Proletarians

Proletarians, who are pushed into despair, will grab the torch by doing what Stephens advised them; A feeling of revenge will come out, combined with anger that will not be enough to explain the anger of 1793.The war of the poor against the rich will be the bloodiest ever.The union of a part of the bourgeoisie with the proletariat, and even the bourgeoisie's resurgence, will not work.

Moreover, the bourgeoisie's coming to faith only goes from one point to the most, to a moderate juste-milieu (middle way) point; the more obscure, the united with the workers, can only create a new Gironde, and it is defeated during strong developments.

The prejudices of an entire class cannot be put aside like an old coat; Especially the prejudices of the hard, narrow and selfish British bourgeoisie cannot be put.

All of these are the safest conclusions that can be made. The bases are to some extent in the undeniable realities of historical development, to some extent concealed in human nature.Prophecy is nowhere easier than in a place like England, where the elements of society are clearly defined and sharply decomposed.

The revolution will surely come; Time is too late for a peaceful solution; but it can be done softer than predicted in the previous . But this depends on the development of the proletariat rather than the development of the bourgeoisie.

To the extent that the proletariat absorbs socialist and communist elements, the blood, revenge and brutality of the revolution will decrease. Communism is in principle above and beyond the separation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; it only accepts the historical significance of this separation at the moment, but does not justify it for the future; in reality it wants to close this gap, eliminate all class oppositions. It is for this reason that the proletariat inevitably angered those who persecuted him as the war continued, justified as the most important lever in the start of a worker mobility; but communism goes beyond this anger, because communism is not only a problem of workers, but a problem of humanity.

Read More

Marx and Communism

Yet, like Cain in the Bible, Marx is cursed with a black mark in history.

              His name will forever be associated with the dark side of communism. A spectre is haunting Karl Marx—the history of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and the millions who died and suffered under the "evil empire," as Ronald Reagan called it. Apologists say Marx cannot be held accountable 1. I think German sociologist Max Weber deserves this honour. See Skousen (2001), chapter 10. for his communist followers' atrocities and even assert that Marx would have been one of the first to be executed or sent to the Gulag. Perhaps.

              For one thing, he vehemently opposed press censorship throughout his career. Yet, without Marx, could there have been such a violent revolution and repression? Did not Marx support a "reign of terror" on the bourgeoisie? As one bitter critic put it, "In the name of human progress, Marx has probably caused more death, misery, degradation and despair than any man who ever lived" (Downs 1983, 299).

Marx Engenders Youthful Fanaticism 

              Among schools of thought, no other economist or philosopher engenders so much passion and religious fever as Marx. Above all, Marx was a visionary and a revolutionary idol, not just an economist. In reading The Communist Manifesto, written over 150 years ago, one cannot help feeling the passionate power, the pungent style, and the astonishing simplicity of Marx and Engels's words (1964 [1848]).

              Youthful followers become true believers, and it usually takes them years to grow out of their Marxist addiction. It happened to Robert Heilbroner, Mark Blaug, Whittaker Chambers, and David Horowitz. I even saw it among my students at Rollins College, a decade after Soviet communism had collapsed and Marxism was supposedly dead. In my class, "Survey of Great Economists," I require students to read a book authored by an economist. One student chose The Communist Manifesto.

              After reading it, he came to me and exclaimed with some emotion, "This is incredible! I must do my book report on this!" pointing to his well-marked copy. It was eerie. In my lectures, I did my best to counter Marxian doctrine, but it didn't matter. He was converted. I can easily see how a young revolutionary could be swayed by these unforgettable lines from the polemical Communist Manifesto: A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism... The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. . . .The bourgeoisie 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.'...Veiled by political and religious illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. . . . Let the ruling classes tremble at the communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF.

ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! (1964 [1848])

              Marshall Berman, a longtime Marxist living in New York City, recounts how he, as a youth, encountered another book by Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of1844. This book generated the same kind of fanatic enthusiasm. "Suddenly I was in a sweat, melting, shedding clothes and tears, flashing hot and cold" (Berman 1999, 7)—not from staring at Playboy magazine or trading penny stock for the first time, but from reading Marx!

              In many ways, Marxism has become a quasi-religion, with its slogans, symbols, red banners, hymns, party fellowship, apostles, martyrs, bible, and definitive truth. "Marx had the self-assurance of a prophet who had talked to God. ... He was a poet, prophet, and moralist speaking as a philosopher and economist; his doctrine is not to be tested against mere facts but to be received as ethical-religious truth... Marx was to lead the Chosen People out of slavery to the New Jerusalem Becoming a Marxist or a Communist is like falling in love, an essentially emotional commitment" (Wesson 1976, 29-30, 158). A guidebook for youth was published in 1935 entitled Teachings of Marx for Girls and Boys, authored by protestant minister William Montgomery Brown, highlighted by pictures on the cover of Marx's "greatest pupils," Lenin and Stalin.

Marx's Contributions to Economics

              Few economists break out into other disciplines as did Karl Marx. There's Marx the philosopher, Marx the historian, Marx the political scientist, Marx the sociologist, and Marx the literary critic. He was prolific and wrote unendingly about nearly everything. Even today a compilation of the complete works of Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels has not been finished. The commentaries on Marx and related subjects are so vast that it would take volumes to tell it all. (On the Internet, Amazon.com lists over 4,000 entries on Marx and communism, second only to Jesus and Christianity.) Thus, our chapter on Marx must of necessity be limited largely to his economic contributions. Even then, Marx the economist is not an easy subject.

              Marx was probably the first major economist to establish his own school of thought, with its own methodology and specialized language. In creating his own school in his classic work, Capital (1976 [1867]), he contrasted his system with that of laissez-faire—as espoused by Adam Smith, J.-B. Say, and David Ricardo, among others. It was Marx who dubbed laissez-faire the "classical school." In developing a Marxist approach to economics, he created his own vocabulary: surplus value, reproduction, bourgeoisie and proletarians, historical materialism, vulgar economy, monopoly capitalism, and so on. He invented the term "capitalism."2 Since Marx, economics has never been the same. Today, there is no universally acceptable macro model of the economy as there is in physics or mathematics—there are only warring schools of economics.

Read More

Work-Sharing

The Spanish guy looked in front of his enormous view and admiringly,sighed. In 1439 Venice, he came for to see how these Italian cities armed the battle ships.In his homeland this job was troublesome and it takes days,but in this place Venetians could equip ships in less than an hour,in front of his eyes.But how Venetians  managed to do it?

               In Spain the ships are connected to the docks and the mass of workers were equipping it with munitions and backups.In Venice the ships pulling over to the canal and the different producers of gun and munitions,while the ship was passing, they were releasing their goods to the deck. The stunned Spanish tourist took notes of this condition on his diary.He observed the more ideal work-sharing example:He was the witness of the mechanism of the World's first assembly line.

               The underlying idea is simply,to divide the work and we will be able to produce more, better with the specialization of the job that each unit performs best.In fact the work-sharing using for years.In Antique Greek, it was a well-known method;it was present in factories of during Adam Smith's times.But only at the beginning in 20th century,Henry Ford and with his Model-T car, it tooks the perfect form.

               The Work-Sharing,first it was efective on to start the Industrial Revolution,different countries,it provides to increase their productivity and wealth.Every product that might come to mind today was produced with the work-sharing.

               Manufacturing Confusion Imagine a basic pencil.Production includes many different stages:cutting wood,removal of the relevant substance and shaping,stigmatization,varnishing,eraser attachment.There is one more hand labor to procude one pencil.

              Until the time of Adam Smith, the work-sharing was not explained by a simple theory.Smith in his book '' The Wealth of Nations '',gives the example of the famous needle factory.This,in 18th century England,a factory that manufactures small needles by hand.Smith says it's hard to make a needle in the house of an ordinary man at home, and Smith says the job is divided among various experts in the needle factory:

One man draws out the wire; another straights it; a third cuts it; a fourth points it; a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business; to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. 

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations pg:14-15 

             According to Smith,in a factory of 10 people,through work-sharing,can be produced in a day 48,000 needles.It means increase %400 thousand in productivity. A group to work like this way,it makes much of the total of what the self-constituting individuals can do.

              Naturally,centuries ago it is the prototype of factories created by Henry Ford. Ford designs an assembly line, in which each of the workers will add a new piece to it, which will pass the different workers' teams in front of the automobile.Hereby,it can produce automobiles by spending far less money and time it takes to make cars.

            To Know the Strong But work-sharing doesn't finish here.Imagine a company,get better than workers fromthe manager of the company is in charge,in administration,in accounting,in marketing and building cleaning..All these officials from inside they will choose the most profitable for theirselves,for others assigns others.

            Same way, of a automobile producers,in seats leather to sound system,It would be very pointless for him to do all the parts of the vehicle by theirself.Some of jobs( or all)  leave it to the expert companies,to supply the pieces from them and it is more profitable to pick them up and assemble from them.

             Smith,devoloped that idea to one step forward.Work-sharing not to be only in among a different people,but also he proposes to be in among different countries and cities too.

              Dangers of Divisions There are some problems with the work-sharing too.The first one of this-many fired employers was witnessed of this-it is difficult for someone who specializes in an unsolicited craft to find another job.One hundered automobile worker,mine worker,steel worker,iron worker....etc when the factories are closed,they were unemployed in the past years.Secondly, a factory could become completely dependent to a person or a group of people.This,these people's over whole process,they will have the power to abuse it if they wished it.

              Third, of individual in single job and condensation on expertise,it can make it increasingly reluctant.To repeat one work to all day,according to Smith's statement it leads to a situation called ''Mental Disabling.'' It prevents to progress of people mental capacities and alienate them to each other.Karl Marx agreed too.In fact Marx said,in the Communist Manifesto,workers became increasingly desperate and at the end of they will rebel against his bosses.

               The alienation caused by job sharing, the incredible earnings it provides, must be compared.Work-sharing it was the reasons of modern economics growing and shrinking and it was the very important parts of economic logic's.

Read More

Karl Marx:Principle of Infinite Capital Accumulation

In 1867 Marx,after half a year of published Ricardo's ''Principles' ,when he published Capital's 1st volume,economic and social truths has deeply changed:The question is whether agriculture will now feed an increasing population or the question of whether the price of the soil will increase or not,rather it became a matter of understanding the dynamics of industrial capitalism as a whole.

            The most stunning fact of this period,is the misery of the industrial proletariat.Despite growing in the economy at the same time, due to migration from rural to urban, which is caused by the increase in population and agricultural productivity,workers began to accumulate in slums in cities.Prices were low,working times were long.A new urban misery,is visible,more shocking and from some angles,was more miserable than, which was common in Ancient Regime.Inspired by the timid arrangement of 1841 Le Tableau de L'état physique et moral des ouvriers employés dans les manufactures (The Table of the Physical and Moral Status of Workers in Manufactures)  published by Dr.Villerme in France and in England.Depicting the same terrible truth which published by Engels in 1845 Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England(The status of the working class in England) too.

             In fact,the historical truths that we have today,however when we came in the second period of to19th century,it showed to us there is a evident increase purchasing power.From 1800-1810 years to 1850-1860 years,the salaries of workers remained very low.Like France that we can see it in England to,long recession in wages, in this period with became remarkable with the gain speed of economic growth.In every case the labor factor is stagnant in income,increase in capital and industrial profits-in 1840-1850 time period- it is a fact that everyone is aware of.The first Socialist and Communist emergence of movements took place in this context.The basic question asked is fairly simple:After half a century of growth,if the living conditions of the masses are still miserable and beside prohibition of 8 years old children working in factories,if there is nothing the development of in industry,all these techniques progress,all these labor, all these migrantions. What does it do? It is clear that the current economic and political system has gone bankrupt.Everyone wondering the other question:What can we say such a system that in long-term?

               Marx knew the answer.In 1848,on the eve of the ''Spring of People'' , to begin with ''A ghost wanders in Europe,the ghost of communism.''  effective and short text, Das Kommunistischen Manifest (Communist Manifesto) was published.This text,ending with the revolutionary vision that was famous as the beginning:so the development of the modern industry,based on the fact that the bourgeoisie produces its products and products based on property acquired.It takes away from the bourgeoisie.The bourgeoisie brings its own end to everything first.The victory of the proletariat in its end was equally inevitable.

           Over the next twenty years,Marx will justify this result,he will establish the capitalism and its collapse with making a scientific analysis,he really spent his time to write voluminous analysis.His work couldn't reach to comlete: 1st-Volume of Capital's was published in 1867,however Marx couldn't complete the other two following volumes,he was died in 1883.Engels-his friend- published these two volumes after his death, bringing together the sometimes inexplicable parts of manuscripts left behind Marx.

         Like Ricardo, Marx established his own works on the analysis of capitalist system own logic contradictions too.At the same time (The Secret Hand of Adam Smith,Each supply creates its own demand of Jean-Baptiste Say.....in line with the law,the market regulate itself.) Without offering bourgeois economists and real scientific work on economic processes only that the workers think they deserve to criticize the misery,aimed to stand in a different place than the utopians.To summarize it,Marx based on the model Ricardo has developed on the price of the capital and on the principle of scarcity,at first Marx said capital doesn't based on soil,it does industrial and in a world where the principle could accumulate indefinitely, he further advance it with an analysis of the dynamics of the stock.As a result,his results,we can named as ''Infinite Accumulation Principle'' The capital has a relentless tendency to accumulate without accepting any natural limits and to concentrate in the hands of very few people.It was the starting point of Marx's foresight of doomsday at the end of capitalism:Either the capital's return rate will tend to decrease(it stops the accumulation process or between in owner of capital it could lead to a violent conflict) or the share of the national capital will increase unlimitedly(all the workers in the world will unite and rebel in the end.) Reaching a socio-economic or political balance did not seem possible in both cases.

             At the end of the 19th century the prices started to increase:Stubbornly,The inequality remained on same degree,but from some angles to The World War 1 it was increased,improvement in purchasing power was spreaded to everyone,this one changed that status from radical.No doubt communist revolution was happened,however from the most undeveloped country of europe;Russia, where the industrial revolution has barely begunLike before from self authors, Marx had also overlooked the possibility that the technical progress was continuous and that the productivity increased steadily too; in the increases in productivity,the accumulation of capital and  processes of condensation, it is a power which will be able to balanced it to certain degree.Marx,owned estimates do not have statistical data to make it more accurate.It was probably the victim of finalizing the results in 1848, before they entered research that could confirm them.Clearly,Marx was writing in a great political environment.Which in many cases led to him,difficult to avoid or shortcut results.It is precisely from this point that the theoretical discourse as far as possible is based on complete historical sources;but it can not be said that Marx did this to the extent possible.

           Despite all this,we will see that Marxist analysis makes correct determinations in many respects.Marx started with a real question and tried to find an answer with the possibilities:The Infinite Accumulation Principle put forward by Marx is also important not only in the 19th century
it also important for analyzing of the present 21st century too.If the increase in population and productivity is low, then the accumulated wealth is also of considerable importance,it destroys social stability when if this accumulation becomes excessive.In other words, a weak growth, fails to properly balance the Marxist infinite accumulation principle: the resulting outcome is a balance that will not be outdone, even if it is not like the doomsday as Marx predicted.Accumulation stops at one point, but it may be at an excessively high or at destabilizing point.We will see that the strong increase in the total value of the special wealth, measured as the national income since the 1970-1980 period, in all of the rich countries, especially in Europe and Japan, directly reflects this rationale.

FROM

http://www.izlevideo.net/marx-ve-sermaye-965382.html#Download

Read More