[STUDY GROUP] Principles of Communism

[Ander]

This is my first time directing a study group so if anyone has any questions, suggestions, or concerns, please voice them to me. I think that since this work is in question and answer format, we should handle one pair at a time. Exceptions can be made if there are questions which are very short or are unnecessary to explain.

An online copy of the text can be found here. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) Remember to read the footnotes when you come to them, also there is an introduction and some basic background information down at the bottom of the page if you wish to read it.

Let's begin, shall we?

The Principles of Communism
Frederick Engels, 1847.

1)What is Communism?
Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.
This first quote is quite self-explanatory. Communism is the position or principle we must embrace in order to liberate the proletariat. Easy enough.


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.
Again, not difficult. Engels tells us that the proletariat is another word for the working class. This class basically exists for one purpose: to provide labour for others. The proletariat does not make profit; again, their sole reason for existence is to work.


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.
Here Engels says that while there has always been poor and oppressed people, they existed with different names in other forms of production. For example, in the feudal system the classes were divided as lord and serf; in slavery, master and slave, etc. Then the working class became known as the proletariat, the relationship between ruler and ruled changed and we entered the capitalist mode of production.

Any other interpretations? Questions? Go ahead and tell us what you think.

[R_P_A_S]

are we still proletariat? or is there an other name for the worker in the 21st century?

[RNK]

Yes, we're still proletariat. Our society has certainly changed since Engel's day -- he couldn't envision the sectors of industry and commerce we have now -- but the majority of us still sell our labour to an employer in return for a wage (and have no choice but to do so).

[Ander]

This is somewhat debateable, but I believe that the proletariat still exists. The relationship between worker and employer hasn't changed too much and we are still in the same capitalist mode of production. True, there are some minor benefits such as minimum wage and whatnot, but the working class still sells itself to survive.

Some may argue otherwise, although I've never experienced this, only heard of it.

Everything good so far? I'll wait for tomorrow/more answers until I move onto the next point.

[( R )evolution]

I personally believe that we are still proletariat because proletariat is the worker of the capitalist system. We are still living in a very capitalist society, even if it has changed since Engles time there is still much exploitation and oppression of the worker. The proletariat , in my opinion, will not change unless we have an economic system change. The serf was tied to the feudal system, just as the proletariat is tied to the capitalist system. It will not change until we have a revolution to destroy the old system and establish a new system.

To the people who are new to communism, please post in this thread if you have any questions/comments. Reading the The Principles of Communism is your benefit and understanding. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask (you are only gonna understand is if you clear up any problems you are having with understanding this stuff)

Jello, thank you for starting this and hopefully it will stay active and we can move onto more shit like the manifesto and das kapital. Thanks mate.

[R_P_A_S]

what about self employed people. for example sometimes I make music and sell it to people.
besides my job.

[Rawthentic]

I'm not sure about self-employed people. For example, if you have a home office job for some business or corporation, I believe that would make you petty-bourgeois. I don't know about selling CDs though.

[RASHskins]

No RPAS you are still proletariat cause you have said your job is for the music industry i think. He is not petty bourgeois because he does not have any workers under him or working at an equal level as him.

[RASHskins]

Jello i don't really consider minimum wage an improvement. Minimum wage is calculated as the amount of money to barely sustain human life. And now minimum wage can barely sustain that.

[Herman]

There are several differences from the proletarians of the 19th century and todays proletarians.

The basic tenet that a worker is forced into labour due to needing the wage in order to survive is still applicable, but it has been expanded and improved for the first world countries. It's the third world countries which really suffer the problems of the 19th century proletarians.

[RNK]

No RPAS you are still proletariat cause you have said your job is for the music industry i think.

Semi-self employed people were what Marx and Engels defined as "manufacturing workers" and "handicraftsmen". People who still by and large owned their own tools and supported themselves with their own limited production abilities which were, naturally, far less efficient than the productive abilities of the big capitalists.


Jello i don't really consider minimum wage an improvement. Minimum wage is calculated as the amount of money to barely sustain human life. And now minimum wage can barely sustain that.

Yes, minimum wage isn't really an improvement. It's the bare essentials needed to live, and one of the principles of capitalism is that workers are given just enough to assure their continued existence so that they may work for the big capitalists. The other benefits workers have managed to squeeze out of capitalism -- pensions, health benefits, etc etc -- only exist on account of the struggles workers have fought. They are not "benefits" so much as they are bargaining tools, a tactic to disarm the revolutionary spirit of the workers by fulfilling their most immediate demands and needs.

And interesting point about the "small manufacturer", handicraftsmen, etc, is that Marx and Engels predicted that these workers would soon die out and be assimilated into the proletariat proper... I don't believe this has occured, though not because of any error in judgement on their part but rather due to an underestimation of the will of people to be free of capitalist chains. Our society is still filled with small-time "business" owners and handicraftsmen, whether its that guy on the street selling his paintings or pottery or little decorative widgets, or people in the independant music scene who record, produce and distribute their own music, etc. Essentially they are workers who have found ways to struggle against capitalism (although for the most part their productive abilities and ability to generate capital from their small-time enterprises is limited, every so often we hear of a small-time manufacturing worker who "makes it big", hits on a commodity which fills a niche in society, and makes millions from it -- and thereby they become a capitalist).

What are others' take on this?

[BobKKKindle$]

a tactic to disarm the revolutionary spirit of the workers by fulfilling their most immediate demands and needs.

I think we can draw upon other parts of Socialist theory in explaining legislation such as the minimum wage; most notably Lenin's State and Revolution. I interpret legislation that gives the workers a minimum degree of economic security, especially the minimum wage, as part of the state's role to mediate class struggle, given that, according to Lenin, the state arises from the irreconciliability of the class antagonism. As you point out, the minimun wage is an improvement within the framework of Capitalism and it prevents workers from trying to achieve a revolutionary re-structuring of society, because it raises their conditions to a suitable level and gives the illussion that the Capitalist system can accomadate change that reduces the exploitation of workers.

In relation to the point regarding the petty-bourgeoisie, I think what Marx and Engels actually said was that it was inevitable that every member of the Petty-bourgeoisie, would join one of the other two classes - in the event that a small enterprise is successful and grows to the point where the owner needs to employ others (and, in doing so, purchases their labour-power as a commodity) the petty-bourgeois would be considered part of the Bourgeosie. In the event that the enterprise fails, the petty-bourgeois will have to find an additional way of ensuring his survival, and thus will become part of the proletariat (or possibly the lumpen-proletariat). Just because this movement to another class will occur, does not mean over time no new enterprises will be created - as a successful business offers many considerable advantages. Rather, a petty-bourgeois will not maintain the petty-bourgeois class position for a long period of time.

[RNK]

Very good points.

Is it possible for petit-bourgeoisie, or rather, people who own a limited amount of their own productive ability, to exist indefinately? Obviously in the capitalist sense they form a threat to proletarian interests -- many petit-bourgeois are just "mini-capitalists", waiting for their big "break" in order to join the capitalist class. But many others pursue their own enterprise as a way to fight against the capitalist system, to remove themselves from labour-servitude but never meaning to themselves become a fully-fledged bourgeois. But in the socialist sense, ie, in a socialist, and communist, system, what role would these petit-bourgeoisie take? (Again, I see it as two-fold; some petit-bourgeois may be content with simply owning their own productive ability, while others will attempt to expand that into owning others'.)

[R_P_A_S]

is it safe to say that with the growth of capitalism and the free market more proletariats can now move towards "financial freedom" by setting up their own businesses and with the growth of e-commerce?

obviously this is only in the 1st world countries.

[RNK]

No. It's somewhat cyclical. Many proletarians can move that way, but few ever actually reach any level of self-reliance. For the vast majority it's a pipedream, and fails, and they simply re-join the proletariat with bruised spirits and a lot of debt. Part of the strategy of capitalism is that they've developed this fairy-tale image that the people can free themselves from their chains simply by "working hard" to become a capitalist themselves. So long as they sell this image, and people keep buying it, it keeps the people sedated to the reality of their bondage... but it definately does not offer any sort of real freedom. Not for 99% of those who try.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by RNK+--> (RNK)Is it possible for petit-bourgeoisie, or rather, people who own a limited amount of their own productive ability, to exist indefinately? Obviously in the capitalist sense they form a threat to proletarian interests -- many petit-bourgeois are just "mini-capitalists", waiting for their big "break" in order to join the capitalist class. But many others pursue their own enterprise as a way to fight against the capitalist system, to remove themselves from labour-servitude but never meaning to themselves become a fully-fledged bourgeois. But in the socialist sense, ie, in a socialist, and communist, system, what role would these petit-bourgeoisie take? (Again, I see it as two-fold; some petit-bourgeois may be content with simply owning their own productive ability, while others will attempt to expand that into owning others'.[/b]

Marx and Engels has answered this in Communist Manifesto


Originally posted by The Communist [email protected] 2 Proletarians and Communists
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour,
which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal
freedom, activity and in-dependence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property
that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the
development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is
still destroying it daily.


RNK
Again, I see it as two-fold; some petit-bourgeois may be content with simply owning their own productive ability, while others will attempt to expand that into owning others'.

It is impossible in my opinion. Petty Bourgeoisie rely on profit. So they automatically take the other side in the class struggle. This over-reliance on the petty bourgeoisie is the reason for the degeneration of the CPC in China.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:51 pm
is it safe to say that with the growth of capitalism and the free market more proletariats can now move towards "financial freedom" by setting up their own businesses and with the growth of e-commerce?

obviously this is only in the 1st world countries.
As RNK stated, capitalism is much like a big lottery; for ever winner there are millions of losers. It is in the nature of capitalism to create that dream like a tale of working hard to get rich but in fact very few proletariat are able to do this. The makeup of western society will never allow for a full class of bourgeois based off of the exploitation of 3rd world workers because, in the nature of capitalism, those proletariat who are trying to become bourgeoisie will never be able to do this because of the domination of already bourgeoisie.

[CodeAires]

Many are still bottom-feeders, especially in the poorest countries. I feel sadness over the fact that many who start out as Proletarians and say they're going to make a change for "socialist" ideals wind up becoming ony Bourgeoisie Socialists, something that Marx defiantly wretched at.

The middle and upper classes for whatever reasons seem drawn to Marxist ideas, much in the way that Mohammed was a privelidged man who gave it all up to fight for those on the bottom. This is essentially what Che was, as well as both Castro brothers. Weird situation, seeing as how these are the people who ushered in more rights for the common man than previously existed. What do you think?

[UndergroundConnexion]

Question 1 .

Here Engels basically states the simple aim of communism (total liberation of the proletariat). A reminder of what we strive to achieve, and that communism is the doctrine to achieve this.

Question 2.
Here Engels explains what the poleratriat is.
So in that case any class , or individual that:
lives entirely from the sale of his labor.... etc.
Simply defines what the proletariat is.

Question 3 - Basically tells us that there have not always been proletarians. This answer leas us directly to the next question. Also indicates that there is a difference between what was before the bourgeoisie, thus in the feudal times (freeman and serf).

As stated above, the worker in 3rd world countries, most ressemble the proletarian of the 19th century. I am particulary thinking about the ones in Asia, assembling shoes and such, who have no option but work in terrbile conditions or perish

[Ander]

This study is already being severely derailed. Discussion pertaining to the work in question is greatly encouraged but any moving off of topic is not welcome. There is no reason to be quoting the Manifesto if the study group hasn't even reached it yet. Please work hard to keep on track, it'll make this easier to get through with. Thank you :)

Good job UndergroundConnexion, you summed up the main points perfectly.

Now to keep this going and protect from going off topic:


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.
As Engels said before, the proletariat has not always existed; it came to be post-1850.

His reasoning for this is that the Industrial Revolution had a massive effect on society and economics. It changed the regular economy based on manual labour to one worked by machines and factories. As new technologies were discovered, such as the steam engine, improved spinning machines, mechanical loom and others, work became more efficient. These new inventions, however, could not be afforded by the working class, they were far too expensive! Of course, the only ones who had enough money to buy them were the rich, and so the entire means of production fell easily into the hands of the capitalists. This is when the working class was forced to work in factories by their capitalist employers.

Engels goes on to tell us that as this developed, it spread to all of the other industries: textiles, printing, pottery, metal, etc.


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.
These new innovations helped to make labour much more efficient. Now, instead of workers producing one product, each worker would produce their own assigned part of the product. For example, nowadays in an automobile factory, there is one group of workers that operates a machine that only makes tires. Then there is another that makes only windshields, one that makes the body, one that makes the engine, etc. By setting up labour this way, each group specializes in what they are doing and the product can be put together quicker.

This is how all industries came to be dominated by the used of machines and factories, as well as new technologies such as steam power and chemicals.

If you need any more examples or help on this point, please let me know.


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.
As these industries were dominated by these new inventions, these inventions were dominated by the rich capitalists who could afford them. This also meant that any freedom that the workers may have had was lost as they now had to serve their rich masters. The efficiency of the factory system also spelled doom for "small master craftsmen," (the small businessmen of today) and forced them out of business. As these small master craftmen could not afford machinery and factories, they simply could not keep up with the more efficient systems of the big capitalists and were bankrupted.

These "small master craftsmen" can somewhat refer to what RPAS was talking about.


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.
Now Engels wraps up this section by telling us that this when most industries of "civilized countries" (industrialised, first world countries) came to adopt the factory system, the middle class disappeared. What was left were two classes:

-The capitalists, or bourgeoisie, who own the means of production (machinery, factories, etc.)

-The working class, or proletarians, who do not own the means of production and must sell their labour to survive.

[Herman]

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.

I'd say that this is quite simple to understand. The cost for the labour of the proletarian, considered a commodity by itself, because it has use value, exchange value and price, is the same as the price of the commodity, a service offered which satisfies a human need or want. It is kept low, so that production costs are low, hence generating more profit.


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 is very relevant with todays free market economy and especially Lenin's theory of imperialism. The fact that a worker may get more or less depending solely on the state of the market is proof that his life depends, as Engels puts it, '...on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition.'

[UndergroundConnexion]

4- How did the proletarian originate

Here Engels explains the origines of the proletariat :

"The proletariat originated in the industrial revolution"

Folowing this he explains how the technological innovation created the porletariat and the bourgeoisie, and how it make the bourgeoisie the opressing class because they got all the tools of production in their hands. Engels goes on to explain the changes of labor that were brought by the brought by the industrial revolution :

"reduced the activity of the individual worker to simple endlessly repeated mechanical motions".

Next Engels goes to explain how small handicrafts also got into capitalists hands.

Next he also explains how handicraftsmen have been ruined by this industrialization.

A modern day example of this might be your local artisanal village baker: often they are forced to close down because the "fabric made" bread that is bought in the closeby massive mall is cheaper.



The principles as we can see does indeed prove as an interesting read, and we can only hope of a good continuation of our sutdy group.

[CodeAires]

Strange, I thought that a proletarian class had somewhat existed before 1850. In any case, this is very useful. I feel so green being here, and I need to be educated. Thanks for threads like this that make it a little more easy!

It's simple, really - worker exploitation and cheap products can be seen anywhere and everywhere. It permiates everyday life.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think the historical changes that Engels describes show the 'inspiration' for Marx's materialist conception of History. Changes in the forces of production (in this case, advances in technology that allow for the mass production of industrial and consumer goods) have resulted in changes in the relations of production (the economic structure and organisation of society in terms of the division of the population into classes that have defined characteristics) eventually leading to the formation of a new mode of production, with class conflict playing an important role in the qualitative transition. It's a shame that Engels does not discuss the class-struggles took place. From what I know, peasants were forced off their land in order to make way for industrial development and became part of the Urban proletariat - in a similar way to what is occurring in China today. Perhaps some one can elaborate in this point?

[CodeAires]

^ I agree. China is basically doing what is against their so-called Marxist principles by moving people around without their own will and imposing imperialism on nations like Tibet, Ugyur, and Manchuria.

[UndergroundConnexion]

Question 5 was already answered by Redherman above, I propose we continue.


— 6 —
What working classes were there before the industrial revolution?

The working classes have always, according to the different stages of development of society, lived in different circumstances and had different relations to the owning and ruling classes.

In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.

In the Middle Ages, they were the serfs of the land-owning nobility, as they still are in Hungary, Poland, and Russia. In the Middle Ages, and indeed right up to the industrial revolution, there were also journeymen in the cities who worked in the service of petty bourgeois masters. Gradually, as manufacture developed, these journeymen became manufacturing workers who were even then employed by larger capitalists.


Working class thus also existed before the industrial revolutions, yet not in the form of the proletariat. Engels explains what the working men was doing before becoming the proletariat. Throughout the centuries the occupation of the working man changed.


— 7 —
In what way do proletarians differ from slaves?

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.

The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.

The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.



Here Engels outlines the main differences between a slave and a proletarian. Which are the folowing

Slave
Slave is sold once and for all
Exsistence ensured, because master's interest
Slave is outside competition
The slave does not count as member of society

Proletarians
Has to sell himself daily and hourly
No secure existence.
Proletarian is in competition

Engels also explains that when the slave frees himself from slavery , when aboloshing the relation of slavery, the slave becomes a proletarian. Personally I have I believe that at the time this was absolutely true, because when not belonging to a master no more, thus being free, the slave will become a proletariat aswell, and most frequently one experiencing bad working conditions, due to discrimination and also lack of skills and education. Yet then again you had two kind of slave , like described by malcolm x, the ones in the field , and the ones in the house serving the master. The ones serving the master were most probably more educated. But the house slaves were also the ones defending their master's the most.
Engels underlines that proletarians and slaves are thus one step away from each other.


— 8 —
In what way do proletarians differ from serfs?

The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.

The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.

The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.

The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.

Engels describes the difference between a serf and a prolterian here. Important here is "the proletarian recieves the serf gives up" , as the serf give up what they produced
(primary necesities often), and the proletarian gets the necesities, in order to stay alive. Serfdom was abolished when Engels was still alive, (Emanicpation in Russia, 1861). Yet what I do not agree on is that a serf has a insured existence. When a bad harvest took place, the extistence of a serf comes into question or does it not?




Furthermore I propose that when we are finished with the study of this document, we put the interpretation of each member in a word document and put in online. Right now 1/3 of the questions have been answered. Also it be cool if more people just quote a question/answer and explain/interprate it

[Ander]

RedHerman, please give other readers a chance to go over one section before moving to another. It can become confusing this way, especially for those who are new to this and may have difficult understanding these concepts.

Attention: Anyone who is having trouble with this, needs more explanation on something, or would like to have the study slowed down PLEASE let me know either here or through PM.


Originally posted by bobkindles
It's a shame that Engels does not discuss the class-struggles took place. From what I know, peasants were forced off their land in order to make way for industrial development and became part of the Urban proletariat - in a similar way to what is occurring in China today. Perhaps some one can elaborate in this point?
If you want specifics about this, you should probably take a look at The Condition of the Working Class in England. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/index.htm)

Now, moving on...


5)Under what conditions does this sale of the labour 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.
This might be a little tricky so I'll try to take it slow.

Engels tells us that labour is a commodity, basically an item than can be bought and sold (like wheat, gold, a house, a cellphone, etc.) This may seem complicated, but just think of it this way: if you build something for yourself, maybe a birdhouse for your backyard, the labour you provide is not a commodity. However, if you are building a birdhouse for another person and getting paid for it, your labour is a commodity.

For this reason, the same rules that apply to any commodity apply to labour. In "a regime of big industry or of free competition," aka capitalism, the value of a product is equal to the cost of its production, which is the amount of labour put into producing it. For example, a car is more valuable than say, a basket or a box because more hours of labour were used in its manufacture. This means that the value of labour is equal to what maintains this labour. Since labour comes from a living being, this cost would be the money to provide for the worker who produces the labour.


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.
Now Engels says that the cost of maintaining this labour is exactly the amount of money that will allow a worker to keep working. Basically, just enough money for the worker to provide for himself and possibly his family; the bare minimum that will keep him alive. The wage he makes will be the least that his employers can manage to give him to keep him working; if a worker dies, how is the product going to get made and how is the capitalist going to make money?


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.
Of course, depending on how business is going, the worker can get paid higher amounts of money, or lower, but on average gets paid 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.
And quite obviously, the more capitalist an economy gets, the stricter this policy will be applied.

[Ander]

As 6, 7, and 8 have been taken care of by UndergroundConnexion, I will move on.


9)In what way do proletarians differ from handicraftsmen?
In contrast to the proletarian, the so-called handicraftsman, as he still existed almost everywhere in the past (eighteenth) century and still exists here and there at present, is a proletarian at most temporarily. His goal is to acquire capital himself wherewith to exploit other workers. He can often achieve this goal where guilds still exist or where freedon from guild restrictions has not yet led to the introduction of factory-style methods into the crafts nor yet to fierce competition But as soon as the factory system has been introduced into the crafts and competition flourishes fully, this perspective dwindles away and the handicraftsman becomes more and more a proletarian. The handicraftsman therefore frees himself by becoming either bourgeois or entering the middle class in general, or becoming a proletarian because of competition (as is now more often the case). In which case he can free himself by joining the proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement.
Remember that the handicraftsman is not a proletarian nor bourgeoisie; he is what we would today called the middle class. Therefore, while they do not work entirely for others as proletarians do, they do not have enough wealth to completely own the means of production. The handicraftsman will, however, try to gain money for himself in order to exploit other workers. This goal can be accomplished wherever the "factory system" has not completely taken over and where guilds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild) still exist. Once the "factory system" does become introduced, it becomes difficult for the handicraftsman to do so and he becomes increasingly more associated with the proletariat.

The handicraftsman can either become bourgeois (through a guild), remain middle class, or join the proletariat as the "factory system" bankrupts him. If he does end up become a proletarian, he has the chance to free himself by joining the communist cause.


10)In what way do proletarians differ from manufacturing workers?
The manufacturing worker of the 16th to the 18th centuries still had, with but few exception, an instrument of production in his own possession – his loom, the family spinning wheel, a little plot of land which he cultivated in his spare time. The proletarian has none of these things.

The manufacturing worker almost always lives in the countryside and in a more or less patriarchal relation to his landlord or employer; the proletarian lives, for the most part, in the city and his relation to his employer is purely a cash relation.

The manufacturing worker is torn out of his patriarchal relation by big industry, loses whatever property he still has, and in this way becomes a proletarian.
The main differences between the proletariat and the manufacturing workers were that prior to the Industrial Revolution, workers owned their own tools of production. After the discovery of new technology and equipment, industry relied on factories and machinery which only the rich capitalists could afford. The proletarians used the tools of their employers to work while previously the manufacturing workers would use their own.

The manufacturing worker, who had the "liberty" of working from or close to home did not have to travel far, if at all, to work. They could produce their quota from home, as they had their own equipment. Proletarians, on the other hand, are regularly forced to live in the city so that travel to and from work is inexpensive and short. We must remember that city life at this time was far from pleasant; crowding, lack of hygiene, and other problems plagued city dwellers.

Don't be confused by the use of the word "patriarchal." What Engels basically means is that while the manufacturing worker has more freedom from his boss (relies on his own tools, can work more or less where he likes, etc.) the proletarian is completely subservient to his employer.

As big industry and factories take over, the manufacturing worker begins to disappear and joins the proletariat.


As UC said, I would like it if others tried to interpret this text as well. And if not, at least give me some feedback as to if you are understanding or whatnot.

[Janus]

China is basically doing what is against their so-called Marxist principles by moving people around without their own will and imposing imperialism on nations like Tibet, Ugyur, and Manchuria.
:blink: Tibet, Xinjiang, and Manchuria are all part of China. That's comparable to saying that the US is forcing its people to move around and imposing imperialism on Maine, Texas, and California.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:31 pm

For this reason, the same rules that apply to any commodity apply to labour. In "a regime of big industry or of free competition," aka capitalism, the value of a product is equal to the cost of its production, which is the amount of labour put into producing it. For example, a car is more valuable than say, a basket or a box because more hours of labour were used in its manufacture. This means that the value of labour is equal to what maintains this labour. Since labour comes from a living being, this cost would be the money to provide for the worker who produces the labour.


But what about the cost of the resources that are used to produce a product? If a resources is rarer or hard to get to than wouldn't the price of the product rise with no correlation to the price of labour ? If the demand for a product is high enough and the resources to make the product cost a lot of money than that would be the reason the product is considered more valuable?

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:14 pm



9)In what way do proletarians differ from handicraftsmen?
In contrast to the proletarian, the so-called handicraftsman, as he still existed almost everywhere in the past (eighteenth) century and still exists here and there at present, is a proletarian at most temporarily. His goal is to acquire capital himself wherewith to exploit other workers. He can often achieve this goal where guilds still exist or where freedon from guild restrictions has not yet led to the introduction of factory-style methods into the crafts nor yet to fierce competition But as soon as the factory system has been introduced into the crafts and competition flourishes fully, this perspective dwindles away and the handicraftsman becomes more and more a proletarian. The handicraftsman therefore frees himself by becoming either bourgeois or entering the middle class in general, or becoming a proletarian because of competition (as is now more often the case). In which case he can free himself by joining the proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement.
Remember that the handicraftsman is not a proletarian nor bourgeoisie; he is what we would today called the middle class. Therefore, while they do not work entirely for others as proletarians do, they do not have enough wealth to completely own the means of production. The handicraftsman will, however, try to gain money for himself in order to exploit other workers. This goal can be accomplished wherever the "factory system" has not completely taken over and where guilds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild) still exist. Once the "factory system" does become introduced, it becomes difficult for the handicraftsman to do so and he becomes increasingly more associated with the proletariat.

The handicraftsman can either become bourgeois (through a guild), remain middle class, or join the proletariat as the "factory system" bankrupts him. If he does end up become a proletarian, he has the chance to free himself by joining the communist cause.


A modern example of the handicraftsman is pretty much the petty-bourgeois of today. Adding onto what Jello stated, the petty-bourgeois will always either end up joining the proletariat (by joining bankrupt) or gaining enough wealth to become bourgeois themselves. The proletariat route is what most people end up as. A modern example is a man trying to create a business himself but once he starts enlisting workers under him he becomes bourgeoisie but usually he ends up going bankrupt and rejoining the proletariat.

[BobKKKindle$]

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 suggests a major flaw in the Marxist analysis of wage determination for the simple reason that, even if we assume that an objective measure of what basic human needs are and that they are the same for all workers and their dependents, all labour is not homogenous and all workers in an actual Capitalist economy are not payed the same. I think it would make more sense to say that the individual Capitalist will never pay workers more than is necessary to ensure that the worker will continue to work and produce commodities and will not choose to work for another employer who is willing to pay a higher price. This would explain why, during periods of low wage competition between Capitalists (economic recession) wages fall because the worker does not have alternatives avaliable and is forced to accept any job avaliable.

[UndergroundConnexion]

— 11 —
What were the immediate consequences of the industrial revolution and of the division of society into bourgeoisie and proletariat?

First, the lower and lower prices of industrial products brought about by machine labor totally destroyed, in all countries of the world, the old system of manufacture or industry based upon hand labor.

In this way, all semi-barbarian countries, which had hitherto been more or less strangers to historical development, and whose industry had been based on manufacture, were violently forced out of their isolation. They bought the cheaper commodities of the English and allowed their own manufacturing workers to be ruined. Countries which had known no progress for thousands of years – for example, India – were thoroughly revolutionized, and even China is now on the way to a revolution.

We have come to the point where a new machine invented in England deprives millions of Chinese workers of their livelihood within a year’s time.

In this way, big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into contact with each other, has merged all local markets into one world market, has spread civilization and progress everywhere and has thus ensured that whatever happens in civilized countries will have repercussions in all other countries.

It follows that if the workers in England or France now liberate themselves, this must set off revolution in all other countries – revolutions which, sooner or later, must accomplish the liberation of their respective working class.

Second, wherever big industries displaced manufacture, the bourgeoisie developed in wealth and power to the utmost and made itself the first class of the country. The result was that wherever this happened, the bourgeoisie took political power into its own hands and displaced the hitherto ruling classes, the aristocracy, the guildmasters, and their representative, the absolute monarchy.

The bourgeoisie annihilated the power of the aristocracy, the nobility, by abolishing the entailment of estates – in other words, by making landed property subject to purchase and sale, and by doing away with the special privileges of the nobility. It destroyed the power of the guildmasters by abolishing guilds and handicraft privileges. In their place, it put competition – that is, a state of society in which everyone has the right to enter into any branch of industry, the only obstacle being a lack of the necessary capital.

The introduction of free competition is thus public declaration that from now on the members of society are unequal only to the extent that their capitals are unequal, that capital is the decisive power, and that therefore the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, have become the first class in society.

Free competition is necessary for the establishment of big industry, because it is the only condition of society in which big industry can make its way.

Having destroyed the social power of the nobility and the guildmasters, the bourgeois also destroyed their political power. Having raised itself to the actual position of first class in society, it proclaims itself to be also the dominant political class. This it does through the introduction of the representative system which rests on bourgeois equality before the law and the recognition of free competition, and in European countries takes the form of constitutional monarchy. In these constitutional monarchies, only those who possess a certain capital are voters – that is to say, only members of the bourgeoisie. These bourgeois voters choose the deputies, and these bourgeois deputies, by using their right to refuse to vote taxes, choose a bourgeois government.

Third, everywhere the proletariat develops in step with the bourgeoisie. In proportion, as the bourgeoisie grows in wealth, the proletariat grows in numbers. For, since the proletarians can be employed only by capital, and since capital extends only through employing labor, it follows that the growth of the proletariat proceeds at precisely the same pace as the growth of capital.

Simultaneously, this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and proletarians together into the great cities where industry can be carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses in one spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength.

Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving machines are invented, the greater is the pressure exercised by big industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to their minimum and therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly unbearable. The growing dissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins with its rising power to prepare a proletarian social revolution.


Engels desrbies in 3 points the immediate consequeces of the industrial revolutions and the division of society in proletarians and bourgioisie, in three points.

Point 1 . The system of manufature or industry based on hand labor was destroyed.
This also hapenned in less civilized countries (comparable toglobalizition). It has merged all the local markets into one world market.

Engels also interestingly in the explains the if the workers in France and England liberate themselves , this would/should set of revolutions in the other countries, including the less developed countries. This I believe would happen, as France and England, at that time were the most developed countries, with the most industries and such, so if the workers control these industries, then automatically the industrial social nature of this would change, which would lead to the countries having revolution aswell.

Point 2.
Secondly Engels goes to describe how the bourgeoisie made itself the first class of the country.

Point 3
Explains the relation between bourgeoisie and prolterians.




This was one of the longer parts of the text, I recomend you read it yourself aswell, as what I wrote is very basic. Also whoever is reading this, feel free to do point 11

[Ander]

Originally posted by ( R )evolution
But what about the cost of the resources that are used to produce a product? If a resources is rarer or hard to get to than wouldn't the price of the product rise with no correlation to the price of labour ? If the demand for a product is high enough and the resources to make the product cost a lot of money than that would be the reason the product is considered more valuable?
The resources that are used in the production of the product are counted as well. Let's take a chair as an example and let's say that it takes 2 hours to build. Now let's look at the wood that was used in the production of the chair. No humans produced it as trees grows naturally, but it DID take time to cut the wood and make it ready for use in construction of chairs; let's say that this also took 2 hours. This means that the finished product, the chair in this case, would be worth 4 hours of labour.

In Marxian terms, rarity is not a factor. You are thinking too much in terms of money instead of exchange.

UC, I agree with your points, although they are quite basic summaries. That's ok, it's not too hard to pick up the rest from the text

I sense that people are getting bored of this study so I'm going to try to finish it as quickly as I can.


12)What were the further consequences of the industrial revolution?
Big industry created in the steam engine, and other machines, the means of endlessly expanding industrial production, speeding it up, and cutting its costs. With production thus facilitated, the free competition, which is necessarily bound up with big industry, assumed the most extreme forms; a multitude of capitalists invaded industry, and, in a short while, more was produced than was needed.
As a consequence, finished commodities could not be sold, and a so-called commercial crisis broke out. Factories had to be closed, their owners went bankrupt, and the workers were without bread. Deepest misery reigned everywhere.
With new innovations, production and industry was faster and less expensive. Because this was made so much easier, free competition "assumed extreme forms" and soon a surplus of products was made. Due to this, many factories did not make a profit off of the extra items and everyone suffered, though obviously workers got the worst of it.


After a time, the superfluous products were sold, the factories began to operate again, wages rose, and gradually business got better than ever.

But it was not long before too many commodities were again produced and a new crisis broke out, only to follow the same course as its predecessor.

Ever since the beginning of this (19th) century, the condition of industry has constantly fluctuated between periods of prosperity and periods of crisis; nearly every five to seven years, a fresh crisis has intervened, always with the greatest hardship for workers, and always accompanied by general revolutionary stirrings and the direct peril to the whole existing order of things.
Eventually though, the extra products were sold and the factories and their capitalist bosses came back. Business boomed and industry reached the same levels as before, if not higher. But then again, an immense surplus of commodities were manufactured and the same crisis occurred.

Engels tells us that since the beginning of the 19th century, this cycle has been the norm every few years. Each time the economy suffered, the workers suffered most and often there was revolutionary sentiments among them.

[Ander]

13)What follows from these periodic commercial crises?
First:
That, though big industry in its earliest stage created free competition, it has now outgrown free competition;

that, for big industry, competition and generally the individualistic organization of production have become a fetter which it must and will shatter;

that, so long as big industry remains on its present footing, it can be maintained only at the cost of general chaos every seven years, each time threatening the whole of civilization and not only plunging the proletarians into misery but also ruining large sections of the bourgeoisie;

hence, either that big industry must itself be given up, which is an absolute impossibility, or that it makes unavoidably necessary an entirely new organization of society in which production is no longer directed by mutually competing individual industrialists but rather by the whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all.
Engels tells us that the result of these "commercial crises" are:

-That industry has gone past free competition; it has outgrown its leash.

-That industry must destroy the individualistic way of organization.

-That as long as industry continues the way it was presently going, it can only be kept by sticking to the cycle of decline and chaos every few years. The sacrifice for this is that every time this depression happens, both workers and bourgeois suffer, although again, the workers clearly suffer more.

-That there are two choices for industry: Either it can be done away with, which is impossible, or it can be completely reorganized. This reorganization would consist of overthrowing the current system and establishing one where decisions are made by all of society in order to benefit all, not a small group of rich capitalists.


Second: That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom.

It thus appears that the very qualities of big industry which, in our present-day society, produce misery and crises are those which, in a different form of society, will abolish this misery and these catastrophic depressions.

We see with the greatest clarity:

(i) That all these evils are from now on to be ascribed solely to a social order which no longer corresponds to the requirements of the real situation; and

(ii) That it is possible, through a new social order, to do away with these evils altogether.
Secondly Engels tells us that industry and the great expansion of production that it creates is capable of bringing about a new order in which enough is produced to satisfy all of society. All members of this society will be able to do as they wish in complete freedom. He says that while the same qualities of industry which now cause misery and crisis can be used to do the complete opposite in a different kind of society. Two points arise from this:

-The negative aspects of industry can now be associated with the current social order which no longer coincides with the "real situation" which I interpret as the real picture, what's going on.

-It is possible to get rid of these evils with a new social order.

[Ander]

14)What will this new social order have to be like?
Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.
This new social order that Engels speaks about must radically change; it must put the means of production into the hands of all of society, not simply a privileged, individualistic minority. It will rid itself of competition and individualism and in its place a collective mode of production will be built.


Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.

In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.
Since private proverty is a consequence of this individualist industry, it must be abolished. Once this is done, Engels proposes that all instruments of production and distribution of products must belong to everyone. He is clearly now fully advocating the overthrowal of vicious capitalism and replacing it with a new order of communism where economy benefits society instead of a handful of rich capitalists.

[Ander]

15)Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time?
No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.
This ties into the idea that history has progressed through different modes of production (slavery to feudalism to capitalism, etc.) This new social order can only come about when conditions are ready; basically when capitalism and private industry have flourished.


Private property has not always existed.

When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.
Private property began to exist after feudalism had run its course; factories, bourgeois, and proletarians replaced fiefs, lords, and vassals. Therefore, private property was the only kind of property that could suit the emerging social order which was capitalism in its earliest stages.


So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.

The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.

It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.
Engels tells us that there must always be a ruling class to rule over the oppressed class as long as production remains at a level where there is not enough manufactured to increase the wealth of all of society and benefit everyone.

All stages of production had its oppressor and oppressed classes: the Middle Ages had barons and serfs; later on came the guildmaster and the journeyman and day labourer; then the manufacturing worker (and his boss); now after the Industrial Revolution there is the factory owners (bourgeoisie) and the working proletarians.

Up until this point, industry has not advanced enough so that it could provide for everyone and private property has become an obstacle to further progress in economic production.


Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.
This has changed with the advent of big industry. Wealth and productions has expanded greatly and they have fallen into the hands of a minority of rich capitalists. The vast majority of people are joining the proletariat and their conditions are becoming worse as the wealth of the bourgeoisie expands. This situation has become so dangerous that it threatens the entire social order and the destruction of private property has become not just possible, but necessary.

[Rawthentic]

This new social order can only come about when conditions are ready; basically when capitalism and private industry have flourished.
Well this idea rests on Marx's earlier writings. His analysis of the progression of social orders was based on the histories of Western Europe, not the entire world.Different countries and regions develop differently, not exactly as Marx said they would. Marx did change his views on this, and was particularly excited about Russia, which did establish socialism initially, several years later, in what Mensheviks and other "socialists" said was impossible due to the lack of capitalist production.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:20 pm

This new social order can only come about when conditions are ready; basically when capitalism and private industry have flourished.
Well this idea rests on Marx's earlier writings. His analysis of the progression of social orders was based on the histories of Western Europe, not the entire world.Different countries and regions develop differently, not exactly as Marx said they would. Marx did change his views on this, and was particularly excited about Russia, which did establish socialism initially, several years later, in what Mensheviks and other "socialists" said was impossible due to the lack of capitalist production.
That doesn't disprove the basic idea, just modifies it partly. Although not every country follows the exact same road, still economic conditions and relations are the main factor driving their history.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

QUOTE: (( R )evolution),
But what about the cost of the resources that are used to produce a product? If a resources is rarer or hard to get to than wouldn't the price of the product rise with no correlation to the price of labour ? If the demand for a product is high enough and the resources to make the product cost a lot of money than that would be the reason the product is considered more valuable?


QUOTE: Jello,
The resources that are used in the production of the product are counted as well. Let's take a chair as an example and let's say that it takes 2 hours to build. Now let's look at the wood that was used in the production of the chair. No humans produced it as trees grows naturally, but it DID take time to cut the wood and make it ready for use in construction of chairs; let's say that this also took 2 hours. This means that the finished product, the chair in this case, would be worth 4 hours of labour.

In Marxian terms, rarity is not a factor. You are thinking too much in terms of money instead of exchange.

( R )evolution did have a good question. Take gold for example, unlike trees it is rare and hard to find which takes labor hours in the process. After it is hopefully found it take a lot of labor hours to extract and then it depends on how much of the ore is available from the earth. The gold is refined and processed which take more labor hours to do. This is why gold has high value of exchange because of rarity and labor hours. Rarity is a factor.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:58 am
( R )evolution did have a good question. Take gold for example, unlike trees it is rare and hard to find which takes labor hours in the process. After it is hopefully found it take a lot of labor hours to extract and then it depends on how much of the ore is available from the earth. The gold is refined and processed which take more labor hours to do. This is why gold has high value of exchange because of rarity and labor hours. Rarity is a factor.
But you pretty much just agreed with what I said.

As both of us said, what is important is the number of labour hours put into its production. The high value of gold is not based on how difficult to find it is; that is capitalist thinking. If you think in terms of Marxian economics you would understand that since the gold takes great amounts of time and effort to prepare, it exchange value is higher than items that take less time to produce.

This is why I told him he was thinking too much in terms of money instead of exchange.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Jello wrote:As both of us said, what is important is the number of labour hours put into its production. The high value of gold is not based on how difficult to find it is; that is capitalist thinking. If you think in terms of Marxian economics you would understand that since the gold takes great amounts of time and effort to prepare, it exchange value is higher than items that take less time to produce.

I thought the whole concept of Marxist economics was the explaination of the capitalist system therefore the critique of it. I understand how necessary labor time is translated into those items produced, use values, exchange, so on and so forth. That is why I wrote that rarity was a factor along with labor time. This is why gold has such high value and used as money. That and its portability in the form of coins. I know that capitalist wealth is crytalized in to such things as gold, silver, diamonds, rubies, etc., and that their value remains stable.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:58 am
Take gold for example, unlike trees it is rare and hard to find which takes labor hours in the process. After it is hopefully found it take a lot of labor hours to extract and then it depends on how much of the ore is available from the earth. The gold is refined and processed which take more labor hours to do. This is why gold has high value of exchange because of rarity and labor hours. Rarity is a factor.
There's actually a bit about this in the classic movie "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" of all places: one prospector explains to another that if they strike it rich they get paid for the labor of all the people who looked for gold without finding any.

[Ander]

I apologise for being inactive...my girlfriend was visiting and I wanted to spend as much time with her as possible before she returned to the US. Now I'm back and this study group will continue!


16)Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
Engels tell us that the non-violent abolition of private property is highly desirable even by communists but that this is not possible. Revolutions are not planned but they occur naturally due to material conditions of society. This is very basic Marxist theory.


But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
Communists know that the proletariat is being suppressed in all industrial countries (with good reason too - the capitalists need to keep them in line in order to make money!) This suppression is working against the capitalists however; it simply drives the proletarians closer to revolution. And when revolution does break out, communists will fight on the side of the proletarians, defending them physically as they do now verbally.


17)Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
The question asks if private property can be abolished all at once. Engels responds that it cannot; it will not be abolished so quickly just as capitalism will not be abolished immediately and replaced with a communist society. The most likely situation, he says, is that the revolution will occur gradually and only "when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.'

I admit that I am confused by what Engels is saying there as it doesn't make sense to me to measure means of production in terms of quantity. Could someone else possibly help me out with this?

[TheGreenWeeWee]

[1.] We have to remember that theories have to become fact and not every instances of material conditions explodes into revolution. Now I may get into trouble with this...but if the working class and everyone who is suffering in society decided that they wanted change, it is said that they have to fight the capitalist. But they (capitalist) are a very small minority which makes me ask who are they the working class/poor would fight? Surely the capitalist won't get their hands dirty and would rather flee to another country. If it is worker against worker would that not be called a civil war? Would it not be better to use the ballot to obtain the means of production? I say this because there is a U.S. constituional clause which gives the U.S. people the right to alter, abolish or institute a new government. I don't think Marx or Engles were aware of this.

[2.] I would say that the communist, from what I read here, are people who don't consider themselves rulers over the working class/poor but their equals. They may understand what is going on but in no way shape or form are they to demand obediance to their particular ideology. They are there to help, advise and fight.

[3.] Interesting. Why would Engles say this? It may be because this is a big world we live on. Not all societies of the world would take hold of the means of production. The again is he suggesting that some industries be held in private ownership and turned over to workers at a later date. If that is the case why was there a revolution? Sounds like a contradiction because to enter into the new society workers would have to have total communal ownership.

[Lynx]

The resources that are used in the production of the product are counted as well. Let's take a chair as an example and let's say that it takes 2 hours to build. Now let's look at the wood that was used in the production of the chair. No humans produced it as trees grows naturally, but it DID take time to cut the wood and make it ready for use in construction of chairs; let's say that this also took 2 hours. This means that the finished product, the chair in this case, would be worth 4 hours of labour.

In Marxian terms, rarity is not a factor. You are thinking too much in terms of money instead of exchange.
I'm afraid I still don't understand this. It may take similar times to cut and prepare different types of wood, so if Pine is plentiful while Mahagony is not, making a chair out of Mahagony would cost (and be worth) more?

Perhaps the original quote is referring to base value?

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:49 pm


The resources that are used in the production of the product are counted as well. Let's take a chair as an example and let's say that it takes 2 hours to build. Now let's look at the wood that was used in the production of the chair. No humans produced it as trees grows naturally, but it DID take time to cut the wood and make it ready for use in construction of chairs; let's say that this also took 2 hours. This means that the finished product, the chair in this case, would be worth 4 hours of labour.

In Marxian terms, rarity is not a factor. You are thinking too much in terms of money instead of exchange.
I'm afraid I still don't understand this. It may take similar times to cut and prepare different types of wood, so if Pine is plentiful while Mahagony is not, making a chair out of Mahagony would cost (and be worth) more?

Perhaps the original quote is referring to base value?
I was discussing this with some comrades and I got very confused. I'm going to direct on of the board's resident economics experts to this problem so he can solve it for both of us. I'm really sorry, I thought I was understanding but somehow I got thrown off. I'm no expert in Marxian economics, sorry.

[Ander]

18) What will be the course of this revolution?
Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.
The proletarian revolution will of course land the proletariat in power; to different degrees in different regions. In England, where the proletariat are a majority, it will be complete dominance whereas in France and Germany it will be less due to the number of peasants and petty-bourgeois who are joining the ranks of the proletariat. In these latter areas, the peasants and petty-bourgeois will be forced to agree with the demands of the proletarians because they are becoming more dependent on them. If this does create a new struggle, it is clear that the overwhelming proletariat will win.


Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
Democracy is useless to the proletariat if it is not used to abolish private property and make sure that the proletariat continues to survive. The main measures are:


(i)...(xii)
The twelve points are basically outlining the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; you can read the twelve points for yourself, they are very straight forward. I'm not going to waste any time on them because I would be simply restating what is already there. If you do have any questions, feel free to ask and they will be answered.


It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country's productive forces.
After reading so far, the rest becomes somewhat easy to understand. Engels tells us that it is obviously impossible to enact all of the twelve points at once but they will happen gradually. After the attack on private property has been completed, this proletarians will be forced to go further and place all capital, agriculture, transport, and trade under state control and so on. This centralisation by the proletariat that has now seized power will serve to expand the productive forces of the nation.


Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
When everything has been taken over by the state, private property will wither away, money will become unnecessary, and production will boom. Society will throw off any remnants of the old economic and basically embrace COMMUNISM.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:49 am


The resources that are used in the production of the product are counted as well. Let's take a chair as an example and let's say that it takes 2 hours to build. Now let's look at the wood that was used in the production of the chair. No humans produced it as trees grows naturally, but it DID take time to cut the wood and make it ready for use in construction of chairs; let's say that this also took 2 hours. This means that the finished product, the chair in this case, would be worth 4 hours of labour.

In Marxian terms, rarity is not a factor. You are thinking too much in terms of money instead of exchange.
I'm afraid I still don't understand this. It may take similar times to cut and prepare different types of wood, so if Pine is plentiful while Mahagony is not, making a chair out of Mahagony would cost (and be worth) more?

Perhaps the original quote is referring to base value?
I'm not paying attention, but I was asked to respond here.

Hmm...the principles of communism was written in the late 1840s, before Marx and Engels really solidified their thoughts on economics. They were still "wet behind the ears" so to speak.

At any rate, that is a correct assessment. If mahogany grew in only the rarest conditions, it would take labor to discover them, chop them down, and ship them to be processed into lumber.

Compare that to pine where in such a given scenario it were plentiful, there would be little labor used to look for it, chop it down, and even less to ship it off to be processed.

So there is less labor embodied in the pine than the mahogany timber, thus making it less valuable.

But for rarity in general, it is not by virtue of there being little of something that makes it valuable.

Economists love to give "If this is the only X in the world, it will be priceless"; this rests on the assumption that the purchasers set the price. In reality, it's the sellers that set prices, purchasers either assent or go away.

One other problem with such a scenario is that it happens by magic; that is to say, it's a purely fictitious case where we have some given widget which one moment we have thousands of and the next we have one. This doesn't happen in reality.

A real example can't be given because if there were only one such commodity in existence to be found (as if it could be made, then more of it could be made, so it must only be discovered in nature), there is overwhelming probability against it getting to the market and having marketability.

At any rate, here's a basic summary of Marx on scarcity from Das Kapital (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm):

The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by "ComradeRed"
Economists love to give "If this is the only X in the world, it will be priceless"; this rests on the assumption that the purchasers set the price. In reality, it's the sellers that set prices, purchasers either assent or go away.
Yes, unless it's an auction...
I think I'm mixing up scarcity with supply and demand. If so, your post has cleared things up, thanks

[Social Greenman]

ComradeRed's snipet of Capital: Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall.

In essence rarity does play a role since considerable labor time is required to extract it, then it gets further work in polishing and setting in rings, etc., which is more labor time. Yes, I understand labor time and its importance in determining cost while it take the seller to set the price. The seller is the capitalist. Is it the labor that mades a diamond valuable or it's use value? What was its use value in Marx's day. I still tend to believe that it's rarity made it valuable rather than it usefullness.

[Ander]

I hope to finish this study sometime this week; there's only a few sections left.


19)Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
As stated before, the world market has brought all people together so that when something occurs, everyone is affected. This includes any revolution which would take place.

The revolution will be an international, not solely a national, occurrence because the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is present everywhere. Of course as Engels has previously said, this revolution will affect the industralised countries first.


It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
Of course this revolution will occur at different paces in different locations; it depends on factors such as industry, wealth, and forces of production. It will, however, affect its location greatly and will end up being an international phenomenon.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 18, 2007 12:57 pm
In essence rarity does play a role since considerable labor time is required to extract it, then it gets further work in polishing and setting in rings, etc., which is more labor time. Yes, I understand labor time and its importance in determining cost while it take the seller to set the price. The seller is the capitalist. Is it the labor that mades a diamond valuable or it's use value? What was its use value in Marx's day. I still tend to believe that it's rarity made it valuable rather than it usefullness.
Labor + time = value
Value + other factors = price ?
I don't know if diamonds are a good example. Are there not cartels that control the release of diamonds for personal and industrial use?

In any case, the document we're studying doesn't go into details. Better to leave it for a later study of economics?

[Social Greenman]

Lynx wrote: I don't know if diamonds are a good example. Are there not cartels that control the release of diamonds for personal and industrial use?

In any case, the document we're studying doesn't go into details. Better to leave it for a later study of economics?

Good point about leaving it for a later study. Diamonds are a good example. Why did they have value in Marx's days? Were they used in industry or was the value based mostly on beauty and rarity?

[Social Greenman]

— 20 — What will be the consequences of theultimate disappearance of private property?

Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society. In this way, most important of all, the evil consequences which are now associated with the conduct of big industry will be abolished.

I decided to jump start this a bit. Basically Engles envisioned that the whole of society would replace the capitalist class as owners of the means of production. He even mentions that there would some sort of commerce when it come to the exchange and distribution of products.

Engles did not say what sort of plan would be implemented when it comes to production and distribution of everything but the idea is that it will be done with careful consideration of available resources. I am sure society will produce some treats.

[Ander]

I am thinking about finishing this and perhaps restarting the Marx & Engels study group I began months ago.

Anyone interested?

[Lynx]

I'm interested in following this study group.

[blackstone]

I'm going to repost the basic summary of Marx on scarcity,


The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.


Now, on to your question,


In essence rarity does play a role since considerable labor time is required to extract it, then it gets further work in polishing and setting in rings, etc., which is more labor time. Yes, I understand labor time and its importance in determining cost while it take the seller to set the price. The seller is the capitalist. Is it the labor that mades a diamond valuable or it's use value? What was its use value in Marx's day. I still tend to believe that it's rarity made it valuable rather than it usefullness

First, diamond has potential value, as many natural resources and untreated raw materials.

Remember the duality of a commodity. It has a use value, which satisfies a need and an exchange value.

As long as diamond remains buried deep in a mine, it is useless. It first must be located, then extracted and transported for use.

Remembering the duality of a commodity, the diamond must have a use value. It, has no utility remaining deep inside of the mine.

If it has no utility then it has no exchange value.


C= Commidity
V= Value
U= Utility

C=VU

if

C=V(0)
then V is 0 as well.

Use value adds nothing to the value of an object. No matter how many bourgeois economists want you to believe, you can not calculate use value.

An object either has use value or it doesn't. So the use value will either be 1 if an object has utility or 0 if it does not. If a object has no use value, it has no value.

As Marx says in that passage quoted,


The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it


You also later asked,


Good point about leaving it for a later study. Diamonds are a good example. Why did they have value in Marx's days? Were they used in industry or was the value based mostly on beauty and rarity?

The use value of diamonds and Marx's day, is the same as it is in this day. Either 1 or 0. Since diamonds have been purchased endlessly since the the 1800s, the use value of diamonds has continued to be 1 for those who found utility in them.

I hope i made things clear. To reiterate.

* A commodity has to have utility in order to have a(n) (exchange) value.
* Utility, whether an object has a use value, is is mathematically represented as a 1 if it proves useful and 0 if it has no usefulness. If a commodity's utility is 0, so is it's value.