No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, makes the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property. All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self- conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air. Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society. The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class are the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally INEVITABLE. On Oct 15, 6:03 pm, rigsy03 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Fats Cats are still in charge. This bailout will only change your > lifestyle. Trust me! :-) > > On Oct 15, 12:57 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Workers of the world unite. You have only your chains to loose and a > > world to win! > > > On Oct 15, 4:39 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Socialism vs. the government bailout of capitalism > > > By Tom Eley > > > 15 October 2008 > > > Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author > > > > The breakdown of the US financial system and the government bailout of > > > Wall Street have seriously discredited the ideological justifications > > > of capitalism. > > > > Worship of the “free market” has long been something of a secular > > > religion in the US. Capitalist ideology has proclaimed that the > > > market’s “invisible hand” will best advance the interests of > > > historical progress, that taxes on the rich and regulations on big > > > businesses must be reduced because only the “risk-takers” know where > > > resources can best be allocated, that any sort of government > > > intervention to improve the living conditions of workers, the poor, > > > the elderly and jobless youth creates a “climate of dependency,” that > > > government cannot simply “throw money” at problems, etc., etc. > > > > All these shibboleths now stand exposed as rank hypocrisy, as the > > > biggest financial institutions belly up to the public trough. Yet > > > amidst this historic crisis of the capitalist system, some of those > > > opposed to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s Wall Street bailout have > > > claimed that the measures employed are “socialist.” > > > > Suddenly—17 years after the Soviet Union’s collapse and the supposed > > > “death of socialism”—the “S” word is being bandied about by American > > > politicians and media pundits. > > > > Charges that the Wall Street bailout is socialism have come most > > > frequently from the far right wing of the Republican Party. To note a > > > few examples, Congressman Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, claimed > > > that Paulson’s plan may put the US on, “the slippery slope to > > > socialism.” Representative Sam Johnson, also of Texas, warned, “As a > > > relentless supporter of free enterprise, I fear we are rushing > > > headlong into socialism.” Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky called > > > Paulson’s measures, “financial socialism” and “un-American.” > > > Congressman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan even compared the bailout to > > > the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. > > > > The claim that the Wall Street bailout is a socialist measure is > > > absurd on its face. Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who has > > > an estimated personal fortune of $700 million and is a member of the > > > most right-wing administration in US history, has authored a bill that > > > will ultimately divert trillions of dollars to the coffers of the > > > biggest banks in the land. This is socialist? > > > > Such claims display a combination of stupidity and deceit. Those who > > > make them rely on the low level of historical knowledge and political > > > understanding among the American people, for which the population is > > > not to blame. It is the product of the decades-long promotion of > > > political reaction and celebration of the most backward ideologies and > > > conceptions—including hostility toward science—along with the gutting > > > of public education. > > > > A central component of this debasement of political and intellectual > > > life has been the promotion of anti-communism, based largely on the > > > false identification of socialism and Marxism with their political > > > opposite, Stalinism. > > > > The Socialist Equality Party, at its recent founding congress, > > > explained concisely what socialism is in its Statement of Principles. > > > > “Socialism portends the greatest and most progressive transformation > > > of the form of man’s social organization in world history—the ending > > > of society based on classes and, therefore, of the exploitation of > > > human beings by other human beings.” > > > > “The key industrial, financial, technological and natural resources > > > must be taken out of the sphere of the capitalist market and private > > > ownership, transferred to society and placed under the democratic > > > supervision and control of the working class. The organization of > > > economic life, on the basis of the capitalist law of value, must be > > > replaced with its socialist reorganization on the basis of democratic > > > economic planning, whose purpose is the fulfillment of social needs. > > > > “New forms and structures of genuine participatory democracy—arising > > > in the course of revolutionary mass struggles and representative of > > > the working class majority of the population- must be developed as the > > > foundations of a workers’ government; that is, a government of the > > > workers, for the workers, and by the workers. The policy of such a > > > government, as it introduces those measures essential for the > > > socialist transformation of economic life, would be to encourage and > > > actively promote a vast expansion of the democratic working class’ > > > participation in, and control over, decision-making processes.” > > > > The bailout measures are being enacted not by the working people, but > > > are being imposed behind the backs of the people by the most powerful > > > bankers, through their political representatives in both parties. > > > Ownership and control of the financial levers of economic life remain > > > entirely in the private hands of the richest people in the country. > > > Those who have presided over the failure of private firms are > > > dictating the terms of their own rescue at the expense of the people. > > > > The social interests that are being defended are determined by the > > > class nature of the state power that is formulating and enacting the > > > measures. The events of the past month have demonstrated as never > > > before that the American government and the US two-party system are > > > political instruments not of the people, but rather of a financial > > > oligarchy. > > > > For their part, the right-wing Republicans initially opposed the > > > bailout from the standpoint of “free market” capitalism. They are not > > > against government intervention into the market per se. Rather, they > > > oppose government action that in any way constrains the activities of > > > the most powerful sections of finance capital. > > > > They label as “socialism” any government measure that limits the > > > ability of the major banks and corporations to maximize their profits, > > > including such things as the minimum wage, restrictions on hours of > > > work, health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, etc. > > > They oppose tax increases for the wealthy and denounce as “big > > > government” any and all government-run social programs. > > > > Because the Democrats, along with their presidential candidate, > > > Barrack Obama, served as the bailout’s most enthusiastic supporters > > > and its principal legislative midwives, Republicans were able to make > > > a demagogic pretense of opposing Wall Street. What this shows is not > > > that the Republicans have converted themselves into the unlikely > > > defenders of the common man, but how far to the right the US political > > > establishment as a whole has moved. The Democratic Party, having long > > > since repudiated any policy of social reform, has openly identified > > > itself with the financial aristocracy. > > > > What would a socialist approach to the financial crisis look like? > > > Emergency measures would be taken to transform the great banks, hedge > > > funds, insurance companies and financial houses into public utilities. > > > They would be placed under the democratic control of the working > > > class, with safeguards for the savings of small depositors. Their > > > resources would be used for productive and socially useful purposes > > > and to alleviate the suffering of the population. > > > > Trillions of dollars would be allocated to rebuild the infrastructure, > > > provide new and high-quality housing, improve education, provide > > > universal health care and access to higher education, and clean up the > > > environment. Everyone would be guaranteed a job and a decent wage. The > > > workweek would be reduced, with no loss in pay, and wages would be > > > fully indexed to account for inflation. > > > > The tax burden would be shifted from the working class to the richest > > > 10 percent of the population. > > > > There would be a full and public investigation into the activities of > > > the banks and financial firms and the books of all major corporations > > > would be opened to public inspection. > > > > The wealth of financial industry executives and large stockholders > > > would be appropriated, and they, along with their servants among the > > > political elite, would face criminal investigation for the plundering > > > of the economy that has led to the current crisis. > > > > In order to fight for this socialist perspective, working people must > > > break with the two parties of big business and build an independent > > > political party that has, as its primary aim, the reorganization of > > > the economy to meet social needs, rather than the profit interests of > > > the financial elite. In the November election, only the Socialist > > > Equality Party and its presidential and vice presidential candidates, > > > Jerry White and Bill Van Auken, are advancing this socialist > > > alternative. We urge readers of the World Socialist Web Site to > > > support our campaign, vote for Jerry White and Bill Van Auken, and > > > join the SEP.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
