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! The abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non- existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. >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. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations. It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members, who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire everything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital. All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture. That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine. But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class. The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property. Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour. On Oct 12, 5:11 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obama the Socialist. Ron Paul who? That's the way, keep pleading > insanity.......................the fat lady is singing louder than > ever. > > On Oct 12, 3:10 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > We're all socialists nowby Paul Mulshine > > October 11, 2008 1:43PM > > I've noticed lately that a lot of people seem to have discovered that > > Barack Obama is a socialist. > > There's a lot of that going around. > > Socialism, I mean. > > The only politician that I know of on the national scene who is definitely > > not a socialist is Texas congressman Ron Paul. And look where that got him. > > During the presidential primary campaign Paul was treated as a > > laughingstock by his fellow Republicans for such stances as his call for > > young people to be permitted to opt out of Social Security. > > Paul's having the last laugh these days. As you can see inthis clip, the > > entire U.S. economy is now socialist thanks to the big corporate bailout, > > says Dr. Paul. > > And then there is the unpleasant fact that every senior citizen in America > > is what my Aussie friends used to call "a dole bludger," someone who takes > > welfare without working. > > One such apparent dole bludgerheld forthat a recent McCain rally in > > Wisconsin. The old codger worked himself up into a frenzy that even the > > hot-tempered McCain might envy, screaming "I'm mad, I'm really mad!" and > > then shouting, "And what's going to surprise ya, is it's not the economy, > > it's the socialists taking over our country." > > The old coot made it clear that the hated socialists are the Democrats. But > > assuming he was over 65, which he certainly appeared to be, the guy is > > receiving the benefit of at least two socialist programs. One, of course, > > is Social Security. There's a reason they called it "social" security and > > not Capitalist Security. It's a welfare program and the current codgers are > > getting a free ride paid for by working Americans. True, they paid into it, > > but anyone who lives a normal life span will get out a lot more than he or > > she put in. > > And then there's Medicare. The current crop of seniors paid a pittance into > > it during their working years, but they now have the benefit of a system of > > socialized medicine till the day they die. > > Does this guy really want McCain to fight socialism in America? > > Imagine McCain told this guy he was absolutely right and as of January > > President McCain would end Social Security and Medicare and pay back to > > senior citizens the amount they paid in, with interest. By February, this > > geezer would be at a rally demanding to have his Medicare coverage restored. > > The truth is, Americans love socialism. They'd better. This is a socialist > > country. Here's an interestingarticlethat compares our government-funded > > health care systems, primarily Medicare and Medicaid, with other countries: > > "The average rich-country government spends 6.7 percent of GDP on health; > > America's 6.8 percent is very slightly higher. The national health systems > > of Canada and Britain cost about 6.9 percent of GDP, and that of Australia > > 6.4 percent. Germany's government spends the most on health care at 8.9 > > percent of GDP, followed by Norway, Sweden, France, and Denmark." > > The big difference, of course, is that in most of those countries the > > socialized system covers everyone, while our socialized system covers just > > the poor and the elderly. Oh yeah, don't let me forget government workers. > > They have a system of guaranteed benefits and early retirement that the > > typical Brit or Swede would envy. > > So our system is socialism. It's just an inept form of socialism. And it's > > also an unsupportable form. The baby-boomer retirement was going to > > bankrupt us even before the recent market meltdown. Now we could be on the > > verge of a slide into Third-World status. I've been to countries where you > > need to carry a backpack just for the bills needed to buy a beer. It's not > > a pretty sight. > > The only way to prevent that would be to take the harsh medicine that Dr. > > Paul offered us during the primary season. But not a lot of Americans want > > that prescription, and I suspect the old crank in this video would be among > > the last to down a dose of it. > > NOTE: Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute just sent me a link tothis > > paperin which he argues that Obama's plan is socialized medicine, as is > > Medicare. He doesn't deal with McCain's plan, but it is slightly less > > socialist than > > Obama's.http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2008/10/were_all_socialists_now....- > > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
