Forumet - Communism

Communism

117 0 13
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer. In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.

Spana också in:

OF 5:

And yet, somehow, life goes on.


Visst är det så, men att den kaptialistiska processen är alienerande, samt att friheten den skapar är formell är värt at tänka på. Speciellt med tanke på vad som hände i Soviet exempelvis där man försökte sig på att ta bort den kapitalistiska processen, vilket resluterade i direkt och brutal dominans.

Är det ens säkert att vi kommer ha kvar denna formela frihet i alla evighet? Jag ser ingen garanti till det.
Ursäkta om jag blandar ihop kommunismen med något men är inte kommunism att alla ska tjäna lika mycket? Jag har aldrig förstått det. Ska en städare tjäna lika mycket som en hjärnkirurg? Då hade ju folk slutat utbilda sig till såna yrken för man tjänar ju lika bra på något annat jobb som inte alls kräver lika mycket utbildning. Man kan leva i en drömvärld och säga att folk hade utbildat sig ändå. Visst, vissa hade gjort det men inte alls lika många som idag.
- Razorblade -:

Men att alla ska äga lika mycket? Vilket är lite som att alla ska tjäna lika mycket.


Men det står inte att alla ska äga lika mycket.

"In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer."

"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 independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of 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.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."


Varför inte läsa manifesten själv och skapa din egen åsikt, texten är inte ens lång.