HEY HUMAN! - YES you! - You do not have to be livestock - SO WAKE UP!

You think you live in a country right?

Well, watch this then think again!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY&

And WAKE UP!

[Thinking Man's Idiot]

SECTION 1

THE LIMITS OF THE WORKING-DAY


We started with the supposition that labour-power is bought and sold at its value. Its value, like that of all other commodities, is determined by the working-time necessary to its production. If the production of the average daily means of subsistence of the labourer takes up 6 hours, he must work, on the average, 6 hours every day, to produce his daily labour-power, or to reproduce the value received as the result of its sale. The necessary part of his working-day amounts to 6 hours, and is, therefore, caeteris paribus [other things being equal], a given quantity. But with this, the extent of the working-day itself is not yet given.
Let us assume that the line A–––B represents the length of the necessary working-time, say 6 hours. If the labour be prolonged 1, 3, or 6 hours beyond A—–B, we have 3 other lines:
Working-day I.Working-day II.Working-day III. A–––B–C.A–––B––C.A–––B–� ��–C. representing 3 different working-days of 7, 9, and 12 hours. The extension B—–C of the line A—–B represents the length of the surplus-labour. As the working-day is A—–B + B—–C or A—–C, it varies with the variable quantity B—–C. Since A—–B is constant, the ratio of B—–C to A—–B can always be calculated. In working-day I, it is 1/6, in working-day II, 3/6, in working day III 6/6 of A—–B. Since further the ratio (surplus working-time)/(necessary working-time), determines the rate of the surplus-value, the latteris given by the ratio of B—-C to A—-B. It amounts in the 3 different working-days respectively to 16 2/3, 50 and 100 per cent. On the other hand, the rate of surplus-value alone would not give us the extent of the working-day. If this rate, e.g., were 100 per cent., the working-day might be of 8, 10, 12, or more hours. It would indicate that the 2 constituent parts of the working-day, necessary-labour and surplus-labour time, were equal in extent, but not how long each of these two constituent parts was.
The working-day is thus not a constant, but a variable quantity. One of its parts, certainly, is determined by the working-time required for the reproduction of the labour-power of the labourer himself. But its total amount varies with the duration of the surplus-labour. The working-day is, therefore, determinable, but is, per se, indeterminate. [1]
Although the working-day is not a fixed, but a fluent quantity, it can, on the other hand, only vary within certain limits. The minimum limit is, however, not determinable; of course, if we make the extension line B—‑C or the surplus-labour = 0, we have a minimum limit, i.e., the part of the day which the labourer must necessarily work for his own maintenance. On the basis of capitalist production, however, this necessary labour can form a part only of the working-day; the working-day itself can never be reduced to this minimum. On the other hand, the working-day has a maximum limit. It cannot be prolonged beyond a certain point. This maximum limit is conditioned by two things. First, by the physical bounds of labour-power. Within the 24 hours of the natural day a man can expend only a definite quantity of his vital force. A horse, in like manner, can only work from day to day, 8 hours. During part of the day this force must rest, sleep; during another part the man has to satisfy other physical needs, to feed, wash, and clothe himself. Besides these purely physical limitations, the extension of the working-day encounters moral ones. The labourer needs time for satisfying his intellectual and social wants, the extent and number of which are conditioned by the general state of social advancement. The variation of the working-day fluctuates, therefore, within physical and social bounds. But both these limiting conditions are of a very elastic nature, and allow the greatest latitude. So we find working-days of 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 hours, i.e., of the most different lengths.
The capitalist has bought the labour-power at its day-rate. To him its use-value belongs during one working-day. He has thus acquired the right to make the labourer work for him during one day. But, what is a working-day? [2]
At all events, less than a natural day. By how much? The capitalist has his own views of this ultima Thule [the outermost limit], the necessary limit of the working-day. As capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus-value, to make its constant factor, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus-labour. [3]
Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him. [4]
If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist. [5]
The capitalist then takes his stand on the law of the exchange of commodities. He, like all other buyers, seeks to get the greatest possible benefit out of the use-value of his commodity. Suddenly the voice of the labourer, which had been stifled in the storm and stress of the process of production, rises:
The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. That which on your side appears a spontaneous expansion of capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power. You and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &c., I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal amount of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of “saving” and “abstinence.” Good! I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it. I will each day spend, set in motion, put into action only as much of it as is compatible with its normal duration, and healthy development. By an unlimited extension of the working-day, you may in one day use up a quantity of labour-power greater than I can restore in three. What you gain in labour I lose in substance. The use of my labour-power and the spoliation of it are quite different things. If the average time that (doing a reasonable amount of work) an average labourer can live, is 30 years, the value of my labour-power, which you pay me from day to day is 1/365 × 30 or 1/10950 of its total value. But if you consume it in 10 years, you pay me daily 1/10950 instead of 1/3650 of its total value, i.e., only 1/3 of its daily value, and you rob me, therefore, every day of 2/3 of the value of my commodity. You pay me for one day’s labour-power, whilst you use that of 3 days. That is against our contract and the law of exchanges. I demand, therefore, a working-day of normal length, and I demand it without any appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out of place. You may be a model citizen, perhaps a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and in the odour of sanctity to boot; but the thing that you represent face to face with me has no heart in its breast. That which seems to throb there is my own heart-beating. I demand the normal working-day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity. [6]
We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit to the working-day, no limit to surplus-labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...67-c1/ch10.htm

[Thinking Man's Idiot]

The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State)
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on Marxist theory

Theoretical works[show]

The Communist Manifesto
Das Kapital The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon
Grundrisse
The German Ideology Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
Theses on Feuerbach

Sociology · Anthropology[show]

Alienation · Bourgeoisie
Base and superstructure
Class consciousness
Commodity fetishism
Communism · Cultural hegemony
Exploitation · Human nature
Ideology · Proletariat
Reification · Socialism
Relations of production

Economics[show]

Marxian economics
Labour power · Law of value
Means of production
Mode of production
Productive forces
Surplus labour · Surplus value
Transformation problem
Wage labour

History[show]

Anarchism and Marxism
Capitalist production
Class struggle
Dictatorship of the proletariat
Primitive capital accumulation
Proletarian revolution
Proletarian internationalism
World revolution

Philosophy[show]

Historical materialism
Dialectical materialism
Marxist philosophy
Analytical Marxism
Libertarian Marxism
Marxist autonomism
Marxist feminism
Marxist geography
Marxist humanism
Structural Marxism
Western Marxism
Young Marx

People[show]

Karl Marx · Friedrich Engels
Karl Kautsky · Eduard Bernstein
Georgi Plekhanov · Rosa Luxemburg
Vladimir Lenin · Leon Trotsky
Joseph Stalin · Mao Zedong
Georg Lukács · Karl Korsch
Antonio Gramsci · Frankfurt School
Louis Althusser · Guy Debord · more

Criticism[show]

Criticisms of Marxism

Categories[show]

All categorised articles

Communism portal v • d • e

Friedrich Engels


The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: in the light of the researches of Lewis H. Morgan is a historical materialist treatise written by Friedrich Engels and published in 1884. It is partially based on notes by Karl Marx to Lewis H. Morgan's book Ancient Society.
Contents

[hide]

• 1 Development of human society and the family
  • 1.1 The Consanguine Family
  • 1.2 The Punaluan Family
  • 1.3 The Pairing Family
  • 1.4 The Monogamous Family
• 2 Family and property
• 3 External links

The Origin of The Family, Private Property and the State | libcom.org

Engels wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in just two months -- beginning toward the end of March 1884 and completing it by the ..

Works of Frederick Engels 1884
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

Written: March-May, 1884;
First Published: October 1884, in Hottingen-Zurich;
Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume Three;
Translation: The text is essentially the English translation by Alick West published in 1942, but it has been revised against the German text as it appeared in MEGA Volume 21, Dietz Verlag 1962, and the spelling of names and other terms has been modernised;
Transcription/Markup: Zodiac/Brian Basgen;
Online Version: Marx/Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1993, 1999, 2000.
Table of Contents:

Introduction
Preface to the First Edition
Preface to the Fourth Edition
Stages of Prehistoric Culture
The Family
The Consanguine Family (The First Stage of the Family)
The Punaluan Family
The Pairing Family
The Monogamous Family
The Iroquois Gens
The Greek Gens [The Rise of Private Property]
The Rise of the Athenian State
The Gens and the State in Rome
The Gens Among Celts and Germans
The Formation of the State Among the Germans
Barbarism and Civilization
Appendix: A Recently Discovered Case of Group Marriage

Study Guide
Introduction

After Marx’s death, in rumaging through Marx’s manuscripts, Engels came upon Marx’s precis of Ancient Society – a book by progressive US scholar Lewis Henry Morgan and published in London 1877. The precis was written between 1880-81 and contained Marx’s numerous remarks on Morgan as well as passages from other sources.
After reading the precis, Engels set out to write a special treatise – which he saw as fulfilling Marx’s will. Working on the book, he used Marx’s precis, and some of Morgan’s factual material and conclusions. He also made use of many and diverse data gleaned in his own studies of the history of Greece, Rome, Old Ireland, and the Ancient Germans.
It would, of course, become The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State – the first edition of which was published October 1884 in Hottingen-Zurich.
Engels wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in just two months – beginning toward the end of March 1884 and completing it by the end of May. It focuses on early human history, following the disintegration of the primitive community and the emergence of a class society based on private property. Engels looks into the origin and essence of the state, and concludes it is bound to wither away leaving a classless society.
Engels: “Along with [the classes] the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquity, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe.”
In 1890, having gathered new material on the history of primitive society, Engels set about preparing a new edition of his book. He studied the latest books on the subject – including those of Russian historian Maxim Kovalevsky. (The fourth edition, Stuttgart, 1892, was dedicated to Kovalevsky.) As a result, he introduced a number of changes in his original text and also considerable insertions.
In 1894, Engels’s book appeared in Russian translation. It was the first of Engels’s works published legally in Russia. Lenin would later describe it as “one of the fundamental works of modern socialism.”
Marx’s Consepctus of Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society
Ancient Society by Lewis Henry Morgan, 1877
Study Guide | Original Cover | Marx/Engels Works Archive

[Thinking Man's Idiot]

MIA: Writers: Lenin: The State and Revolution

Written: August - September, 1917
Source: Collected Works, Volume 25, p. 381-492
First Published: 1918
Transcription\Markup: Zodiac and Brian Basgen
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1993, 1999

Preface6 k
Chapter I: Class Society and the State39 k
The State: A Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms

Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, etc.

The State: An Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class

The "Withering Away" of the State, and Violent Revolution
Chapter II: The Experience of 1848-5130 k The Eve of Revolution
The Revolution Summed Up
The Presentation of the Question by Marx in 1852
Chapter III: Experience of the Paris Commune of 1871. Marx's Analysis 46 k
What Made the Communards' Attempt Heroic?
What is to Replace the Smashed State Machine?
Abolition of Parliamentarism
Organisation of National Unity
Aboloition of the Parasite State Chapter IV: Supplementary Explanations by Engels 56 k The Housing Question
Controversy with the Anarchists
Letter to Bebel
Criticism of the Draft of the Erfurt Programme
The 1891 Preface to Marx's "The Civil War in France"
Engels on the Overcoming of Democracy Chapter V: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State 43 k Presentation of the Question by Marx
The Transition from Captialism to Communism
The First Phase of Communist Society
The Higher Phase of Communist Society Chapter VI: The Vulgarisation of Marxism by Opportunists 40 k Plekhanov's Controversy with the Anarchists
Kautsky's Controversy with the Opportunists
Kautsky's Controversy with Pannekoek Postscript4 k

Download: Macintosh | Windows
Endnotes

Lenin wrote The State and Revolution in August and September 1917, when he was in hiding from persecution of the Provisional Government. The need for such a theoretical work as this was mentioned by Lenin in the second half of 1916. It was then that he wrote his note on "The Youth International", in which he criticised Bukharin's position on the question of the state and promised to write a detailed article on what he thought to be the Marxist attitude to the state. In a letter to A. M. Kollontai on February 17 (N.S.), 1917, he said that he had almost got ready material on that question . This material was written in a small blue-covered notebook headed "Marxism on the State". In it Lenin had collected quotations from the works of Marx and Engels, and extracts from the books by Kautsky, Pannekoek and Bernstein with his own critical notes, conclusions and generalisations.
When Lenin left Switzerland for Russia in April 1917, he feared arrest by the Provisional Government and left the manuscript of "Marxism on the State" behind — as it would have been destroyed had he been caught. When in hiding after the July events, Lenin wrote in a note:
"Entre nous, if I am knocked off, I ask you to publish my notebook 'Marxism on the State' (it got held up in Stockholm). It is bound in a blue cover. All the quotations from Marx and Engels are collected there, also those from Kautsky against Pannekoek. There are a number of remarks, notes and formulas. I think a week's work would be enough to publish it. I consider it important because not only Plekhanov, but Kautsky, too, is confused...." When Lenin received his notebook from Stockholm, he used the material he had collected as a basis for his book The State and Revolution.
According to Lenin's plan, The State and Revolution was to have consisted of seven chapters, but he did not write the seventh, "The Experience of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917", and only a detailed plan has remained. In a note to the publisher Lenin wrote that if he "was too slow in competing this, the seventh chapter, or should it turn out to be too bulky, the first six chapters should be published separately as Book One."
Originally, the name F.F. Ivanovsky is shown on the first page of the notebook manuscript as that of the author. Lenin intended to publish the book under that pseudonym, otherwise the Provisional Government would have confiscated it for his name alone. The book, however, was not printed until 1918, when there was no longer any need for the pseudonym. The second edition appeared in 1919; in this revision Lenin added to Chapter II a new section "The Presentation of the Question by Marx in 1852".

NEXT
Collected Works Volume 25
Collected Works Table of Contents
Lenin Works Archive

Sorry, don't swallow left wing turd

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sorry, don't swallow left wing turd

It is your thread, can you not edit out the trolling spammer?

^Fascist

Spamming is a form of freedom of speech, so I would never even try to de spam because some people will be thankful for that spammers info.

It does not really matter what I think, at least the chap is trying to make a better world as he sees it and for that I am thankful too him, even if I like to have a dig or two.

If you do spam, spread it out a bit.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sorry, don't swallow left wing turd

Clear off! What you scared of? Freedom?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Clear off! What you scared of? Freedom?

Living under a communist system, how many rules and regulations would we have to obey for the system to work?
If the answer is more than one then are we truly free?
If we have to work to make the system work, are we free?