How to educate ourselves?

[Kez]

As i understand i still have a lot of learning to do.
I am pretty up to date on current affairs and 1945-90 Soviet Era, but i would like some people to name their top 10 books in learning the socialists way.
I hope other people will also use the list to educate ourselves in future revolution be it violent or Democratic

Thanking all comrades in appreciation
Comrade Kamo

[socialismnow]

"Deterring Democracy" - Chomsky (about imperialism)
"Triumph of the People" - George Black (about the Nicaraguan revolution)
"Inside the Left" - Brockway (the British left in the 20s and 30s)
"Homage to Catalonia" - Orwell (about the Spanish revolution)

[AgustoSandino]

1)Plato's Republic-all western philosphy, it has been said, is a footnote to Plato

2)Aristotle's Politics- Don't agree with Plato, well he doesn't either, the foundation of pragmatic thought if you ask me

3)communist manifesto- hey you want to learn about communism

4)Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations- hey you want to learn about communism, pay attention to how similar the goals of this and the afformentioned book are. Only difference is that this one explains how to achieve its goals.

5)New Testament, notably the gospel according to luke
This gospel takes particular care to describe jesus' political views (hint: he doesn't care much for politics), but is not tainted with the politics of trying to form a church, like Romans. You should read it multiple times, and just read the whole booko really.


5)John locke, second treatise of government, A book that should need no introduction, but its unfortunate that I have to make one. Want to see what our government today is based on read locke. Out of all the people who have made theories about human nature, and social contracts, he's been heeded the most.


6)Hobbes, Leviathan, one of the first explanations why anarchy doesn't work. Remember, the man only wants stability and the end of civil war.

7)Nietszche, On the Genealogy of Morals, stop being a sissy boy and pick up some Nietszche, little man.

8)Milan Kundera, Immortality, or if the Unbearable Lightness of Being. An insightful and interesting perspective on the state of contemporary western civilization.

9)Rosseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, man was this cat crazy. The natural state!? where do you find that?

10)George Orwell, buy a book of essays, my favorite is On Politics and the English Language, that's because I have 'isms' but buy and read, see what sucks about communism, through the eyes of a socialist.

[vox]

The Twilight of Capitalism by Michael Harrington is a great book, sadly out of print but still available used, that gives his view of Marx. Very good stuff. Also by Harrington is Socialism: Past and Future, which I also believe is out of print (someone really should write to Verso) is a good intro.

If you like the Strucuralists, try For Marx by Althusser. I disagree with Althusser on many things, but very interesting reading, and one really needs to be aware of the differences in early and late Marx. There's a very good article in the new issue of "Rethinking Marxism" about Marx's view of prostitution that's quite compelling.

And, of course, there's always Jay's place at www.neravt.com/left. Go to the directory and you'll find a slew of links. The Net has so much information that you can spend weeks going through it.

vox

[socialismnow]

Another good one which is out of print (which doesn't mean you can't obtain it if you try) is one of Chomsky's earliest works, "American Power and the New Mandarins". It's about the Vietnam war in particular, but also includes essays on the Spanish Civil War and on the Pacific War (with reference to the pacifist stance of A. J. Muste and the way that the US displaced Japan as the dominant imperialist power in Asia).

I like Harrington's work as well, and Orwell's essays.

[RedCeltic]

Eugene V. Debs Reader

The Origin of family, Private Property, and the state, by fredrick Engels

the German Ideology by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels

The Jungle By Upton Sinclair

Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism by V.I. Lennin

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, By Frendrick Engels

The State and Revolution by V I Lennin

Disposable Domestics: Immegrent Women workers in the Global Economy by Grace Chang

Factories in the Field: The stor of Migratory Farm labor in California by Carey McWilliams

Strike! By Jeremy Brecher

Dying Growth: Gloabal Inequality and Health of the Poor.

Also... speaches by Dannel De Leon...

Reform and Revolution
Plain words to Boston Workingman
What means this strike?
The De Leon Harriman Debate
Socialism Vs. Anarchism
The Burning Question of Trade Unionism
The Socialist Reconstruction of society
As to Politics.

[Kez]

Thnx all :)

I'll try and get most of these books which sound pretty good
Keep this thread going for other people like me who want to get more intrested in communism and socialism

Ive read Homage to Catalonia , its a damned good book
Ive also got essays by Orwell, its ok, other books are better

I have a class book at home called
Imperialism and the National question by the one and only Uncle Joe, its a pretty good book to get ideas from but not to be trusted 100%. HAVE A READ IF you can.

Anyone read Guerilla warfare by Che? hows it?

[socialismnow]

A good general history from a progressive perspective is Age of Extremes by Eric Hobsbawm.

[SellasieI]

I can't recall the author (IM STUPID!!) but the book "Revolution in the Revolution" is a great book, and really explains a lot.

[Chief Rebel Angel]

Guerrilla Warfare is more like a manual for the guerilla fighter... i got bored with it and just finished half of it... i dont think i can make use of it at the moment... it has good "tips and tricks", but its not for me, not right now...

1984, animal farm, what uncle sam really wants(chomsky), necessary illusions(chomsky)...

[Guest]

I'm pretty certain, Revolution in the Revolution, was written by Regis DeBrey

[gooddoctor]

there's a new handbook to the anti-capitalist movement, circulating around britain since the summer, contributed to by many people at its heart. it's, small, nice and glossy silver with "anti-capitalism" written in big, camp fluorescent orange across the cover. the background is a picture of the planet with seattle, prague, genoa et al marked on it. i haven't read it yet, but it looks like a really useful overview of the general principles we're fighting for and the history of the movement. look out for the section on latin america, it's written by a lecturer in hispanic studies from my university and member of the scottish socialist party mike gonzalez. he's a really cool guy and cuban i think. there's also an introduction by george monbiot, the brightest activist-journalist in britain today, and one of the 25 most influential people in britain according to the evening standard, and that's something coming from them. i'm reading his book captive state: the corporate takeover of britain at the moment and it's probably the most fascinating piece of literature i've ever read. the truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 10:46 pm on Nov. 7, 2001)

[Moskitto]

Utopia by Thomas More (Written in the C16th) but I don't know if you can find a copy. It explains what the perfect society is and Is where the world Utopia came from.

[AgustoSandino]

You can find copies of Utopia, by Sir Thomas More at bookstores everywhere.

It doesn't explain what the perfect society is anymore than Plato's Republic, The Hebrew Scriptures, The New Testament, Augustine's City of God, The Koran, Marx, Luther, et. al., do.

The word Utopia is derived from the Ancient Greek OU, meaning no, and TOPOS meaning place. From this you get "NO-PLACE", something that Sir Thomas More was well aware of when he wrote Utopia.

[vox]

Agusto,

Was Marx Utopian? Back that up, please, for Marx clearly stated that he wasn't. I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't know a damn thing about Marx, actually. Is that impression wrong?

vox

[AgustoSandino]

Marx claimed his was a 'scientific socialism', but to anyone with any understanding of economics, and to anyone with any grasp of history, it is clear that Marx was hardly 'scientific', basing his theories on conjecture as opposed to economic study and empirical principles.

Marx was Utopian, did he not propose an 'ideal society'? If you can claim that he wasn't utopian because he defined himself as such, I can make an equally, if not more, compelling claim he was utopian based on the study of his theories. Beside the Manifesto, whose 40 pages I'm sure didn't deter you have you read Das Kapital...and beyond that have you read 'Alienated Labor' or 'Private Property and Communism'. Take a look at those and see wether he is scientific.

He simply called himself scientific to distinguish his brand of socialism from that proposed by Sismondi and the Abbe de Mably.

[vox]

Poor Agusto,

Your first paragraph is nothing but rhetoric, and not even good rhetoric at that. Your assertion that "anyone" (a very broad and very insupportable claim) with a knowledge of history (which, you'll agree, Marx surely had) would agree with you is, obviously, false. Zinn is one example, of course, and academic Marxists the world over prove this assertion to be baseless.

I have to notice that you don't quote Marx at all in your response. How unfortunate for you. After all, you're the one who made the claim, and now you're dithering about backing it up. I'm not surprised, of course, but I'm amused.

Again very unfortunately, the question, Agusto, isn't what I've read or not, and I will resist any childish attempt by you to change the subject, as is your pattern. The question, may I remind you, is why you think Marx was Utopian when he clearly wasn't. Hell, Agusto, I'll even give you a very large hint, because you're so very pathetic. Utopianism involves essentialist thinking. Now, with that hint, I expect a proper reply. Okay?

Saying that some anonymous "anyone" would agree with you isn't an argument, Agusto. And this isn't about what I've read and what I haven't read. Is this clear?

You claim that Marx is Utopian.

Now, back that up, please. Quoting Marx, with whom you imply your familiar, would help. At least stating some philosophical principles that could be considered Utopian would be a start.

Are you able to do this? Or were you lying yet again?

vox

(Edited by vox at 10:07 pm on Nov. 7, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

Let us begin:

First off Marx's theory of progress opens up an obvious and vast utopia that will result in "REAL human freedom" being achieved for the first time.
His theory is grounded on two basic assumptions about capitalism. The first is that capitalism naturally hems the forces of production, actually all empirical evidence points to the contrarty. The second is that it is a system of power in which the rich rob the poor of "real freedom". This is easily refutable because it is apparent especially in America, the home of the most unbridled capitalism, that class distinctions are fluid, and class mobility is possible. I digress, Marx's feels that communism is the neccessary condition for achieving true freedom and therefore for overcoming these two conditions of capitalism.
Well it is rather unneccessary to mention that Marx adheres to a tremendous and IDEALIZED notion that changing methods of ownership will increase production indefinately. In otherwords Marx feels that capitalism is bad because it hampers production and robs the workers of "true freedom", he feels that communism will fix this, so it will give the workers true freedom and allow production to increase forever. Say what? I've found nothing in Das Kapital that explained how communism will allow production to grow indefinately. It seems Marx succumbs to the thought of the day and the idealization of material advancement under a system of social ownership, he actually shares this belief with the Utopian Saint-Simonians.
After reading Marx it seems that one of his major economic influences was David Ricardo. So let us begin with the relationship between Marx's economic theory and Ricardo's. Ricardo defines three economic stages for states. The first which Ricardo calls the 'progressive' is one in which capital investment rates out pace population growth rates and workers wages increase. This analysis reappears in Marx's work, yet it is greatly modified. Since none of his states show an improvement we will concentrate on his progressive state, in which he differs with Ricardo.
Marx calls the progressive state on of "complicated misery" (Marx and Engels, Gesamtausgabe, ed. V.Adoratsky. Berlin 1932 p.42). Yet in Marx, like in Ricardo, this is a state of vast accumulation of capital, a high rate of profit and high level of wages. Marx believed that these "rising wages excite in workers a capitalistic longing for enrichment which can be realized only by the workers sacrifice of body and soul." (Marx and Engels p. 42). The rise in capital brings about rising wages but it also brings increased competition for work and causes overwork and ever increasing wages.
Eventually these increasing wages bring forth industrialization and the replacement of labor with machinery, this brings wages back down to levels of existence. Yet if, according to his views demand for labor on the whole exceeds the supply (Marx and Engels p. 42) it is hard to see how he reached this conclusion, because he doesn't explain how this comes about, as a matter of fact empirical evidence shows otherwise. As nations modernize labor is freed up for more valuable endeavors, from agriculture, to textiles, to light industry, to heavy industry, to information and financial services.
Marx also felt that any artificial increases in wage "would only be an improvement in the payment of slaves and would acquire neither for the worker nor for labor its essential human destiny and dignity." (Marx and Engels p.92). It seems that Marx frowns upon any pragmatic resolutions, even those proposed by socialists, to the problem he invented in favor of his historical idealized and UTOPIAN view.
The reason for this is that for Marx the misery caused by capitalism is not due to diminishing returns (increasing costs) and the stress of overpopulation, which is what modern economists see as Macro economic problems. Rather Marx, as every student knows, attributed these phenomena to "inexorable laws" that were peculiar to capitalism. To explain these inoxerable laws Marx dismisses the oft-proven Law of Diminishing returns to capital and the very real concept of desirable technological progress.
Marx states that "No capitalist voluntarily introduces a new method of production, no matter how much it may increase the rate of surplus-value, so long as it reduces the rate of profit." (Marx, Capital, ed. Engels, Chicago 1909, p 293). The problem is that capitalist seek to maximize not the rate of profit, but total profits. This means that the fear of lowering the rate of profit does not exist. Again Marx dismisses sound economics for his UTOPIAN vision.
In his observations on science on technology Marx dismisses one of the crucial problems of economics, that is that: the creation new technologies, in capitalist or communist societies require capital investment. This means that societies must post-pone consumption today, in order to create something that will benefit it tommorow. Marx either did not have a theory that fit reality, or his outlook was based on the erroneous Labor Theory of Value and his unscientific UTOPIAN notion. Marx believed that only durable capital goods, machines, represented stored-up labor. He fails to note the limits to the use of machinery when he states, "that less labour must be expended in producing the machinery than is displaced by the employment of that machinery." (Capital 1 p. 428). Ofcourse if this were the case it would be infinetely cheap to create technology, something we know is not true. Anybody who introduces new machinery because it "saves more labour than its manufacture required" would be a fool because they neglected interest as a cost. (Barbara wootton, Plan or No Plan, London 1934, p 96.)
In Marx's communist UTOPIA the problems of capitalism disappear. The problems of economic scarcity would disappear to dimensions unfathomable in capitalism,and income would be redistributed according to "need" rather than relative productive contribution (Marx, The Critique of the Gotha Program, trans. Lothrop, in International Socialist Review VIII, 1907-8, p.641-60).
To Marx the end would also be a society in which everyone will be able to perform any kind of work, "to develop himself in any sphere he chooses...to do one thing today, another tommorro, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, attend cattle in the evening...be a hunter, fisherman, herdsman or a critical critic." (Marx and Engels, Gesamtausgabe, V, Part I, 22).
In that statement Marx reveals that communism would abolish the 'division of labor', in doing so he appears to realize that the division of labor brings about a power structure in which some are better off than others. Marx seems to realize that differences in knowledge contribute to unequal economic power, yet he lets go of this idea quickly. It seems he was to enamoured of his UTOPIAN view that lack of 'real freedom' are caused solely by private property and the division of labor.(Gesamtousgabe, V, Part I, 22).
This was merely some of the economic Utopianism displayed by Marx. While stating that his 'communism' is founded on scientific and un-Utopian priciples, Marx's theories are ripe with un-scientific, Utopian analysis.

[vox]

Comrades,

It is a glorious day, for the ever elusive Agusto has actually responded (though not very well) to a question I posed!

Let us see how Agusto twists and turns in order to refute Marx:

His first mistake is that he claims Marx believed that capitalism "is bad because it hampers production." This, however, is not the case at all. Indeed, Agusto's "any student" has surely read a book as basic as the Manifesto, in which Marx and Engels write of the incredible expansion of production in a capitalist system. I have to tell you, brothers and sisters, that I was very surprised to see Agusto making such a claim! You will notice that, though Agusto quotes Marx and Engels in his post (which seems to be gathered from a textbook), he does not use a quote to support his preposterous claim that Marx and Engels believed that capitalism "hampers production." Indeed, Marx wrote that "[T]he bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production." Further, "[T]he need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere."

Marx did not at all argue against the productive capabilities of capitalism, but rather felt this a necessarry step in the future of humankind.

This is not, of course, the first time a capitalist apologist has outright lied about Marx, and it won't be the last. Such is the feebleness of their argument, comrades, that they must lie about their opponent in order to defeat him.

Agusto claims that "increasing wages bring forth industrialization and the replacement of labor with machinery," but it is not wages, but competition between capitalists that cause this, which is why capitalist production must constantly be revolutionized. If Capitalist A can produce a product more cheaply than Capitalist B, his competitor, then he will increase his profit even without gaining share! If this change means that that productivity is increased, then he can have fewer laborers, thereby increasing profit. It is not high wages that drives the revolution of production, but the capitalist's lust for higher profits and lower wages. For Agusto to misrepresent that is to alter the entire realm of capitalist economics.

Agusto continues "Yet if, according to his views demand for labor on the whole exceeds the supply (Marx and Engels p. 42) it is hard to see how he reached this conclusion, because he doesn't explain how this comes about, as a matter of fact empirical evidence shows otherwise."

It's clear that Agusto's "confusion" is a direct result of his earlier misrepresentation. Though he assures us that "empirical evidence" supports his claim, none is provided! After misrepresenting Marx, he then claims that Marx doesn't make sense based on this misrepresentation? Perhaps Agusto thinks we are fools that can't read, but he would be wrong. It's very clear that increases in production do not lead to higher wages, though Agusto has made that claim many times, but to a decrease in the labor-power needed to sustain production for the benefit of the capitalist.

Agusto then goes on to say that "[A]s nations modernize labor is freed up for more valuable endeavors, from agriculture, to textiles, to light industry, to heavy industry, to information and financial services."

This is too rich! Agusto has just admitted that an increase in efficiency, obtained through "modernization," means people are fired! How else is labor "freed up?" He then goes on to make a value judgment about labor, saying some labor is "more valuable" than others. He does not, however, seem to realize that all of this labor would be taking place in the same society, with the same capitalist relations that allowed labor to be "freed up" in the first place!

The mind boggles at this level of capitalist idiocy.

Agusto blames Marx for not wanting a "pragmatic" solution to a problem that he insists Marx himself invented, but nowhere, of course, does Agusto talk about Smith realizing many of the same problems.

However, let us be kind and take Agusto at his word. To do this, we must wind through his scattered thoughts, but I sincerely want people to be able to follow my thinking, so I will quote him in full:

"The reason for this is that for Marx the misery caused by capitalism is not due to diminishing returns (increasing costs) and the stress of overpopulation, which is what modern economists see as Macro economic problems. Rather Marx, as every student knows, attributed these phenomena to "inexorable laws" that were peculiar to capitalism. To explain these inoxerable laws Marx dismisses the oft-proven Law of Diminishing returns to capital and the very real concept of desirable technological progress.

For readers who do not know what the law of diminishing returns is, I provide this definition from the Columbia Encyclopedia:

"in economics, law stating that if one factor of production is increased while the others remain constant, the overall returns will relatively decrease after a certain point. Thus, for example, if more and more laborers are added to harvest a wheat field, at some point each additional laborer will add relatively less output than his predecessor did, simply because he has less and less of the fixed amount of land to work with. The principle, first thought to apply only to agriculture, was later accepted as an economic law underlying all productive enterprise. The point at which the law begins to operate is difficult to ascertain, as it varies with improved production technique and other factors. Anticipated by Anne Robert Jacques Turgot and implied by Thomas Malthus in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), the law first came under examination during the discussions in England on free trade and the corn laws. It is also called the law of decreasing returns and the law of variable proportions."

Agusto wishes us to believe that this well known concept is dismissed by Marx, but that's not the case. Rather, the question isn't about this concept, but about the misery created by capitalist social relations, and nowhere, comrades, has Agusto shown how this misery is to be avoided. He wants to dismiss the inexorable laws of capitalist production, but he doesn't say why, or how, or even what they are! And guess what, the law of diminishing returns is one of the concepts, one of many, that exist in a capitalist system which works against the laborer.

Agusto picks and chooses what he wishes to include and exclude, what he wishes to give great importance and what he wishes to dismiss, but the fact is that capitalist economic principles are what Marx was talking about when he talked of the "inexorable laws" of capitalist social relations and production.

It's beyond me how Agusto missed that.

"Marx states that "No capitalist voluntarily introduces a new method of production, no matter how much it may increase the rate of surplus-value, so long as it reduces the rate of profit." (Marx, Capital, ed. Engels, Chicago 1909, p 293). The problem is that capitalist seek to maximize not the rate of profit, but total profits. This means that the fear of lowering the rate of profit does not exist. Again Marx dismisses sound economics for his UTOPIAN vision."

Agusto again misses the point, which is so common perhaps I should stop commenting upon it.

If a capitalist can buy a machine which will increase surplus-value, and therefore lower labor costs, but is very expensive and there is no guarantee that total profits will be realized, though the rate of profit will surely go down, would the capitalist make this investment? Surely not. Surplus-value can increase without a parallel increase in total profits, of course, and Agusto must accept this theory of surplus-value or else he would not quote Marx in this instance. If, on the other hand, Agusto would like to reject this theory, then the use of Marx here is disingenuous.

"In his observations on science on technology Marx dismisses one of the crucial problems of economics, that is that: the creation new technologies, in capitalist or communist societies require capital investment. This means that societies must post-pone consumption today, in order to create something that will benefit it tommorow. Marx either did not have a theory that fit reality, or his outlook was based on the erroneous Labor Theory of Value and his unscientific UTOPIAN notion. Marx believed that only durable capital goods, machines, represented stored-up labor. He fails to note the limits to the use of machinery when he states, "that less labour must be expended in producing the machinery than is displaced by the employment of that machinery." (Capital 1 p. 428). Ofcourse if this were the case it would be infinetely cheap to create technology, something we know is not true. Anybody who introduces new machinery because it "saves more labour than its manufacture required" would be a fool because they neglected interest as a cost. (Barbara wootton, Plan or No Plan, London 1934, p 96.)"

Hee!

I'm pink with glee, comrades. Agusto has given us a paragraph rich with corrupted thinking.

Nowhere does Agusto back up his ridiculous notion that Marx didn't realize that new technologies require capital invstment. Agusto doesn't even make an attempt!

He goes on to distort what Marx said, and this is where vox has much fun.

Agusto writes, "fails to note the limits to the use of machinery when he states, "that less labour must be expended in producing the machinery than is displaced by the employment of that machinery." (Capital 1 p. 428). Ofcourse if this were the case it would be infinetely cheap to create technology, something we know is not true."

However, Agusto fails to connect the dots. I could make you a sock-making machine, for we have this technology, and sell it to you for a very large sum of money, or you could buy socks (Agusto loves the sock merchant, you know) at the store. However, my sock-making machine contains the "stored up" labor of countless people, who created the steel, cut the parts, wove the thread, etc. But the sock that you buy at the store does not have all of that concrete labor in it. Agusto wishes us to believe that the sock is the sock-making machine itself, but Agusto is an essentialist.

Marx, on the other hand, said that "less labour must be expended in producing the machinery than is displaced by the employment of that machinery." What this means is that it's not practical, for the capitalist, to buy a machine that costs more than the labor it displaces. This is not a hard concept.

Agusto, somehow, wishes to tie it to the actual process of creation of new tachnologies. He fails, once again.

Agusto wrote these two paragraphs to play off of one another, and the result is the kind of murky thinking I, and perhaps some of you, have come to expect from him:

"To Marx the end would also be a society in which everyone will be able to perform any kind of work, "to develop himself in any sphere he chooses...to do one thing today, another tommorro, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, attend cattle in the evening...be a hunter, fisherman, herdsman or a critical critic." (Marx and Engels, Gesamtausgabe, V, Part I, 22).

"In that statement Marx reveals that communism would abolish the 'division of labor', in doing so he appears to realize that the division of labor brings about a power structure in which some are better off than others. Marx seems to realize that differences in knowledge contribute to unequal economic power, yet he lets go of this idea quickly. It seems he was to enamoured of his UTOPIAN view that lack of 'real freedom' are caused solely by private property and the division of labor.(Gesamtousgabe, V, Part I, 22)."

Comrades, I almost hate to say it, but I have to. Once again, Agusto lies about Marx.

Let's see what Marx himself had to say about the division of labor:

"That co-operation which is based on division of labour, assumes its typical form in manufacture, and is the prevalent characteristic form of the capitalist process of production throughout the manufacturing period properly so called. That period, roughly speaking, extends from the middle of the 16th to the last third of the 18th century.

"Manufacture takes its rise in two ways:

"(1.) By the assemblage, in one workshop under the control of a single capitalist, of labourers belonging to various independent handicrafts, but through whose hands a given article must pass on its way to completion. A carriage, for example, was formerly the product of the labour of a great number of independent artificers, such as wheelwrigths, harness-makers, tailors, locksmiths, upholsterers, turners, fringe-makers, glaziers, painters, polishers, gilders, &c. In the manufacture of carriages, however, all these different artificers are assembled in one building where they work into one another's hands. It is true that a carriage cannot be gilt before it has been made. But if a number of carriages are being made simultaneously, some may be in the hands of the gilders while others are going through an earlier process. So far, we are still in the domain of simple co-operation, which finds its materials ready to hand in the shape of men and things. But very soon an important change takes place. The tailor, the locksmith, and the other artificers, being now exclusively occupied in carriage-making, each gradually loses, through want of practice, the ability to carry on, to its full extent, his old handicraft. But, on the other hand, his activity now confined in one groove, assumes the form best adapted to the narrowed sphere of action. At first, carriage manufacture is a combination of various independent handicrafts. By degrees, it becomes the splitting up of carriage-making into its various detail processes, each of which crystallises into the exclusive function of a particular workman, the manufacture, as a whole, being carried on by the men in conjunction. In the same way, cloth manufacture, as also a whole series of other manufactures, arose by combining different handicrafts together under the control of a single capitalist.

"(2.) Manufacture also arises in a way exactly the reverse of this namely, by one capitalist employing simultaneously in one workshop a number of artificers, who all do the same, or the same kind of work, such as making paper, type, or needles. This is co-operation in its most elementary form. Each of these artificers (with the help, perhaps, of one or two apprentices), makes the entire commodity, and he consequently performs in succession all the operations necessary for its production. He still works in his old handicraft-like way. But very soon external circumstances cause a different use to be made of the concentration of the workmen on one spot, and of the simultaneousness of their work. An increased quantity of the article has perhaps to be delivered within a given time. The work is therefore re-distributed. Instead of each man being allowed to perform all the various operations in succession, these operations are changed into disconnected, isolated ones, carried on side by side; each is assigned to a different artificer, and the whole of them together are performed simultaneously by the co-operating workmen. This accidental repartition gets repeated, develops advantages of its own, and gradually ossifies into a systematic division of labour. The commodity, from being the individual product of an independent artificer, becomes the social product of a union of artificers, each of whom performs one, and only one, of the constituent partial operations. The same operations which, in the case of a papermaker belonging to a German Guild, merged one into the other as the successive acts of one artificer, became in the Dutch paper manufacture so many partial operations carried on side by side by numerous co-operating labourers. The needlemaker of the Nuremberg Guild was the cornerstone on which the English needle manufacture was raised. But while in Nuremberg that single artificer performed a series of perhaps 20 operations one after another, in England it was not long before there were 20 needlemakers side by side, each performing one alone of those 20 operations, and in consequence of further experience, each of those 20 operations was again split up, isolated, and made the exclusive function of a separate workman"

That's the beginning of Chapter 14 of Capital, which you can read in full here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...867-c1/ch14.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm)

Agusto forces the idea that division of labor is based upon knowledge, but that's not at all the case. In fact, division of labor limits people.

Marx consistently came out for human development, and the ability to develop oneself, which requires a society in which that is possible for all people, at any time. Clearly, capitalism does not provide the social relations for that. I've said it before, and I'll say it now, Marxism is a humanism.

However, Agusto is wrong when he says that it's the division of labor itself that "brings about a power structure in which some are better off than others." It is not this division of labor but the division of labor coupled with DEFINITE SOCIAL RELATIONS. To say that the division of labor causes anything, by itself, is an essentialist argument, but to see how it is applied in a certain society, and its effect within that society, is the kind of empirical study that Marx did. Indeed, it's the great productivity of capitalist production that will allow the time for the development of all, which is the development of each.

The only way Agusto was able to respond was by misrepresenting Marx, the same as he has so often misrepresented my statements.

Comrades, you can make up your own minds about Marx, but do not, ever, listen to the foul lies which issue from Agusto.

vox

[Moskitto]

Well they published "le livre noir de communisme" then published it in english. Which calculates the death toll from hoax communism to be slightly over 100 million.

But you can buy it's parallel (in French) "Le Livre Noir de Capitalisme" from http://www.amazon.fr under books in french obviously which calculates how capitalism has caused 300 million deaths.

Also there's the Black books of Inquisition, Colonialism, Humanity, Prostitution, virtually anything.

But they wouldn't publish any of those in english because corporate fat-cats don't want people to know they embrace a murderous economic system.

[Anonymous]

I very much liked your post vox, marx is some times difficult to understand and you helped clear some things up.