalism was that the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of arable land, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom (slavery).

4. The fourth stage is Capitalism. Marx's economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of Labor theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism.

A brief historic background of the Era before Marx

Since, the question concerns the time of Marx, we will ignore the transition from Tribal Society to Feudal Society.

Importance of the years which had passed before Karl Marx had grown into a socially conscious youth, can be summarized by two major events that marked the transition of (certain European) societies away from feudalism and towards capitalism:

1. The Great Revolution in France

The French Revolution in brief - https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-French-Revolution-so-important/answer/Vanita-Ashar

What was the French Revolution? - https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-French-Revolution

2. The Industrial Revolution in England

Social and Economic impact of the Industrial Revolution - https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Industrial-Revolution/answer/Vanita-Ashar

The Era of Karl Marx

Karl Marx was born in 1818, in Prussia. The son of a Jewish lawyer, he studied law and philosophy at the universities of Berlin and Jena and initially was a follower of G.W.F. Hegel, the 19th-century German philosopher who sought a dialectical and all-embracing system of philosophy.

In England by 1815, the Luddite movement, whose sole purpose was the destruction of the machine, was succeeded by a more conscious struggle. The new revolutionary organizations were now motivated by the determination to change the political conditions under which the workers were forced to exist. Their first demands included freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of the press.

Additionally, the movement in favor of creating organizations and unions through which the workers might defend themselves against the oppression of the employers, and obtain better conditions for themselves, higher wages, etc., became lawful. This marks the beginning of the English trade union movement. It also gave birth to political societies which began the struggle for universal suffrage.

Meanwhile, in France in 1815, Napoleon had suffered a crushing defeat, and the Bourbon monarchy of Louis XVIII was established. The era of Restoration, beginning at that time, lasted approximately fifteen years.
Having attained the throne through the aid of foreign intervention (Alexander I of Russia), Louis XVIII made a number of concessions to the landlords who had suffered by the Revolution. The land could not be restored to them, it remained with the peasants, but they were consoled by a compensation of a billion francs.

It also tried to withdraw as many of the concessions to the bourgeoisie as it was forced to make. Owing to this conflict between the liberals and the conservatives, the Bourbon dynasty was forced to face a new revolution which broke out in July, 1830.

The 1830s were the impressionable and formative years of his adolescence, when Marx came under the influence of the stirring events of the era. These years were still revolutionary years. However, between the 1830s and 1840s were also a time of great industrial progress and growth in both Britain and France, but not everyone in the population shared in the new wealth.

The revolutions of 1830 and the Reform Movement of 1832 provided more political and social power to the disenfranchised but wealthy bourgeoisie, yet only an eighth of adult males could vote in Britain. In France the percentage was even lower.

Additionally, in countries around the world, faith in private capitalism was greatly shaken by the economic crisis of the 1930s; a quarter of the working population in the United States, Germany, Britain and France found themselves out of work. The traditional doctrine of Laissez Faire, or nonintervention by the state in the economy was durably discredited.

As workers continued to live in terrible conditions while the rich got richer, Laissez Faire economists argued that the world had to be this way, because if the workers had easier lives and higher wages, they would simply produce more children, glutting the labor market and driving wages down and unemployment up.

Workers, and the thinkers who championed the cause of workers, found fault with this explanation of the system, and suggested other ways of organizing society.

Observing the plight of workers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote their influential works on Communism - The Communist Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms.

The authors argue (some excerpts from The Communist Manifesto):

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative.

Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

*All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.*

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In Communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.

In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom!

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Terminology:

(i) By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor.

(ii) By proletariat, the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live.

Sources & Further Reading:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history

- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2014647/Karl-Marx-John-Maynard-Keynes-Ten-greatest-economists-Vince-Cable.html

- http://digamo.free.fr/ten10.pdf

- http://eh.net/book_reviews/farm-to-factory-a-reinterpretation-of-the-soviet-industrial-revolution/

- http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev/summary.html

- http://www.sfponline.org/Uploads/91/19-1uploadtowebsite.pdf

- https://www.marxists.org/archive/riazanov/works/1927-ma/ch01.htm

- http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1848/section7/page/3/

- http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marx-publishes-manifesto

- https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/modules/marxstages.html

- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#1

- https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
Wait while more posts are being loaded