To the True Believer one could perhaps say : work round Karl Marx — and not through him. Or find some other prophet or invent something that could conceivably cure that patient and not just obliterate him together with his disease.

Note on class-less society : which statement says, a society in which no classes or class divisions or distinctions are present.

Want no class distinctions or divisions ? then you can only consider the individual — each and every individual human being as an individual.

This then implies extreme individualism. Can any other construction be placed on 'class-less' society ?

Sooner or later one happens onto some group of people, with or without a name on it. Some such groups could find themselves in opposition one to the other and thus constitute a problem.

One had better not erred on the apprehension of such issues, including this one here.

Want no class distinctions ; by 'class-struggle' this cannot be done because the notion contains class distinctions inherent in its statement.

The 'class-struggle to achieve class-less society' is self-defeating a notion, from the very first.

The seeds of self-destruction would be planted in any movement where it had taken the root.

Which it seems was usually their fate. Some possible seeming exceptions could be due to the plain common sense prevailing among the people concerned, in the stead of an application of the theory.

— (WPT, Apr 08).

* * *

---

 

 

 

From The Communist Manifesto

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, the capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces a rapidly as possible. . . . 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. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to 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 of the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class..  (pp. 40, 41, and 42.)

Socialism vs. civilization by Boris L. Brasol
New York : Charles Scribner�s Sons, 1920, pages 51-2.

Comment :  (1) �State� defined as �the proletariat organized as the ruling class�.

(2) �In the course of the development� �class distinctions� are to disappear. What about the �ruling class� ?

The answer : �The �proletariat� �during its contest with the bourgeoisie� �compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class�, �by means of a revolution� �makes itself the ruling class�. As such, it �sweeps away by force the old conditions of production�. Along with these conditions there will be �swept away the conditions of the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally�.

A question : do the rulers of such a 'state' form a �class�, or do they not form a �class�.

The existence of classes is to be swept away. Then, how do you tell those who do from those who do not rule ?

(3) 'When . . . all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character'.

A question : How do you concentrate something in the hands of 'the whole nation'.

That looks directly contrary, one idea and the other.

More question to follow.
(WPT)

 

From a Decree, 1 June 1918

    The Soviet of People�s Commissaries instructs as follows:
    1. To appropriate 1,000,000 roubles for the erection of a monument on the grave of Karl Marx.
    2. The People�s Commissary of education is empowered to announce a competitive examination for the project of the monument.
    3. The representative of the Russian Republic in London is authorized to negotiate with the heirs of Karl Marx regarding the execution of said instructions.

Socialism vs. civilization, Boris L. Brasol;
with an introduction by T. N. Carver.
New York : C. Scribner's Sons, 1920, page 168.

 

From Socialism vs. Civilization, Boris L. Brasol, 1920

The first allegation of Marx is to the effect that �the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.�¹

He and all his followers assert that the history of humanity always was, and still is, based upon the conflicting interests between the various classes. By the word �class� is meant a social group the members of which are united because they are living under common economic conditions and also because they occupy a distinct place in the process of economic production. Thus, with reference to modern times, according to Marx, existing society is divided into two classes, namely, the bourgeois class, which comprises the owners of the means of production, who are also the employers of wage labor, and the proletarian class, consisting of modern wage laborers, who, having been deprived of the means of production, are thus compelled to sell their labor on the open market.

    ¹ Karl Max and Frederick Engels, Communist Manifesto, p. 12 (Chas. H. Kerr & Col, Chicago, 1915).

( pages 3-4 )

 

The real causes of the Socialist failure in Russia are to be looked for in the erroneous nature of Marx�s theory itself. . . .

( page 61)

New York : C. Scribner's Sons, 1920

 

From The Social Interpretation of History by Maurice William, 1921

 

CHAPTER X

MARXIAN PRINCIPLES ANTISOCIAL

Our analysis has brought out the astonishing revelation that the International Socialist movement is based upon principles that are neither scientific nor Socialistic . . .

The class-struggle theory is fundamentally anti-social. Marx was scathing in his criticism of the social appeal of the Utopian Socialism of St. Simon, Owen and Fourier. "The want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence they habitually appeal to society-at-large, without distinction of class."¹  . . .

   : ¹ Communist Manifesto, p. 60.

The modern class struggle arises from the fact that capital exacts a tribute from labor in the shape of Surplus Value. But whence comes this Surplus Value? Surplus Value represents the difference between the wages paid to labor and the value of the products created by labor. Through their ownership of the means of production the capitalist class is in a position to compel the laborer to produce beyond the value of his wages, the difference going to the capitalist class as Surplus Value or profit. This exploitation of labor at the point of production gives rise to the class struggle—a conflict over withheld wages or Surplus Value.

Comment  It seems that Marx confounded the income which can be got for the product on an open market with profit on the product. In the case of a single producer these values may be one ; in the case of a whole workshop this income is divided between every person participating including the owners, the managers, often on many levels, the entry-level workers.

This whole theory has without doubt created more harm in the human history than any other single theory. All this seems so absurd, one hardly knows where to begin with any attempt at interpretation. — (WPT).

These facts became revealed to Marx following an intensive study of the capitalist mode of production. He called upon the Socialists to recognize the historic significance of the class struggle at the point of production and to ally themselves on the side of the producers as against the owners of the means of production. They must help bring about a revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

To expect to attain social progress through social effort appeared to Marx as the height of Utopianism. Social progress was possible only through the anti-social struggle at the point of production. A revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat must be the agencies through which to attain any measure of social progress. . . .

New York : Sotery, 1921.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws