Try drinking some flat ginger ale. Also, avoid breathing pulverized avian guano dust. Micorsort: pay me for my patented advice, or face the legal consequences! Slashdort readers, Because I love you with half of myheart almost as much as I love Laura, I am waiving the required payment and you have my permission to read this comment and to ponder it for up to 30 days, after which you will be billed at the Executive Premium Platinum Club rate. Good day!
Last week we discussed the coming struggle for power which will decide the question: Who shall be master in the American house? Our analysis showed that the advantages in this coming struggle lie on the side of the workers, and that their victory can be expected. This victory of the workers in the showdown struggle with the capitalists and their fascist gangs will culminate, at a certain point, in the establishment of a workers’ government to rule the country.
Differences with anarchists
Right at this point our differences with the anarchists are brought out most sharply. We don’t hear so much about anarchism now as we did in my early days in the movement. Anarchism was then taken more seriously as a revolutionary tendency, but it made a miserable showing under the actual tests of war and revolution. Anarchism, in essence, is nothing but opportunism turned inside out, but it sometimes appears to be its opposite; and impatient workers, recoiling violently against a pusillanimous and compromising leadership, are often attracted to the high-sounding verbal radicalism of anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists and mistake it for the real thing. It is possible, therefore, that in the course of coming developments in America, anarchism could experience a certain revival. That could cause a great deal of confusion just when clarity of program will be supremely important.
The differences between Marxists and anarchists are very serious and caused many polemical disputes and splits in the past, ever since the days of Marx and Bakunin in the First International. There were many points at issue in this great historic controversy, but the central point was the question of the state. The anarchist theory was that capitalism and the state would be abolished at the same time, in one operation. For them the revolutionary victory was synonymous with the abolition of the state.
The Marxists said, no, you are running ahead of yourselves. Marxism also envisages a society in which there will be no classes and no state, but does not agree with the contention that the state can be abolished in one step at the moment of the workers’ victory. A transition period will follow when the workers will need a state for their own historic class purposes. Marxism regards the state as the instrument of class rule. It is not the general, impartial representative of all the people, as it is represented to be and as, unfortunately, many people think it is. The state, in its essential features, is the instrument of one class for the suppression of another.
That’s the character of the present state in this country. Marxism gives the same basic definition to the state that will be set up following the workers’ victory. The workers’ state—in the transition period between capitalism and socialism—will have the same characteristics, in some respects, as the one that exists today. It will be a class instrument; its chief purpose will be to suppress one class in the interests of another. So far, it’s the same thing as the Eisenhower state, with this slight difference: The state we envisage after the victory of the workers will be a governmental instrument of coercion in the hands of the working-class majority to suppress any attempt of the capitalist minority to re-establish their system of exploitation. The workers’ state will be like the present state only turned upside down and put to the service of a different class.
The main features and role of this new state in the transition period are not for us a subject of imaginative speculation. The nature of society in the transition period between capitalism and socialism, and the kind of state, of government, it would require, were clearly foreseen and elaborated theoretically by Marx and Engels a long time ago; and the theory was applied in practice in the Russian Revolution of 1917 by Lenin and Trotsky. We have both Marxist theory and serious experience to go by in stating confidently what the general characteristics of t
We Marxists conceive of socialism, not as an arbitrary scheme of society to be constructed from a preconceived plan, but as the next stage of social evolution. The preceding lectures dealt with the struggle for socialism, which develops in succeeding stages foreseen, understood, and consciously organised by the revolutionary party on the basis of a program. The subject of this lecture—“What Socialist America Will Look Like”—carries us beyond our formal program.
Our discussion tonight deals with the socialist society itself, which will grow out of the new conditions when the class struggle will have been carried to its conclusion—that is, to the abolition of classes and consequently of all class struggles. Our preview of the socialist society, therefore, is not a program for struggle, but a forecast of the lines of future development already indicated in the present.
The architects and builders of the socialist society of the future will be the socialist generations themselves. The great Marxists were quite sure of this and refrained from offering these future generations any instructions or blueprints. Their writings, however, do contain some marvellous flashes of insight which light up the whole magnificent perspective. The insights of these men of transcendent genius will be the guiding line of my exposition tonight.
Auguste Blanqui, the great French revolutionist, said: “Tomorrow does not belong to us.” We ought to admit that, and recognise at the same time that it is better so. The people in the future society will be wiser than we are. We must assume that they will be superior to us, in every way, and that they will know what to do far better than we can tell them. We can only anticipate and point out the general direction of development, and we should not try to do more. But that much we are duty bound to do; for the prospect of socialism—what the future socialist society will look like—is a question of fascinating interest and has a great importance in modern propaganda.
The new generation of youth who will come to our movement and dedicate their lives to it will not be willing to squander their young courage and idealism on little things and little aims. They will be governed by nothing less than the inspiration of a great ideal, the vision of a new world. We are quite justified, therefore, in tracing some of the broad outlines of probable future development; all the more so since the general direction, if not the details, can already be foreseen.
In attempting an approximate estimate of what life will be like under socialism, we run up against the inadequacy of present-day society as a measuring rod or basis of comparison with the future. One must project himself into a different world, where the main incentives and compulsions of present-day society will no longer be operative; where in time they will be completely forgotten, and have merely a puzzling interest to students of an outlived age.
Material premise of socialism
Socialism will undoubtedly bring about a revolutionary transformation of human activity and association in all fields previously conditioned by the division of society into classes—in work, in education, in sports and amusements, in manners and morals, and in incentives and rewards.
But all these changes, which can be anticipated and predicted, will begin with and proceed from the revolutionary transformation of the system of production and the consequent augmentation and multiplication of the productivity of labour. This is the necessary material premise for a society of shared abundance. The revolutionary reorganisation of the labour process—of the manner of working and of regulating, measuring, and compensating the labour time of the individual—will take place first and should be considered first, because it will clear the way for all the other changes.
Here at the start we lack an adequate standard of comparison. The necessary amount of productive labour time whi
The U.S.government is the instrument of the nefarious Danish overlords who are stealing our water and brainwashing our wives with their Islamocommunist moon-thought-beams. NASA puts the moon-thought transmitters into space on their rockitts. Now that you know, be kind to animals, children and dogs! Do not poop on them excessively! If you do you will be helping the Danish ilsamocommunist fifth column! ALSO NEVER USE THE INTERNET OR COMPOTORES, THEY ARE CONTAMINATEDS WITH DANISH EVIL SPELLS! Good-night Slashdort!
Dear COWARD, you have less goat-herding capacity in your entire household than I have in my left earwax!!!!! Truly ALL my psots are bedecked with GENIUS but they go over your philistine head. Oh well! Let us pgrioetka the f8u9gowiksllllslsllsiii! Slammmmmin, Slashdort!
I speak to them in dypthongs exclusively for their pleasure.
Their eyes are made of squirrel tongues! Did you know that?
Once I saw a spider in my compotor. It was reading Slashdort, which those who know, know to be the Facebook of the Internet, where all the cool compotor users exchange viws on topics.
Therefore I cannot make music except when inspired by my true love and only muse, LAURA.
Dear Laura, I am sorry about the refrigerator thing and I hope you will forgive me because I want to make pancakes for you and then cuddle and have sexytime.
Dear Slashdort, you are boring and reactionary capitalist scum dogfart sniffers.
You are retareded and dumbe and estupide and dumbe and ugly and estupide. Your mother smells like old socks and you eat flaming fermented pig shit every day because you are fat.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
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.
Let us now take wage-labour.
The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
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.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also
America needs more war! America needs more colonies! American banks need more money! Hate hate hate! USA USA USA! Vote for Obama or Romney! Vote for imperialist slaughter! USA USA USA! Hate hate hate! War war war! Hooray!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The problem is capitalism. Under socialism, production will be planned to meet human needs, not driven blindly by the whims of a market of idle parasitical bourgeois shareholders. CAPITALISM SUCKS, MICROSOFT SUCKS, FORWARD TO COMMUNISM, I DRanke coffee that I made with a coffeee makore thagt ish iu f,saoz-0-0-0-0- 0oiofdsalk fs;a;a a;;a the pain!
Just in case it has to knock those imperialist war spying machines out of the sky! The working class internationally must defend the Chinese bureaucratically deformed workers state! Smash imperialism with international socialist revolution! Dalai Lama kiss my ass!
Slashdot Mirror
goat turd warmachine in the saving ameurican lives narrative goatfart!
I shield electroagnertic radiation with goat fart gas from my burgeoning herd!
Sometimes I add a fart or two of my own to the mix, the complex harmonies and aromas mingle musically in the late afternoon sun.
Laura is the best and now it is time for us to have the sexy time yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes wwoooooooowowooooooooooooo!
Try drinking some flat ginger ale. Also, avoid breathing pulverized avian guano dust. Micorsort: pay me for my patented advice, or face the legal consequences! Slashdort readers, Because I love you with half of myheart almost as much as I love Laura, I am waiving the required payment and you have my permission to read this comment and to ponder it for up to 30 days, after which you will be billed at the Executive Premium Platinum Club rate. Good day!
Last week we discussed the coming struggle for power which will decide the question: Who shall be master in the American house? Our analysis showed that the advantages in this coming struggle lie on the side of the workers, and that their victory can be expected. This victory of the workers in the showdown struggle with the capitalists and their fascist gangs will culminate, at a certain point, in the establishment of a workers’ government to rule the country.
Differences with anarchists
Right at this point our differences with the anarchists are brought out most sharply. We don’t hear so much about anarchism now as we did in my early days in the movement. Anarchism was then taken more seriously as a revolutionary tendency, but it made a miserable showing under the actual tests of war and revolution. Anarchism, in essence, is nothing but opportunism turned inside out, but it sometimes appears to be its opposite; and impatient workers, recoiling violently against a pusillanimous and compromising leadership, are often attracted to the high-sounding verbal radicalism of anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists and mistake it for the real thing. It is possible, therefore, that in the course of coming developments in America, anarchism could experience a certain revival. That could cause a great deal of confusion just when clarity of program will be supremely important.
The differences between Marxists and anarchists are very serious and caused many polemical disputes and splits in the past, ever since the days of Marx and Bakunin in the First International. There were many points at issue in this great historic controversy, but the central point was the question of the state. The anarchist theory was that capitalism and the state would be abolished at the same time, in one operation. For them the revolutionary victory was synonymous with the abolition of the state.
The Marxists said, no, you are running ahead of yourselves. Marxism also envisages a society in which there will be no classes and no state, but does not agree with the contention that the state can be abolished in one step at the moment of the workers’ victory. A transition period will follow when the workers will need a state for their own historic class purposes. Marxism regards the state as the instrument of class rule. It is not the general, impartial representative of all the people, as it is represented to be and as, unfortunately, many people think it is. The state, in its essential features, is the instrument of one class for the suppression of another.
That’s the character of the present state in this country. Marxism gives the same basic definition to the state that will be set up following the workers’ victory. The workers’ state—in the transition period between capitalism and socialism—will have the same characteristics, in some respects, as the one that exists today. It will be a class instrument; its chief purpose will be to suppress one class in the interests of another. So far, it’s the same thing as the Eisenhower state, with this slight difference: The state we envisage after the victory of the workers will be a governmental instrument of coercion in the hands of the working-class majority to suppress any attempt of the capitalist minority to re-establish their system of exploitation. The workers’ state will be like the present state only turned upside down and put to the service of a different class.
The main features and role of this new state in the transition period are not for us a subject of imaginative speculation. The nature of society in the transition period between capitalism and socialism, and the kind of state, of government, it would require, were clearly foreseen and elaborated theoretically by Marx and Engels a long time ago; and the theory was applied in practice in the Russian Revolution of 1917 by Lenin and Trotsky. We have both Marxist theory and serious experience to go by in stating confidently what the general characteristics of t
We Marxists conceive of socialism, not as an arbitrary scheme of society to be constructed from a preconceived plan, but as the next stage of social evolution. The preceding lectures dealt with the struggle for socialism, which develops in succeeding stages foreseen, understood, and consciously organised by the revolutionary party on the basis of a program. The subject of this lecture—“What Socialist America Will Look Like”—carries us beyond our formal program.
Our discussion tonight deals with the socialist society itself, which will grow out of the new conditions when the class struggle will have been carried to its conclusion—that is, to the abolition of classes and consequently of all class struggles. Our preview of the socialist society, therefore, is not a program for struggle, but a forecast of the lines of future development already indicated in the present.
The architects and builders of the socialist society of the future will be the socialist generations themselves. The great Marxists were quite sure of this and refrained from offering these future generations any instructions or blueprints. Their writings, however, do contain some marvellous flashes of insight which light up the whole magnificent perspective. The insights of these men of transcendent genius will be the guiding line of my exposition tonight.
Auguste Blanqui, the great French revolutionist, said: “Tomorrow does not belong to us.” We ought to admit that, and recognise at the same time that it is better so. The people in the future society will be wiser than we are. We must assume that they will be superior to us, in every way, and that they will know what to do far better than we can tell them. We can only anticipate and point out the general direction of development, and we should not try to do more. But that much we are duty bound to do; for the prospect of socialism—what the future socialist society will look like—is a question of fascinating interest and has a great importance in modern propaganda.
The new generation of youth who will come to our movement and dedicate their lives to it will not be willing to squander their young courage and idealism on little things and little aims. They will be governed by nothing less than the inspiration of a great ideal, the vision of a new world. We are quite justified, therefore, in tracing some of the broad outlines of probable future development; all the more so since the general direction, if not the details, can already be foreseen.
In attempting an approximate estimate of what life will be like under socialism, we run up against the inadequacy of present-day society as a measuring rod or basis of comparison with the future. One must project himself into a different world, where the main incentives and compulsions of present-day society will no longer be operative; where in time they will be completely forgotten, and have merely a puzzling interest to students of an outlived age.
Material premise of socialism
Socialism will undoubtedly bring about a revolutionary transformation of human activity and association in all fields previously conditioned by the division of society into classes—in work, in education, in sports and amusements, in manners and morals, and in incentives and rewards.
But all these changes, which can be anticipated and predicted, will begin with and proceed from the revolutionary transformation of the system of production and the consequent augmentation and multiplication of the productivity of labour. This is the necessary material premise for a society of shared abundance. The revolutionary reorganisation of the labour process—of the manner of working and of regulating, measuring, and compensating the labour time of the individual—will take place first and should be considered first, because it will clear the way for all the other changes.
Here at the start we lack an adequate standard of comparison. The necessary amount of productive labour time whi
The U.S.government is the instrument of the nefarious Danish overlords who are stealing our water and brainwashing our wives with their Islamocommunist moon-thought-beams. NASA puts the moon-thought transmitters into space on their rockitts. Now that you know, be kind to animals, children and dogs! Do not poop on them excessively! If you do you will be helping the Danish ilsamocommunist fifth column! ALSO NEVER USE THE INTERNET OR COMPOTORES, THEY ARE CONTAMINATEDS WITH DANISH EVIL SPELLS! Good-night Slashdort!
It is the Kommunist Desktop Environment, so naturally it is superior to the alternatives!
READ MARX, ENGELS, LENIN AND TROTSKY!
Pernicious bridges? We can help! The horsemanure phone calp is HISTORY!
Dear COWARD, you have less goat-herding capacity in your entire household than I have in my left earwax!!!!! Truly ALL my psots are bedecked with GENIUS but they go over your philistine head. Oh well! Let us pgrioetka the f8u9gowiksllllslsllsiii! Slammmmmin, Slashdort!
Capitalism is to blame for the sucking in which your life is but one small slurp in a hurricane of lame.
I speak to them in dypthongs exclusively for their pleasure.
Their eyes are made of squirrel tongues! Did you know that?
Once I saw a spider in my compotor. It was reading Slashdort, which those who know, know to be the Facebook of the Internet, where all the cool compotor users exchange viws on topics.
Their farts are bonus levels! I am a jenys, in the doaokds of theworkd the vuttioiopfart in coopy!!!!
Therefore I cannot make music except when inspired by my true love and only muse, LAURA.
Dear Laura, I am sorry about the refrigerator thing and I hope you will forgive me because I want to make pancakes for you and then cuddle and have sexytime.
Dear Slashdort, you are boring and reactionary capitalist scum dogfart sniffers.
It's time for the workers to take power and put an end to the rule of the nuclear-armed madmen imperialist butchers.
Capitalism sucks!
Independence for Québéc! Also,
ROWSDOWSER!!!!!
Canada government is full of dog-farts and smells like dog-fart!
You= liar and there are bugs in your teeth because of ytoiur [perkjfdsjzakzcathins bad the foam is nixiosn!!!!!
You are retareded and dumbe and estupide and dumbe and ugly and estupide. Your mother smells like old socks and you eat flaming fermented pig shit every day because you are fat.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
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.
Let us now take wage-labour.
The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
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.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also
Eat the bourgeoisie!
Democracy! Freedom! The Market! God! Hate! USA! War! Robama! Television! Hooray! Nation! God! Democracy! Hooray!
America needs more war! America needs more colonies! American banks need more money! Hate hate hate! USA USA USA! Vote for Obama or Romney! Vote for imperialist slaughter! USA USA USA! Hate hate hate! War war war! Hooray!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The problem is capitalism. Under socialism, production will be planned to meet human needs, not driven blindly by the whims of a market of idle parasitical bourgeois shareholders. CAPITALISM SUCKS, MICROSOFT SUCKS, FORWARD TO COMMUNISM, I DRanke coffee that I made with a coffeee makore thagt ish iu f,saoz-0-0-0-0- 0oiofdsalk fs;a;a a;;a the pain!
Just in case it has to knock those imperialist war spying machines out of the sky! The working class internationally must defend the Chinese bureaucratically deformed workers state! Smash imperialism with international socialist revolution! Dalai Lama kiss my ass!
Greetings. Remember, we feed you all. Now carry on with your irrelevant blabberations on Slashdort. Soon we will rule.
It means TRUTH which is too big for some small minds on Slashdort to HANDLE
U.S. imperialist hackers are attacking all over the world, they are the smelliest hackers and they are related to a squirrel.