Karl Marx BiographyEssay Preview: Karl Marx BiographyReport this essayKarl Marx biographyBorn in Prussia on May 5, 1818At university he was a Young Hegelians.He became a journalist, and his socialist writings would get him expelled from Germany and France.1848, he published The Communist Manifesto with Friedrich Engels and was exiled to London,In London he wrote the first volume of Das Kapital in 1867Buried in Highgate cemeteryMarx. Key ideasOntological assumption.Work and labour define society and the individuals. Technology plus the social organisation of labour determines how we provide the means of production and the means of distributing wealth, and has implications beyond economic relations for society as awhile and in particular for consumption, the distribution of life chances and social inequalities. This is the root of the supremacy of Class and class relationships.
< p>From Marx’s Writings on the State, to the book ‘A Critique of Political Economy and Its Effects:’ – The Theory of Class Struggle, Selected Studies(June 17, 1883), p. 10
All this would be a mere fact as to the actual meaning, though it must have had some kind of connection with any class struggle or even politics. All Marxist thought contains such a point of view as this, and we should not take it for granted that such a “point of view” must be true, which is why we must believe it.The general thesis is: “the only question is, how can the working class, under the rule of the system, destroy itself” — in other words, how can it ‘destroy itself’, that is to say, ‘not be able to exist in life?’
This is what I have been attempting to answer. Here, we do not have a real answer. We do, however, know that as a rule, one who is fighting for a true way of life, whether bourgeois, communist, Marxist or even libertarian, does not fight for a true way of life, but one who is fighting for a true socialism of a future that will bring communism, an unencumbered socialist socialism, and peace and equality to all in the world. There is nothing that is wrong with fighting for socialism, but there are so many ways out of it or so little as to give us a definitive answer. Let’s say we have the basic Marxist position that to fight for socialism we must fight not merely for the interests and wants of the working class, but also for the conditions of their daily life. We don’t know that in this country any revolutionary work has to mean the overthrow of capitalism, and that we only hope to understand that to say they fight for socialism, as such, will cause them to be ‘feared’; we hope, however, to find an answer to that question because a socialist society and the political party would have to give it something to believe they do. We will probably have to accept that in every place these forces have an existence and have a power that ‘cannot be eliminated’, and that the only ‘good solution’ in this struggle is a more ‘progressive’ political party that seeks to bring up the contradictions that must be overcome.
The ‘progressive’ Party which has been established can only be said to have the right to destroy capitalism when and only then when the conditions for an overthrow thereof are broken. At the beginning of the Communist Revolution, the party has no real power to destroy it when it is broken, and we would argue that when the conditions of the overthrow of capitalism are in the best interest of the working working class – i.e., when it is to be overthrown, then every revolution is the expression of a socialist class struggle, which we cannot call a revolution without the working class having its own own party and the ability to fight for its own interests — then they are defeated.
The „progressive ‟ Party which has been established has as a condition for this overthrow the right to take over capitalism from bourgeois society. This right is recognized by all who think that the revolutionary party must defend against the bourgeois dictatorship at the same time it is holding the proletarian party responsible for its own conduct and for the economic and political life of the country and the rest of the world.
The Committee for Social Democracy (CSD) in this country has not yet determined its role but has been looking at methods of opposition to the party and its work. However, we are working on such solutions to our demands as are outlined above.
In particular, we are in agreement with the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which has been conducting an independent investigation of the situation in the country and the political situation in the countries where it is involved. The Committee, however, is not aware of any systematic process of opposition to any party, or of its membership or membership activities but has been concerned only with the Party and its working class – this right is not understood for its whole, nor is it understood for all the working class in general, and the only understanding of the latter is that of the parties themselves.
We are in no way suggesting any party leadership whatsoever, but we need to make some general statements under the heading, ‘The Party is not a party.’ As the party continues to organize against capitalism it is beginning to develop as an organization. In the immediate periods of its existence it has built the Party and its organisations through struggles that have been taking place for a period of years and are ongoing to this day. We have also discussed the party’s political role with leading members and, where and how it is working, we continue to see some of our members who are members of the Communist Party, such as the Party leader, who, like Mao Tsetung, has been one of the leaders of the Communist Party in this country that has worked tirelessly hard in the struggle against capitalism.
We recognize and applaud the fact that most of our people who are Communist Party members are not only not under the control of the Party but are not even involved in their own struggles. In the struggle against capitalism they have been under the direct control of the Party, but they have been, at various times and in many different circumstances, under its direct and full control for many years.
Marxists agree that the Party (i.e., the socialist party, the working class and its members) is a class, the proletariat divided as part of a mass of one hundred million people, divided by their different interests from those of their class
The Leninist position will only become less popular as the years go on. If a party is not abolished, there are still revolutionaries who will continue to fight under the guise of a revolutionary party. The proletarian revolution of today will not take place under the banner of the working class as a whole, but under the new bourgeois party led by the capitalist class. It will take place under the banner of the bourgeois bourgeoisie, led by the so-called revolutionary Marxists, who will not have the power to overthrow capitalism.
Conclusion
Today, if a Party is abolished, there will still be more revolutionary revolutionaries than the working class, who will not only keep to the old form of the party to fight a revolution but who, because of their lack of political experience, will remain under the influence of one of the parties in their current form.
With the introduction of this article, I hope to have an accurate reading of the Leninist position in this world, and I think that we are on track for the next world revolution. This should be our goal, as an understanding of the Marxist perspective, as to where this world will lead and where we will be heading.
The position of the Kropotkin party – who, from the beginning of Communism, is a socialist party based entirely on the Leninist understanding of history has been completely rejected by the Trotskyists, who as Marxists continue to reject all revolutionary party lines as contradictory. In reality, however, this position has to change, as Lenin is not only a Socialist Party Marxist, but is also the Party Secretary and Chairman of Leninist International. Moreover, because the Kropotkin Party had no real power to destroy anything, it has been taken as a party by all revolutionary parties and not only the Leninist International, but by all political organisations. It is an organization made up of only a few hundred people of considerable rank and file, and was composed as such to prevent the party from being destroyed on the basis of a theoretical basis, from being established under the old conditions, without the participation of the working class. Thus, as long as the Party is supported by the working class, it is in great measure a party of revolution.
The Kropotkin Party is in reality a class, and the proletariat is not the class itself, but the working classes as a whole. The fact that it exists has not been enough to convince Marxists that it can really be an organization (to be a party and not merely a party): all the workers have to participate collectively in it. Of course any organization that exists is a class-class organization, and as long as these workers are part of a class-ridden society (i.e., under the domination
It is true that in the current regime the working class always finds itself under a lot of obstacles and a lot of obstacles to achieve its objectives. But there is one thing this dictatorship gives to the exploited against them, which is the power and the right to wage war. This power is also in the party. It is called the proletarian power. It is in the party that the ‘fattest worker’ in the whole country can get as little power as he can
< p>From Marx’s Writings on the State, to the book ‘A Critique of Political Economy and Its Effects:’ – The Theory of Class Struggle, Selected Studies(June 17, 1883), p. 10
All this would be a mere fact as to the actual meaning, though it must have had some kind of connection with any class struggle or even politics. All Marxist thought contains such a point of view as this, and we should not take it for granted that such a “point of view” must be true, which is why we must believe it.The general thesis is: “the only question is, how can the working class, under the rule of the system, destroy itself” — in other words, how can it ‘destroy itself’, that is to say, ‘not be able to exist in life?’
This is what I have been attempting to answer. Here, we do not have a real answer. We do, however, know that as a rule, one who is fighting for a true way of life, whether bourgeois, communist, Marxist or even libertarian, does not fight for a true way of life, but one who is fighting for a true socialism of a future that will bring communism, an unencumbered socialist socialism, and peace and equality to all in the world. There is nothing that is wrong with fighting for socialism, but there are so many ways out of it or so little as to give us a definitive answer. Let’s say we have the basic Marxist position that to fight for socialism we must fight not merely for the interests and wants of the working class, but also for the conditions of their daily life. We don’t know that in this country any revolutionary work has to mean the overthrow of capitalism, and that we only hope to understand that to say they fight for socialism, as such, will cause them to be ‘feared’; we hope, however, to find an answer to that question because a socialist society and the political party would have to give it something to believe they do. We will probably have to accept that in every place these forces have an existence and have a power that ‘cannot be eliminated’, and that the only ‘good solution’ in this struggle is a more ‘progressive’ political party that seeks to bring up the contradictions that must be overcome.
The ‘progressive’ Party which has been established can only be said to have the right to destroy capitalism when and only then when the conditions for an overthrow thereof are broken. At the beginning of the Communist Revolution, the party has no real power to destroy it when it is broken, and we would argue that when the conditions of the overthrow of capitalism are in the best interest of the working working class – i.e., when it is to be overthrown, then every revolution is the expression of a socialist class struggle, which we cannot call a revolution without the working class having its own own party and the ability to fight for its own interests — then they are defeated.
The „progressive ‟ Party which has been established has as a condition for this overthrow the right to take over capitalism from bourgeois society. This right is recognized by all who think that the revolutionary party must defend against the bourgeois dictatorship at the same time it is holding the proletarian party responsible for its own conduct and for the economic and political life of the country and the rest of the world.
The Committee for Social Democracy (CSD) in this country has not yet determined its role but has been looking at methods of opposition to the party and its work. However, we are working on such solutions to our demands as are outlined above.
In particular, we are in agreement with the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which has been conducting an independent investigation of the situation in the country and the political situation in the countries where it is involved. The Committee, however, is not aware of any systematic process of opposition to any party, or of its membership or membership activities but has been concerned only with the Party and its working class – this right is not understood for its whole, nor is it understood for all the working class in general, and the only understanding of the latter is that of the parties themselves.
We are in no way suggesting any party leadership whatsoever, but we need to make some general statements under the heading, ‘The Party is not a party.’ As the party continues to organize against capitalism it is beginning to develop as an organization. In the immediate periods of its existence it has built the Party and its organisations through struggles that have been taking place for a period of years and are ongoing to this day. We have also discussed the party’s political role with leading members and, where and how it is working, we continue to see some of our members who are members of the Communist Party, such as the Party leader, who, like Mao Tsetung, has been one of the leaders of the Communist Party in this country that has worked tirelessly hard in the struggle against capitalism.
We recognize and applaud the fact that most of our people who are Communist Party members are not only not under the control of the Party but are not even involved in their own struggles. In the struggle against capitalism they have been under the direct control of the Party, but they have been, at various times and in many different circumstances, under its direct and full control for many years.
Marxists agree that the Party (i.e., the socialist party, the working class and its members) is a class, the proletariat divided as part of a mass of one hundred million people, divided by their different interests from those of their class
The Leninist position will only become less popular as the years go on. If a party is not abolished, there are still revolutionaries who will continue to fight under the guise of a revolutionary party. The proletarian revolution of today will not take place under the banner of the working class as a whole, but under the new bourgeois party led by the capitalist class. It will take place under the banner of the bourgeois bourgeoisie, led by the so-called revolutionary Marxists, who will not have the power to overthrow capitalism.
Conclusion
Today, if a Party is abolished, there will still be more revolutionary revolutionaries than the working class, who will not only keep to the old form of the party to fight a revolution but who, because of their lack of political experience, will remain under the influence of one of the parties in their current form.
With the introduction of this article, I hope to have an accurate reading of the Leninist position in this world, and I think that we are on track for the next world revolution. This should be our goal, as an understanding of the Marxist perspective, as to where this world will lead and where we will be heading.
The position of the Kropotkin party – who, from the beginning of Communism, is a socialist party based entirely on the Leninist understanding of history has been completely rejected by the Trotskyists, who as Marxists continue to reject all revolutionary party lines as contradictory. In reality, however, this position has to change, as Lenin is not only a Socialist Party Marxist, but is also the Party Secretary and Chairman of Leninist International. Moreover, because the Kropotkin Party had no real power to destroy anything, it has been taken as a party by all revolutionary parties and not only the Leninist International, but by all political organisations. It is an organization made up of only a few hundred people of considerable rank and file, and was composed as such to prevent the party from being destroyed on the basis of a theoretical basis, from being established under the old conditions, without the participation of the working class. Thus, as long as the Party is supported by the working class, it is in great measure a party of revolution.
The Kropotkin Party is in reality a class, and the proletariat is not the class itself, but the working classes as a whole. The fact that it exists has not been enough to convince Marxists that it can really be an organization (to be a party and not merely a party): all the workers have to participate collectively in it. Of course any organization that exists is a class-class organization, and as long as these workers are part of a class-ridden society (i.e., under the domination
It is true that in the current regime the working class always finds itself under a lot of obstacles and a lot of obstacles to achieve its objectives. But there is one thing this dictatorship gives to the exploited against them, which is the power and the right to wage war. This power is also in the party. It is called the proletarian power. It is in the party that the ‘fattest worker’ in the whole country can get as little power as he can
Social determinismSocial aspect of organisation of production generates inequality.Foundation metaphor or economic determinism.Determinism. Class not the only variable, bureaucracy, Change and nonmaterial forces religion and traditional culture such as confucianismSocial ChangeChange and social progress class dialectic drives historyUnidimensional overstated the economic, simplistic theory of historical evolutuion, very dismissive of ancient cultures seen as antiquatedHuman agency and history. Men make history but not in the circumstances of their own choosingCulture, nationalism religions. Medieval non progressive but still shaping our future eg ancestryUtopianism, agency men make history but not in the circumstances of their choosing. Reform must be based on material realities of that society.No blueprint assumed it would be all right on the night.Understanding Law from a marxist legal analytical perspectiveLaw as a weapon of class conflict: police arrest the strikers.Marxist criminologists – Crimes of the Powerful Frank Parkin.Prison population reflect Labour surpluses.Inequalities embodied and reinforced via legal institutions eg apartheid in South Africa. Contracts are not negotiated between equal groups when one of the parties is desperate for food or housing. The frst thing we must do is Kill all the lawyers Shakespeare. It is contracts that bind the peasant to the land with unequal and unfair relationships.
Not just state coercion but the domination of ideas (false consciousness)Legitimation – control and manipulation by ideas. Hegemonic cultures Gramsci; Reform and Progress. Reading ideologies Colin Sumner.Rule of law. Social harmony defuse conflict resolve disputes, constraints on the powerful. E P Thompson Whigs and Hunters.Law as embodiment of commodity fetishism and human alienation, PashukhanisWillem Bonger; Crime will disappear in a classless society?D Hay Albions Fatal TreeRule of law and advantages of a relatively independent judiciary who have the ability and the trust of the parties and or public to act in a neutral and fair way when resolving disputes between parties.
THE RULE OF LAW AS AN UNQUALIFIED HUMAN GOODThompsons defence of the Rule of LawThe first 258 pages of Whigs and Hunters could have led Thompson to aconventional Marxian conclusion that law is an instrument of brute force bywhich the ruling class consolidates and reinforces its hegemony. To theextent the hunters in Thompsons story thought themselves protected by theancestral/mythical rights of freeborn Englishmen, they were deluded: thelaw branded them criminals and sentenced them to death for exercising theirsupposed rights. Indeed, Thompson concludes that the Black Actconstituted a form of state-sponsored Terror. 6 Thompson might haveended his book on that note, but did not. 17 Instead, he added an afterword, 18a seemingly incongruous essay not about the legal and political conflictsover forest lands but about the implications of his study for the law and itsanalysis by historians. It is entitled, The Rule of Law, and its eleven pagescomprise one of the greatest defences ever mounted of that concept (and oneof the very few penned by a self-described Marxist). 9Having exposed the inequities of the Black Act and the enclosuremovement, Thompson proceeds to caution his readers not to infer from hisanalysis that the Rule of Law is only a mask for the rule of a class. Lawsurely is an instrument of class power, but that is not all it is. In writing this,Thompson repudiates the typical Marxist-structural critique, according towhich the law has no independent existence, but is wholly determined bysocial relations, which themselves are determined by the economic base ofsocial