Reading The Communist Manifesto (Part 2)



alright comrades and welcome to chapter 2 of the communist revolution that I'm going to read and give some commentary on alright so let's just get right down to it shall we Chapter two proletarians and communists and what relation to the communists stand to the proletarians as a whole the Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties they have no interest separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole very important they do not set up any sectarian principles of their own if you're aware of the leftist infighting you'll know why the pause was necessary there by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement the Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only one in the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat independently of all nationality in the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole so even though Marx in or angles depends who wrote it in Part one spoke about the modern proletariat has to first face the bourgeois in their own country right it's Marxism as essentially and at its core and internationalist movement okay product fighting for proletarian rights is international proletarian rights right you can't have you know just are just us and them right that's not how this works at all because your class has no border the promise area so I'm in the UK that does not make me any different from the proletariat of France Germany Spain Switzerland Portugal right we are all the same by our class position and we have to unite around that the Communists therefore are on the one hand practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country that section which pushes forward all others on the other hand theoretically they have to get they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of March the conditions and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement that the immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties formation of the proletariat into a class overthrow of the bridge wall supremacy and conquest of the political power by the proletariat the theoretical conclusion of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented or discovered by this or that would be Universal reformer okay that's very important because some people will say that you know Marxist it's just you know dogmatic adherence to the works of Marx right and that's fundamentally not what it's supposed to be as you can see here the theoretical conclusions of these communists are in no way based on ideas or principles invented or discovered by this or that Universal reformer right and that includes Marx and Engels themselves right we shouldn't subscribe to this great man theory of the world you know I see this a lot with Marxist Leninist all right they sort of hold up Stalin as this great man and they get into sort of the cult of personality which is wholly unhelpful just one Marxist standpoint you shouldn't have that towards a person you can understand that you couldn't admit that he did some really up things and some good things but independent from that you shouldn't hold up any one man as you know sort of a sort of lionize him as a great man as true Marxist to understand that all people are results of their material conditions and surrounding right so he became ma he became who he was as a result of his material conditions not because he was some great man that was gifted to the planet Earth by the Communist gods or anything ridiculous like that right so that's that's my position on that they merely Express in Universal terms actual relations springing from the existing class struggle from an historical form a historical hysterical hilarious from a historical movement going on under our very eyes the abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism all property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change sconce why do I have trouble with that word have been subject to hysterical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions the French Revolution for example abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property the distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally but the abolition of bourgeois property right so that's private property by the way I wonder if it mentions that but modern bourgeois private property hilarious in 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 so this is I was going to talk about the difference between public and private property but I think it does lie here so I'm just going to keep reading in this sense the theory of the communist may be summed up in a single sentence abolition of private property we communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the rights of personally acquiring property as the fruit of them of a man's own labour which property is a lot alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom independence and activity hard-won self acquired self earned property do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small hasn't a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form there is no need to abolish that 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 that kind of property which exploits wage-labour and which cannot increase except under condition of the getting a new supply of wage labour 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 so this is the this is what it really took me a long time to understand I actually completely missed the social status part in production I don't know why because it's obvious when you get told about it but for some reason I I hadn't even considered the social status in production I didn't even think about that side of it so that's why this was really interesting to me capital is a collective product not only by the United actions of many members may in the last resort only by the United action of all members of society cannot be set can it be set in motion capital was there for not only personal but 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 societal 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 that is the quantum of the means of substance subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer what therefore the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to Pilat 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 serves no surplus wherewith to command the labor 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 insofar as the interest of the ruling class requires it in bushwell society living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labour in communist society accumulated labour is but a means to widen to enrich and to promote the existence of the labourer in bourgeois society therefore the past dominates the presence in communist society the past sorry in communist society the present dominates the past and bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality while the living person is dependent and has no individuality all the abolition of the state of things is caught by the bourgeois abolition of individuality and freedom and rightly so the abolition of bourgeois individuality bourgeois independence and when Bruges wha freedom is undoubtedly aimed at yes by freedom is meant under the present birth war conditions of production free trade free buying and free selling but if selling and buying disappears free selling and buying disappears also sorry if free selling and buying disappears free selling and buying disappears also did you not just repeat yourself this talk about free selling and buying and all the other brave words of about freedom in general have a meaning if any only in contrast with restricted selling and buying with the fetter traders of the Middle Ages but have no meaning when compared to the communistic abolition of buying and selling of the bourgeois conditions of production its existence for the few is solely due to the 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 most people don't own their homes guys most people don't have they don't own their own property so which private property are we talking about here and by the way private property means so I do want to talk about the difference between personal and private or property by the way here because when people here you know we want to abolish private property people think that that means you you know wouldn't be able to own your house or something like that that's not really what that means that's personal property private property is the means of production right so we're talking about factories right we're talking about places where production takes place that in in a communist society the workers would own and run right so that's what they're talking about the abolition of bourgeois private property in one word you approached us with intending to do away with your property yet precisely so this is just what we intend from the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital money or rent into a social power capable of being monopolized ie from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property into capital from that moment you say in the vanishes you must therefore confess that by individual you mean no other person than the bourgeoisie 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 labor 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 however Bridgewell society or long ago to have sought gone to the docks through sheer idleness for those of its members who work acquire nothing and those who acquire anything do not work the whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology that there can no longer be any wage labor when there is no longer any capital all objections urged against this 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 ok because to them that's their class property right so to get away to do away with their class property to them is their disappearance of their whole culture right because it's a class it's a societal thing for them right for the brush life but the culture that's 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 supply so long as you apply to our intended abolition of bourgeois property the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom law and culture etc your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bushwa 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 economic conditions of existence of your class the selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social form springing from your mode your present mode of production and form of property historical reflections that arrives and disappear in the progress of production this misconception you share with every ruling class that's 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 of this infamous proposal of Communists on what foundation is the present family the bourgeois family based the nuclear family that's based on capital on private gain in its completely developed form the family exists only among the bourgeoisie but this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians and in public prostitution that's very true look it look if you just look today the amount of people who are no longer getting married no longer having children right it's much higher among Millennials so what you have here is the fact that the nuclear family exists only to further capital it it's useful for capitalism that's why it exists so that you can have a traditionally male person who goes out to work to provide for his family which comprises of a wife so that they can have kids so that they so that the bushwa have another generation of workers to work for the bourgeois right and that's what that family is based around it's based around the mode of production the bushwa family will vanish as a matter of course when it's compliment vanishes and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents so this crime we plead guilty so this is coming from a time when parents would sell their children into child labor so that has what he's talking here the exploitation of children by their parents right parents selling their children into slave labor essentially but you say to destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home education by social and your education it is is that not also social and determined by the societal conditions which under under which you educate by the intervention direct or indirect of society by means of schools etc the Communists have not invented the intervention of society in in education but they do seek to alter the character of that in servation and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class this bridge were claptrap about the family and education about the hallowed Clos relation of parents and children becomes all the more disgusting the more by the action of modern industry all family ties among the proletarians are torn a son and their children transformed into simple articles of Commerce and nothing they're instruments for labor but you communists would introduce community of women scream the bourgeoisie in chorus the birth was used his wife as a mere instrument of production he hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common and naturally can come to no other conclusion than the lots of being common to all likewise for to the women yeah so this is why marriage originally came about right it was a property deed originally men saw their women as property right and that's what marriage that's what marriage is it's a it's a state recognized property deed I have we have a marriage bond right I own this person and it's a way to continue property normally if you own a house right you're at Bush while you have bushwa property when I die or when she dies right this property through children goes from one to the other from you know our Father to son or if I was to die and I had if I had a wife she would get that property right it's a way for property to pass between hands peacefully essentially he has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production for the rest nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of the bourgeois had the community of women which they pretend is to be openly and officially established by the communists the communists have no need to introduce community of women it has existed almost from time immemorial our bourgeois not content with having wives and daughters of the proletariat at their disposal not to speak of common prostitutes take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives right Trump did that also remember there was that story about him bringing in a guy he knew ringing his wife on the speakerphone keeping the phone down and then talking about her remember when we went out and hooked up with all those hookers and everything and then with the woman listening on the phone right on the speakerphone and then when they break up Trump would try and sleep with their wives right because he sees their marriage as property so to them this is a win this is the goal this is nothing other than not content with having wives and daughters of the proletariat the suppose or not speaking common prostitutes they take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives but if one marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus at the most what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce in substitution for a hyper hyper critically concealed and openly legislated Oh an openly legalized community of women oh wow he's literally talking about like prostitution for the rest it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women's springing up from that system ie the prostitution both public and private the Communists are further approached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality but the working men have no country we cannot take from them what they have not gone since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy we must rise to be the leading class of the nation we must constitute itself be nation it is so far itself national though not in the bourgeois sense of the world national differences and antagonism between people are daily more and more vanishing owing to the development of the bourgeoisie to freedom of Commerce to the world market to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of the life support corresponding thereto the supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster United action of the leading civilised countries at least is one of the first conditions of the emancipation of the proletariat in proportion as the exploited X the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to in proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes this the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end the charges against communism made from a religious philosophical and generally the ideological standpoint are not deserving of serious examination yeah that's great does it require a deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas views and conception in one word man's consciousness changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence in his social relations and in his societal and in his social life what else does the or scratch in my head what else does the history of ideas prove that then that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed the ruling ideas of each age have been given the ideas of the ruling class when people speak of the ideas of the revolutionise society they do bik's press the fact that within the old society the elements of the new one have been created and that the dissolution of the old idea keeps even pace with the disillusion of the old conditions of existence when the ancient world was in its last throes the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity when Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas feudal society for its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie the ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience mainly gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge hmm undoubtedly it will be said that religious moral philosophical and sure additional ideas have been modified in the course of historical development but religion morality philosophy political science and law constantly survived this change there are besides eternal truths such as freedom justice etc that are common to all states of society but communism abolish –is eternal truths it abolished all religion and all morality instead of constituting them on a new basis it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience what does this accusation reduce itself to the history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs but whatever form they may have taken one fact is common to all past ages these are V the exploitation of one part of society by the other no wonder then that the social consciousness of past ages despite all the multiplicity and variety of displays moves within certain common forms or general ideas which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms the communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations no wonder that it's developed that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas but let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism that we still deal with today we have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by decree all capital from the bourgeoisie to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ie of the proletariat organized as the ruling class and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible of course in the beginning this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property and on the conditions of bourgeois production by means of measures therefore which appear economically insufficient and untenable but which in the course of the movement outstrip themselves necessitate further inroads upon the old social order and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production these myth these measures will however these measures will of course be different in different countries nevertheless in most advanced countries the following will generally be applicable one the abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes to a heavy progressive or graduated income tax three abolition of all rights of inheritance for a lottery for confiscation of the property of all immigrants and rebels okay interesting five natural four means so it's just if you rebel against if you're a bail against the communist system you'll have your property taken as well I guess centralization of credit CIPA sorry five centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a National Bank with state capital that has an exclusive monopoly there are that ones are incredibly important because otherwise you get sort of a finance capital bourgeois you get sort of what do they call it finance theory that essentially you know caused the 2008 financial crisis right centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state seven extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state the bringing into cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan that's great eight equal liability of all to work establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture so two of these will already have established that bourgeois lie about you know communist judges lazy and don't want to work right well first of all we're talking here about hmm where was the what was the first one I've already missed the first one so all right so it says here that the equal liability of all to work right and this was even a thing in the USSR I think it was mandated by law that everyone had to have a job right so that's a nonsense nonsense right yeah Watson especially in agriculture I mean that that was huge for the USSR right there was the whole cruel acts and everything right within the agricultural sector 9 combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries that gradual abolition of all distinctions between town and country by a more equable equable distribution of the populace over the country so this is so that we don't get heavily populated areas around cities and that you can you know generally distribute the population over the country more evenly right because people don't understand that and there is all sorts of downsides that come from the concentration of people into very very small places because capitalism requires it demands it right I mean just think of just think of those huge cities think of London think of New York think of I don't know LA right San Francisco just think of the concentration of these people in those incredibly small financial capitals and the reasons why ten free education for all children in public schools abolition of children's factory labor in its present form and the combination of education with industrial production etc etc and everyone should yeah I generally agree with all of those things I think I think so the one that I would have to is for I'm not totally sure what this means and rebel so it's just the confiscation of property of all people who rebel against the system I guess that's necessary yeah maybe I mean when he was writing this I'm sure that he in his mind thought were the only people that are actually gonna rebel against this right will be the bourgeois and we're taking their property anyway but you are going to get proles that have amassed just enough to own their own property but then again we're not talking about personal property army confiscation of the property of all rebels we're probably probably still talking private property which would make them bourgeois by definition right so that's probably fine when in the course of development class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast Association of the whole nation the public power will lose its political character hmm political power properly so-called is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another definitely true the political system is just the way by which the boudoir maintains their control over the proletariat right it's the way that they keep oppressing the proletariat through the political system right that's how that works that's the function it operates if the proletariat during its contest with the virtualizing is compelled by the force of circumstance to Organists organize itself as a class if by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class and as such sweeps away by force the old conditions of production then it will along with these conditions have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class in place of the old British law society with its class and class antagonisms we shall have an association in which the free development of is the condition for the free development of all so I've heard this criticism by some that they say well all you want is to oppress the bushwa right all you're going to do is flip this on its head you're so outraged that the boudoir is the class that oppresses the proletariat all you want to do is flip it on its head and become the proletarian that oppressed the bourgeois right except this last current this last chapter here is what it that talks about if you if you abolish class antagonisms then you abolish your own supremacy as a class if class antagonisms no longer exists between the proletariat and the bourgeois then those classes no longer have any meaning because there is nothing to separate them there is no antagonisms between those classes so we cannot have a proletariat dominating a bourgeois because those classes no longer exist because we have destroyed and routed out the class antagonisms that enable that form of oppression to exist in the first place right so it's only capitalist societies that will allow the oppression of one class by another you see in a communist society once those class antagonisms have broken down the label of proletariat ambush will no longer mean anything because those labels only mean something because of their antagonisms to each other if you get rid of the antagonisms they dissolve the classes dissolve they no longer mean anything there's no antagonism between them so one cannot dominate the other at that point so there you go guys that's Chapter two proletarians and communists so it talks about the abolition of private property and how that's different to personal property talks about wage labor we've talked about you know brutal our property and the desires of essentially the Communists the the bushwa family and how marriage and everything essentially is a an institution to further develop and protect the British one mode of production right and then we moved on to actual demands by the Communists themselves what they want what they fight for because this is a manifesto right and every manifesto has a list of demands and we've come on to what they are how they will work and why they're probably correct okay so there we go that's Chapter two guys like subscribe leave a comment I'll always get back to comments because I'm a tiny tiny Channel right so I'll always get back to all comments so leave them like subscribe comment all those things guys thank you very much peace




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *