--- dnr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "dnr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Fw: Remembering Engels on 108 death > anniversary > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:48:36 +0530 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: dnrad1 > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:36 AM > Subject: Fw: Remembering Engels on 108 death > anniversary > > > SOCIALIST UNITY CENTRE OF INDIA(S.U.C.I.) ON 15 TH. JULY, 2003 > Remembering Engels On 5 August falls the 108 death > anniversary of Frederick Engels > > "... the products now produced socially were not > appropriated by those who had actually set in motion > the means of production and actually produced the > commodities, but by the capitalists. The means of > production, and production itself, had become in > essence socialised. But they were subjected to a > form of appro-priation which presupposes the private > production of individuals, under which, therefore, > every one owns his own product and brings it to > market. The mode of production is subjected to this > form of appropriation, although it abolishes the > conditions upon which the latter rests. > > This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of > production its capita-listic character, contains > the germ of the whole of the social > antagonisms of to-day." > (from > Dialectics of Nature) > > On 5 August falls the 108 death anniversary of > Frederick Engels, the co-founder of scientific > socialism and great leader of the proletariat. On > this occasion, we give below some portions from his > famous essay Socialism : Utopian and Scientific with > stress on the evolution or development of scientific > socialism - that even a century later has lost none > of its validity as an invincible tool in the hands > of the toiling people in the struggle for > emancipation from the tentacles of capitalist > exploitation. > > Modern Socialism is, in its essence, the direct > product of the recognition, on the one hand, of the > class antagonisms existing in the society of today > between proprietors and non-proprietors, between > capitalists and wage-workers; on the other hand, of > the anarchy existing in production. But, in its > theoretical form, modern Socialism originally > appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of > the principles laid down by the great French > philosophers of the eighteenth century. > > The great men, who in France prepared men's minds > for the coming revolution.recognised no external > authority of any kind whatever. Reason became the > sole measure of everything . henceforth > superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were > to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, > equality based on Nature and the inalienable rights > of man. > > We know today that this kingdom of reason was > nothing more than the idealised kingdom of the > bourgeoisie. compared with the splendid promises of > the philosophers, the social and political > institutions born of the "triumph of reason" were > bitterly disappointing caricatures. All that was > wanting was the men to formulate this > disappointment, and they came with the turn of the > century...The solution of the social problems, which > as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic > conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of > the human brain. Society presented nothing but > wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It > was necessary, then, to discover a new and more > perfect system of social order and to impose this > upon society from without by propaganda, and, > wherever it was possible, by the example of model > experiments. These new social systems were > foredoomed as Utopian.If in Saint-Simon we find a > comprehensive breadth of view, by virtue of which > almost all the ideas of later Socialists that are > not strictly economic are found in him in embryo, we > find in Fourier a criticism of the existing > conditions of society. > > Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution > swept over the land, in England a quieter, but not > on that account less tremendous, revolution was > going on.The sluggish march of development of the > manufacturing period changed into a veritable storm > and stress period of production.The new mode of > production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its > period of ascent .Nevertheless, even then it was > producing crying social abuses. > > At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a > manufacturer. Robert Owen. from 1800 to 1829, he > directed the great cotton mill at New Lanark, in > Scotland, as managing partner.with a success that > made him a European reputation. A population, > originally consisting of the most diverse and, for > the most part, very demoralised elements, a > population that gradually grew to 2,500, he turned > into a model colony, in which drunkenness, police, > magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were > unknown. And all this simply by placing the people > in conditions worthy of human beings, and especially > by carefully bringing up the rising generation. .In > spite of all this, Owen was not content. The > existence which he secured for his workers.The > relatively favourable conditions in which he had > placed them were still far from allowing a rational > development of the character and of the intellect in > all directions, much less of the free exercise of > all their faculties. "And yet, the working part of > this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing > as much real wealth for society as, less than half a > century before, it would have required the working > part of a population of 600,000 to create. I asked > myself, what became of the difference between the > wealth consumed by 2,500 persons and that which > would have been consumed by 600,000?"* > > The answer was clear. It had been used to pay the > proprietors of the establishment 5 per cent on the > capital they had laid out, in addition to over � > 300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New > Lanark held to a still greater extent for all the > factories in England." .The newly created gigantic > productive forces, hitherto used only to enrich > individuals and to enslave the masses, offered to > Owen the foundations for a reconstruction of > society. As long as he was simply a philanthropist, > he was rewarded with nothing but wealth, applause, > honour, and glory. But when he came out with his > Communist theories that was quite another > thing.Banished from official society, with a > conspiracy of silence against him in the press, > ruined by his unsuccessful Communist experiments in > America, in which he sacrificed all his fortune, he > turned directly to the working class and continued > working in their midst for thirty years. Every > social movement, every real advance in England on > behalf of the workers links itself on to the name of > Robert Owen. He introduced . on the one hand, > co-operative societies for retail trade and > production.On the other hand. labour bazaars for the > exchange of the products of labour through the > medium of labour-notes, whose unit was a single hour > of work . institutions necessarily doomed to > failure. > > The Utopians' mode of thought has for a long time > governed the Socialist ideas of the nineteenth > century, and still governs some of them.To all these > Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, > reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to > conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. > And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, > and the historical development of man, it is a mere > accident when and where it is discovered. And as > each one's special kind of absolute truth, reason, > and justice is again conditioned by his subjective > understanding, his conditions of existence, the > measure of his knowledge and his intellectual > training, there is no other ending possible in this > conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be > mutually exclusive one of the other. > > To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be > placed upon a real basis. > > In the meantime, along with and after the French > philosophy of the eighteenth century had arisen the > new German philosophy, culminating in Hegel. Its > greatest merit was the taking up again of dialectics > as the highest form of reasoning. > > When we consider and reflect upon Nature at large or > the history of mankind or our own intellectual > activity, at first we see the picture of an endless > entanglement of relations and reactions, > permutations and combinations, in which nothing > remains what, where and as it was, but everything > moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. We > see, therefore, at first the picture as a whole, > with its individual parts still more or less kept in > the background; we observe the movements, > transitions, connections, rather than the things > that move, combine and are connected. This > primitive, na�ve but intrinsically correct > conception of the world is that of ancient Greek > philosophy. > > But this conception . does not suffice to explain > the details of which this picture is made up. to > understand these details we must detach them from > their natural or historical connection and examine > each one separately. This is primarily, the task of > natural science and historical research.The analysis > of Nature into its individual parts, the grouping of > the different natural processes and objects in > definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy > of organic bodies in their manifold forms -these > were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic > strides in our knowledge of Nature. But this method > of work has also left us as legacy the habit of > observing natural objects and processes in > isolation, apart from their connection with the vast > whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; > as constants, not essentially variables; in their > death, not in their life. > > Dialectics.comprehends things and their > representations, ideas, in their essential > connection, concatenation, motion, origin, and > ending. > > Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be > said for modern science that it has furnished this > proof with very rich materials increasing daily, and > thus has shown that, in the last resort, Nature > works dialectically and not metaphysically; that she > does not move in the eternal oneness of a > perpetually recurring circle, but goes through a > real historical evolution. In this connection Darwin > must be named before all others. He dealt the > metaphysical conception of Nature the heaviest blow > by his proof that all organic beings, plants, > animals, and man himself are the products of a > process of evolution going on through millions of > years. But the naturalists who have learned to think > dialectically are few and far between, and this > conflict of the results of discovery with > preconceived modes of thinking explains the endless > confusion now reigning in theoretical natural > science. > > Old materialism looked upon all previous history as > a crude heap of irrationality and violence; modern > materialism sees in it the process of evolution of > humanity, and aims at discovering the laws thereof . > Modern materialism embraces the more recent > discoveries of natural science. > > Whilst, however, the revolution in the conception of > Nature could only be made in proportion to the > corresponding positive materials furnished by > research, already much earlier certain historical > facts had occurred.The class struggle between > proletariat and bourgeoisie came to the front in the > history of the most advanced countries in Europe, in > proportion to the development, upon the one hand, of > modern industry, upon the other of the newly > acquired political supremacy of the bourgeoisie. > Facts more and more strenuously gave the lie to the > teachings of bourgeois economy as to the identity of > the interests of capital and labour, as to the > universal harmony and universal prosperity that > would be the consequence of unbridled competition. > > The new facts made imperative a new examination of > all past history. Then it was seen that all past > history, with the exception of its primitive stages, > was the history of class struggles; that these > warring classes of society are always the products > of the modes of production and of exchange - in a > word, of the economic conditions of their time; that > the economic structure of society always furnishes > the real basis, starting from which we can alone > work out the ultimate explanation of the whole > superstructure of juridical and political > institutions as well as of the religious, > philosophical and other ideas of a given historical > period. Hegel had freed history from metaphysics - > he had made it dialectic; but his conception of > history was essentially idealistic. But now idealism > was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of > history; now a materialistic treatment of history > was propounded, and a method found of explaining > man's "knowing'' by his "being", instead of, as > heretofore, his "being" by his "knowing'. > > From that time forward Socialism was no longer an > accidental discovery of this or that ingenious > brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle > between two historically developed classes - the > proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no > longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect > as possible, but to examine the > historico-economic succession of events from which > these classes and their antagonism had of necessity > sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions > thus created the means of ending the conflict. But > the Socialism of earlier days was as incompatible > with this materialistic conception as the conception > of Nature of the French materialists was with > dialectics and modern natural science. The Socialism > of earlier days certainly criticised the existing > capitalistic mode of production and its > consequences. But it could not explain them, and, > therefore, could not get the mastery of them. It > could only simply reject them as bad. The more > strongly this earlier Socialism denounced the > exploitation of the working class, inevitable under > Capitalism, the less able was it clearly to show in > what this exploitation consisted and how it arose. > But for this it was necessary - (1) to present the > capitalistic method of production in its historical > connection and its inevitableness during a > particular historical period, and therefore, also, > to present its inevitable downfall; and (2) to lay > bare its essential character, which was still a > secret. This was done by the discovery of > surplus-value. It was shown that the appropriation > of unpaid labour is the basis of the capitalist mode > of production and of the exploitation of the worker > that occurs under it; that even if the capitalist > buys the labour power of his labourer at its full > value as a commodity on the market, he yet extracts > more value from it than he paid for; and that in the > ultimate analysis this surplus-value forms those > sums of value from which are heaped up the > constantly increasing masses of capital in the hands > of the possessing classes. The genesis of capitalist > production and the production of capital were both > explained. > > These two great discoveries, the materialist > conception of history and the revelation of the > secret of capitalistic production through > surplus-value, we owe to Marx. With these > discoveries Socialism became a science. > > The present structure of society - this is now > pretty generally conceded - is the creation of the > ruling class of today, of the bourgeoisie. The mode > of production peculiar to the bourgeoisie, known, > since Marx, as the capitalist mode of production, > was incompatible with the feudal system. But just as > the older manufacture, in its time. had come into > collision with the feudal trammels of the guilds, so > now modern industry, in its more complete > development, comes into collision with the bounds > within which the capitalistic mode of production > holds it confined. The new productive forces have > already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using > them. And this conflict between productive forces > and modes of production is not a conflict engendered > in the mind of man, like that between original sin > and divine justice. It exists, in fact, > objectively, outside us, independently of the will > and actions even of the men that have > brought it on. Modern Socialism is nothing but the > reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its > ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class > directly suffering under it, the working class. > > > >
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
