Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Marxist, Communist, and Socialist Guild

Back to Guilds

Formerly called the NCS, this is a place for communists and socialists to talk about communism and socialism. 

Tags: Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Political, Left 

Reply MCS: Marxism, Communism, Socialism
Principles Of Communism, Part 1 Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Le Pere Duchesne
Captain

Beloved Prophet

PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:02 pm


Principles of Communism:
I will start off with the first few questions.
The questions flow, coming as elaboration of the previous point.
Let us look at the first few questions, and people can post their thoughts:

Question 1
What is Communism?
Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.


Question 2
What is the proletariat?
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.


Question 3
Proletarians, then, have not always existed?
No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.


Question 4
How did the proletariat originate?
The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world.

This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers. This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile industry.

Once the impulse to the introduction of machinery and the factory system had been given, this system spread quickly to all other branches of industry, especially cloth- and book-printing, pottery, and the metal industries.

Labor was more and more divided among the individual workers so that the worker who previously had done a complete piece of work now did only a part of that piece. This division of labor made it possible to produce things faster and cheaper. It reduced the activity of the individual worker to simple, endlessly repeated mechanical motions which could be performed not only as well but much better by a machine. In this way, all these industries fell, one after another, under the dominance of steam, machinery, and the factory system, just as spinning and weaving had already done.

But at the same time, they also fell into the hands of big capitalists, and their workers were deprived of whatever independence remained to them. Gradually, not only genuine manufacture but also handicrafts came within the province of the factory system as big capitalists increasingly displaced the small master craftsmen by setting up huge workshops, which saved many expenses and permitted an elaborate division of labor.

This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories – and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded. This process has, to an ever greater degree, ruined the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others. These are:

(i) The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistance and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.

(ii) The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat.


Question 5
Under what conditions does this sale of the labor of the proletarians to the bourgeoisie take place?
Labor is a commodity, like any other, and its price is therefore determined by exactly the same laws that apply to other commodities. In a regime of big industry or of free competition – as we shall see, the two come to the same thing – the price of a commodity is, on the average, always equal to its cost of production. Hence, the price of labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor.

But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life.

However, since business is sometimes better and sometimes worse, it follows that the worker sometimes gets more and sometimes gets less for his commodities. But, again, just as the industrialist, on the average of good times and bad, gets no more and no less for his commodities than what they cost, similarly on the average the worker gets no more and no less than his minimum.

This economic law of wages operates the more strictly the greater the degree to which big industry has taken possession of all branches of production.

The next 5 questions talk about the relationship of the proletariat with other working classes. They will be posted in a few days.
PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:45 am


It would be nice if someone took the time to read the OP and post their thoughts... Educational threads exist for a reason.

And because I thought it would be cool:
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Le Pere Duchesne
Captain

Beloved Prophet


Miza_Radioaktiv
Vice Captain

Questionable Prophet

6,450 Points
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Conversationalist 100
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:13 pm


Question 5
The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life.


The minimum wage isn't even enough to live off of in this day and age thanks the the high costs of living in most countries. It's a shame. The only thing I was really able to use my pay check for was to buy gas for my trips to work. neutral
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:24 pm


The most important point in these first sections i feel is the first point. "Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat" My problem here is that i feel that maybe this sows some confusion. Is Communism a form of government or is it as Marx says "Doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat" Is it both?

Intermundia


Le Pere Duchesne
Captain

Beloved Prophet

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:19 pm


Judging by other stuff said "communism is for us not a state of affairs to be established, but the real movement" ( German Ideology? ) it is clear that what is understood by communism is the 'ideology of the communists.'

Historically this is actually proved further: The term 'communist' at first signified those super-radical elements of the Parisian sansculottes who backed the Paris Commune during the French Revolution, and who favoured massive economic leveling. They were communists because they adhered to the commune, just like we are Marxists because we try to adhere to Marx.

Today, and even in Marx's life, communism had also taken on another meaning the end product of the 'movement'. What this means is that we need to diferentiate between communism-as-ideology and communism-as-goal.
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:59 am


"The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century"

What, then, is the Proletarian Class of the 21st century? Is it the same?

Premier_Davidovich

Liberal Member


Le Pere Duchesne
Captain

Beloved Prophet

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:55 am


USS Endeavor
"The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century"

What, then, is the Proletarian Class of the 21st century? Is it the same?

Thre proletariat has always been the same: Those who own nothing but their ability to labour. That this was not always the working class is pointed out by the piece: Previous times relied on different mothods of utilising labour, from slave labour, to bonded serfs. The proletariat in these times was not the working class is explained by the fact that, on the whole, it didn't work. The only puropse of hiring a worker in a slave economy was if the cost of slaves is higher than the cost of hiring a day labourer, and the job is dangerous. After all, why get a slave to do a dangerous job when you can pay some poor ******** to do it? That way, you don't look a slave if he dies!

So on the whole, the proletariat didnt actually work, but was more like the modern lumpenproletariat. Short of a massive disruption of technology, the proletariat will continue to be the working class in the post-/industrial countries for some time to come.

So yes, the proletariat is still the class which capitalism exploits as a class peculiar to its mode of production, and this class is primarily concentrated in the industrial, construction and transport related industries.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:48 pm


Interesting. So we haven't always had to sell our labor. In the days of a traveling merchant or a musician, they sold their services or products, where as now we serve a corporate government that gives us s**t wages(if even that) to keep us in line.I always felt working was wrong somehow.

I'm a bit of an anarchist and fail to see how any sense of money and militarism/nationalism makes sense. I don't understand the concepts of either. I can understand barter, sleep with someone to get what I want or trade my items for theirs, but money is so... stupid and controlling.

Zed Millar

4,000 Points
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Gaian 0

Syntax1020

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:28 pm


Norm of Okinawa
Interesting. So we haven't always had to sell our labor. In the days of a traveling merchant or a musician, they sold their services or products, where as now we serve a corporate government that gives us s**t wages(if even that) to keep us in line.I always felt working was wrong somehow.

I'm a bit of an anarchist and fail to see how any sense of money and militarism/nationalism makes sense. I don't understand the concepts of either. I can understand barter, sleep with someone to get what I want or trade my items for theirs, but money is so... stupid and controlling.


You should speak with Anarchophiliac xd
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:41 pm


Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Interesting. So we haven't always had to sell our labor. In the days of a traveling merchant or a musician, they sold their services or products, where as now we serve a corporate government that gives us s**t wages(if even that) to keep us in line.I always felt working was wrong somehow.

I'm a bit of an anarchist and fail to see how any sense of money and militarism/nationalism makes sense. I don't understand the concepts of either. I can understand barter, sleep with someone to get what I want or trade my items for theirs, but money is so... stupid and controlling.


You should speak with Anarchophiliac xd
Thats an interesting name. Ok. (I have always had issues with fitting into structured society... like these clothes... why must we wear them?)

Zed Millar

4,000 Points
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Gaian 0

Syntax1020

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:35 pm


Norm of Okinawa
Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Interesting. So we haven't always had to sell our labor. In the days of a traveling merchant or a musician, they sold their services or products, where as now we serve a corporate government that gives us s**t wages(if even that) to keep us in line.I always felt working was wrong somehow.

I'm a bit of an anarchist and fail to see how any sense of money and militarism/nationalism makes sense. I don't understand the concepts of either. I can understand barter, sleep with someone to get what I want or trade my items for theirs, but money is so... stupid and controlling.


You should speak with Anarchophiliac xd
Thats an interesting name. Ok. (I have always had issues with fitting into structured society... like these clothes... why must we wear them?)


Your funny.... xd (I hope that you realize this is a communist guild, not an anarchist one)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:06 pm


Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Interesting. So we haven't always had to sell our labor. In the days of a traveling merchant or a musician, they sold their services or products, where as now we serve a corporate government that gives us s**t wages(if even that) to keep us in line.I always felt working was wrong somehow.

I'm a bit of an anarchist and fail to see how any sense of money and militarism/nationalism makes sense. I don't understand the concepts of either. I can understand barter, sleep with someone to get what I want or trade my items for theirs, but money is so... stupid and controlling.


You should speak with Anarchophiliac xd
Thats an interesting name. Ok. (I have always had issues with fitting into structured society... like these clothes... why must we wear them?)


Your funny.... xd (I hope that you realize this is a communist guild, not an anarchist one)
Yes, I know, but communism is so much more freedom and equality for humanity as a whole than capitalism, and I'm sure a government will always be in place, I'm choosing the lesser of the two evils, and by that, communism is WAY less evil then capitalism (if evil at all)

Zed Millar

4,000 Points
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Gaian 0

Revolutionary Justice

4,050 Points
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Statustician 100
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:27 pm


Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Interesting. So we haven't always had to sell our labor. In the days of a traveling merchant or a musician, they sold their services or products, where as now we serve a corporate government that gives us s**t wages(if even that) to keep us in line.I always felt working was wrong somehow.

I'm a bit of an anarchist and fail to see how any sense of money and militarism/nationalism makes sense. I don't understand the concepts of either. I can understand barter, sleep with someone to get what I want or trade my items for theirs, but money is so... stupid and controlling.


You should speak with Anarchophiliac xd
Thats an interesting name. Ok. (I have always had issues with fitting into structured society... like these clothes... why must we wear them?)


Your funny.... xd (I hope that you realize this is a communist guild, not an anarchist one)

There are anarcho-communists, I suppose they are allowed on here right?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:52 pm


Revolutionary Justice
Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Interesting. So we haven't always had to sell our labor. In the days of a traveling merchant or a musician, they sold their services or products, where as now we serve a corporate government that gives us s**t wages(if even that) to keep us in line.I always felt working was wrong somehow.

I'm a bit of an anarchist and fail to see how any sense of money and militarism/nationalism makes sense. I don't understand the concepts of either. I can understand barter, sleep with someone to get what I want or trade my items for theirs, but money is so... stupid and controlling.


You should speak with Anarchophiliac xd
Thats an interesting name. Ok. (I have always had issues with fitting into structured society... like these clothes... why must we wear them?)


Your funny.... xd (I hope that you realize this is a communist guild, not an anarchist one)

There are anarcho-communists, I suppose they are allowed on here right?



Anarchists are by definition; socialists. So technically yes, they do have a place here.

Intermundia


Dis Domnu

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:54 pm


Comrade Rob
Revolutionary Justice
Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Syntax450
Norm of Okinawa
Interesting. So we haven't always had to sell our labor. In the days of a traveling merchant or a musician, they sold their services or products, where as now we serve a corporate government that gives us s**t wages(if even that) to keep us in line.I always felt working was wrong somehow.

I'm a bit of an anarchist and fail to see how any sense of money and militarism/nationalism makes sense. I don't understand the concepts of either. I can understand barter, sleep with someone to get what I want or trade my items for theirs, but money is so... stupid and controlling.


You should speak with Anarchophiliac xd
Thats an interesting name. Ok. (I have always had issues with fitting into structured society... like these clothes... why must we wear them?)


Your funny.... xd (I hope that you realize this is a communist guild, not an anarchist one)

There are anarcho-communists, I suppose they are allowed on here right?



Anarchists are by definition; socialists. So technically yes, they do have a place here.


Not all of us are socialists. There are those anarcho-cappies out there. But the rest of us like to pretend that they don't exist, and ******** them over when we can.
Reply
MCS: Marxism, Communism, Socialism

Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
//
//

// //

Have an account? Login Now!

//
//