[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / coz / d / dempart / klpmm / leftyb / lounge / vichan ]

/marxism/ - Marxism

let the ruling classes tremble


Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 3 per post.

File: 682a9744b4c9a84⋯.jpg (934.13 KB, 2160x2592, 5:6, 682a9744b4c9a8455be89dec48….jpg)


The purpose of this board is to promote Marxist ideas, educate, share resources, and engage in productive discussion. New flag and thread requests can be made here.

Board Pages



What is socialism?



1. No spam, no NSFW.

2. Stay on-topic.

3. Nazis / Rightwingers belong in the containment thread.

15 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



should be fixed now

File: d807762c632e1a9⋯.jpg (21.95 KB, 210x356, 105:178, saint-bordiga.jpg)


Post last edited at

File: 4792ee3217913ae⋯.jpg (48.45 KB, 599x428, 599:428, rosa.jpg)


Thread for shitposting, chitchat, and general discussion.

27 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>Labor time calculation != the law of value

So as long as the same interaction takes place but a planner makes it, it ceases to be law of value? If so that happened in the SU, and there were even enterprises than ran while not being profitable. The value and profitability was something that was taken into account, but never was it the sole reason for planning. Soviet union operated on C-M-C, which isn't capital.

>In the end, to state that USSR is economically socialist while not being communist

It was in the lower stage of communism.

>That's what higher phase of communism entails, "crossing the narrow horizon of bourgeois right" and "to each according to his need", remember?

Too bad what happens in real world is that people don't want to work since everyone get's pay the same. I don't care about idealized versions of people acting in idealized enviroments. That's not Marxism.

>Just say no. A few moments before you've already admitted there was a market between enterprises(so much for planning!)

Yeah but how big was the market economy? Even in your ideal communist world which only exist in your head a market can easily spring up. There's nothing stopping me from trading with people around me. What needs to be examined is whenever the market economy was the main economy. Here I'll be quoting from the book "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran.

"Based on macroeconomic figures, Koriagina estimated that the annual value of illegal goods and services grew from approximately 5 billion rubles in the early 1960s to 90 billion rubles in the late 1980s. If the value of the Soviet national income (net material product) in current prices was 145 billion rubles in 1960, 422 rubles in 1988, and 701 billion rubles in 1990, then the value of second economy was approximately 3.4 percent of national income in 1960, 20 percent in 1988 and 12.8 percent in 1990. (By 1990, some previously illegal activity was now legal.) In 1988, Koriagina estimated that the total accumulated illegally attained personal wealth amounted to 200-240 billion rublPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>So as long as the same interaction takes place but a planner makes it, it ceases to be law of value? If so that happened in the SU, and there were even enterprises than ran while not being profitable. The value and profitability was something that was taken into account, but never was it the sole reason for planning. Soviet union operated on C-M-C, which isn't capital.

You're completely missing the point by even mentioning the profit. To begin with, even today's capitalist states uphold certain sectors which are not profitable for the sake of "public good" or whatever. It does not tell us anything about the mode of production.

And it is absolutely not the same interaction: under the free association of producers value, and consequently profit have simply ceased to exist as individual labor becomes social from the start, it exists "directly as a component part of total labor", which could be compared to mr Robinson on a deserted island. Here's quote by Engels again, here as a full paragraph

<From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time. Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in their adPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>It was in the lower stage of communism.

And such we arrive at the notions that that communism and value, money, commodity production, profit and all that shit are compatible. And to think that Marx has said with the advent of socialist production and distribution the producers do not exchange the products and money has ceased existing, what an idealist and utopian idiot he was!

>Too bad what happens in real world is that people don't want to work since everyone get's pay the same.

>le equal pay meme

Nice Proudhonism faget

>Even in your ideal communist world which only exist in your head

And as we've demonstrated above, in Marx, Engels and Lenin's heads too, mind you!

>a market can easily spring up. There's nothing stopping me from trading with people around me.

Trade what? You don't own a farm, a company or whatever separately from the rest of society, there's also no functioning universal equivalent(money) which would enable exchange other than perhaps incidental barter. As Marx has explained in very simple words "no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption". The closest thing that comes to mind is bartering an apple for an orange with your neighbor, but again, such barter can be only incidental, as both sides directly get their products from a common source of production and distribution.

>If you want markets to completely cease markets existing in any shape or form you are expecting a miracle that will never happen.

Welp, pack it up folks, value is actually a transhistorical category. It's shocking that Marx, Engels and everyone after them haven't noticed this obvious fact.


the other anon explained this a bit but I want to show it from a different angle because this is an important idea.


>So as long as the same interaction takes place but a planner makes it, it ceases to be law of value?

Look at this quote from one of Marx's letters:

Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products corresponding to the different needs required different and quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society. That this necessity of the distribution of social labor in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appearance, is self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labor asserts itself, in the state of society where the interconnection of social labor is manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of labor, is precisely the exchange value of these products. Science consists precisely in demonstrating how the law of value asserts itself.

What Marx essentially says here is:

1. The need to allocate labor into different branches of production is a "natural law".

2. The Law of Value is only one form taken by this natural law.

3. The Law of Value is specific to a system of indirectly social production, i.e. capitalism.

What's the point?

Both society-wide planning and the Law of Value must conform to the requirements of the "natural law" mentioned above. But the Law of Value operates through the medium of exchange-values. These exchange-values only exist in a society where different commodities are being traded against each other in a market. In a non-market system Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 5e81a869c31a687⋯.png (53.45 KB, 660x180, 11:3, 5yearplans.png)

File: b12cc580c485e89⋯.png (80.63 KB, 441x258, 147:86, 5yearplan12.png)

markets, black markets, etc.


>This in my view, shows the obvious: that the markets never had a central role in the SU. I mean if markets trully were in full force in the SU, you would expect it to show in the data, right? Indeed it did but it wasn't in the macroeconomic ones. Rather it was simply people who traded services with each other or the black markets.

I think that before we even consider markets we need to understand that the word "planning" doesn't really describe what happened in the state sector of the USSR's economy. See pic related. The USSR didn't possess a level of sophistication that would allow for the economy to be centrally directed or even planned in advance. What actually happened was that individual enterprises sent their recommendations for budgets, inputs, and projected outputs to the center which then tried to make everything fit together. (It never did.) These plans were then adopted after the planning period had begun and were then continuously revised and updated. This is not planning in the Marxist sense of the word. What happened in this environment was that separate enterprises and bureaucracies became "proto-capitals" that attempted to accumulate labor and resources. Officially, there was no unemployment in the USSR because enterprises hoarded labor in order to ensure that enough would remain available during periods of rushed production. These "proto-capitals" within the Soviet economy actually accumulated their own "reserve army of labor" that didn't appear in official statistics.

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Yesterday Richard Wolff gave a talk that covers his new book plus a lot of history about Marxism. I don't agree 100% with Richard Wolff but his talks are always excellent to introduce Marxist ideas to people, especially in countries like the U.S. which have very little education about Marxism.

15 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>I was going with his example of $10 an hour, which is low pay.

I was trying to illustrate that within a capitalist economy, once you're able to make enough to survive, it is more important to me to work in a democratic workplace rather than a totalitarian one.



>how would YOU introduce people to marx's ideas?

The first step is same as usual: organization of workers into classist organizations such as unions, propaganda work in the workplaces and struggle for dominance between more militant workers and the conciliatory currents.


<Wolff made me read Mao

A damning critique of Mr. Richard



By skipping the dry theory and going straight to the end results;

mass starvation, poverty the repression and murder of dissidents, and the.emergence of an "aristocracy of the party".

By the by, you are all idiots, but it saddens me that in order to save western civilization, you will all have to be rounded up and beaten to death with shovels.

Future generations will see it as a cautionary tale.

(2 day ban - keep it in the containment thread.)


File: 5c5f61edcad4555⋯.jpg (89.32 KB, 960x660, 16:11, East_German_patricians_ref….jpg)


>By the by, you are all idiots, but it saddens me that in order to save western civilization

I love how /pol/yps say this while degenerate socialist states came closer to preserving their culture than anything in the west did.



Yeah, but to survive we could be talking up to $40 an hour here in burgerland, with $15 an hour being sort of a minimum for most places. For the majority of proles the co-op is only a slightly more realistic dream than muh small business because even co-ops require capital and other shit to function as a business. I see the (re)emerging labor movement as a better method than co-ops for the majority of folks working a job.

File: 462d7fa994cb0cc⋯.png (155.96 KB, 525x762, 175:254, israelairstrikes2.png)


Thread for discussing news.

3 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 0e16941abf8fee2⋯.png (205.5 KB, 344x602, 4:7, german_decline.png)

File: 7f33023b32d3f5b⋯.png (257.38 KB, 512x604, 128:151, pompeo_leak.png)

File: c5d78b438ec848d⋯.png (170.2 KB, 332x644, 83:161, marx_boeing.png)

7 June 2019

>German industrial production dropping

>Leaked audio discusses attempts to oust Venezuelan President

>Former Boeing Exec. likely to become new U.S. Sec. of Defense

"German exports and industrial output fell sharply in April, triggering fresh fears that trade tensions and continued Brexit uncertainty are weighing on the global growth outlook. Industrial production in Europe’s largest economy fell 1.9%, which was the worst monthly fall in almost four years, according to Germany’s statistics office. It was much worse than the 0.4% decline forecast by economists."


"According to The Hill, Pompeo disclosed the US struggled to unite the Venezuelan opposition ever since he assumed the office of CIA Director in 2017. Continuing quarrels between opposition leaders prevented the creation of a successful uprising. He attributed the failure of opposition leader Juan Guaido's 30 April coup attempt to the lack of consensus among Maduro's enemies."


"The relationship between Boeing and the state's massive military budget has always been close. It was made more intimate when Boeing absorbed McDonnell Douglas Corp in 1996. But all of this becomes even more interesting when you consider that Shanahan is moving to the top defense position at the very moment Boeing's commercial division is in deep trouble."


Post last edited at


US flight attendants speak out over uniforms that cause illness

Body rashes. Burning throat and eyes. Coughing and headaches. These are just some of the medical symptoms American Airlines flight attendants have been dealing with since the rollout of new uniforms for more than 70,000 airline employees in September 2016.




When I worked at Home Depot years ago they had people handling materials and trash that were labeled as carcinogenic. People were handling these things without even being given goggles or dust-masks. It was insane how unsafe these low-paid jobs were.

This is what happens when there are no workplace organizations, no unions, and no regulation or oversight of working conditions. Americans don't realize how fucked their country is.


Proletarian News Service #1 - MEXICO EDITION

AMLO’s False Sense of Austerity

The Mexican government’s savings plans could come at the cost of people they’re trying to help.


In Mexico City, kidnapping goes up, resources to fight it go down

The National Citizens’ Observatory (ONC), an independent organization that monitors security conditions, said the case is an “example of how bad decisions end lives.” The organization also noted that the federal government has cut the budget of the National Anti-Kidnapping Coordination by 30% and failed to officially appoint someone to head it.


Two realities in health system: Seguro Popular most affected by austerity

Problems at the hospitals include shortages of medicine, equipment and staff


Public sector investment surpassed by debt payments

For the first time since 2007, a greater quantity of resources are spent on paying interest on debt rather than investment.


Trump’s hardball tactics could implode Mexico’s immigration systemPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: fcc2c9139f04237⋯.jpg (109.32 KB, 402x580, 201:290, deng002.jpg)

Proletarian News Service #2 - CHINA EDITION

International Forum of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and New Practices of China-Africa Cooperation

Proposed by China in 2013, the BRI refers to the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, which aims to build a trade and infrastructure network connecting Asia with Europe, Africa and beyond along the ancient trade routes of the Silk Road.


China counters ‘debt trap’ claims over African loans

“President Geingob of Namibia recently said in an interview that Chinese loans, most of which are interest free, only account for 2.6 percent of Namibian government’s debt,” Lu said. “The loan agreements were reached through equal consultations with no political strings attached.”


China Set to Cash in on New African Free Trade Agreement

One of the world’s most valuable and largest free trade agreement will kick in on May 30, yet it is one that has gathered little mention in mainstream media: the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCTFA). The AfCTFA is the single largest FTA realized since the coming together of the World Trade Organization, but the lack of attention paid to it is an indication that despite globalization, trade that matters is perceived as being conducted solely by the United States.


African leaders use Chinese aid to benefit their home regionsPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 7cbd5bba5182274⋯.jpg (33.88 KB, 622x455, 622:455, porky.jpg)


This is the official containment thread for nazis, right-wingers, ancaps, etc.


- Ask questions

- Debate

- Post facts / evidence / etc.


- Spam

- Copy/paste walls of text

- Argue in bad faith

13 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.





No thanks. I don't understand why we even would want to debate /pol/. Most people on 8ch's aren't the sort of people worth debating. 4ch's may be salvageable in my eyes. I think Reddit would be better for introducing others to Marxism, although it is mostly limited to well off teens to young adults. In other words people who probably wouldn't support a leftist movement besides liberalism or social democracy.




Were you not on /leftypol/ for satanchan? She was an occultist nazi who believed in shit like Satan being the high priest of Atlantis, aryans making every civilization from the incas to egyptians, and that you could fuck demons on the astral plane. The tiddies come from the thread we found out she was a gurl and someone asking for tits got a satanget, after posting boobs she threatened to use sexual magic on us.



Well, no then. I either missed it or was before I visited the place.


Is there room in the left for people who are viscerally disgusted by niggers?



>Karl Marx

>think as programmed

Made by someone programmed into capitalist idoelogy. The fucking irony.

File: 91bae02b10320b6⋯.png (362.28 KB, 765x320, 153:64, redrainbow2.png)


General thread for books and reading.

Post pdfs, articles, reviews, questions, and recommendations here.

15 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




I would suggest using some basic intro texts to get some major ideas explained and then build off those. Ideally we'd have something that you could give to a person who knows zero about socialist theory and redpill them. This would be good for us too because we should know how to talk about the basics so we can explain our ideas to normies.

Capital isn't as hard to read as some people say. It's just fucking long. I don't know about pulling chapters from that because it's laid out so the ideas build on each other. A good book usually works like that.



Chapter assignation according to a predefined reading structure sounds sensible so long as it develops towards a greater understanding. A university level reading list for an introduction to Marxism may serve this purpose. Outlines can be written for the week ahead.


Introductory readings which flesh out specific chapters of Capital or small pieces from a broader set of Marx's writings would provide the confidence to move towards a deeper independent reading.

Selecting material according to what we want from this group sound sensible. The initial list does not need to be large, perhaps five or six weeks at most.

As an example recommendation and for somewhere (for us) to begin:




>recommending something you haven't read yourself

It's very short. At the very least you could look at what he says on the last few pages. Peter Singer is a utilitarian dork philosopher who wrote that book in the 70s, he wasn't a Marxist or Marx expert back then and he isn't one now.

Quote from this work: "Marx asserts that all profit arises from the extraction of surplus-value from living labour; machines, raw materials, and other forms of capital cannot generate profit, though they can increase the amount of surplus-value extracted. This seems obviously wrong. Future capitalists will not find their profits drying up as they dismiss the last workers from their newly automated factories." This is mixing up micro and macro. Marx never claimed that some capitalists can't make a big profit that way, his argument was about where profit in total, for the capitalist class as a whole, comes from.

There is also the usual wisdom in there about how communism can't work because we will never have total abundance and people are selfish.



Point taken; the idea behind the recommendation was that it represented a given wisdom most will have already encountered.

Do you have a following suggestion?


What topics would people like to read about?

I'd like to read about:

- Fundamental ideas of Marxist thought

- Lesser-known Marxist/Communist thinkers

- History of the USSR

- Utopian Socialism (Robert Owen and other reformers)


there are a lot of introductory books for Marxism but many of them are crap. The Marx-Engels Reader by Robert C. Tucker is pretty good but it's more like a 'selected works' than an intro text. I haven't read Wolff's latest book so i can't say whether it's decent or not.

File: c5b35efd49da855⋯.jpg (325.56 KB, 500x500, 1:1, productive.jpg)


Post in this thread at least once a day to increase the productive forces of /marxism/.

265 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.











File: 25f2cd26170a801⋯.jpg (129.48 KB, 472x640, 59:80, ribbentrop-and-stalin-at-t….jpg)


remember when Stalin shook hands with nazis and then allied with western imperialist powers?


17 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


(part 3)


In the Inaugural Address to the International Workingmen's Association, Marx said:

>By deed instead of by argument, they [the co-operative movement] have shown that production on a large scale, and in accord with the behests of modern science, may be carried on without the existence of a class of masters employing a class of hands; that to bear fruit, the means of labor need not be monopolized as a means of dominion over, and of extortion against, the laboring man himself; and that, like slave labor, like serf labor, hired labor is but a transitory and inferior form, destined to disappear before associated labor plying its toil with a willing hand, a ready mind, and a joyous heart.

This is a very different picture than the one Engels describes above. Here, Marx indicates that cooperative / associated production doesn't need a class of masters who dominate the production process. Engels says that, even if you elect a manager, he exists as an authority above other workers and they must obey his will.

In The German Ideology, it says:

>All earlier revolutionary appropriations were restricted… Their instrument of production became their property, but they themselves remained subordinate to the division of labour and their own instrument of production. In all expropriations up to now, a mass of individuals remained subservient to a single instrument of production; in the appropriation by the proletarians, a mass of instruments of production must be made subject to each individual, and property to all.

Notice here that in these early writings (possibly dictated by Marx and written by Engels) it speaks of the fact that the point of a proletarian revolution is to end the subordination of individuals to instruments of production and the division of labor.

In the general rules for the IWA Marx talks about the emancipation of the working class. But what kind of emancipation would it be if Engels says that your job would still subordinate you to a machine, there would be "the obedience of all to the will of one", ePost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>Labor was not a commodity in the SU. A use value can only become a commodity when it has lost it's use to owner. Seeing the socialist nations had near 100% employment, it can be deduced it wasn't a commodity.

For start, we can obviously definitely agree that USSR had wages. A quick recap by Stalin himself

<It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved, and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods.

And what does Marx consistently say on the subject of wage labour?

<Wages therefore are only a special name for the price of labour-power, and are usually called the price of labour; it is the special name for the price of this peculiar commodity, which has no other repository than human flesh and blood.

<Capital therefore presupposes wage-labour; wage-labour presupposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the other into existence. Does a worker in a cotton factory produce only cotton? No. He produces capital. He produces values which serve anew to command his work and to create by means of it new values. Capital can multiply itself only by exchanging itself for labour-power, by calling wage-labour into life.

<The capitalist epoch is therefore characterised by this, that labour-power takes in the eyes of the labourer himself the form of a commodity which is his property; his labour consequently becomes wage-labour. On the other hand, it is only from this moment that the produce of labour universally becomes a commodity.

Even using your brain(try it sometimes) should tell you that wage labour is an exchange of two commodities, one being commodified labour power and the other being money, the commodity functioning as a general equivalent.

>Doing it any other way was impossible.

This being necessPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



No point in trying. For MLs, Marx didn't exist, Marxism starts with Lenin and Stalin.


i clicked a thingy and now im here, is this how communism works?


File: f0cb2bc2c195154⋯.jpg (68.51 KB, 960x960, 1:1, f0cb2bc2c1951547f7ea08d46e….jpg)


it's true, this thread is literally how communism works.

File: fa85e6fd5b44977⋯.png (1.25 MB, 1842x1036, 921:518, marx_prageru.png)


Thread for discussing Marxist theory.

27 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Not exactly, though I do believe science is influenced by ideology enough for that to be generally true. What I was trying to articulate was frustration with the denial of ideology found in certain marxists by claiming that being scientific excluses ideology.


File: 86dedbcbe58f0bc⋯.png (41.39 KB, 614x492, 307:246, marx_expropriators.png)

The Conditions for Socialism

Part 1

(Pic related is Marx's vision of the end of capitalism taken from Capital vol.1)

The German Ideology, chapter 1.


In a collection of manuscripts called The German Ideology, unedited and unpublished during his life, Marx wrote of the conditions for communist society:

>This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development.

In other words, it must not only be possible to supersede capitalism, but also necessary due to the fact that it becomes "intolerable."

>And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones.

Here Marx makes an important point that attempting Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at


The Conditions for Socialism

Part 2

A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy


In the famous preface to Marx's Critique of Political Economy he writes a summary of his general theory of history which gives us important insights into why he felt capitalism would be replaced by socialism, and more importantly the conditions in which this would happen:

>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.

In other words, when man's productive forces outgrow the social relations around them, those social relations must be replaced.

>No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

Marx makes an important point here. He says that if social relations (and thus the form of society) change because of the development of productive forces, then the point at which this change happens can only be when existing society has exhausted it's potential to develop. He also views the conditions of a new society (i.e. socialism) as being immanent (or internal) to existing society (i.e. capitalism).

>Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at


The Conditions for Socialism

Part 3: The views of Friedrich Engels

Anti-Dühring, ch. 23 and 24



In this work Engels goes into great detail explaining, among other things, exactly how the development of capitalism leads to socialism.

>The utopians, we saw, were utopians because they could be nothing else at a time when capitalist production was as yet so little developed. They necessarily had to construct the elements of a new society out of their own heads, because within the old society the elements of the new were not as yet generally apparent; for the basic plan of the new edifice they could only appeal to reason, just because they could not as yet appeal to contemporary history.

Here Engels specifies what makes utopian socialism so utopian: it wants to create an ideal system without finding a basis in material conditions. This is the opposite of Marxist socialism which finds the new society in the old.

>But since that time modern industry has developed the contradictions lying dormant in the capitalist mode of production into such crying antagonisms that the approaching collapse of this mode of production is, so to speak, palpable; that the new productive forces themselves can only be maintained and further developed by the introduction of a new mode of production corresponding to their present stage of development; that the struggle between the two classes engendered by the hitherto existing mode of production and constantly reproduced in ever sharper antagonism has affected all civilised countries and is daily becoming more violent; and that these historical interconnections the conditions of the social transformation which they make necessary,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


The Conditions for Socialism

Part 4: The views of Friedrich Engels (continued)

>The factories working with the combined social forces of a collectivity of individuals produced their commodities far more cheaply than the individual small producers. Individual production succumbed in one department after another. Socialised production revolutionised all the old methods of production.

Because planned production within factories is more efficient than unplanned production between separate small craftsmen, a system of socialized production develops the foundation of a new system inside capitalism.

>But its revolutionary character was, at the same time, so little recognised that it was, on the contrary, introduced as a means of increasing and developing the production of commodities. When it arose, it found readymade, and made liberal use of, certain machinery for the production and exchange of commodities: merchants' capital, handicraft, wage-labour. Socialised production thus introducing itself as a new form of the production of commodities, it was a matter of course that under it the old forms of appropriation remained in full swing, and were applied to its products as well.

Here Engels points out that these changes in production are like a quiet revolution building inside capitalism. This new form of socialized production (factory production) takes on the same old forms because the social relations remain the same.

>The contradiction between socialised production and capitalistic appropriation now presents itself as an antagonism between the organisation of production in the individual workshop, and the anarchy of production in society generally.

The anarchy of the market is being conquered by planning at the level of the workshop or factory.

>The extension of the markets cannot keep pace with the extension of production. The collision becomes inevitable, and as this cannot produce any real solution so long as it does not break in pieces the capitalist mode of production, the collisions become periodiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Previous [1] Next | Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / coz / d / dempart / klpmm / leftyb / lounge / vichan ]