個人積分：106153分
文章編號：70172373
個人積分：3013分
文章編號：70172382
Wu jill wrote:
大家好小妹是第一次...(恕刪)
若樓主有空還可以看看我這篇
我家庭環境跟你類似 所以能體會你的感受
但是差別在於我比較善於邏輯思考
駁倒●收租不是社會米蟲論●
個人積分：61分
文章編號：70172397
個人積分：12分
文章編號：70172414
個人積分：3013分
文章編號：70172442
01sitter wrote:
當資本主義下的窮人過得比馬克思主義下的無產階級還要爽時，誰還在意馬克思的長篇大論呢？
你完全忽略了跨國剩餘價值的轉移，
一國內的民族資本主義是以犧牲剝削海外更多地區的人來實現的
世界上35億人口處於極度貧困的狀態，被跨國資本所剝削
世界上已開發國家和高收入國家族群人口只有8億人
大多數在北美洲 西歐 日本等地方
如果他們不能出口高附加價值產品，並且用高於勞動價值的交換價格出口到全世界
那麼它們就不能維持他們社會的高度社會福利和內部的貧富差距不致擴大
換言之你根本就沒有認真看完馬克思所說的觀點
一個國家內的民族資本主義是以另一個國家的無產階級隊伍擴大和更大程度的壓迫來實現的
如果沒有全球50~60億的中低所得開發中國家人口的勞動
那麼已開發國家就沒辦法在過去積累自己的資本
早期資本的積累模式是
1.西班牙的模式 直接搶劫和殺光北美洲印第安人的黃金、白銀剝奪他們的土地
2.後來進化到大英帝國模式，從非洲輸入黑奴隸到北美去種植棉花，然後廉價原料出口到英國去強化英國本土的工業資本
然後再傾銷產品回殖民地，完成這種壟斷優勢強化的迴圈
3.最終這套英國模式面臨德國的競爭引發了兩次世界大戰 英國霸權隨之落幕
但現在卻是資本主義3.0的美國模式，這是一種美元和軍事結合掩蓋起來的霸權和帝國主義
馬克思 恩格斯
（1848年）
一個幽靈，共產主義的幽靈，在歐洲遊蕩。為了對這個幽靈進行神聖的圍剿，舊歐洲的一切勢力，教皇和沙皇、梅特涅和基佐、法國的激進派和德國的警察，都聯合起來了。
有哪一個反對黨不被它的當政的敵人罵為共產黨呢？又有哪一個反對黨不拿共產主義這個罪名去回敬更進步的反對黨人和自己的反動敵人呢？
從這一事實中可以得出兩個結論：
共產主義已經被歐洲的一切勢力公認為一種勢力；
現在是共產黨人向全世界公開說明自己的觀點、自己的目的、自己的意圖並且拿黨自己的宣言來反駁關於共產主義幽靈的神話的時候了。
為了這個目的，各國共產黨人集會於倫敦，擬定了如下的宣言，用英文、法文、德文、意大利文、弗拉芒文和丹麥文公佈於世。
一、資產者和無產者
至今一切社會的歷史都是階級鬥爭的歷史。
自由民和奴隸、貴族和平民、領主和農奴、行會師傅和幫工，一句話，壓迫者和被壓迫者，始終處於相互對立的地位，進行不斷的、有時隱蔽有時公開的鬥爭，而每一次鬥爭的結局是整個社會受到革命改造或者鬥爭的各階級同歸於盡。
在過去的各個歷史時代，我們幾乎到處都可以看到社會完全劃分為各個不同的等級，看到社會地位分成的多種多樣的層次。在古羅馬，有貴族、騎士、平民、奴隸，在中世紀，有封建主、臣僕、行會師傅、幫工、農奴，而且幾乎在每一個階級內部又有一些特殊的階層。
從封建社會的滅亡中產生出來的現代資產階級社會並沒有消滅階級對立。它只是用新的階級、新的壓迫條件、新的鬥爭形式代替了舊的。
但是，我們的時代，資產階級時代，卻有一個特點：它使階級對立簡單化了。整個社會日益分裂為兩大敵對的陣營，分裂為兩大相互直接對立的階級：資產階級和無產階級。
從中世紀的農奴中產生了初期城市的城關市民；從這個市民等級中發展出最初的資產階級分子。
美洲的發現、繞過非洲的航行，給新興的資產階級開闢了新天地。東印度和中國的市場、美洲的殖民化、對殖民地的貿易、交換手段和一般的商品的增加，使商業、航海業和工業空前高漲，因而使正在崩潰的封建社會內部的革命因素迅速發展。
以前那種封建的或行會的工業經營方式已經不能滿足隨著新市場的出現而增加的需求了。工場手工業代替了這種經營方式。行會師傅被工業的中間等級排擠掉了；各種行業組織之間的分工隨著各個作坊內部的分工的出現而消失了。
但是，市場總是在擴大，需求總是在增加。甚至工場手工業也不再能滿足需要了。於是，蒸汽和機器引起了工業生產的革命。現代大工業化替了工場手工業；工業中的百萬富翁，一支一支產業大軍的首領，現代資產者，代替了工業的中間等級。
大工業建立了由美洲的發現所準備好的世界市場。世界市場使商業、航海業和陸路交通得到了巨大的發展。這種發展又反過來促進了工業的擴展，同時，隨著工業、商業、航海業和鐵路的擴展，資產階級也在同一程度上得到發展，增加自己的資本，把中世紀遺留下來的一切階級都排擠到後面去。
由此可見，現代資產階級本身是一個長期發展過程的產物，是生產方式和交換方式的一系列變革的產物。
資產階級的這種發展的每一個階段，都伴隨著相應的政治上進展。它在封建主統治下是被壓迫的等級，在公社裡是武裝的和自治的團體，在一些地方組成獨立的城市共和國，在另一些地方組成君主國中的納稅的第三等級；後來，在工場手工業時期，它是等級制君主國或專制君主國中同貴族抗衡的勢力，而且是大君主國的主要基礎；最後，從大工業和世界市場建立的時候起，它在現代的代議制國家裡奪得了獨佔的政治統治。現代的國家政權不過是管理整個資產階級的共同事務的委員會罷了。
資產階級在歷史上曾經起過非常革命的作用。
資產階級在它已經取得了統治的地方把一切封建的、宗法的和田園詩般的關係都破壞了。它無情地斬斷了把人們束縛於天然尊長的形形色色的封建羈絆，它使人和人之間除了赤裸裸的利害關係，除了冷酷無情的「現金交易」，就再也沒有任何別的聯繫了。它把宗教虔誠、騎士熱忱、小市民傷感這些情感的神聖發作，淹沒在利己主義打算的冰水之中。它把人的尊嚴變成了交換價值，用一種沒有良心的貿易自由代替了無數特許的和自力掙得的自由。總而言之，它用公開的、無恥的、直接的、露骨的剝削代替了由宗教幻想和政治幻想掩蓋著的剝削。
資產階級抹去了一切向來受人尊崇和令人敬畏的職業的神聖光環。它把醫生、律師、教士、詩人和學者變成了它出錢招雇的僱傭勞動者。
資產階級撕下了罩在家庭關係上的溫情脈脈的面紗，把這種關係變成了純粹的金錢關係。
資產階級揭示了，在中世紀深受反動派稱許的那種人力的野蠻使用，是以極端怠惰作為相應補充的。它第一個證明了，人的活動能夠取得什麼樣的成就。它創造了完全不同於埃及金字塔、羅馬水道和哥特式教堂的奇蹟；它完成了完全不同於民族大遷徙和十字軍東征的遠征。
資產階級除非對生產工具，從而對生產關係，從而對全部社會關係不斷地進行革命，否則就不能生存下去。反之，原封不動地保持舊的生產方式，卻是過去的一切工業階級生存的首要條件。生產的不斷變革，一切社會狀況不停的動盪，永遠的不安定和變動，這就是資產階級時代不同於過去一切時代的地方。一切固定的僵化的關係以及與之相適應的素被尊崇的觀念和見解都被消除了，一切新形成的關係等不到固定下來就陳舊了。一切等級的和固定的東西都煙消雲散了，一切神聖的東西都被褻瀆了。人們終於不得不用冷靜的眼光來看他們的生活地位、他們的相互關係。
不斷擴大產品銷路的需要，驅使資產階級奔走於全球各地。它必須到處落戶，到處開發，到處建立聯繫。
資產階級，由於開拓了世界市場，使一切國家的生產和消費都成為世界性的了。使反動派大為惋惜的是，資產階級挖掉了工業腳下的民族基礎。古老的民族工業被消滅了，並且每天都還在被消滅。它們被新的工業排擠掉了，新的工業的建立已經成為一切文明民族的生命攸關的問題；這些工業所加工的，已經不是本地的原料，而是來自極其遙遠的地區的原料；它們的產品不僅供本國消費，而且同時供世界各地消費。舊的、靠國產品來滿足的需要，被新的、要靠極其遙遠的國家和地帶的產品來滿足的需要所代替了。過去那種地方的和民族的自給自足和閉關自守狀態，被各民族的各方面的互相往來和各方面的互相依賴所代替了。物質的生產是如此，精神的生產也是如此。各民族的精神產品成了公共的財產。民族的片面性和侷限性日益成為不可能，於是由許多種民族的和地方的文學形成了一種世界的文學。
資產階級，由於一切生產工具的迅速改進，由於交通的極其便利，把一切民族甚至最野蠻的民族都捲到文明中來了。它的商品的低廉價格，是它用來摧毀一切萬里長城、征服野蠻人最頑強的仇外心理的重炮。它迫使一切民族——如果它們不想滅亡的話——採用資產階級的生產方式；它迫使它們在自己那裡推行所謂文明，即變成資產者。一句話，它按照自己的面貌為自己創造出一個世界。
資產階級使農村屈服於城市的統治。它創立了巨大的城市，使城市人口比農村人口大大增加起來，因而使很大一部分居民脫離了農村生活的愚昧狀態。正像它使農村從屬於城市一樣，它使未開化和半開化的國家從屬於文明的國家，使農民的民族從屬於資產階級的民族，使東方從屬於西方。
資產階級日甚一日地消滅生產資料、財產和人口的分散狀態。它使人口密集起來，使生產資料集中起來，使財產聚集在少數人的手裡。由此必然產生的結果就是政治的集中。各自獨立的、幾乎只有同盟關係的、各有不同利益、不同法律、不同政府、不同關稅的各個地區，現在已經結合為一個擁有統一的政府、統一的法律、統一的民族階級利益和統一的關稅的統一的民族。
資產階級在它的不到一百年的階級統治中所創造的生產力，比過去一切世代創造的全部生產力還要多，還要大。自然力的征服，機器的採用，化學在工業和農業中的應用，輪船的行駛，鐵路的通行，電報的使用，整個整個大陸的開墾，河川的通航，彷彿用法術從地下呼喚出來的大量人口，——過去哪一個世紀料想到在社會勞動裡蘊藏有這樣的生產力呢？
由此可見，資產階級賴以形成的生產資料和交換手段，是在封建社會裡造成的。在這些生產資料和交換手段發展的一定階段上，封建社會的生產和交換在其中進行的關係，封建的農業和工場手工業組織，一句話，封建的所有制關係，就不再適應已經發展的生產力了。這種關係已經在阻礙生產而不是促進生產了。它變成了束縛生產的桎梏。它必須被炸燬，而且已經被炸燬了。
起而代之的是自由競爭以及與自由競爭相適應的社會制度和政治制度、資產階級的經濟統治和政治統治。
現在，我們眼前又進行著類似的運動。資產階級的生產關係和交換關係，資產階級的所有制關係，這個曾經彷彿用法術創造了如此龐大的生產資料和交換手段的現代資產階級社會，現在像一個魔法師一樣不能再支配自己用法術呼喚出來的魔鬼了。幾十年來的工業和商業的歷史，只不過是現代生產力反抗現代生產關係、反抗作為資產階級及其統治的存在條件的所有制關係的歷史。只要指出在週期性的重複中越來越危及整個資產階級社會生存的商業危機就夠了。在商業危機期間，總是不僅有很大一部分製成的產品被毀滅掉，而且有很大一部分已經造成的生產力被毀滅掉。在危機期間，發生一種在過去一切時代看來都好像是荒唐現象的社會瘟疫，即生產過剩的瘟疫。社會突然發現自己回到了一時的野蠻狀態；彷彿是一次饑荒、一場普遍的毀滅性戰爭，使社會失去了全部生活資料；彷彿是工業和商業全被毀滅了，——這是什麼緣故呢？因為社會上文明過度，生活資料太多，工業和商業太發達。社會所擁有的生產力已經不能再促進資產階級文明和資產階級所有制關係的發展；相反，生產力已經強大到這種關係所不能適應的地步，它已經受到這種關係的阻礙；而它一著手克服這種障礙，就使整個資產階級社會陷入混亂，就使資產階級所有制的存在受到威脅。資產階級的關係已經太狹窄了，再容納不了它本身所造成的財富了。——資產階級用什麼辦法來克服這種危機呢？一方面不得不消滅大量生產力，另一方面奪取新的市場，更加徹底地利用舊的市場。這究竟是怎樣的一種辦法呢？這不過是資產階級準備更全面更猛烈的危機的辦法，不過是使防止危機的手段越來越少的辦法。
資產階級用來推翻封建制度的武器，現在卻對準資產階級自己了。
但是，資產階級不僅鍛造了置自身於死地的武器；它還產生了將要運用這種武器的人——現代的工人，即無產者。
隨著資產階級即資本的發展，無產階級即現代工人階級也在同一程度上得到發展；現代的工人只有當他們找到工作的時候才能生存，而且只有當他們的勞動增殖資本的時候才能找到工作。這些不得不把自己零星出賣的工人，像其它任何貨物一樣，也是一種商品，所以他們同樣地受到競爭的一切變化、市場的一切波動的影響。
由於機器的推廣和分工，無產者的勞動已經失去了任何獨立的性質，因而對工人也失去了任何吸引力。工人變成了機器的單純的附屬品，要求他做的只是極其簡單、極其單調和極容易學會的操作。因此，花在工人身上的費用，幾乎只限於維持工人生活和延續工人後代所必需的生活資料。但是，商品的價格，從而勞動的價格，是同它的生產費用相等的。因此，勞動越使人感到厭惡，工資也就越減少。不僅如此，機器越推廣，分工越細緻，勞動量也就越增加，這或者是由於工作時間的延長，或者是由於在一定時間內所要求的勞動的增加，機器運轉的加速，等等。
現代工業已經把家長式的師傅的小作坊變成了工業資本家的大工廠。擠在工廠裡的工人群眾就像士兵一樣被組織起來。他們是產業軍的普通士兵，受著各級軍士和軍官的層層監視。他們不僅是資產階級的、資產階級國家的奴隸，並且每日每時都受機器、受監工、首先是受各個經營工廠的資產者本人的奴役。這種專制制度越是公開地把營利宣佈為自己的最終目的，它就越是可鄙、可恨和可惡。
手的操作所要求的技巧和氣力越少，換句話說，現代工業越發達，男工也就越受到女工和童工的排擠。對工人階級來說，性別和年齡的差別再沒有什麼社會意義了。他們都只是勞動工具，不過因為年齡和性別的不同而需要不同的費用罷了。
當廠主對工人的剝削告一段落，工人領到了用現錢支付的工資的時候，馬上就有資產階級中的另一部分人——房東、小店主、當鋪老闆等等向他們撲來。
以前的中間等級的下層，即小工業家、小商人和小食利者，手工業者和農民——所有這些階級都降落到無產階級的隊伍裡來了，有的是因為他們的小資本不足以經營大工業，經不起較大資本家的競爭；有的是因為他們的手藝已經被新的生產方法弄得不值錢了。無產階級的隊伍就是這樣從居民的所有階級中得到補充的。
無產階級經歷了各個不同的發展階段。它反對資產階級的鬥爭是和它的存在同時開始的。
最初是單個的工人，然後是某一工廠的工人，然後是某一地方的某一勞動部門的工人，同直接剝削他們的單個資產者作鬥爭。他們不僅僅攻擊資產階級的生產關係，而且攻擊生產工具本身；他們毀壞那些來競爭的外國商品，搗毀機器，燒燬工廠，力圖恢復已經失去的中世紀工人的地位。
在這個階段上，工人們還是分散在全國各地並為競爭所分裂的群眾。工人的大規模集結，還不是他們自己聯合的結果，而是資產階級聯合的結果，當時資產階級為了達到自己的政治目的必須而且暫時還能夠把整個無產階級發動起來。因此，在這個階段上，無產者不是同自己的敵人作鬥爭，而是同自己的敵人的敵人作鬥爭，即同專制君主制的殘餘、地主、非工業資產階級和小資產者作鬥爭。因此，整個歷史運動都集中在資產階級手裡；在這種條件下取得的每一個勝利都是資產階級的勝利。
但是，隨著工業的發展，無產階級不僅人數增加了，而且它結合成更大的集體，它的力量日益增長，它越來越感覺到自己的力量。機器使勞動的差別越來越小，使工資幾乎到處都降到同樣低的水平，因而無產階級內部的利益和生活狀況也越來越趨於一致。資產者彼此間日益加劇的競爭以及由此引起的商業危機，使工人的工資越來越不穩定；機器的日益迅速的和繼續不斷的改良，使工人的整個生活地位越來越沒有保障；單個工人和單個資產者之間的衝突越來越具有兩個階級的衝突的性質。工人開始成立反對資產者的同盟；他們聯合起來保衛自己的工資。他們甚至建立了經常性的團體，以便為可能發生的反抗準備食品。有些地方，鬥爭爆發為起義。
工人有時也得到勝利，但這種勝利只是暫時的。他們鬥爭的真正成果並不是直接取得的成功，而是工人的越來越擴大的聯合。這種聯合由於大工業所造成的日益發達的交通工具而得到發展，這種交通工具把各地的工人彼此聯繫起來。只要有了這種聯繫，就能把許多性質相同的地方性的鬥爭匯合成全國性的鬥爭，匯合成階級鬥爭。而一切階級鬥爭都是政治鬥爭。中世紀的市民靠鄉間小道需要幾百年才能達到的聯合，現代的無產者利用鐵路只要幾年就可以達到了。
無產者組織成為階級，從而組織成為政黨這件事，不斷地由於工人的自相競爭而受到破壞。但是，這種組織總是重新產生，並且一次比一次更強大，更堅固，更有力。它利用資產階級內部的分裂，迫使他們用法律形式承認工人的個別利益。英國的十小時工作日法案就是一個例子。
舊社會內部的所有衝突在許多方面都促進了無產階級的發展。資產階級處於不斷的鬥爭中：最初反對貴族：後來反對同工業進步有利害衝突的那部分資產階級；經常反對一切外國的資產階級。在這一切鬥爭中，資產階級都不得不向無產階級呼籲，要求無產階級援助，這樣就把無產階級捲進了政治運動。於是，資產階級自己就把自己的教育因素即反對自身的武器給予了無產階級。
其次，我們已經看到，工業的進步把統治階級的整批成員拋到無產階級隊伍裡去，或者至少也使他們的生活條件受到威脅。他們也給無產階級帶來了大量的教育因素。
最後，在階級鬥爭接近決戰的時期，統治階級內部的、整個舊社會內部的瓦解過程，就達到非常強烈、非常尖銳的程度，甚至使得統治階級中的一小部分人脫離統治階級而歸附於革命的階級，即掌握著未來的階級。所以，正像過去貴族中有一部分人轉到資產階級方面一樣，現在資產階級中也有一部分人，特別是已經提高到從理論上認識整個歷史運動這一水平的一部分資產階級思想家，轉到無產階級方面來了。
在當前同資產階級對立的一切階級中，只有無產階級是真正革命的階級。其餘的階級都隨著大工業的發展而日趨沒落和滅亡，無產階級卻是大工業本身的產物。
中間等級，即小工業家、小商人、手工業者、農民，他們同資產階級作鬥爭，都是為了維護他們這種中間等級的生存，以免於滅亡。所以，他們不是革命的，而是保守的。不僅如此，他們甚至是反動的，因為他們力圖使歷史的車輪倒轉。如果說他們是革命的，那是鑑於他們行將轉入無產階級的隊伍，這樣，他們就不是維護他們目前的利益，而是維護他們將來的利益，他們就離開自己原來的立場，而站到無產階級的立場上來。
流氓無產階級是舊社會最下層中消極的腐化的部分，他們在一些地方也被無產階級革命捲到運動裡來，但是，由於他們的整個生活狀況，他們更甘心於被人收買，去幹反動的勾當。
在無產階級的生活條件中，舊社會的生活條件已經被消滅了。無產者是沒有財產的；他們和妻子兒女的關係同資產階級的家庭關係再沒有任何共同之處了；現代的工業勞動，現代的資本壓迫，無論在英國或法國，無論在美國或德國，都是一樣的，都使無產者失去了任何民族性。法律、道德、宗教，在他們看來全都是資產階級偏見，隱藏在這些偏見後面的全都是資產階級利益。
過去一切階級在爭得統治之後，總是使整個社會服從於它們發財致富的條件，企圖以此來鞏固它們已經獲得的生活地位。無產者只有廢除自己的現存的佔有方式，從而廢除全部現存的佔有方式，才能取得社會生產力。無產者沒有什麼自己的東西必須加以保護，他們必須摧毀至今保護和保障私有財產的一切。
過去的一切運動都是少數人的或者為少數人謀利益的運動。無產階級的運動是絕大多數人的、為絕大多數人謀利益的獨立的運動。無產階級，現今社會的最下層，如果不炸燬構成官方社會的整個上層，就不能抬起頭來，挺起胸來。
如果不就內容而就形式來說，無產階級反對資產階級的鬥爭首先是一國範圍內的鬥爭。每一個國家的無產階級當然首先應該打倒本國的資產階級。
在敘述無產階級發展的最一般的階段的時候，我們循序探討了現存社會內部或多或少隱蔽著的國內戰爭，直到這個戰爭爆發為公開的革命，無產階級用暴力推翻資產階級而建立自己的統治。
我們已經看到，至今的一切社會都是建立在壓迫階級和被壓迫階級的對立之上的。但是，為了有可能壓迫一個階級，就必須保證這個階級至少有能夠勉強維持它的奴隸般的生存的條件。農奴曾經在農奴制度下掙扎到公社社員的地位，小資產者曾經在封建專制制度的束縛下掙扎到資產者的地位。現代的工人卻相反，他們並不是隨著工業的進步而上升，而是越來越降到本階級的生存條件以下。工人變成赤貧者，貧困比人口和財富增長得還要快。由此可以明顯地看出，資產階級再不能做社會的統治階級了，再不能把自己階級的生存條件當做支配一切的規律強加於社會了。資產階級不能統治下去了，因為它甚至不能保證自己的奴隸維持奴隸的生活，因為它不得不讓自己的奴隸落到不能養活它反而要它來養活的地步。社會再不能在它統治下生活下去了，就是說，它的存在不再同社會兼容了。
資產階級生存和統治的根本條件，是財富在私人手裡的積累，是資本的形成和增殖；資本的條件是僱傭勞動。僱傭勞動完全是建立在工人的自相競爭之上的。資產階級無意中造成而又無力抵抗的工業進步，使工人通過結社而達到的革命聯合代替了他們由於競爭而造成的分散狀態。於是，隨著大工業的發展，資產階級賴以生產和佔有產品的基礎本身也就從它的腳下被挖掉了。它首先生產的是它自身的掘墓人。資產階級的滅亡和無產階級的勝利是同樣不可避免的。
二、無產者和共產黨人
共產黨人同全體無產者的關係是怎樣的呢？
共產黨人不是同其它工人政黨相對立的特殊政黨。
他們沒有任何同整個無產階級的利益不同的利益。
他們不提出任何特殊的原則，用以塑造無產階級的運動。
共產黨人同其它無產階級政黨不同的地方只是：一方面，在各國無產者的鬥爭中，共產黨人強調和堅持整個無產階級共同的不分民族的利益；另一方面，在無產階級和資產階級的鬥爭所經歷的各個發展階段上，共產黨人始終代表整個運動的利益。
因此，在實踐方面，共產黨人是各國工人政黨中最堅決的、始終起推動作用的部分；在理論方面，他們勝過其餘的無產階級群眾的地方在於他們瞭解無產階級運動的條件、進程和一般結果。
共產黨人的最近目的是和其它一切無產階級政黨的最近目的一樣的：使無產階級形成為階級，推翻資產階級的統治，由無產階級奪取政權。
共產黨人的理論原理，決不是以這個或那個世界改革家所發明或發現的思想、原則為根據的。
這些原理不過是現在的階級鬥爭、我們眼前的歷史運動的真實關係的一般表述。廢除先前存在的所有制關係，並不是共產主義所獨具的特徵。
一切所有制關係都經歷了經常的歷史更替、經常的歷史變更。
例如，法國革命廢除了封建的所有制，代之以資產階級的所有制。
共產主義的特徵並不是要廢除一般的所有制，而是要廢除資產階級的所有制。
但是，現代的資產階級私有制是建立在階級對立上面、建立在一些人對另一些人的剝削上面的產品生產和佔有的最後而又最完備的表現。
從這個意義上說，共產黨人可以把自己的理論概括為一句話：消滅私有制。
有人責備我們共產黨人，說我們要消滅個人掙得的、自己勞動得來的財產，要消滅構成個人的一切自由、活動和獨立的基礎的財產。
好一個勞動得來的、自己掙得的、自己賺來的財產！你們說的是資產階級所有制以前的那種小資產階級的、小農的財產嗎？那種財產用不著我們去消滅，工業的發展已經把它消滅了，而且每天都在消滅它。
或者，你們說的是現代的資產階級的私有財產吧？
但是，難道僱傭勞動，無產者的勞動，會給無產者創造出財產來嗎？沒有的事。這種勞動所創造的是資本，即剝削僱傭勞動的財產，只有在不斷產生出新的僱傭勞動來重新加以剝削的條件下才能增加起來的財產。現今的這種財產是在資本和僱傭勞動的對立中運動的。讓我們來看看這種對立的兩個方面吧。
做一個資本家，這就是說，他在生產中不僅佔有一種純粹個人的地位，而且佔有一種社會的地位。資本是集體的產物，它只有通過社會許多成員的共同活動，而且歸根到底只有通過社會全體成員的共同活動，才能運動起來。
因此，資本不是一種個人力量，而是一種社會力量。
因此，把資本變為公共的、屬於社會全體成員的財產，這並不是把個人財產變為社會財產。這時所改變的只是財產的社會性質。它將失掉它的階級性質。
現在，我們來看看僱傭勞動。
僱傭勞動的平均價格是最低限度的工資，即工人為維持其工人的生活所必需的生活資料的數額。因此，僱傭工人靠自己的勞動所佔有的東西，只夠勉強維持他的生命的再生產。我們決不打算消滅這種供直接生命再生產用的勞動產品的個人佔有，這種佔有並不會留下任何剩餘的東西使人們有可能支配別人的勞動。我們要消滅的只是這種佔有的可憐的性質，在這種佔有下，工人僅僅為增殖資本而活著，只有在統治階級的利益需要他活著的時候才能活著。
在資產階級社會裡，活的勞動只是增殖已經積累起來的勞動的一種手段。在共產主義社會裡，已經積累起來的勞動只是擴大、豐富和提高工人的生活的一種手段。
因此，在資產階級社會裡是過去支配現在，在共產主義社會裡是現在支配過去。在資產階級社會裡，資本具有獨立性和個性，而活動著的個人卻沒有獨立性和個性。
而資產階級卻把消滅這種關係說成是消滅個性和自由！說對了。的確，正是要消滅資產者的個性、獨立性和自由。
在現今的資產階級生產關係的範圍內，所謂自由就是自由貿易，自由買賣。
但是，買賣一消失，自由買賣也就會消失。關於自由買賣的言論，也像我們的資產階級的其它一切關於自由的大話一樣，僅僅對於不自由的買賣來說，對於中世紀被奴役的市民來說，才是有意義的，而對於共產主義要消滅買賣、消滅資產階級生產關係和資產階級本身這一點來說，卻是毫無意義的。
我們要消滅私有制，你們就驚慌起來。但是，在你們的現存社會裡，私有財產對十分之九的成員來說已經被消滅了；這種私有制之所以存在，正是因為私有財產對十分之九的成員來說已經不存在。可見，你們責備我們，是說我們要消滅那種以社會上的絕大多數人沒有財產為必要條件的所有制。
總而言之，你們責備我們，是說我們要消滅你們的那種所有制。的確，我們是要這樣做的。
從勞動不再能變為資本、貨幣、地租，一句話，不再能變為可以壟斷的社會力量的時候起，就是說，從個人財產不再能變為資產階級財產的時候起，你們說，個性就被消滅了。
由此可見，你們是承認，你們所理解的個性，不外是資產者、資產階級私有者。這樣的個性確實應當被消滅。
共產主義並不剝奪任何人佔有社會產品的權力，它只剝奪利用這種佔有去奴役他人勞動的權力。
有人反駁說，私有制一消滅，一切活動就會停止，懶惰之風就會興起。
這樣說來，資產階級社會早就應該因懶惰而滅亡了，因為在這個社會裡是勞者不獲，獲者不勞的。所有這些顧慮，都可以歸結為這樣一個同義反覆：一旦沒有資本，也就不再有僱傭勞動了。
所有這些對共產主義的物質產品的佔有方式和生產方式的責備， 也被擴及到精神產品的佔有和生產方面。正如階級的所有制的終止在資產者看來是生產本身的終止一樣，階級的教育的終止在他們看來就等於一切教育的終止。
資產者唯恐失去的那種教育，對絕大多數人來說是把人訓練成機器。
但是，你們既然用你們資產階級關於自由、教育、法等等的觀念來衡量廢除資產階級所有制的主張，那就請你們不要同我們爭論了。你們的觀念本身是資產階級的生產關係和所有制關係的產物，正像你們的法不過是被奉為法律的你們這個階級的意志一樣，而這種意志的內容是由你們這個階級的物質生活條件來決定的。
你們的利己觀念使你們把自己的生產關係和所有制關係從歷史的、在生產過程中是暫時的關係變成永恆的自然規律和理性規律，這種利己觀念是你們和一切滅亡了的統治階級所共有的。談到古代所有制的時候你們所能理解的，談到封建所有制的時候你們所能理解的，一談到資產階級所有制你們就再也不能理解了。
消滅家庭！連極端的激進派也對共產黨人的這種可恥的意圖表示憤慨。
現代的、資產階級的家庭是建立在什麼基礎上的呢？是建立在資本上面，建立在私人發財上面的。這種家庭只是在資產階級那裡才以充分發展的形式存在著，而無產者的被迫獨居和公開的賣淫則是它的補充。
資產者的家庭自然會隨著它的這種補充的消失而消失，兩者都要隨著資本的消失而消失。
你們是責備我們要消滅父母對子女的剝削嗎？我們承認這種罪狀。
但是，你們說，我們用社會教育代替家庭教育，就是要消滅人們最親密的關係。
而你們的教育不也是由社會決定的嗎？不也是由你們進行教育的那種社會關係決定的嗎？不也是由社會通過學校等等進行的直接的或間接的干涉決定的嗎？共產黨人並沒有發明社會對教育的影響；他們僅僅是要改變這種影響的性質，要使教育擺脫統治階級的影響。
無產者的一切家庭聯繫越是由於大工業的發展而被破壞，他們的子女越是由於這種發展而被變成單純的商品和勞動工具，資產階級關於家庭和教育、關於父母和子女的親密關係的空話就越是令人作嘔。
但是，你們共產黨人是要實行公妻制的啊，——整個資產階級異口同聲地向我們這樣叫喊。
資產者是把自己的妻子看作單純的生產工具的。他們聽說生產工具將要公共使用，自然就不能不想到婦女也會遭到同樣的命運。
他們想也沒有想到，問題正在於使婦女不再處於單純生產工具的地位。
其實，我們的資產者裝得道貌岸然，對所謂的共產黨人的正式公妻製表示驚訝，那是再可笑不過了。公妻制無需共產黨人來實行，它差不多是一向就有的。
我們的資產者不以他們的無產者的妻子和女兒受他們支配為滿足，正式的賣淫更不必說了，他們還以互相誘姦妻子為最大的享樂。
資產階級的婚姻實際上是公妻制。人們至多只能責備共產黨人，說他們想用正式的、公開的公妻制來代替偽善地掩蔽著的公妻制。其實，不言而喻，隨著現在的生產關係的消滅，從這種關係中產生的公妻制，即正式的和非正式的賣淫，也就消失了。
還有人責備共產黨人，說他們要取消祖國，取消民族。
工人沒有祖國。決不能剝奪他們所沒有的東西。因為無產階級首先必須取得政治統治，上升為民族的階級，把自身組織成為民族，所以它本身還是民族的，雖然完全不是資產階級所理解的那種意思。
隨著資產階級的發展，隨著貿易自由的實現和世界市場的建立，隨著工業生產以及與之相適應的生活條件的趨於一致，各國人民之間的民族隔絕和對立日益消失。
無產階級的統治將使它們更快地消失。聯合的行動，至少是各文明國家的聯合的行動，是無產階級獲得解放的首要條件之一。
人對人的剝削一消滅，民族對民族的剝削就會隨之消滅。
民族內部的階級對立一消失，民族之間的敵對關係就會隨之消失。
從宗教的、哲學的和一般意識形態的觀點對共產主義提出的種種責難，都不值得詳細討論了。
人們的觀念、觀點和概念，一名話，人們的意識，隨著人們的生活條件、人們的社會關係、人們的社會存在的改變而改變，這難道需要經過深思才能瞭解嗎？
思想的歷史除了證明精神生產隨著物質生產的改造而改造，還證明了什麼呢？任何一個時代的統治思想始終都不過是統治階級的思想。
當人們談到使整個社會革命化的思想時，他們只是表明了一個事實：在舊社會內部已經形成了新社會的因素，舊思想的瓦解是同舊生活條件的瓦解步調一致的。
當古代世界走向滅亡的時候，古代的各種宗教就被基督教戰勝了。當基督教思想在18世紀被啟蒙思想擊敗的時候，封建社會正在同當時革命的資產階級進行殊死的鬥爭。信仰自由和宗教自由的思想，不過表明自由競爭在信仰的領域裡佔統治地位罷了。
「但是」，有人會說，「宗教的、道德的、哲學的、政治的、法的觀念等等在歷史發展的進程中固然是不斷改變的，而宗教、道德、哲學、政治和法在這種變化中卻始終保存著。
此外，還存在著一切社會狀態所共有的永恆的真理，如自由、正義等等。但是共產主義要廢除永恆真理，它要廢除宗教、道德，而不是加以革新，所以共產主義是同至今的全部歷史發展進程相矛盾的。」
這種責難歸結為什麼呢？至今的一切社會的歷史都是在階級對立中運動的，而這種對立在各個不同的時代具有不同的形式。
但是，不管階級對立具有什麼樣的形式，社會上一部分人對另一部分人的剝削卻是過去各個世紀所共有的事實。因此，毫不奇怪，各個世紀的社會意識，儘管形形色色、千差萬別，總是在某些共同的形式中運動的，這些形式，這些意識形式，只有當階級對立完全消失的時候才會完全消失。
共產主義革命就是同傳統的所有制關係實行最徹底的決裂；毫不奇怪，它在自己的發展進程中要同傳統的觀念實行最徹底的決裂。
不過，我們還是把資產階級對共產主義的種種責難撇開吧。
前面我們已經看到，工人革命的第一步就是使無產階級上升為統治階級，爭得民主。
無產階級將利用自己的政治統治，一步一步地奪取資產階級的全部資本，把一切生產工具集中在國家即組織成為統治階級的無產階級手裡，並且儘可能快地增加生產力的總量。
要做到這一點，當然首先必須對所有權和資產階級生產關係實行強制性的干涉，也就是採取這樣一些措施，這些措施在經濟上似乎是不夠充分的和沒有力量的，但是在運動進程中它們會越出本身，而且作為變革全部生產方式的手段是必不可少的。
這些措施在不同的國家裡當然會是不同的。
但是，最先進的國家幾乎都可以採取下面的措施：
1．剝奪地產，把地租用於國家支出。
2．徵收高額累進稅。
3．廢除繼承權。
4．沒收一切流亡分子和叛亂分子的財產。
5．通過擁有國家資本和獨享壟斷權的國家銀行，把信貸集中在國家手裡。
6．把全部運輸業集中在國家手裡。
7．按照總的計畫增加國營工廠和生產工具，開墾荒地和改良土壤。
8．實行普遍勞動義務制，成立產業軍，特別是在農業方面。
9．把農業和工業結合起來，促使城鄉對立逐步消滅。
10．對所有兒童實行公共的和免費的教育。取消現在這種形式的兒童的工廠勞動。把教育同物質生產結合起來，等等。
當階級差別在發展進程中已經消失而全部生產集中在聯合起來的個人的手裡的時候，公共權力就失去政治性質。原來意義上的政治權力，是一個階級用以壓迫另一個階級的有組織的暴力。如果說無產階級在反對資產階級的鬥爭中一定要聯合為階級，如果說它通過革命使自己成為統治階級，並以統治階級的資格用暴力消滅舊的生產關係，那麼它在消滅這種生產關係的同時，也就消滅了階級對立和階級本身的存在條件，從而消滅了它自己這個階級的統治。
代替那存在著階級和階級對立的資產階級舊社會的，將是這樣一個聯合體，在那裡，每個人的自由發展是一切人的自由發展的條件。
三、社會主義的和共產主義的文獻
1．反動的社會主義
(甲)封建的社會主義
法國和英國的貴族，按照他們的歷史地位所負的使命，就是寫一些抨擊現代資產階級社會的作品。在法國的1830年七月革命和英國的改革運動中，他們再一次被可恨的暴發戶打敗了。從此就再談不上嚴重的政治鬥爭了。他們還能進行的只是文字鬥爭。但是，即使在文字方面也不可能重彈復辟時期的老調了。為了激起同情，貴族們不得不裝模做樣，似乎他們已經不關心自身的利益，只是為了被剝削的工人階級的利益才去寫對資產階級的控訴書。他們用來洩憤的手段是：唱唱詛咒他們的新統治者的歌，並向他嘰嘰咕咕地說一些或多或少凶險的預言。
這樣就產生了封建的社會主義，半是輓歌，半是謗文；半是過去的回音，半是未來的恫嚇；它有時也能用辛辣、俏皮而尖刻的評論刺中資產階級的心，但是它由於完全不能理解現代歷史的進程而總是令人感到可笑。
為了拉攏人民，貴族們把無產階級的乞食袋當做旗幟來揮舞。但是，每當人民跟著他們走的時候，都發現他們的臀部帶有舊的封建紋章，於是就哈哈大笑，一哄而散。
一部分法國正統派和「青年英國」，都演過這齣戲。
封建主說，他們的剝削方式和資產階級的剝削不同，那他們只是忘記了，他們是在完全不同的、目前已經過時的情況和條件下進行剝削的。他們說，在他們的統治下並沒有出現過現代的無產階級，那他們只是忘記了，現代的資產階級正是他們的社會制度的必然產物。
不過，他們毫不掩飾自己的批評的反動性質，他們控告資產階級的主要罪狀正是在於：在資產階級的統治下有一個將把整個舊社會制度炸燬的階級發展起來。
他們責備資產階級，與其說是因為它產生了無產階級，不如說是因為它產生了革命的無產階級。
因此，在政治實踐中，他們參與對工人階級採取的一切暴力措施，在日常生活中，他們違背自己的那一套冠冕堂皇的言詞，屈尊拾取金蘋果，不顧信義、仁愛和名譽去做羊毛、甜菜和燒酒的買賣。
正如僧侶總是同封建主攜手同行一樣，僧侶的社會主義也總是同封建的社會主義攜手同行的。
要給基督教禁慾主義塗上一層社會主義的色彩，是再容易不過了。基督教不是也激烈反對私有制，反對婚姻，反對國家嗎？它不是提倡用行善和求乞、獨身和禁慾、修道和禮拜來代替這一切嗎？基督教的社會主義，只不過是僧侶用來使貴族的怨憤神聖化的聖水罷了。
(乙)小資產階級的社會主義
封建貴族並不是被資產階級所推翻的、其生活條件在現代資產階級社會裡日益惡化和消失的唯一階級。中世紀的城關市民等級和小農等級是現代資產階級的前身。在工商業不很發達的國家裡，這個階級還在新興的資產階級身旁勉強生存著。
在現代文明已經發展的國家裡,形成了一個新的小資產階級，它搖擺於無產階級和資產階級之間，並且作為資產階級社會的補充部分不斷地重新組成。但是，這一階級的成員經常被競爭拋到無產階級隊伍裡去，而且，隨著大工業的發展，他們甚至覺察到，他們很快就會完全失去他們作為現代社會中一個獨立部分的地位，在商業、工業和農業中很快就會被監工和僱員所代替。
在農民階級遠遠超過人口半數的國家，例如在法國，那些站在無產階級方面反對資產階級的著作家，自然是用小資產階級和小農的尺度去批判資產階級制度的，是從小資產階級的立場出發替工人說話的。這樣就形成了小資產階級的社會主義。西斯蒙第不僅對法國而且對英國來說都是這類著作家的首領。
這種社會主義非常透徹地分析了現代生產關係中的矛盾。它揭穿了經濟學家的虛偽的粉飾。它確鑿地證明了機器和分工的破壞作用、資本和地產的積聚、生產過剩、危機、小資產者和小農的必然沒落、無產階級的貧困、生產的無政府狀態、財富分配的極不平均、各民族之間的毀滅性的工業戰爭，以及舊風尚、舊家庭關係和舊民族性的解體。
但是，這種社會主義按其實際內容來說，或者是企圖恢復舊的生產資料和交換手段，從而恢復舊的所有制關係和舊的社會，或者是企圖重新把現代的生產資料和交換手段硬塞到已被它們突破而且必然被突破的舊的所有制關係的框子裡去。它在這兩種場合都是反動的，同時又是空想的。
工業中的行會制度，農業中的宗法經濟，——這就是它的最後結論。
這一思潮在它以後的發展中變成了一種怯懦的悲嘆。
(丙)德國的或「真正的」社會主義
法國的社會主義和共產主義的文獻是在居於統治地位的資產階級的壓迫下產生的，並且是同這種統治作鬥爭的文字表現，這種文獻被搬到德國的時候，那裡的資產階級才剛剛開始進行反對封建專制制度的鬥爭。
德國的哲學家、半哲學家和美文學家，貪婪地抓住了這種文獻，不過他們忘記了：在這種著作從法國搬到德國的時候，法國的生活條件卻沒有同時搬過去。在德國的條件下，法國的文獻完全失去了直接實踐的意義，而只具有純粹文獻的形式。它必然表現為關於真正的社會、關於實現人的本質的無謂思辨。這樣，第一次法國革命的要求，在18世紀的德國哲學家看來，不過是一般「實踐理性」的要求，而革命的法國資產階級的意志的表現，在他們心目中就是純粹意志、本來的意志、真正人的意志的規律。
德國著作家的唯一工作，就是把新的法國的思想同他們的舊的哲學信仰調和起來，或者毋寧說，就是從他們的哲學觀點出發去掌握法國的思想。
這種掌握，就像掌握外國語一樣，是通過翻譯的。
大家知道，僧侶們曾經在古代異教經典的手抄本上面寫上荒誕的天主教聖徒傳。德國著作家對世俗的法國文獻採取相反的作法。他們在法國的原著下面寫上自己的哲學胡說。例如，他們在法國人對貨幣關係的批判下面寫上「人的本質的外化」，在法國人對資產階級國家的批判下面寫上所謂「抽象普遍物的統治的揚棄」，等等。
這種在法國人的論述下面塞進自己哲學詞句的作法，他們稱之為「行動的哲學」、「真正的社會主義」、「德國的社會主義科學」、「社會主義的哲學論證」，等等。
法國的社會主義和共產主義的文獻就這樣被完全閹割了。既然這種文獻在德國人手裡已不再表現一個階級反對另一個階級的鬥爭，於是德國人就認為：他們克服了「法國人的片面性」，他們不代表真實的要求，而代表真理的要求，不代表無產者的利益，而代表人的本質的利益，即一般人的利益，這種人不屬於任何階級，根本不存在於現實界，而只存在於雲霧瀰漫的哲學幻想的太空。
這種曾經鄭重其事地看待自己那一套拙劣的小學生作業並且大言不慚地加以吹噓的德國社會主義，現在漸漸失去了它的自炫博學的天真。
德國的特別是普魯士的資產階級反對封建主和專制王朝的鬥爭，一句話，自由主義運動，越來越嚴重了。
於是，「真正的」社會主義就得到了一個好機會，把社會主義的要求同政治運動對立起來，用詛咒異端邪說的傳統辦法詛咒自由主義，詛咒代議制國家，詛咒資產階級的競爭、資產階級的新聞出版自由、資產階級的法、資產階級的自由和平等，並且向人民群眾大肆宣揚，說什麼在這個資產階級運動中，人民群眾非但一無所得，反而會失去一切。德國的社會主義恰好忘記了，法國的批判(德國的社會主義是這種批判的可憐的回聲)是以現代的資產階級社會以及相應的物質生活條件和相當的政治制度為前提的，而這一切前提當時在德國正是尚待爭取的。
這種社會主義成了德意志各邦專制政府及其隨從——僧侶、教員、容克和官僚求之不得的、嚇唬來勢洶洶的資產階級的稻草人。
這種社會主義是這些政府用來鎮壓德國工人起義的毒辣的皮鞭和槍彈的甜蜜的補充。
既然「真正的」社會主義就這樣成了這些政府對付德國資產階級的武器，那麼它也就直接代表了一種反動的利益，即德國小市民的利益。在德國，16世紀遺留下來的、從那時起經常以不同形式重新出現的小資產階級，是現存制度的真實的社會基礎。
保存這個小資產階級，就是保存德國的現存制度。這個階級膽顫心驚地從資產階級的工業統治和政治統治那裡等候著無可倖免的滅亡，這一方面是由於資本的積聚，另一方面是由於革命無產階級的興起。在它看來，「真正的」社會主義能起一箭雙鵰的作用。「真正的」社會主義象瘟疫一樣流行起來了。
德國的社會主義者給自己的那幾條乾癟的「永恆真理」披上一件用思辨的蛛絲織成的、繡滿華麗辭藻的花朵和浸透甜情蜜意的甘露的外衣，這件光彩奪目的外衣只是使他們的貨物在這些顧客中間增加銷路罷了。
同時，德國的社會主義也越來越認識到自己的使命就是充當這種小市民的誇誇其談的代言人。
它宣佈德意志民族是模範的民族，德國小市民是模範的人。它給這些小市民的每一種醜行都加上奧秘的、高尚的、社會主義的意義，使之變成完全相反的東西。它發展到最後，就直接反對共產主義的「野蠻破壞的」傾向，並且宣佈自己是不偏不倚的超乎任何階級鬥爭之上的。現今在德國流行的一切所謂社會主義和共產主義的著作，除了極少數的例外，都屬於這一類卑鄙齷齪的、令人委靡的文獻。
2．保守的或資產階級的社會主義
資產階級中的一部分人想要消除社會的弊病，以便保障資產階級社會的生存。
這一部分人包括：經濟學家、博愛主義者、人道主義者、勞動階級狀況改善派、慈善事業組織者、動物保護協會會員、戒酒協會發起人以及形形式色色的小改良家。這種資產階級的社會主義甚至被製成一些完整的體系。
我們可以舉蒲魯東的《貧困的哲學》作為例子。
社會主義的資產者願意要現代社會的生存條件，但是不要由這些條件必然產生的鬥爭和危險。他們願意要現存的社會，但是不要那些使這個社會革命化和瓦解的因素。他們願意要資產階級，但是不要無產階級。在資產階級看來，它所統治的世界自然是最美好的世界。資產階級的社會主義把這種安慰人心的觀念製成半套或整套的體系。它要求無產階級實現它的體系，走進新的耶路撒冷，其實它不過是要求無產階級停留在現今的社會裡，但是要拋棄他們關於這個社會的可惡的觀念。
這種社會主義的另一種不夠系統、但是比較實際的形式，力圖使工人階級厭棄一切革命運動，硬說能給工人階級帶來好處的並不是這樣或那樣的政治改革，而僅僅是物質生活條件即經濟關係的改變。但是，這種社會主義所理解的物質生活條件的改變，絕對不是只有通過革命的途徑才能實現的資產階級生產關係的消滅，而是一些行政上的改良，這些改良是在這種生產關係的基礎上實行的，因而絲毫不會改變資本和僱傭勞動的關係，至多只能減少資產階級的統治費用和簡化它的財政管理。
資產階級的社會主義只有在它變成純粹的演說辭令的時候，才獲得自己的適當的表現。
自由貿易！為了工人階級的利益；保護關稅！為了工人階級的利益；單身牢房！為了工人階級的利益。——這才是資產階級的社會主義唯一認真說出的最後的話。
資產階級的社會主義就是這樣一個論斷：資產者之為資產者，是為了工人階級的利益。
3．批判的空想的社會主義和共產主義
在這裡，我們不談在現代一切大革命中表達過無產階級要求的文獻(巴貝夫等人的著作)。
無產階級在普遍激動的時代、在推翻封建社會的時期直接實現自己階級利益的最初嘗試，都不可避免地遭到了失敗，這是由於當時無產階級本身還不夠發展，由於無產階級解放的物質條件還沒有具備，這些條件只是資產階級時代的產物。隨著這些早期的無產階級運動而出現的革命文獻，就其內容來說必然是反動的。這種文獻倡導普遍的禁慾主義和粗陋的平均主義。
本來意義的社會主義和共產主義的體系，聖西門、傅立葉、歐文等人的體系，是在無產階級和資產階級之間的鬥爭還不發展的最初時期出現的。關於這個時期，我們在前面已經敘述過了(見《資產階級和無產階級》)。
誠然，這些體系的發明家看到了階級的對立，以及佔統治地位的社會本身中的瓦解因素的作用。但是，他們看不到無產階級方面的任何歷史主動性，看不到它所特有的任何政治運動。
由於階級對立的發展是同工業的發展步調一致的，所以這些發明家也不可能看到無產階級解放的物質條件，於是他們就去探求某種社會科學、社會規律，以便創造這些條件。
社會的活動要由他們個人的發明活動來代替，解放的歷史條件要由幻想的條件來代替，無產階級的逐步組織成為階級要由他們特意設計出來的社會組織來代替。在他們看來，今後的世界歷史不過是宣傳和實施他們的社會計畫。
誠然，他們也意識到，他們的計畫主要是代表工人階級這一受苦最深的階級的利益。在他們的心目中，無產階級只是一個受苦最深的階級。
但是，由於階級鬥爭不發展，由於他們本身的生活狀況，他們就以為自己是高高超乎這種階級對立之上的。他們要改善社會一切成員的生活狀況，甚至生活最優裕的成員也包括在內。因此，他們總是不加區別地向整個社會呼籲，而且主要是向統治階級呼籲。他們以為，人們只要理解他們的體系，就會承認這種體系是最美好的社會的最美好的計畫。
因此，他們拒絕一切政治行動，特別是一切革命行動；他們想通過和平的途徑達到自己的目的，並且企圖通過一些小型的、當然不會成功的試驗，通過示範的力量來為新的社會福音開闢道路。
這種對未來社會的幻想的描繪，是在無產階級還很不發展、因而對本身的地位的認識還基於幻想的時候，同無產階級對社會普遍改造的最初的本能的渴望相適應的。
但是，這些社會主義和共產主義的著作也含有批判的成分。這些著作抨擊現存社會的全部基礎。因此，它們提供了啟發工人覺悟的極為寶貴的材料。它們關於未來社會的積極的主張，例如消滅城鄉對立，消滅家庭，消滅私人營利，消滅僱傭勞動，提倡社會和諧，把國家變成純粹的生產管理機構，——所有這些主張都只是表明要消滅階級對立，而這種階級對立在當時剛剛開始發展，它們所知道的只是這種對立的早期的、不明顯的、不確定的形式。因此，這些主張本身還帶有純粹空想的性質。
批判的空想的社會主義和共產主義的意義，是同歷史的發展成反比的。階級鬥爭越發展和越具有確定的形式，這種超乎階級鬥爭的幻想，這種反對階級鬥爭的幻想，就越失去任何實踐意義和任何理論根據。所以，雖然這些體系的創始人在許多方面是革命的，但是他們的信徒總是組成一些反動的宗派。這些信徒無視無產階級的歷史進展，還是死守著老師們的舊觀點。因此，他們一貫企圖削弱階級鬥爭，調和對立。他們還總是夢想用試驗的辦法來實現自己的社會空想，創辦單個的法倫斯泰爾，建立國內移民區，創立小伊加利亞，即袖珍版的新耶路撒冷，——而為了建造這一切空中樓閣，他們就不得不呼籲資產階級發善心和慷慨解囊。他們逐漸地墮落到上述反動的或保守的社會主義者的一夥中去了，所不同的只是他們更加系統地賣弄學問，狂熱地迷信自己那一套社會科學的奇功異效。
因此，他們激烈地反對工人的一切政治運動，認為這種運動只是由於盲目地不相信新福音才發生的。
在英國，有歐文主義者反對憲章派，在法國，有傅立葉主義者反對改革派。
四、共產黨人對各種反對黨派的態度
看過第二章之後，就可以瞭解共產黨人同已經形成的工人政黨的關係，因而也就可以瞭解他們同英國憲章派和北美土地改革派的關係。
共產黨人為工人階級的最近的目的和利益而鬥爭，但是他們在當前的運動中同時代表運動的未來。在法國，共產黨人同社會主義民主黨聯合起來反對保守的和激進的資產階級，但是並不因此放棄對那些從革命的傳統中承襲下來的空談和幻想採取批判態度的權利。
在瑞士，共產黨人支持激進派，但是並不忽略這個政黨是由互相矛盾的分子組成的，其中一部分是法國式的民主社會主義者，一部分是激進的資產者。
在波蘭人中間，共產黨人支持那個把土地革命當做民族解放的條件的政黨，即發動過1846年克拉科夫起義的政黨。
在德國，只要資產階級採取革命的行動，共產黨就同它一起去反對專制君主制、封建土地所有制和小市民的反動性。
但是，共產黨一分鐘也不忽略教育工人儘可能明確地意識到資產階級和無產階級的敵對的對立，以便德國工人能夠立刻利用資產階級統治所必然帶來的社會的和政治的條件作為反對資產階級的武器，以便在推翻德國的反動階級之後立即開始反對資產階級本身的鬥爭。
共產黨人把自己的主要注意力集中在德國，因為德國正處在資產階級革命的前夜，因為同17世紀的英國和18世紀的法國相比，德國將在整個歐洲文明更進步的條件下，擁有發展得多的無產階級去實現這個變革，因而德國的資產階級革命只能是無產階級革命的直接序幕。
總之，共產黨人到處都支持一切反對現存的社會制度和政治制度的革命運動。
在所有這些運動中，他們都特別強調所有制問題是運動的基本問題，不管這個問題的發展程度怎樣。
最後，共產黨人到處都努力爭取全世界的民主政黨之間的團結和協調。
共產黨人不屑於隱瞞自己的觀點和意圖。他們公開宣佈：他們的目的只有用暴力推翻全部現存的社會制度才能達到。讓統治階級在共產主義革命面前發抖吧。無產者在這個革命中失去的只是鎖鏈。他們獲得的將是整個世界。
全世界無產者，聯合起來！
中文歌詞
（一）
起來，饑寒交迫的奴隸！
起來，全世界受苦的人！
滿腔的熱血已經沸騰，
要為真理而鬥爭！
舊世界打個落花流水，
奴隸們起來，起來！
不要說我們一無所有，
我們要做天下的主人！
副歌
這是最後的鬥爭，
團結起來到明天，
英特納雄耐爾
就一定要實現！
這是最後的鬥爭，
團結起來到明天，
英特納雄耐爾
就一定要實現！
（二）
從來就沒有什麼救世主，
也不靠神仙皇帝！
要創造人類的幸福，
全靠我們自己！
我們要奪回勞動果實，
讓思想衝破牢籠！
快把那爐火燒得通紅，
趁熱打鐵才會成功！
副歌
（六）
是誰創造了人類世界？
是我們勞動群眾！
一切歸勞動者所有，
哪能容得寄生蟲？！
最可恨那些毒蛇猛獸，
吃盡了我們的血肉！
一旦將它們消滅乾淨，
鮮紅的太陽照遍全球！
副歌
個人積分：3013分
文章編號：70172457
1230154 wrote:
子女有沒有撫養父母的義務，端看於我們架構出什麼樣的社會，
而這個架構是共識出來的，違背這個共識的在這個社會就會被視為異類，
子女有沒有撫養父母的義務跟 父母有沒有撫養子女的義務是一樣的問題
不管如何的討論，這問題共同的核心是 子女年幼時 和 父母年邁時都需要被扶養
所以在解決這個問題上這個社會必須共識出由 『誰』 來撫養，
如果社會共識出父母不用撫養年幼子女這個決定，那很簡單，誰來承擔，
全部交給國家，那錢從哪來，不就是繳高額的稅來支撐，
台灣稅收占GDP比例只有12% 和許多國家稅收占GDP比例在40%來講
台灣有大幅度提高的空間 就是因為台灣過低的稅率社會福利體系無法健全
各國稅收佔國內生產總值百分比列表
馬克思說過
生產力的發展決定生產關係，生生產關係會影響到社會頂層的架構
也就是「上層建築」包含意識形態國家架構道德觀等等一切是由經濟基礎決定的
在農業時代和封建時代因為土地繼承制度和生產工具的繼承 孝順有它的合理性
而當時的社會生產關係也就形成了傳統道德觀念
甚至有三代同堂 裹小腳 女子無材便是德的觀念
但是現代資本主義社會的生產力改變了生產關係和組織方法
也就越來越少的大家庭 父母也可能是無產階級
因此西方的制度和社會福利保障體系架構就是在這環境產生的
是符合現代資本主義生產關係的
馬克思主義哲學以唯物主義的立場檢視社會的發展，認為人類社會是架構在其賴以為生的經濟活動上。經濟組織的架構和生產模式被視為是人與人之間的社會、政治、法律、和道德關係的根本來源（或至少發揮了主要的影響），這些社會關係進而構成了馬克思所謂的上層建築。隨著生產模式的進步，既有的社會組織和關係變得沒有效率並且與經濟活動產生衝突，這種衝突進而發展為階級鬥爭[3]。依據馬克思主義的分析，由無產階級勞動操作的高效率機械化生產模式，在生產過程中替少數持有生產工具的資產階級產生了剩餘產品並成為剩餘價值，此種剝削關係進而轉化而根本性的矛盾，隨著矛盾的擴大，社會的革命必將發生。
歷史唯物主義又被愛德華‧伯恩施坦稱為是「由經濟角度對歷史的解讀」[8]以經濟為出發點檢視人類社會的發展和和賴以謀生的生產方式。歷史唯物主義主張一個社會的基本特色（社會階層、政治架構、意識形態）是根基於經濟的活動上，亦即一個社會的上層建築。公民社會組成了一個社會的底層架構，而政治和法律系統則構成上層建築，底層架構透過政治活動、宗教和哲學與上層建築做連結，並且調節上層建築的運作和社會整體的意識。物質生產模式的發展與既有的生產關係產生衝突，這種衝突於是促生社會革命，進而改變經濟根基和上層架構[9]。
蘇聯後期編寫的《聯共（布）黨史》認為這些社會經濟的衝突在歷史上曾一再透過階段性的模式發生：
原始共產主義：集體狩獵採收的部落社會
奴隸社會：由部落發展至城邦，貴族階級產生
封建主義：貴族階級為統治階級，商人逐漸衍生為資產階級
資本主義：資產階級為統治階級，維持並僱用勞動階級
社會主義：勞動者產生階級意識，透過無產階級革命推翻資本主義專政，以無產階級專政取而代之
共產主義：無階級而無國界的社會
孝順的概念分析
「孝順」究竟有沒有過時？是不是一種落伍的倫理觀念？要回答這些問題之前，我們必須先探究在通俗道德中「孝順」指的是什麼。
有人說︰「孝者，笑也。」這就是說，孝順就是讓父母高興或快樂。但這個定義有很大的問題，因為有時候人會因為種種原因不願意快樂 畢竟人不是只追求快樂的動物，所以如果父母的意願是寧可選擇痛苦，孝順的子女就不應強迫他們快樂。例如，父母為了某種原因不願吃止痛藥，孝順的子女就不應該強迫他們。這樣說來，凡違背了父母的意志，就不算是孝順。
因此，在一般人的觀念中，「孝順」的核心其實是「順」，亦即，在子女的意願與父母衝突時，子女應順服或服從父母的意志。（如果子女與父母的意願沒有衝突，那麼即使子女「順服」父母的意志也不能算「孝順」；這就好像一個人如果因說實話而得好處的情形下說了實話，不能算「誠實」，只有當此人因說謊而能得好處的情形下仍說了實話，才算誠實。因此，當子女與父母的意願和諧而沒有衝突的情形裡，子女並不是真的「順服」父母，子女只是實現了自己的意志。所以孝順就是在父母與子女的意願相衝突的情況下，子女順服父母的意願。）
孝順雖指著服從或順從，但卻不能理解為絕對地服從或順從。如果有人認為，孝順父母就是對父母百依百順、絕不忤逆、絕不頂嘴、絕不違背他們的意志，這就錯了。因為孝順或服從父母應當有其限度，這個限度或界限是什麼呢？一般的看法是：情理法。
如果子女因為父母的意願有違法律而不順從，子女不算是不孝順。還有的時候，父母的意願違背了理性（例如，看某人覺得不順眼，故禁止子女與其交往），子女若不順服這種非理性的意志，也不應是不孝順。還有一種情形是父母的意願不近人情（例如，強迫子女從事某種行業而不顧子女的性向與興趣，或者干涉子女的戀愛與婚姻而不顧子女的情感與快樂），子女若違背意願也不算是不孝順。也許有人說，孝順就是絕對的服從，不論父母的意願是否合情、合理、合法。我認為這樣的孝順觀念已經過時了，我相信大多數人也都能同意孝順不是絕對的順服。
因此，現在一般人能接受的「孝順」是，對父母合情又合理且合法的意願之順服。
但是我認為即使是這樣的孝順觀念也過時了。這主要是因為現代社會必須建立在一個認可並尊重個人自由意志的基礎上。其次是因為現代社會對什麼是合理及合乎人情已經失去共識。
先談大家對什麼是情理已失去共識這一點。很明顯的，現代社會的多元化使多種次文化並存，在這些次文化中，會發展出不同的「人情」、「理性」觀念。因此父母認為合乎情理的，子女很可能因接受次文化而認為不合情理。比如，父母可能認為參加婚禮的衣服應以紅色為主，比較好看，也合習慣，可是子女及其友人卻可能認為紅色土氣，而想搞一個在年輕人之間很流行的「黑色（服飾）婚禮」。
或有人說，當父母與子女各有一套情理時，應以父母為主，但這就等於說孝順就是絕對的服從，而前面已經說明絕對服從的觀念是落伍的。或有人說，我們應以父母的情理為主的原因是，父母的意志最合理（因為人生經驗多），也最合情（較通人情世故，也對兒女有養育之恩），但是從子女的觀點來看，父母缺乏新知識，沒生活在下一代的文化世界裡，因此其人生經驗與價值觀（包括對習慣、禮節的認知）都已過時或和子女格格不入。更有甚者，所謂「養育之恩」的出發點必須是個無私的動機，如果父母養育子女的目的是為了要子女順服其意志或聽話，那麼實在談不上「恩」，只是一種情感勒索。
孝順的核心 （在子女與父母的意願衝突時）對父母意志的順服（不管是絕對的或有條件的） 意味著對子女自由意志的可能剝奪。換言之，孝順的代價往往是為了順服遷就父母而違背了子女自己的意願。這種道德觀念基本上是和現代社會構成的基礎相衝突的，這個基礎就是假定人人均有自由意志，每個人都是一獨立自主的個體。
或有人說，孝順應以不違背任何人之自由意志為準，孝順就是父母與子女之間的相互尊重以及互愛。但是「互愛互敬」這一準則亦可以適用於夫妻、朋友、親戚……之間，而傳統上「孝順」則特指父母與子女之間的倫理關係。因此，若把「孝順」與「互愛互敬」等同起來，也就等於宣佈孝順其實是名存實亡地過時了。
孝順的社會學解釋
孝順這一倫理觀念的核心即如前述，是對父母意願的順從，我也敘述了孝順已不適合現代社會的理由，但卻沒有探討現代社會中使孝順過時的力量為何。換言之，筆者沒有說明究竟在構成現代社會的基本力量中，有什麼與孝順相剋。把這一點說明清楚，我們就能斷定：目前孝順式微的現象並非一時的，而是走向衰亡的跡象。
大部分人都明白孝順在過去封建社會中所扮演的角色 父子關係與君臣關係的類比是明顯可見的 即孝順曾經維繫並強化過去社會中的宰制關係。如今現代社會取代了昔日之社會，孝順雖然是一種與過去社會相適應的道德，但這不表示孝順一定與現代社會相剋。所以我們必須考察構成現代社會（資本主義社會）的基本力量。
近代資本主義社會之所以形成，是因為把人從血緣與土地的束縛中解放出來。具體來說，就是使農村破產，或者用暴力奪走農民土地，將農民趕到都市裡的貧民窟中。農民離開了土地，只好做工人以求生。
在這個過程中，傳統人際關係首先發生了變化，親戚的離散使大家庭解體，親子的家庭關係單純化了。更重要的就是下層家庭的父母，對子女已經失去控制的手段 私有財產（土地、農具）的繼承；因為父母的私有財產已經被剝奪了，或失去價值了，子女根本沒有東西可以繼承。易言之，子女過去對父母的順從其實有很現實的基礎，這個基礎就是土地的繼承。可是資本主義摧毀了這個基礎，因為資本主義社會中只能少數人擁有私有財產（生產工具），這樣才能達成資本集中與累積的目的。
隨著貧窮人家子女的提早就業，子女可以較少倚賴父母，父母權威被削弱了，但是削弱父母權威的更大力量來自國家的干預。國家要替國內市場創造有利條件，必須藉公共教育把人們整合成一個民族，使人們之間因家庭教育帶來的差異性減低到最小。要做到這些，就必須削弱父母權威，例如，父母不許傷害其子女，對子女的支配須受國家法律限制，父母對子女的教導也會因學校對子女的教育而難貫徹（如果兩者矛盾的話）。
當勞動力流動程度高時，像「父母在不遠遊」這類誡命就失去了意義。人一旦不為土地束縛後，人就不易被家庭或父母束縛，束縛人的反而變成工作機會 即資本家的投資地點。子女與父母常因工作需要而分開兩地，「孝順」已不是日常生活的實踐，而只是「心意」而已。
孝順與資本主義社會不相適應的最主要原因則是，作為資本主義社會基礎的雇傭關係，預設了人人的平等與自由意志。在雇傭關係中，雇主與工人必須是平等的，已雙方的自由意志訂立工作合同或契約，這和過去的主奴關係完全不同。可是孝順預設了父母與子女站在不平等的地位上，而且子女必須違背自己的意志以順服父母的意志，這就使得孝順和現代社會不相適應了。
由於台灣現代化呈現一種不平衡發展，因此不像某些先進的現代化社會在政治、經濟、法律、文化、道德各方面都資本主義化，台灣在許多方面仍存在者封建關係，也因此一些傳統的道德仍然存在，並且阻礙著台灣更進一步的現代化。政治領域裡阻礙現代化的因素，也常利用政治力量在文化道德領域中鼓吹諸如孝順之類的觀念。而孝順這個道德觀念往往在台灣中上家庭中較流行，這是由於中上家庭的子女因教育年限較長，或因就業需要，比較倚賴父母（例如，唸大學及出國均須父母的資助，創業須父母資金，找工作靠父母介紹……等等），也因此較易受父母控制；另方面，中上家庭之父母因為知識水準較高，在影響及操縱子女意志上的技巧比較高明巧妙，沒有赤裸裸地宰制子女，所以由父母子女的宰制關係所帶來的衝突也較和緩 除非子女已獲得獨立條件不在倚賴父母的金錢、地位及關係，而想擺脫父母之控制。所以大體而言，孝順在中上家庭中是較有影響的道德觀念，可是如果台灣要工業升級，我們就要消除各種人身依附、人身控制的關係，批判殘餘的封建關係及其道德觀念。我們對孝順的批判，著眼點正在於此。
無子女？ 無後為大
大家都聽過「不孝有三，無後為大」這句老話。這句話說明了過去的人，認為無後是件不孝的事；很多現代人以為美滿的家庭要有子女，甚至以為家庭幸福和子女的數目及性別有關，因此對這些人而言，「絕子絕孫」不是件好事。其實這些觀念都沒有理性的根據。
在過去農業社會時代，「無後」之
所以被認為不是好事，乃是因為當時的生產方式需要大量人力，戰爭的規模也要求人越多越好，所以「絕子絕孫」不被社會認為是件好事。更由於財產繼承問題，傳宗接代這個觀念被大力宣揚；在傳統社會裡，男女結婚，甚至人類生存的唯一重要目的，就變成了傳宗接代。
但是人生存的目的絕不應是傳宗接代或延續種族，因為如果是為了延續種族，人類不需要大腦（理性和感情），只要生殖器官就夠了。大部分的動物都有能力延續後代，人類既然有理性與勞動的能力，人類的生存就不應該是為了「延續種族」這樣卑微的目的。
男女結婚的目的，也不應是傳宗接代，因為男女不必結婚亦可達到這個目的。所以男女結婚後不一定非要養育小孩不可，而很多人之所以要把傳宗接代視為天經地義，只是因為受到傳統習慣的影響。更何況，現代社會已因人口眾多而產生很多問題，我們實在不必堅持傳統社會的落伍看法，視無後為不好的事。
有些父母不善待子女，動輒打罵，或者把子女視為「防老」的保障；也有些父母對養育子女的方式，毫不研究及重視；還有些父母把子女當作自己未竟目標的工具，強把自己的意願加於子女身上，其實是一種心理的補償；也有的妻子把子女視為羈勒丈夫的「法寶」。這些現象證明了，有的父母並非因為愛子女而生育他們，在他們之中，可能有很多人壓根兒沒有考慮過要不要生小孩的問題，只是糊裡糊塗的從俗而已。
還有一些父母雖然很愛其子女，並且在物質與精神兩方面照顧子女到了犧牲自己的程度，但是其動機往往係因為自己找不到人生的目標，只好把子女當做生命的意義。這類父母如果沒有子女，就會感到生命空虛，終日忙碌只是為了生存下去，不知生活還有什麼其他目的，像這樣不能自我實現的父母，往往在子女尋求獨立人格時，與子女產生很困難的關係。
很多人認為美滿婚姻或家庭定要有子女，這其實毫無根據。一對快樂的夫妻固可能因有子女而變得更快樂，但也可能因子女而變得不快樂或失和。還有人以為子女可以帶來快樂的家庭生活，其實不一定，夫妻兩人如果不能創造一個快樂的家庭生活，在添加一打孩子也不會改善的。
有人或者反對說，萬一人人都不生小孩，人類不是絕種了嗎？可是我們不也常聽到人說，出國留學增加學識事件好事嗎？我們可不可以反對說，萬一人人都出國留學，台灣不就成了無人島了嗎？可見上述的反對不能成立。
由於「兩個恰恰好」的口號，使一些人誤以為一個家庭若有兩個小孩，或甚至一男一女，真的會因此變得很好，或者理想家庭就是有兩個小孩的家庭。其實台灣十多年以前的口號是「兩男一女恰恰好」，而中共現在的口號是「一個恰恰好」，以前的傳統社會則認為「子孫滿堂」才是幸福家庭。由此可見子女的數目和理想家庭無關，這些口號只是政策性的決定而已。所以一對男女要不要小孩？要幾個？還是自己決定的好。而本文認為對某些夫妻而言，也許「沒有最好」。
最後，讓我們回到無後是否不孝的問題上來。我認為現代人應該接受的「孝」的觀念，是父母與子女間的互愛和相互尊重，而非子女絕對服從父母的傳統觀念。所以一對夫妻如果決定不養育小孩，這是小倆口之間的私事，父母應尊重他們的決定，不干涉他們的私事，因此談不上孝或不孝。但是如果父母將自己的意志強加於下一代，對下一代的選擇無後加以干涉，這種控制別人生活的作法是非常不道德的；像這樣的父母這是我前面提及的那種應當無後的父母。
無姓名？ 更改姓名的權利
在美國，十八歲以上的成人有更改姓名的權利（十八歲以下則須監護人的同意），美國人如果要改姓，可以到法院請求法官之准許。如果是因為婚姻的緣故而改姓，根本無須經法官准許。改姓的程序各州不同，但基本上都很簡單，比如登報聲明即將改姓，詢問有無異議等等。如果當事人沒有法律事件纏身（如離婚夫妻爭執子女扶養監護權的情形），不管有無「正當理由」，法官通常都會准當事人改姓的意願。至於只改名，更是輕而易舉之事。
在台灣，如果要改名，必須因為與人同姓名或名字不雅的「正當理由」，至於改姓，一般小老百姓根本無從改起。可是這種對人民更改姓名的權利的剝奪，是完全沒有道理的，只能說是基於對「姓名神聖不可更改」的封建迷信，這種迷信和過去農業社會的繼承制度有關。其實，人的姓名只是一個任意的符號，我們應當尊重少數想更改姓名者的意願。
再說，台灣的戶籍資料完整，每個人都有身分證號碼，戶政控制嚴密，不可能會因更改姓名權的開放帶來什麼問題。
由於「傳宗接代」的落伍思想作祟，造成了人口過多、重男輕女等問題。子女可以從母姓固可緩和這些問題，但釜底抽薪之計，莫如還民以更改姓名之權。因為傳宗接代，「傳接」的並不是血統，而是姓氏。就血統而言，男女都是一樣的，〈某甲的兒子與女兒都只有他的二分之一血統，而如果沒有亂倫的情形，則甲的孫子或外孫子女，只有甲的四分之一血統。〉當代代相傳之後，血統越來越稀，完全失去「傳接」的意義〈例如，某甲孫子的孫子，即某甲的玄孫，就只有某甲的十六分之一血統，而其餘的十六分之十五，「傳接」的都是別人的血統。孔子的第十代子孫，只有不到千分之一的孔子血統，而孔子的第廿代子孫則不到百萬分之一，至於孔子的第卅代子孫，則不到十億分之一。當然，這是假定沒有亂倫或血統混雜的情形。〉所以更改姓名之權的保障與落實，才是徹底解決中國人口問題及男女平等的良方之一。
無子女？ 無後為大
大家都聽過「不孝有三，無後為大」這句老話。這句話說明了過去的人，認為無後是件不孝的事；很多現代人以為美滿的家庭一定要有子女，甚至以為家庭幸福和子女的數目及性別有關，因此對這些人而言，「絕子絕孫」不是件好事。其實這些觀念都沒有理性的根據。
在過去農業社會時代，「無後」之所以被認為不是好事，乃是因為當時的生產方式需要大量人力，戰爭的規模也要求人越多越好，所以「絕子絕孫」不被社會認為是件好事。更由於財產繼承問題，傳宗接代這個觀念被大力宣揚；在傳統社會裡，男女結婚，甚至人類生存的唯一重要目的，就變成了傳宗接代。
但是人生存的目的絕不應是傳宗接代或延續種族，因為如果是為了延續種族，人類不需要大腦（理性和感情），只要生殖器官就夠了。大部分的動物都有能力延續後代，人類既然有理性與勞動的能力，人類的生存就不應該是為了「延續種族」這樣卑微的目的。
男女結婚的目的，也不應是傳宗接代，因為男女不必結婚亦可達到這個目的。所以男女結婚後不一定非要養育小孩不可，而很多人之所以要把傳宗接代視為天經地義，只是因為受到傳統習慣的影響。更何況，現代社會已因人口眾多而產生很多問題，我們實在不必堅持傳統社會的落伍看法，視無後為不好的事。
有些父母不善待子女，動輒打罵，或者把子女視為「防老」的保障；也有些父母對養育子女的方式，毫不研究及重視；還有些父母把子女當作自己未竟目標的工具，強把自己的意願加於子女身上，其實是一種心理的補償；也有的妻子把子女視為羈勒丈夫的「法寶」。這些現象證明了，有的父母並非因為愛子女而生育他們，在他們之中，可能有很多人壓根兒沒有考慮過要不要生小孩的問題，只是糊裡糊塗的從俗而已。
還有一些父母雖然很愛其子女，並且在物質與精神兩方面照顧子女到了犧牲自己的程度，但是其動機往往係因為自己找不到人生的目標，只好把子女當做生命的意義。這類父母如果沒有子女，就會感到生命空虛，終日忙碌只是為了生存下去，不知生活還有什麼其他目的，像這樣不能自我實現的父母，往往在子女尋求獨立人格時，與子女產生很困難的關係。
很多人認為美滿婚姻或家庭一定要有子女，這其實毫無根據。一對快樂的夫妻固可能因有子女而變得更快樂，但也可能因子女而變得不快樂或失和。還有人以為子女可以帶來快樂的家庭生活，其實不一定，夫妻兩人如果不能創造一個快樂的家庭生活，在添加一打孩子也不會改善的。
有人或者反對說，萬一人人都不生小孩，人類不是絕種了嗎？可是我們不也常聽到人說，出國留學增加學識事件好事嗎？我們可不可以反對說，萬一人人都出國留學，台灣不就成了無人島了嗎？可見上述的反對不能成立。
由於「兩個恰恰好」的口號，使一些人誤以為一個家庭若有兩個小孩，或甚至一男一女，真的會因此變得很好，或者理想家庭就是有兩個小孩的家庭。其實台灣十多年以前的口號是「兩男一女恰恰好」，而中共現在的口號是「一個恰恰好」，以前的傳統社會則認為「子孫滿堂」才是幸福家庭。由此可見子女的數目和理想家庭無關，這些口號只是政策性的決定而已。所以一對男女要不要小孩？要幾個？還是自己決定的好
無母愛？ 兒子與情人
在我們四周的朋友中，常看見一些年輕人因母親控制過嚴而心生不滿，但又因孝順的緣故，不忍傷母親的心，終致放棄自身想追求的幸福（特別是在婚姻上），順從母親的意願，結果悒鬱寡歡，終日痛苦。
其實這種情形在英國文學中有最具代表性的描寫 勞倫斯於一九一三年出版的半自傳式小說《兒子與情人》。此書的大意是：一個母親因自身的婚姻不美滿，轉而把兒子當成愛的對象，在這種撫育之下，這些兒子成年後，次子（指勞倫斯）在遇到異性對象後，也因母親對女孩的不滿而痛苦，最後放棄女孩，回到母親身邊，母親病故後，他獨自一人孤獨的面對虛空無望的未來。
在這本小說中我們可以看到，有些母親如何使用感情勒索來影響兒子的感受，甚至於他的決定。書中主角保羅在與瑪莉安相交數年的過程中，屢次遭受母親的阻撓：瑪莉安來訪時，母親冷眼以對；保羅在外滯留，夜歸時間太晚時，母親怨瑪莉安耽誤了保羅睡眠的時間；兒子回家時，母親故意在火爐前憂鬱獨坐，製造兒子的罪惡感；更有甚者，母親在兒子面前哀泣自身的婚姻不美滿，引發兒子的同情，與母親熱烈擁抱等等。這一些情節都是我們在日常生活中常聽到的，只不過中國的母親更有權威，可以查兒子的信，偷看兒子的日記，控制兒子的經濟來源，或禁止兒子外出，甚至以死相脅等等。
至於選擇對象方面，書中母親最忌諱可能與她成為有力競爭對手的女性。瑪莉安與保羅在心靈上契合，直追他和母親之間的感情，因此母親痛恨瑪莉安。保羅與瑪莉安分手後，與一已婚女人克萊拉密切來往，甚至發生性關係，母親反而不太反對，因為她知道兒子在克萊拉身上得到的只是肉體上的滿足而已，不會影響到她對兒子的控制。由此可見，有些母親在為兒子選擇對象時並未以兒子為本位，只不過打著「我還不是一切都為了你好」的旗號而已。
在現實世界中，有許多母親是書中母親的翻版。她們左手舉著「愛心」的大旗，右手拿著「孝順」的寶劍，事事替兒子作主，處處要插手意見，全然忘了兒子已是成年人，有犯錯誤的權利，更有為自己作決定的義務；作為母親的，應只能客觀地發表意見作為參考，絕不可用感情勒索的方式強加己意。不管兒子的對象是否合適，婚姻是否幸福，他必須自己去發現，自己去做結論，自己去負責任，這是他作為成年人的最基本條件與權利。
1230154 wrote:
子女有沒有撫養父母...(恕刪)
1230154 wrote:
子女有沒有撫養父母...(恕刪)
1230154 wrote:
子女有沒有撫養父母...(恕刪)
1230154 wrote:
子女有沒有撫養父母...(恕刪)
個人積分：3013分
文章編號：70172522
保鑣也嚇到 wrote:
你可多讀書，但不要片面的讀
廣義的讀，你才不會中毒
你不要再傳私人訊息了
為什麼「馬克思主義原理」是美國大學的明星課程？
為什麼「馬克思主義原理」是美國大學的明星課程？
在今天你仍然繞不開馬克思，馬克思主義的生命力，總是顯現出歷史那充滿諷刺的動態美感⋯⋯
張躍然，哈佛大學社會學博士生，CNPolitics團隊成員。
2017-03-14
分享文章
「馬克思，只是馬克思主義的起點，而不是它的全部。」所有試圖批判性地看待當今政治經濟現狀的嘗試，都是繞不開馬克思的。圖為杜莎夫人蠟像館柏林分館中的Karl Marx蠟像。
「馬克思，只是馬克思主義的起點，而不是它的全部。」所有試圖批判性地看待當今政治經濟現狀的嘗試，都是繞不開馬克思的。圖為杜莎夫人蠟像館柏林分館中的Karl Marx蠟像。攝：Steffen Kugler/Getty Images
【編者按】馬克思是在3月14日離開這世界的。一百三十四年了，他的大鬍子你是更陌生還是更熟悉了？世界前進，用「飛速」都好像難以形容今天的速度了，彷彿一轉眼，人們在談論大數據、虛擬現實、火星移民、核能、世界向右轉⋯⋯那個用勞動力商品化、階級、異化來解釋世界的馬克思，是更脫節了還是更有型了？而本文的作者在美國杜克大學發現，「馬克思主義原理」竟儼然彷彿那裡的一門明星課程，許多學生的「精神朝聖之地」⋯⋯
本文原名為〈美國高校怎麼教「馬克思主義原理」？〉，刊登於微信公眾號政見CNPolitics（cnpolitics2011）與政見CNPolitics 網頁。經作者張躍然授權端傳媒編修轉載，文章標題與小標題為編輯所擬。
大一的上學期，我就聽好幾個人說起過，每年春季學期都有一門叫「馬克思主義與社會」的本科生課——這門課的實際內容就是帶著學生把馬克思的主要經典著作讀一遍，讓學生對馬克思的理論框架有個瞭解，因此說是「馬克思主義原理」也不為過。杜克（Duke University）居然還有這種課？當時一聽我就來了精神。雖然陰差陽錯地錯過了三回，我還是在本科的最後一個學期幸運地坐在了「馬克思主義原理」的課堂裡。
收起自我，閱讀馬克思原典
第一次去上課的時候，我就被嚇了一跳：50人的課容量（這在人文社科院系絕對算是大課）居然爆滿，還有一堆沒搶到位置還來蹭聽的。究其原因，一是這門課被列為哲學、政治學、社會學、人類學、文化研究五個專業的選修課，自然增加了對學生的吸引力；二是這門課早已名聲在外，幾乎成了左派學生的精神朝聖之地。因此，每年開課時學生們都趨之若鶩，也就不奇怪了。
講這門課的教授 Michael Hardt，是當今西方知識界最為重要的馬克思主義學者之一。他與意大利學者、社會活動家 Anotonio Negri 合著的《帝國》（Empire）、《諸眾》（Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire）、《大同世界》（Commonwealth）三部曲，簡直可以看做是馬克思主義者面對當代世界的「戰鬥宣言」。然而，課堂上的 Hardt 教授將「自我」掩藏得很好，鮮有提及自己的學術和政治觀點，而將主要精力放在向學生闡明馬克思本人的理論邏輯、帶領學生透過馬克思的核心概念觀察社會現象上。更加難能可貴的是，他身上透著一股嚴肅知識分子特有的自省和克制，在課堂上常常拋出「這塊兒我可能沒講清楚」、「我不知道我這個想法對不對」之類的話來，與他著作裡那個充滿戰鬥精神的鼓手形象相去甚遠。
這與人文社科教學看重學生「自由發揮」能力的傳統大相逕庭。三次考試，都是由若干小作文和一篇大作文組成，重在考察學生對馬克思的基本概念、理論以及各個概念和理論之間的聯繫是否有透徹的理解。
如前所述，這門課的重頭戲是對馬克思經典著作的閱讀，而課堂上的講授只是為了輔助學生們理解閱讀內容。除去一些零散的單篇文章之外，這門課帶著學生完整閱讀了《共產黨宣言》（Manifesto of the Communist Party）、《經濟學哲學手稿（1844手稿）》（Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844）、《資本論第一卷》（Capital, Volume I ）的一半、《路易．波拿巴的霧月十八》（The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon）以及《法蘭西內戰》（The Civil War in France）。平均下來，每週的閱讀量在100頁左右。這在人文社科課程裡自然不能算繁重，但馬克思的著作，非精讀不能理解其要義，有時一頁的內容竟需要我來來回回讀三四遍才能理解個大概。因此，這門課所需要的閱讀時間，其實大大超出了課程大綱裡體現的閱讀量。
另外值得一提的是，這門課也是我上過的所有人文社科類課程中，唯一將考試作為最終考核方式的。這與人文社科教學看重學生「自由發揮」能力的傳統大相逕庭。三次考試，都是由若干小作文和一篇大作文組成，重在考察學生對馬克思的基本概念、理論以及各個概念和理論之間的聯繫是否有透徹的理解。這也再次體現了這門課的主旨：幫助學生理解馬克思究竟說了什麼，而不是鼓勵學生在缺乏理解的情況下自由發揮。
這門課帶給我的收穫，大致可以歸結為三個層面：還原馬克思、拼接馬克思、超越馬克思。
還原馬克思：其實他說了些什麼？
所謂「還原」馬克思，就是回到馬克思的原始文本中，看他究竟說了些什麼，理解其話語背後的邏輯。這樣做的最直接後果就是，人們慣常印象裡對馬克思的種種誤解，全都不攻自破。比如，上世紀許多國家進行的轟轟烈烈的共產主義實驗，其實正是馬克思大力批判的、將私有生產資料進行粗暴集體化的「原始共產主義」（crude communism）。
又比如，馬克思對於代議制民主的批判，是因為代議制民主依然在統治者與被統治者之間劃上了一道清晰界限，使得這一政治制度成為了資產階級進行階級壓迫的工具。馬克思主張的，是一種更直接有效地賦予所有人政治參與權的民主制度，而絕不是回到專制。再比如，馬克思既不反對勞動分工，也不主張抹除商品市場本身，更不想讓社會回到資本主義興起以前的「原始狀態」——未來的生產關係應該是對資本主義的超越，而不是對資本主義的簡單否定。
其實，除卻「停止對人的異化」和「消滅階級壓迫」這樣的綱領性原則，馬克思從來沒有明確說過，資本主義滅亡之後的社會應該是什麼具體的面目。他沒有某些知識分子那種「帝師」般的自大，因為在他眼中，未來的可能性是在無產階級在革命實踐中被創造出來的，不是知識分子拿嘴說出來的。
真正讀過馬克思構建理論的過程，就會知道，中國中學政治課本裡說馬克思主義是「人類智慧的結晶」絕非虛言。在閱讀馬克思的過程中，我一次又一次地忍不住感嘆：這人實在是太聰明了！他似乎有一種特異功能，能夠從極為簡單的概念、假設出發，經過一系列嚴絲合縫的邏輯推演，導出令人震驚的結論。
與人們的慣常印象相悖，唯物主義史觀並非一套死板、機械的結論，而是一種分析視角。當它被應用於分析某一具體的歷史語境時，反而能展現出歷史那充滿諷刺的動態美感。
在看馬克思如何從「勞動決定商品價值」這一基本假設開始，推導出「剩餘價值」的產生，進而邁向「剝削的本質是勞動力的商品化」這一結論時，我體會過這種震撼；看他從「生產力」和「生產關係」的基本定義中演繹出兩者的互動機制，從而寫下「人類社會的所有根本問題，只出現在那些解決問題的條件已經發展成熟之際」這樣十分精巧而反直覺的論斷時，我又體會到了這種震撼。
以上種種，只是作為一個純粹的「演繹大師」的馬克思。而在《路易．波拿巴的霧月十八》中，在分析真實具體的歷史事件時，馬克思展現了另外一種特異功能：從紛繁瑣碎的歷史細節中提煉深層歷史機制的能力，從剛剛發生的政治變局裡把握歷史的長程發展線索的能力（但不排除馬克思沒把歷史「真相」搞對，事實上，所有研究歷史的學者，都要承擔搞不對歷史真相的風險）。
當讀者跟隨著他的分析筆觸，眼看著法國的資產階級是如何試圖捍衛自身的階級利益，而在無意中把第二共和國一步步引向王權復辟時，唯物主義史觀的力量展露無遺。與人們的慣常印象相悖，唯物主義史觀並非一套死板、機械的結論，而是一種分析視角。當它被應用於分析某一具體的歷史語境時，反而能展現出歷史那充滿諷刺的動態美感。
「還原」馬克思還有另一層意思，即將馬克思當人看。Hardt 教授在闡釋文本時，常常引導學生設身處地站在馬克思的角度上，想像他所看到的社會現實是如何引導他思考問題的。只有將馬克思當作一個有血有肉的人看，才能真切體會年輕時候的他在《共產黨宣言》裡那種血氣方剛的「憤青」精神，在面對路易．波拿巴復辟王權時的無奈與強作樂觀，在巴黎公社興起之時的激動，在公社失敗之後那種「又為斯民哭健兒」般的至痛悲憤，在中晚期作品裡對自己早期思想的反思，以及在「學者」和「政治活動家」兩重身份間的掙扎。
拼接馬克思：以歷史為基調的辯證唯物系統
在精讀馬克思的核心著作之外，這門課的另外一個著力點，是幫助學生思考馬克思提出的各個概念、「理論模塊」之間，是如何相互聯繫、從而構成一個完整的理論體系的。只有將這些理論如玩拼圖一樣「拼接」起來，方能看到馬克思的理論格局有多麼宏大。
人們貼給馬克思的學術標籤，通常是「哲學家」、「政治經濟學家」或「社會學家」，但在我看來，馬克思首先是一個「歷史學家」。他對於歷史發展背後的根本動力學的闡釋，是撐起他若干理論支脈的地基：歷史發展是一個經濟基礎決定上層建築的過程，生產力和生產關係的矛盾為歷史發展提供了結構條件，而生產關係當中孕育的階級對立為歷史發展提供了主觀推力。
馬克思關於「資產階級」、「無產階級」、「剝削」、「異化」「原始積累」的一整套論述，是為了具體揭示資本主義社會（作為歷史發展的一個特定階段）之下的生產關係是如何運作、從何而來的。而他關於法國政治史的一系列分析，則旨在闡明資本主義生產關係在政治鬥爭中的具體表現。最後，馬克思關於歷史在超越資本主義之後如何發展的模糊構想，則可以和他一系列關於「人的本質為何」的哲學討論結合起來。
關於「自掘墳墓」的論述，指向同一個精闢的歷史機制：一個事物越是發展，便越是培育出推翻其自身的力量。而這，又和馬克思關於「辯證唯物主義」的論述相連。
另一方面，在玩「拼接馬克思」的遊戲時，還能驚喜地發現一個彩蛋：某些絕妙的隱喻，在馬克思的各個「理論模塊」裡反覆出現，對比來看，十分有趣。這裡面最典型的，就是「自掘墳墓」這個隱喻。在梳理資本主義的發展脈絡時，馬克思指出：當生產力發展到資本主義生產關係所不能容納的程度時，資本主義生產關係崩潰的那天也就到了。因此，資產階級越是使勁發展生產力，就越接近資本主義的崩潰。同時，資產階級為發展生產力而發明的一系列剝削手段，恰恰激發了被剝削者的階級意識和反抗精神，反而塑造、培育了推翻資產階級的力量。
從這個角度講，資產階級無疑是在「自掘墳墓」。而這一隱喻，又同樣出現在馬克思對於法國國家機器發展史的評論中：在他看來，從波旁王朝後期開始，歷經第一共和國、第一帝國、波旁王朝復辟、七月王朝、第二共和國一直到第二帝國，無論共和還是專制，無一不在建設、鞏固一個高效的、無孔不入的、極度中心化的強大國家機器。而國家機器越強大、管得越多，其身上的負荷就越重、面對的社會不滿就越普遍、離倒台也就越近。換句話說，國家機器的日益完善同樣是在「自掘墳墓」。這兩處關於「自掘墳墓」的論述，指向同一個精闢的歷史機制：一個事物越是發展，便越是培育出推翻其自身的力量。而這，又和馬克思關於「辯證唯物主義」的論述相連。
超越馬克思：在巨人肩上看風高雲起
本課上到最後，依然還是繞不開這個問題：時至今日，為什麼還要讀馬克思？為什麼還要學馬克思主義？不可否認的是，馬克思的理論演繹過程還是被後世學者揪出了漏洞，他對於經驗事實的解讀也常常存在偏差。今日資本主義的運轉機理之複雜，也遠超他當初的想像。更有甚者，他的某些「理論模塊」（比如勞動價值理論）被後世學術界整個兒地證明是解釋力有限。另一方面，馬克思的理論框架依然存在大量侷限性，他忘記談論的東西遠比他談論了的要多（當然，事實上社會科學裡也不存在完備的大一統理論）。
既然馬克思有種種不是，我們還讀他幹嘛？在我看來，馬克思主義的生命力在於，它為我們提供了兩樣東西，使我們能超越馬克思本人的具體論斷，去分析更為複雜的當今社會。這兩樣東西，一曰「視角」，二曰「概念」。
所謂視角，無外乎是看待這個世界的角度。視角為何，決定了我們能看見什麼、看不見什麼，決定了我們面對這個世界時會提出什麼樣的問題。而馬克思的視角是極具開創性的，他帶領後世看到了前人幾乎從未看到過的東西：在貌似平等自由的資本主義市場經濟底下看到權力結構的不平等，在政治舞台的風雲變幻中看到背後更深層次的社會矛盾。
馬克思主義的生命力，同樣來自於其理論體系內的一系列核心概念。這些概念，既有明確的內涵，又有充滿彈性的外延。
馬克思的視角，把後世社科學者引向了一系列極為重要的問題：他對於國家行為如何「催化」資本原始積累的論述，被波蘭尼（Karl Polanyi）在《大轉型》（The Great Transformation）中擴展為對國家－市場關係的全面解讀；他提出的「勞動力商品化」現象，成為當代經濟社會學研究的重要母題，引出許多學者探討不同形式的勞動（比如「情感勞動」）被商品化後的社會後果；他關於統治階級如何塑造社會主流意識形態的討論，被葛蘭西、阿爾都塞等學者發揚光大，從而深入揭示了意識形態如何被當做政治統治和社會控制的工具使用……
馬克思主義的生命力，同樣來自於其理論體系內的一系列核心概念。這些概念，既有明確的內涵，又有充滿彈性的外延。這樣一來，後世學者在面對更為複雜的社會現實時，可以毫無困難地對馬克思的原始概念進行擴展，並將其當做進一步討論的起點。譬如，在西方資本主義經濟體高度金融化的今天，當代學者已經將「剝削」這個概念從「壓低工人工資、奪取生產資料」的「工業剝削」擴展至「依靠信貸工具強行入侵消費者生活」的「金融剝削」。
又譬如，「異化」這個概念本來是指在把勞動力當作商品出售的過程中，勞動者與「人性」相分離的現象。而在消費主義大行其道的今天，這個概念同樣可以用來分析「用商品定義人」的現象如何導致人和人性的分離。再譬如，馬克思提出的「原始積累」概念，原本是指資本主義興起時的一種特定現象，但當今社會中大量公共物品被轉變為私有財產的現象同樣符合這一概念的內核。
甚至是「自掘墳墓」這一隱喻，在當代學者眼中也可以被翻轉過來：西方的勞工抗爭運動，直接導致了「福利國家」的出現，而在某種程度上，「福利國家」又發展成了統治階級的工具，用以弱化勞工的政治動員能力。勞工階級的「自掘墳墓」，又展現出歷史如惡作劇般的諷刺。
馬克思本人沒能解決，就這樣自相矛盾地留下來了，但這一矛盾引發了無數後世學者的思考和論辯，由此誕生的研究工作不計其數。
同時需要承認的是，馬克思的著作中留有許多明顯的自相矛盾之處。用 Hardt 教授的話說，「解讀馬克思就跟解讀《聖經》一樣，所有截然不同的解讀方式都能在文本裡找到依據。」然而，這恰恰構成了馬克思思想遺產的張力。在《共產黨宣言》中，馬克思是根據生產力和生產關係之間的內在矛盾而斷言資本主義必將滅亡的。換句話說，是社會的宏觀「結構力量」決定了歷史發展的步調。
然而，馬克思在《宣言》裡同樣寫到，無產階級不能躺在床上靜等著結構力量摧毀資本主義，而必須靠自身的主觀能動性行動起來去推翻它，因此才有「一切歷史都是階級鬥爭史」的著名論述，才有「全世界無產者聯合起來」的振臂一呼。
所有試圖批判性地看待當今政治經濟現狀的嘗試，都是繞不開馬克思的。
宏觀結構因素和個體主觀能動性在歷史發展中到底是什麼關係，馬克思本人沒能解決，就這樣自相矛盾地留下來了，但這一矛盾引發了無數後世學者的思考和論辯，由此誕生的研究工作不計其數。
「馬克思，只是馬克思主義的起點，而不是它的全部」，這句話無論對於作為一種學術流派的馬克思主義，還是對於作為一種政治意識形態的馬克思主義，同樣適用。所有試圖批判性地看待當今政治經濟現狀的嘗試，都是繞不開馬克思的。
資本主義何時滅亡？共產主義是什麼模樣？這些問題都沒有答案。可是馬克思主義者知道，通過對社會現實的批判性分析，通過無數個「無名個體」的政治行動，我們至少可以讓資本主義世界變得不那麼可惡。
個人積分：3013分
文章編號：70172543
nickmice wrote:
簡單的說，若生產資料共有，則能爆發較目前生產模式更高的生產力，進一步滿足每個人的基本需求。而擺脫了為生存而勞動的階段，人類的創造力將進一步豐富公共化的生產資料，最終進入共產主義的大同世界。
我十分肯定樓主在此的努力，雖然個人理解有限，在此表達支持。
PassiveIncome wrote:
你寫的都很好,
但是,文字只要一多,
馬上就失去觀眾了.
很抱歉.
沉思行者 wrote:
哈 宣傳馬克思主義的樓主 趕快找資料繼續貼 看你還有多少資料
馬克思這個老骨董世界各國都沒人信了 還跑到台灣來宣傳
中國是共產極權下權貴資本主義 上層將國家掠奪一空 造成嚴重社會矛盾
經濟好的時候還可以以勉強度日 經濟不好所有矛盾都會爆發出來
我們就繼續看著社會矛盾 會不會產生階級鬥爭 然後重新無產階級專政
生產力沒有極大提高 共產主義就不會實現 要解放人力除非自動化
機器取代人類 讓人類去剝削機器 然後除非給智腦管 一切按造程序來
不然用人管 共產主義只是方便上位者去收繳下層的經濟果實罷了 不會有公平
存在
國際馬克思主義趨勢的全球視角為2018：構成我們對世界政治目前的情況分析，並約在那裡我們領導的預測。這份文件草案進行討論，並在都靈的IMT的2018世界大會上最終確定。這是寫在今年的前幾個月，雖然有些描述的事件已經開發以來，這些發展不僅進一步證實了我們的世界形勢的總體分析。
資本主義正在經歷其有史以來最嚴重的危機。這是一起社會、經濟和政治制度的危機，並且在開始爆發在世界各地的政治動盪中表現出來。儘管統治階級不遺餘力地試圖埋葬馬克思主義，卻沒有比今天更需要應用它的時刻了。在這篇更新後的文章中，馬克思主義理論家及保衛馬克思主義網站主編艾倫‧伍茲（Alan Woods）介紹了馬克思主義的意涵以及其能在今日世界中能夠扮演的角色。
譯者：章羅儲林
1992年，弗朗西斯‧福山出版了《歷史的終結》，這本書很快成為了紅極一時的暢銷書。在書中，福山大聲地宣告了共產主義、社會主義、馬克思主義的消亡和市場經濟和資產階級民主的徹底勝利。福山宣稱，蘇聯的失敗預示著從今以後僅僅只有資本主義的市場經濟能夠存在，在這個意義上，歷史終結了。
這個念頭似乎被連續多年的利潤暴漲和持續不斷的經濟增長所代表的市場經濟明顯的成功印證了，政治家、央行行長和華爾街的投資經理都深信，他們終於馴服了資本主義發展中的週期性災難，在所有資本主義世界內，結局永遠會是美好的。
但處理歷史並非易事，從那之後歷史很快發生了巨變。僅僅在《歷史的終結》一書出版16年以後，2008年的的金融危機使全球資本主義架構近乎崩潰，全世界也隨之陷入了20世紀30年代以來最嚴重的危機之中。直到今天，世界也還在掙紮著從深淵中解脫出來。
福山每一個自信的預言都被接踵而至的事件證偽。在2008年的金融危機之前，資產階級的經濟學家宣稱，資本主義經濟繁榮-蕭條-繁榮的危機週期不會再發生。他們提出了一個「效率市場假說」的奇妙新理論，根據這一理論，市場可以自己解決所有問題。
實際上，這個假說毫無新意，不過是「薩伊定律」的老調重彈：市場經濟的供需平衡不可能產生過度生產的危機。馬克思早在一個世紀之前，就駁倒了這種無稽之談。連約翰‧梅納德‧凱恩斯也譏諷這種斷言」早晚「市場會解決一切問題的想法和反正遲早我們都會死的想法一摸一樣。
在今天，堅持這種像舊日的殘骸一樣的思想變得毫無意義，因為資產階級和它的戰略家都已陷入了深深的低谷。托洛茨基早在上個世紀三十年代就曾說過「資產階級正閉著眼睛踏進災難」，這些話跟今天的狀況何其相似。
我們越來越清楚，資本主義已經耗盡了進步的潛力，它並非如我們想像的一樣，是在發展工業和科技，恰恰相反的是，它是在逐步毀滅它們。不再有人相信統治階級說我們正處於復甦的前夜的一再保證。生產力停滯甚至下降，工廠就像火柴盒一樣關閉，數百萬人失業；對世界經濟發揮重大作用的中國龐大的經濟正在大幅放緩，而日本的經濟則處於停滯狀態；所謂的新興經濟體正處於某種程度的危機之中，美國則經歷著前所未有的社會經濟的社會政治危機；在大西洋的另一邊，歐洲資本主義正處於水深火熱之中，希臘的困境是最為典型的例子，但葡萄牙和西班牙也處於危機之中，法國和意大利則距離危機不遠，在決定退出歐盟之後，曾經被視為歐洲最穩定國家之一的英國則經歷了英鎊不斷下滑，經濟危機的惡化和政局長期的不穩定。所有這些跡像都表明，世界範圍內的生產力發展，早已超越了私有制和民族國家的狹隘邊界，這是當前危機的根本原因，也是資本主義理論破產所揭示的最為直接的意義。
資產階級的政治學家和經濟學家和幾乎所有的改良派，正在拚命尋求復興的跡像來擺脫這場危機。資產階級的政治學家和經濟學家將恢復商業週期視為救贖；工人階級、工會和社會民主黨的領袖認為，這場危機是暫時的他們認為可以通過對現有制度進行一些調整來解決問題，他們要求更多的控制和管制，從而讓我們可以回到先前的狀態。
但他們錯了。這既不是一場普通的危機，也不會是暫時性的。這場危機是一個根本性的轉折點，它標誌資本主義在歷史上已經到了無可救藥的死胡同。對我們來說，可以預期的最好結果，不過是伴隨著高失業率和長期的緊縮所帶來的生活水平持續下降的乏力復甦。
資產階級思想的危機
馬克思主義首先是一套哲學和世界觀。在馬克思和恩格斯的哲學寫作內，我們並不會找到一整套既成的，一成不變的哲學系統。反而，我們會找到一系列精闢入裡的見解和方針。如果將它們加以發展後，則會為科學研究的方法論提供一個可貴的新篇章。
在哲學的領域內，資產階級的意識形態最明顯的曝露了其自身的危機。在資產階級還扮演著進步角色的早期階段，它有能力培養偉大的思想家：霍布斯和洛克，康德和黑格爾；但在資本主義日漸衰微的時代，資產階級產生不了偉大的思想，事實上它根本無法產生任何新的想法。
由於當今的資產階級毫無能力做出任何重要的概論，他們也直接否定了意識形態這個概念的存在。在資本主義概念下看不到進步可能的他們否認了進步的概念，這就是後現代主義者談論「意識形態的終結」的原因。恩格斯曾經說：「哲學與現實世界的研究有著如同手淫和性愛一樣的關係。」而現代資產階級哲學相比之下似乎更喜歡前者，它執著的為了反對馬克思主義，把哲學拖回了過去最古老也最衰微的時期。
我們都知道，相變的研究是當代物理學最重要的領域之一。現代的混沌理論和衍生的觀點證明了量變引發質變這一觀點，同時也終結了科學界長達一百多年的機械還原論的統治。有無數例子表明數量轉化為質量是一個普遍規律，更令人驚訝的是，這個規律可以表達為一個稱為冪定律的數學公式。馬克思和恩格斯早已預見到這些顯著的發現，早在十九世紀他們的學說就已經和混沌理論在數學上所表達的一種期待高度統一，它們都關注事物之間的相互聯繫和不同實體和過程之間關係的有機本質。
在馬克思之前，黑格爾已經在辯證法上做出了卓越貢獻，在「蝴蝶效應」一詞出現之前，黑格爾就在他的「邏輯學」中寫道：「讓小小的事業產生巨大的影響已經成為歷史上常見的笑話」。馬克思和恩格斯則在唯物主義的基礎上使用辯證法，提出了辯證唯物主義。辯證唯物主義是一種動態地理解自然、社會和思想的視角，它遠非十九世紀的過時觀念，而是一種對自然和社會的驚人而現代的看法。辯證法不再像古典物理學一樣機械地將世界視為固定、僵化而毫無生氣的樣子，而是將世界視為變動的，在某些情況下，事情會變為相反的方面。
革命亦是如此，像火山噴發和地震一樣，革命並非突如其來而是長期矛盾緩慢積累的結果，當矛盾累積到臨界點時，革命就會爆發。
Friedrich Engels恩格斯
唯物史觀
每個社會制度都認為它是人類唯一可能的生存形式，它的制度，宗教，道德都是人類發展的終極狀態。這是食人族、埃及神父、瑪麗‧安托瓦內特和沙皇尼古拉斯都熱切相信的理念；這也是福山在在《歷史的終結》中所要表明的，即所謂的「自由市場」制度是唯一可能的制度 -即使他提出它的時候自由市場已經開始下沉。查爾斯‧達爾文在《物種起源》中揭示了一個規律：物種不是一成不變的，它們擁有一個過去，現在和未來，並且一直在變化和發展，與之類似的，馬克思和恩格斯說，一個特定的社會制度也不是永恆的。當然，社會與自然之間的比喻只是近似的，但即使是最膚淺的歷史考察也表明，漸進主義的解釋是沒有根據的。社會和大自然一樣，長期以來都不僅僅有著緩慢而漸進的變化，這種變化也會被劇烈的戰爭和革命所打斷，從而大大加速變革的過程。而且事實上這些事件，而非漸進的變化，正是歷史發展的主要動力。
馬克思主義分析了從最早的部落社會到現代人類社會發展背後隱藏的主要原因。馬克思指出，革命性變化的根本原因是一個特定的社會經濟制度已經到了極限，不能像以前那樣發展生產力。唯物史觀使我們能夠理解歷史發生的真正原因，不是糾結於表面上和變化發生相關的一系列無關緊要和不可預見的事件，而是把變化作為一個清晰理解和相互關聯的過程的一部分——一個涵蓋政治、經濟、社會發展等全方位的因素的過程，這些現像之間的關係則是一個複雜的辯證關係。
人們常常試圖用對馬克思主義歷史分析方法的歪曲來抹黑馬克思主義。通常的歪曲是馬克思和恩格斯「把所有的東西都歸結為經濟學」。這個歪曲被馬克思和恩格斯多次糾正，正如下面對恩格斯給布洛赫的一封信的摘錄：
「根據唯物史觀，歷史過程中的決定性因素歸根到底是現實生活的生產和再生產。無論馬克思或我都從來沒有肯定過比這更多的東西。如果有人在這裡加以歪曲，說經濟因素是唯一決定性的因素，那末他就是把這個命題變成毫無內容的、抽像的、荒誕無稽的空話。經濟狀況是基礎，但是對歷史鬥爭的進程發生影響並且在許多情況下主要是決定著這一鬥爭的形式的，還有上層建築的各種因素：階級鬥爭的各種政治形式和這個鬥爭的成果——由勝利了的階級在獲勝以後建立的憲法等等，各種法權形式以及所有這些實際鬥爭在參加者頭腦中的反映，政治的、法律的和哲學的理論，宗教的觀點以及它們向教義體系的進一步發展。這裡表現出這一切因素間的交互作用，而在這種交互作用中歸根到底是經濟運動作為必然的東西通過無窮無盡的偶然事件（即這樣一些事物，它們的內部聯繫是如此疏遠或者是如此難於確定，以致我們可以忘掉這種聯繫，認為這種聯繫並不存在）向前發展。否則把理論應用於任何歷史時期，就會比解一個最簡單的一次方程式更容易了。」
共產黨宣言
當今人們可以讀到的與現代最相應的書是1848年出版的《共產黨宣言》。當然，書當中的細節必須改變，但是真正令人吃驚的是，在所有的基本原理上，共產黨宣言的思想在今天同樣重要。相比之下，一個半世紀以前寫的絕大多數書籍今天僅僅是對歷史有興趣的人才有吸引力。在宣言出版後的一個半世紀裡，《宣言》所說的變化是多麼的微不足道。相比之下，我們現代的「專家」今天只能為他們昨天寫的東西而感到羞恥。
在《宣言》中，最引人注目的是它如何預測目前世界範圍內引起我們注意的的那些現像。比如說，在馬克思和恩格斯寫作的時候，大型跨國公司的出現依然是遙遙無期的。儘管如此，他們在宣言中就已經預告了「自由企業」和競爭將不可避免地導致資本集中和生產力的壟斷。閱讀所謂的「市場」辯護者所提出的關於這個問題的批判，不得不感到一種滑稽，因為實今天，馬克思所預見的資本集中過程在過去幾十年中已經發生，正在發生，並且確實達到了前所未有的程度，這是絕對不爭的事實。這說明馬克思所做出的「自由企業」和競爭將不可避免地導致資本集中和生產力的壟斷的預言，其實是最精闢而準確的預言之一。
幾十年來，資產階級社會學家企圖反駁《共產黨宣言》中的論斷，「證明」社會變得更加平等，階級鬥爭就像手搖和木犁一樣過時了。他們說，工人階級消失了，我們都是中產階級。至於資本集中的趨勢更是子虛烏有，未來所存在的將是」小而美「的中小企業。這些證明現在聽起來是多麼諷刺啊？這個世界的經濟現在由不超過200家絕大多數設在美國的公司所控制，世界上最大的公司所擁有的財富遠遠超過許多國家的財富，這是對大企業不斷增長的力量的一個明顯的例證。世界經濟壟斷達到了空前的程度，反貧困慈善機構「全球正義」的一項研究發現，前100家經濟實體中的企業數量從去年的63家躍升至2015年的69家，147個超級龐大的企業擁有世界40％的財富，這些巨型企業是全球經濟的真正統治者。
列寧指出，在帝國主義（壟斷資本主義）發展階段，經濟權力集中在大銀行手中。目前的情況完全證實了這一分析。世界經濟主要由金融資本主導。瑞士聯邦研究所（SFI）在蘇黎世發佈了一項名為「全球企業控制網絡」的研究，該研究證明了全世界被一個由財團（主要是銀行）組成的小型財團控制著。
這些權勢最大的銀行包括了：巴克萊銀行、高盛銀行、摩根大通、領航投資、瑞銀集團、德意志銀行、紐約梅隆銀行、摩根斯坦利、美國銀行，以及法國興業銀行。
這些由投資計畫，衍生品等組成的複雜網絡緊密相連的強大金融機構的投機活動，是全球金融崩潰的催化劑。 SFI的系統理論家James Glattfelder解釋說：「實際上，只有不到百分之一的公司能夠控制整個網絡的40％。」
銀行家和資本家在宣傳緊縮政策的同時，自己卻從工人階級中不斷搾取剩餘價值，變得越來越富有；那些龐大的公司正在如同貪婪的食人族一樣不斷吞併和收購其他的公司，數十億美元被瘋狂地用於擴大大型壟斷企業的規模和盈利能力。這種狂熱的活動並不意味著生產力的真正發展，恰恰相反，這種企業行為必然伴隨著資產的剝離、工廠關閉和工人被解僱，全世界的國民收入中的利潤份額都處於歷史最高水平，而工資份額卻處於歷史最低水平：在美國，工人的平均工資是十多年前的三分之一，但實際工資卻停滯不前或下降。利潤一直在蓬勃發展，富人變得越來越富裕，工人階級卻越來越難生活下去。全球不平等現像在不斷增長，世界上一半的財富僅僅屬於總人口的1％那一部分人；也就是生產資料被肆意揮霍和破壞，成千上萬的工作被擺上資本和利潤的祭壇。
全球化
讓我們再舉一個更加明顯的例子吧：全球化。
世界市場的壓倒性的統治是我們時代最重要的狀態，這似乎是最近的發明。實際上，全球化在150多年前被馬克思和恩格斯預言和解釋了。在《共產黨宣言》這個非凡的文件的序言中，我們讀到了以下內容：
「資產階級，由於開拓了世界市場，使一切國家的生產和消費都成為世界性的了。使反動派大為惋惜的是，資產階級挖掉了工業腳下的民族基礎。古老的民族工業被消滅了，並且每天都還在被消滅。它們被新的工業排擠掉了，新的工業的建立已經成為一切文明民族的生命攸關的問題；這些工業所加工的，已經不是本地的原料，而是來自極其遙遠的地區的原料；它們的產品不僅供本國消費，而且同時供世界各地消費。舊的、靠國產品來滿足的需要，被新的、要靠極其遙遠的國家和地帶的產品來滿足的需要所代替了。過去那種地方的和民族的自給自足和閉關自守狀態，被各民族的各方面的互相往來和各方面的互相依賴所代替了。物質的生產是如此，精神的生產也是如此。各民族的精神產品成了公共的財產。民族的片面性和侷限性日益成為不可能，於是由許多種民族的和地方的文學形成了一種世界的文學。」
當這個假說被提出時，根本沒有經驗或數據支撐這樣的假設。當時世界上唯一真正發達的資本主義經濟只有英國，法國和德國的幼稚工業（德國甚至都還未統一）仍然躲在高關稅的壁壘後面，這一歷史事實很容易被刻意地忽視，因為西方政府和經濟學家需要說服世界各地開放經濟，然而如今，這一切都已成真。
所謂全球化，是資本主義超越國內市場狹窄的局面，發展和強化國際分工的必然趨勢。這為世界各國人民之間的未來繁榮與合作開闢了一個耀眼的方式，但是在資本主義制度下，這種人類發展的巨大潛力被迫進入利潤生產的束縛，它不僅沒有促進經濟和社會的發展，反而成為大公司掠奪整個星球的完美秘訣；它不但沒有減少矛盾，減少戰爭和衝突的風險，反而加劇了它們，導致了一場又一場的戰爭。
全球化的災難是驚人的，根據聯合國的數字，有12億人每天靠不到兩美元維生，每年有800萬男女老少死亡，因為他們沒有足夠的錢維持生存。每個人都同意，納粹屠殺600萬人是一個危害人類的可怕罪行，但是在這裡我們有一場無聲的大屠殺，每年殺害八百萬無辜的人，但卻沒有人為此提出嚴厲的譴責。在這些痛苦的人以外，還有一部分人正在進行炫耀財富的狂歡。根據彭博億萬富翁指數，世界上最富有的30人控制著世界經濟中驚人的部分：1.23萬億美元。這比西班牙，墨西哥或土耳其的年度國內生產總值還要多。在2000年，最富有的200人甚至擁有和20億最窮的人一樣多的財富。世界上最富有的八位億萬富豪擁有的財富相當於全球人口中最貧窮的一半人的全部家當，這是財富不斷增長和危險集中的最顯著的標誌。
一個合理的生產計畫
Marx anniversary MAIN馬克思
資產階級掃除阻礙封建制度下生產力發展的一切障礙：地方稅收，貨幣和關稅壁壘，阻礙貿易自由發展的無休止的通行費，狹隘的狹隘和農村的小農生產；資產階級建立了國內市場，並在此基礎上建立了現代意義上的民族國家。但是資本主義制度下的生產力的發展早已超越了國內市場的狹隘界限，現在已經變成了經濟發展的障礙，正如舊時期的封建主義地方保護一樣。全球化的來臨，僅僅是民族國家成為人類進步道路上的一個障礙的一個象徵而已。資本主義制度是一種無政府性的制度，它以貪婪為基礎，不斷尋求新的剝削和強姦星球的方式來增加少數人的財富和權力。大公司對環境毫不顧忌，他們瘋狂地追逐利潤，摧毀了雨林，毒害了海洋，消滅了動植物物種，污染了我們呼吸的空氣、飲用水和食物。資本主義制度的延續對我們生活的這個星球以及人類的未來構成了致命的威脅。
嚴重而急迫的事實告訴我們，通過合理的生產計畫來協調使用地球的龐大資源已成為必要之事。客觀來講，我們擁有解決我們面臨的每一個問題的一切條件，我們掌握了消滅貧窮、疾病、失業、飢餓、無家可歸、無盡的苦難、戰爭、衝突和所有其他罪惡的必要技術和科學手段。但我們沒有這麼做，不是因為不能做到，而是因為如果我們試圖去根本解決這一問題，就必然違背純粹以利潤為基礎的經濟體制，而人類真正的需求，從未進入統治地球的銀行家和資本家的計算之中。這是一個嚴肅的問題，它的答案將決定我們的未來。樂施會呼籲採取新的經濟模式來扭轉不平等的必然趨勢，但改良主義的道路已經無能為力了，我們必須徹底改變這個體制。人類發展的兩個主要障礙是：生產資料的私有制和野蠻而殘忍的民族國家。無產階級將會消除文明進步的障礙：私有制將被民主的生產計畫所取代；民族國家將被放置在在歷史古蹟博物館裡。社會主義革命將掃除一切國家障礙，釋放生產力發展的巨大潛力，建立世界聯合體，以有計畫而和諧的方式集聚地球的無限資源，滿足全人類而非一些超級富有的貪婪寄生蟲的需求。
階級鬥爭
歷史唯物主義告訴我們，實踐決定了意識。唯心主義者一直將意識作為人類進步的動力，但即使是最簡單的歷史事實也表明，人的意識總是往往落後於事件發展。它不像我們所設想的一樣是革命性的，恰恰相反，我們的意識往往是保守的。大多數人不喜歡改變，更不用說改變現有制度的劇烈動盪。他們傾向於堅持現有的社會秩序、熟悉的思想、知名的機構、傳統的道德、宗教和價值觀。但辯證地說，物極必反，早晚，意識會以激進的方式與現實相適應。
這正是一場革命。
馬克思主義解釋道，一切社會發展的關鍵是生產力的發展。於是，在大多數人看來，只要社會在前進，工業、農業和科技在發展，人們一般不會質疑現有的社會、道德和法律。相反的是，它們被看作是一種就像太陽的升起和落下一樣自然而不可避免的事物。要使群眾擺脫傳統、習慣和常規的沉重負擔，迎接新的思想，需要非常多的努力，這就是馬克思在「社會決定意識」這個著名的詞語中所出色地表達了唯物史觀改採取的立場，它揭示了舊秩序的不健全性和說服了群眾的需要，與推翻舊制度的必要性。但這個過程不是自動的，它需要時間。
曾經，我們以為歐洲的階級鬥爭似乎已經過去了，但是現在所有積累起來的矛盾正在浮出水面，為各地階級鬥爭的爆發做好準備。包括美國在內的各個地方正在醞釀著暴風雨般的事件，在社會中隱含著急劇且突然的變化。
當馬克思和恩格斯在寫作《共產黨宣言》的時候，他們分別是兩個29歲和27歲的年輕人。他們正在經歷一個黑色的年代，工人階級似乎對壓迫無動於衷。 《共產黨宣言》在布魯塞爾寫成，其作者則被迫逃離成為政治難民。然而，1848年2月，《共產黨宣言》第一次看到的光明的那一刻，革命已經爆發到巴黎街頭，在接下來的幾個月裡，革命在幾乎整個歐洲像野火般蔓延。
我們正在進入一個類似於1930年到1937年的西班牙的，持續多年的激動人心的時期。這段歷史中將會有失敗和挫折，但在這種情況下，人民群眾將會瞭解得很快。當然，我們絕不能誇大現實，我們現在還僅僅處於激進化進程的初期。但是很清楚的是，我們已經目睹了群眾意識轉變的開始，越來越多的人質疑資本主義。他們將會以前所未有的方式接受馬克思主義思想，在即將到來的未來，只有革命派的思想會被數百萬人所接受。
因此，我們可以回答福山先生：歷史尚未結束，甚至我們可以說，事實上，它幾乎沒有開始。當後代回顧我們現在的「文明」時，他們將會像以我們看待食人族一般驚愕地看待我們。實現更高層次的人類發展的先決條件，是資本主義無計畫生產狀態的結束，和人類可以把自己的生命和命運掌握在自己手中的理性和民主的生產計畫。當然，會有自稱的」現實主義者「告訴我們，這是不存在的烏托邦。但妄想這個創造我們現在面對的這些燃眉之急的制度可以解決這些問題，則是更不可能的。在通過利用科學技術的巨大潛力，和擺脫私產制和民族國家的惡劣束縛的前提下，我們才有可能解決這些摧殘我們世界，並即將比我們走向毀滅的問題。」人類無法找到更好的替代叢林法則的制度「，這樣的說法是對人類的巨大侮辱。而真正的人類歷史只有在我們結束資本主義奴役，並邁向自由王國的第一步時，才會開始。
更新於2017年6月16日，倫敦
We present the International Marxist Tendency's world perspectives for 2018: constituting our analysis of the current situation in world politics, and predictions about where we are headed. This draft document will be discussed and finalised at the IMT's 2018 World Congress in Turin. It was written in the first few months of this year, and although some of the events described have developed since, these developments only further confirm our overarching analysis of the world situation.
Ten years after the crash
Ten years have passed since the financial crash of 2008. This was one of those defining moments in world history that mark a fundamental change in the situation, like 1914, 1917, 1929 and 1939-45. It is therefore an appropriate moment to draw a balance sheet of the past decade.
Wall Street collapse Image Paul SparkesImage: Paul Sparkes
This crisis was qualitatively different from any other in the past. It was not a normal cyclical crisis, but a reflection of the organic crisis of capitalism. A decade after the collapse of 2008, the bourgeoisie is still struggling to extricate itself from the crisis that destroyed the equilibrium of the capitalist system. To the very limited degree that one can speak of a recovery, it is a very partial one. In fact, it is the weakest economic recovery in history. Even in the 1930s there was a bigger recovery. And certain things flow from this.
Ten years ago, we predicted that all of the attempts of the bourgeoisie to restore the economic equilibrium would destroy the political and social equilibrium. That has now been confirmed by events on a world scale. In one country after another the attempts of governments to impose austerity in a desperate effort to get the economy moving (which they have failed to do) have prepared social explosions of an absolutely unprecedented character.
「Concentrated economics」
Lenin said politics is concentrated economics. In the last analysis, all these crises are an expression of the impasse of capitalism which is no longer capable of developing the productive forces as it did in the past. This does not mean, of course, that there can no longer be any development of the productive forces.
Neither Marx nor Lenin or Trotsky have ever said that there was an absolute ceiling on the development of the productive forces under capitalism. It is a relative, not an absolute phenomenon. There can always be some development, as there has been in China in the last period. But on a world scale there is nothing compared to the development of the productive forces in the second half of the 20th century after the Second World War.
Marxism explains that the secret to the viability of any economic system is the achievement of the maximum economy of labour time. One of the most important elements in the development of capitalism was precisely the growth in the productivity of labour. For 200 years, capitalism raised the productivity of human labour power to a level undreamt of in the past. But this progress is now reaching its limits.
A study on productivity by the Center for Economic and Policy Research in September 2015 found that, between 2007 and 2012, global productivity grew at annual rate of 0.5%; half what it had been in the period 1996-2006. However, in the more recent period of 2012-14 it had ground to a complete halt at zero percent. In countries like Brazil and Mexico it was actually negative. As the report states, 「This is one of the most disturbing and, no doubt, important phenomena affecting the world economy.」
These figures are a sure indication that capitalism now finds itself in a systemic crisis. The sluggish growth of the productivity of labour – and in some cases its fall – is a striking symptom of the impasse of capitalism, which is no longer able to achieve the big successes of the past.
American Stock Exchange building Image Wally GobetzImage: Wally Gobetz
The source of the problem lies in historically low levels of investment: gross capital formation in the European Union and the United States has fallen below 20% of GDP for the first time since the 1960s, while capital consumption and depreciation is rising. In the former colonial world, the boom in raw material prices sparked a brief increase in investment, but it has fallen again over the past few years.
This failure to invest in production is not the result of the lack of money. On the contrary, the giant corporations are swimming in cash. Adam Davidson, writing in The New York Times in January 2016, stated that, 「American businesses currently have $1.9 trillion in cash, just sitting around」… this 「state of affairs [is] unparalleled in economic history…」 The author of the article considers this a 「mystery」 but what it shows is that the capitalists do not have profitable fields of investment in the present state of the world economy. (Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions? New York Times, January 20, 2016)
More recent data by the US Federal Reserve puts the amount of 「non-financial companies' liquid assets, which include hard currency, foreign deposits, money-market and mutual-fund shares」 at a 「record $2.4 trillion in the third quarter」 of 2017.
The system is literally drowning in a surfeit of wealth. It is like the sorcerer's apprentice who has conjured up forces that he cannot control. The productive forces have the potential to produce a mass of commodities that cannot be absorbed by the markets.
This inability to make productive use of the colossal amounts of surplus value extracted from the sweat and blood of the workers is the final condemnation of capitalism. Overproduction is reflected in a general crisis of the world economy, which is in a very fragile state. Cheap credit no longer serves to stimulate investment. What is the point in investing to create new productive forces when there are no markets for the existing production?
A new recovery?
Every day the press proclaims a recovery. In the best case, there is a slight upturn in GDP within a generalised context of long term stagnation. For Marxists there is no surprise in this; even in periods of decline the system continues to move in cycles and after a long period of decline or stagnation a small recovery is to be expected. However, it is of such a weak nature that it amounts to no substantial recovery and will not last.
The limited growth comes against a background of ultra-loose monetary policy. The Federal Reserve kept the base rate at just above zero from the autumn of 2008 until the beginning of 2017. The European Central Bank also lowered their rate to just above zero.
Real estate bubbles exist in housing markets in Britain, Canada, China and Scandinavia. The stock markets have not merely recovered but have exceeded their 2007 valuations. The Dow Jones has managed to not only exceed, but increase its valuation by 36%. The price over earnings ratio (that is, the price an investor is paying for $1 of a company's earnings or profit) has reached its third highest peak in history (the previous two being 1929 and 2000). All this is indicative, not of a healthy recovery, but of another crisis in the making. It also has the effect of transferring huge amounts of money to the capitalist class whose assets have increased in value with the influx of new credit.
The limits of credit
The reason for the present impasse is that, in the decades prior to 2008, capitalism not only reached its limits but went far beyond its 「natural」 limits. The unprecedented expansion of credit and debt is partly what enabled capitalism to overcome the constraints of the market and overproduction. On the other hand, there was the enormous expansion of world trade and an intensification of the international division of labour.
Marx explained that one of the ways capitalism gets around the limits of the market and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall is through the massive expansion of credit and of increasing world trade (「globalisation」), which partially, and for a limited period of a few decades, enabled it to get around the other key contradiction: the limitations of the nation state. But both of these solutions have limited effects and have now turned into their opposite.
Historically, the US has had a total debt (government and private) of around 100-180% of GDP. However, in the late 1980s total debt reached 200%, and it continued to grow until 2009, reaching a peak of around 300%. Japan, Britain, Spain, France, Italy and South Korea all have debt levels in excess of 300%. World debt now stands at $217tn or 327% of GDP, the highest in history.
anti austerity protest in London image wikimedia commonsImage: public domain
Marx pointed out in The Communist Manifesto that the bourgeoisie solves crises today only by paving the way for bigger crises in the future. What have they achieved over the past decade with all the pain, austerity and suffering? Their aim was to reduce the deficit and the huge unprecedented mountain of debt that had been built up as a result of the previous period.
All they have done is to convert what was a gigantic black hole in the private banks into a huge black hole in the public finances. The banks were standing on the brink of an abyss and they were only saved by the intervention of the state, which saved them by giving them trillions from the public purse. The problem is that the state does not have any money except what it can squeeze from the taxpayers.
The question is therefore: who pays? It is well known that the rich do not pay much in taxes. They have a thousand ways of avoiding that painful necessity. The working class must pay, the middle class must pay, the unemployed must pay, the sick must pay, the schools must pay. Everyone must pay except for the rich, who have become richer and richer even in this period of 「austerity」.
Has all this solved anything? Seven out of the ten biggest economies in the world run annual government deficits in excess of 3% of GDP, and only Germany has less than a 2% deficit. Debt is rising everywhere. There is no way to get out of the crisis unless and until these debts have been wiped out one way or another. And how does one eliminate the public debt? Naturally you place the entire burden on the shoulders of the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society.
The scenario that we are witnessing internationally is really unprecedented. And we are speaking here only of the advanced capitalist countries. The situation in the so-called Third World is another matter. Here the picture is one of unrelieved misery, unimaginable suffering, starvation and degradation for billions of men, women and children.
The threat of protectionism
For decades, world trade grew much faster than production, providing the motor force for the growth of the world economy. However, in the recent period, the growth of world trade has slowed to a level lower than that of GDP. Global trade as a percentage of GDP peaked at 61% twice, in 2008 and 2011, but now it has fallen to 58%.
The World Trade Organisation has expressed concern that national governments may be tempted to defend their own markets with protectionist measures and that these would in turn impact negatively on trade growth. As if to confirm these fears, Donald Trump blunders onto the scene like an elephant in a china shop. His policy of 「America first」 is itself a reflection of the global crisis. He wishes to 「make America great again」 at the expense of the rest of the world. That is to say, he wishes to use America's muscle to grab an increased share of world markets.
In the last few years the US capitalists have been struggling to put together a number of trade deals with Europe, America and Asia. The first thing Trump did was to tear up the TPP and the TTIP. He also threatens to destroy NAFTA if he cannot get a deal whereby Mexico and Canada sacrifice their interests for the benefit of the USA and he is threatening to paralyse the WTO by blocking the replacements of judges to its tribunals.
Trump China 1 Image The White HouseImage: The White House
China has a huge trade surplus with the USA, a record-high $275.81 billion for 2017, and this is one of the main reasons that Trump complains that China is harming the US economy. During the election campaign Trump accused China of 「raping America」, stealing US jobs, etc. Since then he was obliged to moderate his language in the hope of getting China to put pressure on North Korea. But that aim was not achieved and the contradictions between America and China remain unresolved. Here already is the outline of a future trade war between America and China.
He is not the only one pursuing this policy. Since the beginning of the crisis the advanced capitalist countries have been taking measures to increase their trade surpluses. This has partly been done by a number of protectionist moves. The US (under Obama) became the world leader in protectionism, but also the UK, Spain, Germany and France are more protectionist than China.
It must be remembered that it was protectionism that turned the crash of 1929 into the great Depression of the 1930s. If protectionism takes hold, it can cause the whole fragile structure of world trade to come crashing down, with the most serious consequences.
The USA – an unprecedented crisis
The relative weakening of the US since the Second World War is shown in the fact that in 1945 more than 50% of world GDP was produced in the United States, whereas now this figure is around 20%. When we refer to the relative weakening of US imperialism, we should not, however, exaggerate the process. By relative decline, we mean that it has been weakened and cannot play the same role it did in the past, as can be seen in the Syrian crisis. The US, nonetheless, remains by far the dominant superpower on a world scale and no other power is in a position to replace it, as the US replaced Britain in the past, for example.
This relative decline has had an effect on both its ability to dominate the world economically, politically and diplomatically and on its ability to provide the workers of America with the standard of living that was behind the relative internal stability of the past. This reality has now seeped into the consciousness of the US masses.
Trump 2018 Foto Socialist AppealImage: Socialist Appeal
The American dream is dead. It has been replaced by the American nightmare. The dream is finished and there is no way they can recover it. The change in consciousness in America was revealed in a peculiar way during the presidential elections of November 2016. For a hundred years, the stability of American capitalism was based on two parties: the Democrats and Republicans. These two parties alternated in office for all that time.
There is huge discontent and a burning desire for change. We already saw that in the vote for Obama, who demagogically promised a change. Millions of people who did not normally vote were queuing up to vote for a Black American President. They did so twice, but in the end there was no change. Thus a mood of anger, bitterness and frustration grew, particularly amongst the poorest sections.
This mood was clearly expressed in the campaign of Bernie Sanders. At first hardly anybody knew Bernie Sanders, whereas everybody knew Hillary Clinton. Yet when he talked about a political revolution against the billionaire class it struck a chord with many people, especially (but not only) the youth. There were mass meetings of tens of thousands to support Bernie Sanders. At least one study said that if Sanders had stood against Trump, he could have won. But inevitably he was manoeuvred out by the Democratic Party machine. Worse still, he accepted it, which caused a certain element of demoralisation among his supporters.
The ruling class likes to have people they can control, people like Hillary Clinton. They did not and do not want Trump because he is a maverick who suffers from an extreme case of egomania and is therefore difficult to control. Hillary Clinton is an agent of big business. Trump represents the same class but he has his own ideas as to how this should be done. During the election campaign he demagogically appealed to the workers. For the first time in recent memory, a presidential candidate referred to the working class (as did Bernie Sanders). That was unheard of. Even most of the left-wing liberals and trade union leaders always referred to the 「middle class」.
The establishment was desperate to stop Trump. But they failed. The ruling class was against this demagogic interloper; the Democrats were against him of course, and the majority of the Republicans were also against him. All the media were against him. He even succeeded in alienating Fox News for a time. The media is without doubt a powerful instrument in the hands of the ruling class. And yet he won.
This was a political earthquake. But how does one explain it? Trump is a reactionary, but he is also a skilful demagogue who directed his appeals to the poor, alienated unemployed and workers in the rustbelt: offering them jobs, denouncing the existing state of affairs and the privileged Washington establishment. In this way he connected with the general mood of anger and discontent.
Bernie Sanders connected with the same mood. But he was predictably sabotaged by the Democratic Party machine. And when Sanders finally capitulated and called for support for Hillary Clinton, many saw Trump as the 「lesser evil,」 and he went on to win the election. Many people who would have voted for Sanders sat out the election or thought, 「If we can't vote for Sanders, we'll vote for Trump」.
Trump's campaign was marked by the galvanisation and mobilisation of a section of the electorate which was previously inert and achieved more absolute votes than any Republican candidate in history, though he won a lower overall percentage than Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. However, his victory also exposed the opacity and undemocratic nature of the US Electoral College system, which worked to his advantage in spite of Trump winning almost three million votes fewer than Hillary Clinton.
The vast majority of the bourgeoisie was not happy about this unexpected turn in events. But neither, at first, were they unduly concerned. They have a thousand ways of controlling a difficult politician. Initially they tried to comfort themselves with the idea that what Trump said during the election campaign was just propaganda, and that he would behave rationally once he entered the White House (that is to say, he would take his orders from the ruling class). But they were mistaken. The man in the White House proved difficult to control.
Donald Trump 1 Image Flickr Michael VadonImage: Flickr, Michael Vadon
The Democrats had a very simple explanation for Trump's victory: they blamed the Russians, while Hillary Clinton also blamed Sanders. All that proves is that to this day the Democratic Party has not understood why Trump won the elections. They whipped up a campaign claiming that the Russians were responsible for hacking, which, they claim, decided the result of the election.
The allegation of Russian involvement in the hacking of documents may or may not be true. But many countries, and not least the USA, are constantly hacking, phone tapping and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations – including their 「allies」, as Angela Merkel found out. But to argue that the Kremlin determined the votes of millions of US citizens is childish in the extreme.
What is unprecedented is that an American president should find himself in an open public confrontation with the FBI and the whole of the American intelligence agencies. The secret services are precisely supposed to be secret, and they are at the heart of the bourgeois state. For those agencies to be clashing publicly with the president, openly trying to undermine him and drive him from office – such a thing is absolutely unheard of. And amidst all the thunder and lightning, everyone has now forgotten what was in the hacked emails. And nobody bothers to ask if their contents were in fact true.
In reality, the damning accusations contained in the material published by WikiLeaks were perfectly true. Among other things it proved that the Democratic apparatus used dirty tricks to block Bernie Sanders and hand victory to Hillary Clinton. That was certainly the most blatant interference in the US elections. But amidst all the hullabaloo about 「Russian interference」, all this has been conveniently forgotten.
Revolutions do not start at the bottom; they start at the top with a split in the ruling class. Here we have an open split in the state. This is not a normal political crisis. It is a crisis of the regime. The intelligence services – the praetorian guard of the ruling class – do not like to be seen to intervene in politics, although they do so secretly all the time. It is an incredible state of affairs when the machinations and intrigues of the FBI are paraded publicly before the eyes of ordinary Americans.
The present political situation in America has no precedent in history. An elected President is in direct confrontation with the majority of the state, with the media, the FBI, the CIA and all the other secret services, which the ruling class is using to try to get rid of Trump or force him to obey them.
Changing consciousness
Many on the left in Europe had swallowed the idea that the American people were reactionary, right-wing and would never support socialism. That is completely untrue. There was a poll taken even before the Sanders campaign had got going asking young people under 30 years of age, 「Would you vote for a socialist President?」 69% said yes (see this Gallup Poll).
The same poll asked Americans above 65 years of age the same question and 「only」 34% said yes. That result is even more incredible. After 100 years of vicious propaganda against socialism and communism, it represents a striking change in consciousness.
The change in consciousness is not confined to the lower reaches of society. In a peculiar, reactionary and distorted way Donald Trump reflected the anger of millions of working class people and others against the existing conditions and system, against what he calls the Establishment. Of course, the masses can only learn through experience. And experience will show – indeed is already showing – that this is nonsense. The scene will be prepared for big movements in the next period.
USA revolting Image Flickr thisisbossiImage: Flickr, thisisbossi
In fact these have already begun. Immediately after the election of Trump there were mass demonstrations in every city. The Women's March was the largest single-day protest in American history. That was on the weekend he was inaugurated. And that was only the beginning of what is yet to come.
The reason why the ruling class hates Trump is because he has delivered a crippling blow to the already worn-out consensus that existed between Democrats and Republicans. Undermining that consensus could lead to very dangerous consequences, as seen in the recent government shutdown. The collapse of the so-called political centre reflects the widening abyss and sharp polarisation between the classes in US society. That has the most serious implications for the future.
Obama and the Democrats are responsible for the victory of Donald Trump. But Trump is himself deepening the process of social and political radicalization, preparing an even bigger swing to the left. In a serious condemnation of the two-party system, the latest polls show that a record 61% of Americans are opposed to both the Democrats and Republicans and believe a new major party is needed. Among the youth, the figure is 71%. This polarisation in the US – to both the left and the right – has produced the phenomenon of the sudden growth of the DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, a left group historically on the fringes of the Democratic Party.
Before the Sanders campaign this group had about 6,000 members: mainly old timers, imbued with a thoroughly reformist outlook. But since the election of Trump, DSA has ballooned to over 30,000 members, mostly youth looking for a socialist organisation. They have broken into many new areas where previously they had nothing and are developing a base on many campuses across the United States. There is now an internal debate on whether to break entirely with the Democrats. Some layers are developing very radical ideas and are wide open to the ideas of revolutionary Marxism. The future of this organisation has yet to be determined, but if it breaks with the Democrats and adopts a class-independent position, it has the potential to play an important role in the eventual creation of a mass socialist party in the US.
Canada and Quebec
Canada was not as hard hit by the 2008 crisis, as it had less of a housing bubble and the economy was propped up by resource exports to a booming China. Consequently, Canada has not felt the same degree of austerity as other OECD countries. However, the factors leading to stability are turning into their opposite. Cheap credit has fuelled debt and an explosion in the cost of housing. Household debt is at an unprecedented 171% of annual income and climbing. China is no longer pushing up oil and mineral prices to the same degree, while Trump's protectionist threat to pull out of NAFTA threatens Canadian exports. A new global economic downturn would precipitate all these contradictions.
Quebec, however, has seen a period of intense class struggle, starting with the 2012 Quebec student strike. Unfortunately, due to a combination of ultra-leftism from a section of the student leadership, and opportunist capitulation by the union bureaucracy, the movement has subsided, but the active layers are searching for answers.
Quebec nationalism is in crisis. The Parti Quebecois has moved to the right and adopted a racist nationalism. The PQ has been in government and enacted austerity many times in the last 40 years, which explains why the youth see it as part of the establishment. The left nationalist Quebec Solidaire could act as a conduit for the discontent, but its petit bourgeois leadership is confused and makes many mistakes. Typically, when they focus on class issues they gain support, but when they focus on independence they become identified with the PQ.
There is no enthusiasm for new independence referenda amongst class conscious workers and youth. While we should not discount the possibility of the class anger of the masses expressing itself through a national independence movement, this seems to be an unlikely perspective for Quebec in the near-term.
China
The Chinese economy has experienced a huge development of the productive forces in the last 40 years. That was one of the main things that kept the world economy from falling into a deep slump, keeping it afloat for 20 to 30 years. But now that has reached its limits. Growth in China has sharply decreased and is now less than 7%. That is very low by Chinese standards.
There are many unsolved contradictions in the Chinese economy. China's manufacturing is heavily dependent on exports. In order to maintain the rate of growth China must export. If Europe and America are not consuming as they have in the past, China cannot produce as it did in the past because they need foreign markets to absorb their surplus product. And if China is not producing, then other countries like Brazil, Argentina and Australia cannot export their raw materials. Thus globalisation manifests itself as a global crisis of the capitalist system.
Xi Jinping Image kremlin.ruImage: kremlin.ru
In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, China's rulers were alarmed. They estimated they needed to sustain a minimum annual growth rate of 8% to prevent an accumulation of unrest that could threaten their rule. They resorted to Keynesian policies and launched an unprecedented plan of new public investment in infrastructure. They used the state-owned banking system to launch the greatest example of monetary easing in history, offering easy loans. But this creates new contradictions that threaten the future stability of China and the entire world.
As a result, Chinese government debt to GDP has doubled since 2008, at 46.2%, although it is still relatively low compared to that of the USA. However, total debt (the combined state, bank, business and household debt) has grown exponentially and threatens to spiral out of control. In absolute terms, China's total debt ballooned from about $6 trillion at the time of the 2008 financial crisis to nearly $28 trillion by the end of 2016. As a percentage of GDP, total debt has risen from 140% to almost 260% over the same period. And the official figures undoubtedly understate the real situation.
It is likely that China's total debt is nearer to 300% of GDP – and this estimate does not include the unregulated sector of shadow banking (estimated to be worth between 30 and 80% of GDP), which the World Bank in its October 2017 report on the East Asian and Pacific economies specifically warns is one of the greatest threats to regional prosperity.
Xi Jinping 1 Image Flickr theglobalpanoramaImage: Flickr, theglobalpanorama
The Chinese economy was undoubtedly saved in the short term by the government's decision to open the credit floodgates, but that has resulted in an economy dependent on borrowing and afflicted with huge asset bubbles. The real test will come when Beijing eventually attempts to reduce this debt dependence. This can trigger a financial collapse, which the serious bourgeois economists fear would have a devastating effect on the world economy. Last year, the International Monetary Fund issued a warning about Beijing's reluctance to rein in dangerous levels of debt.
At this moment in time a collapse of the Chinese finance system does not appear imminent. But neither did the crash of 2008 appear imminent…before it happened. It is true that because of the specific weight of the state sector, the Chinese government can exercise more control over both borrowers and lenders than would be possible in a normal market economy. It can order state-owned banks to keep lending to loss making companies or to smaller lenders that rely on short-term credit to stay liquid. As of the end of December 2017, China holds $3.14 trillion in foreign currency reserves, which can be used for 「emergencies」 – but even this will not save them forever.
This has allowed Beijing to delay problems much longer. But to delay a problem does not mean that it is solved. On the contrary, the longer the present unsound position is allowed to continue, the more violent and convulsive the crisis will be when it comes – and sooner or later, come it must. The slowing of the economy has led to a big increase in unemployment which is concealed by official figures, which do not include the millions of migrants who come from the countryside because they cannot find work. This will affect the political and social situation.
It is hard to know with precision what is happening in China. In a totalitarian state the news is strictly controlled. But there have been widespread strikes and demonstrations: the number of such 「incidents」 doubled every year between 2011 and 2015, and this was only the tip of the iceberg. The regime managed to halt the wave of strikes by putting pressure on companies not paying wages on time and by prosecuting enough cases of corruption to appear to some to be 「on the side of the workers.」.
Under the apparent calm on the surface there is huge anger building up. The indignation of the masses is being stoked by injustice: the arbitrary actions of the bureaucracy with peasants having their lands stolen by corrupt officials, the destruction of the environment, with Beijing and other cities shrouded in toxic clouds, and above all the scandalous inequality that openly mocks the claim that China is a socialist country.
The Chinese workers could put up with these things as long as they felt that somehow things were advancing and the situation was getting better. But they are finding that this is no longer the case. The destiny of China depends on the future of the world market. China benefited from its participation in the world market, but now all the contradictions are coming back to hit them. An explosive situation is building up that can burst onto the surface without any warning.
World relations
The conflict with North Korea glaringly exposed the limits of the power of American imperialism. Trump threatened it with total destruction, but all his threats had no effect in Pyongyang, other than to increase the bellicose noises and add to the growing number of nuclear tests and rockets flying over Japan, which Kim Jong-un claims can now reach any part of the United States.
The US was considering installing a missile base in South Korea, which the Chinese adamantly oppose. Trump was compelled to eat his words and seek the support of Beijing to put pressure on Pyongyang. China has, in fact, been applying gentle pressure of its own on the North Korean regime to push it in the direction it desires, to rein it in in order to avoid a more open and dangerous conflict with the US. This is far from what Trump wants. But China's bottom line on North Korea is that it is not going to allow a chaotic collapse of the regime.
Xi Jinping Kim Jong Un hold talks in Beijing Image
All this has also exposed the inability of the US to do anything to protect its allies. Duterte, the Philippine 「strongman」 said that the US talks a lot but won't do anything. He has drawn the necessary conclusion and dragged the Philippines towards China's orbit. South Korea is now closer to China diplomatically, especially because of its historic tensions with Japan.
Thailand used to be one of the closest allies of the US, but it announced that it would buy submarines from China, which also implies cooperation with China. The plan was put on hold because of American pressure, but it seems it will go ahead. The 2014 coup in Thailand was condemned by the US, but praised by China. Vietnam and Malaysia have also forged closer economic ties to China, although relations between China and Vietnam are complicated by territorial conflicts, especially over China's claims in the South China Sea.
China and America are engaged in a struggle for markets and influence. Many countries have China as their number one trading partner. It has stakes in two thirds of the 50 most important ports in the world. Its One Belt One Road project is the biggest diplomatic and financial project since the Marshall Plan.
The tensions between the two powers are at their sharpest in the region of the South China Sea, where the Chinese ruling class has developed its own version of the Monroe doctrine, meaning that it must have control over its own backyard. China's provocative 「island-building」 projects are opposed by Washington, which has sent warships to assert what it calls the 「freedom of the seas」.
Before the Second World War the tensions between the US and China would have already led to war. But nuclear-armed China is no longer the weak semi-colonial country of the past and there can be absolutely no question of America invading and enslaving China today.
The Middle East
In the Middle East the contradictions of world capitalism are exposed in concentrated form. The crisis of world capitalism is also the crisis of US imperialism. When the ignorant and incompetent American imperialists stormed into Iraq and wrecked the whole country, they not only destroyed the lives of millions, but by destroying the Iraqi army they also disrupted the fragile equilibrium between the powers in the Middle East. All the subsequent crimes and monstrosities are ultimately due to this monstrous crime of imperialism.
With the elimination of the Iraqi army, Iran's influence grew rapidly to the detriment of the US and its traditional allies, in particular Saudi Arabia. The bloody conflict in Syria, which was really a proxy war between several foreign powers, was an attempt to claw back lost ground. It aimed at isolating Lebanon and taking Syria out of the Iranian sphere of influence. But today, Iran's influence is stronger than ever in Syria or Lebanon.
Yemen Foto dominio publicoImage: public domain
In Syria the limits of the power of US imperialism are glaringly clear. The most powerful nation on earth is unable to intervene militarily in a decisive manner. This left a vacuum into which stepped Iran and Russia. The Russian intervention decisively tipped the balance in Assad's favour. The fall of Aleppo marked a decisive turning point and a devastating and humiliating defeat – not just for the USA, but also for its allies, especially Saudi Arabia.
Now ISIS has been defeated in both Syria and Iraq. But the root problem has not been solved. What will happen now? The Turks are watching Raqqa, Mosul and even Kirkuk like hawks, waiting to grab what they can. The Iranians have increased their influence throughout the whole area, to the alarm of the Americans, Saudis and Israel. Meanwhile Iraq and Syria have fragmented and will remain unstable through the next period.
One section of the US ruling class wanted to continue the war, but this attempt was doomed to failure. Putin outmanoeuvred them at every step. When the Russians called a peace conference in Astana, Kazakhstan (a client state of Russia) the Americans and Europeans were not even invited. In the end, despite all the public rhetoric, the Americans were reluctantly obliged to accept the fait accompli dictated by Moscow.
The plain fact is that the US has been defeated in Syria. It reflects a shift in the balance of forces in the region. This will have far reaching consequences, in particular amongst Washington's allies who have lost confidence in the US and have increasingly been following their own paths and interests. Turkey is supposed to be an ally of the United States and is a key member of NATO but increasingly, the Turks and the US have found themselves backing opposing forces in Syria.
Initially, the US placed its bets on the Turkish and Saudi backed Jihadi rebels, but these proved inefficient and – as became clear with the rise of ISIS – unreliable defenders of US interests. The Pentagon was therefore obliged to throw its weight behind the Kurdish YPG forces in the fight against ISIS in Northern Syria.
But there is a problem. Erdogan has big ambitions in the region. He wants an Ottoman-style empire and the Kurds form a physical and political obstacle for him. His main interest now is to crush the Kurds, both in Turkey and Syria. Defeated in Syria, Erdogan decided to change course, leaning on Iran and Russia in order to gain leverage to manoeuvre with the West.
Afrin Image fair useImage: fair use
In effect, by ditching the rebels in Aleppo and elsewhere, who are backed by the US, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, Russia and Iran allowed Turkey to take a slice of Northern Syria to stop the Kurdish forces from expanding their territory there. This cooperation of Turkey, Russia and Iran has dealt a shattering blow to the Americans and Saudis, whose Jihadi stooges have been crushed or forced to conform to the Astana deal.
Trump's plan to undermine the Iran nuclear deal is a desperate attempt to turn the clock back. But whereas the US is under constant pressure to pull its forces out of the Middle East, Iran commands hundreds of thousands of battle hardened militiamen entrenched in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. In the final analysis, that will be the decisive factor. The Europeans have disassociated themselves from Trump's policy over Iran, which turns out to be more to the detriment of Washington than Teheran, which is enjoying the spectacle of disarray in the West.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia threw billions of dollars into the most reactionary groups in Syria. But it has lost. The Saudi war on Yemen is also failing. After almost three years of brutal fighting, which has wrecked the whole country and left millions facing starvation, the Iranian backed Houthis have a strong position in their areas. Meanwhile the Saudi coalition has all but fallen apart. The Jihadi, South-Yemen nationalist and Emirati troops composing the Saudi backed forces are all following their own agenda. This is yet another defeat which will further undermine foundations of the rotten Saudi regime.
The Saudis tried to assert themselves in Qatar, by demanding that it cut its ties with Iran and Turkey and fall in line with Saudi foreign policy. But Qatar merely strengthened its trade and military ties with Iran and Turkey. Turkey has expanded its military base on the peninsula – a serious warning to the Al-Sauds not to go too far. Trump originally threw his weight behind the Saudis until he was quietly informed by his advisors that the US has a very important military base in Qatar.
The old king Abdullah was a hardened reactionary, but he was cunning and cautious. The new regime, led by upstart crown prince Muhammad Bin Salman, is anything but cautious. Like a losing gambler he is frantically indulging in risky bets to counter Iran's expanding power and influence. But these efforts, far from halting the process of Saudi decline, are accelerating it and giving it an even more convulsive character.
Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud Image Mazen AlDarrabImage: Mazen AlDarrab
For decades the life of this reactionary regime was artificially extended by imperialism due to the particular role it played as a main supplier of oil for the US and as the main base of counter-revolution in the Muslim world. Coupled with the high oil prices, the regime could maintain itself by buying off the reactionary tribal and religious layers that form its base.
But today these factors are disappearing. The US has become close to self-sufficient in oil and the world economic crisis has led to low oil prices. The role of the Kingdom in world relations has declined and thus the interests of Saudi Arabia and the US ruling class have begun to diverge. The crisis is also eating into Saudi reserves, forcing them to implement austerity for the first time ever. They can no longer buy social stability by bribing the local population with lavish subsidies and guaranteed jobs in the public sector.
In the medium term all these factors will combine to undermine the stability of the regime, which can fall like a rotten apple when least expected. Whatever replaces it will not be to the liking of Washington. Under the impact of the crisis of US imperialism, the old order in the region that was set up by British and US imperialism is unravelling.
As if all this were not more than sufficient, the brazen stupidity of Trump in recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and approving the moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv was aimed at a US audience, but it has added a new element of explosive instability for the Middle East. It has also caused further divisions between the European and American imperialists. The former fear the consequences for the so-called peace talks, which in any case nobody took seriously, if they ever did. The latter, as usual, understood nothing and foresaw nothing.
However, it seems unthinkable that Trump could have taken that decision without the knowledge and tacit consent of the Saudi leaders. They are now firmly aligned with Trump and the Israelis and are mainly concerned with confronting Iran. They will have agreed to stab the Palestinians in the back while making a few obligatory noises in order to play to the Arab gallery. That will eventually prove to be one more nail in the coffin of the corrupt and despicable Saudi regime.
Revolution in the Middle East and North Africa
The revolution, which swept through the region in 2011-2013, failed because it lacked a revolutionary leadership. Today the general movement, tired and confused, has retreated and left room for reaction to manoeuvre. The rise of reaction and Islamist counter-revolution throughout the region is connected to the ebb in the revolutionary movement.
However, the events of 2017 in Morocco show that the revolution is not dead. The uprising in the Rif was the most spectacular movement in Morocco since the 2011 Revolution in the Middle East and North Africa. The immediate incident that launched the uprising was the killing by the police of a young fishmonger in a rubbish truck. Once it began, this movement unfolded with incredible speed and intensity. A nationwide solidarity movement of the working class and the oppressed layers sprang into life with its own demands, which were neither nationalist nor sectarian.
This movement anticipates developments in the rest of the region, where not a single stable regime exists. All of the regimes in the region are weak and fighting for their survival. They cannot solve any of the problems of the masses who in turn are under enormous pressure. Sooner or later the movement will revive on an even higher level.
World war?
The crisis over North Korea's nuclear programme caused a lot of talk of a world war. But this is premature to say the least. Under modern conditions world war is practically ruled out by the class balance of forces on a world scale. The imperialists do not make war for arbitrary reasons. The bourgeoisie resorts to war in order to conquer markets and spheres of influence. But war is a very costly and risky business. And with nuclear weapons the risks are multiplied a thousand fold. That is why the USA, the most formidable military power that has ever existed, has been unable to declare war on tiny North Korea.
Russia is not militarily as strong as America, but it is a very powerful military state. And it is far stronger militarily than British, French or German imperialism, both in conventional and nuclear terms. The West could do nothing to prevent it taking over Crimea (where the majority are Russians anyway). Nor could it do anything to prevent Russia from intervening to save the Assad regime in Syria. These two cases reveal the limitations of US imperialism's power.
WW3 Image fair useImage: fair use
Last year NATO sent a few thousand troops to Poland as a warning to Russia. That was just a joke. The Russians replied by holding the biggest ever military manoeuvres together with Belarus on the very border of Poland. That was a little warning to NATO. From a military point of view, compared with Russia, Britain nowadays is almost insignificant, France is not much more, Germany is nothing at all.
Above all, the international class balance of forces is a serious barrier to the launching of a major war. It should be remembered that before the Second World War could take place, the working class had to first suffer a whole series of crushing defeats in Hungary, Italy, Germany, Spain… But now the forces of the working class are intact. The working class has not suffered any serious defeats in the advanced capitalist countries.
In the USA the people are tired of military adventures. US imperialism burned its fingers badly in Iraq and Afghanistan. It cost them an enormous amount of blood and treasure without achieving anything. As a result, Obama was not even able to order a military intervention in Syria. He tried but he saw that it would have provoked a massive popular revolt. He had to back down. The same was true of Cameron's Conservative government in Britain.
There cannot be a world war at least for the foreseeable future, unless a totalitarian regime came to power in the US on the basis of a crushing defeat of the American working class. That would be a qualitatively different balance of forces. But that is not the position in the immediate future. On the contrary, for a whole period the pendulum will swing to the left.
Trump is a reactionary bourgeois politician, but contrary to the demagogic assertions of some on the Left, he is not a fascist and does not stand at the head of a totalitarian state like that of Hitler. On the contrary, he does not control the state at all: it is at war with him. He does not even have total control of Congress, although it is dominated by the Republican Party. In fact, his hold on power is extremely tenuous. The Strong Man in the White House has feet of clay.
Although a war on the lines of 1914-18 and 1939-45 is ruled out under present conditions, there will be constant small wars all the time which under modern conditions are frightful enough. Iraq was a small war. Syria was a small war. The civil war in the Congo cost the lives of at least five million people and did not even make the front pages of the newspapers. This kind of thing will occur again an again. Meanwhile, the spread of terrorism means that this barbarism is beginning to affect 「civilised」 Europe. This is what Lenin meant when he said that capitalism is horror without end.
America and Europe
The people who really control the EU are the bankers, bureaucrats and capitalists, and particularly German capitalism. Originally the EU was dominated by France and Germany. The French bourgeoisie had big ideas that they could dominate it politically and militarily and Germany could dominate it economically. That didn't last very long. Nobody now doubts that it is the German ruling class that dominates it completely.
As a result it has immediately come into conflict with the new man in the White House. Donald Trump and Angela Merkel are not on good terms. The reason is not to be found in their personal attributes – although these are very different. It is rather to be found in Mr. Trump's electoral slogan 「Make America Great Again.」
For the moment the German capitalists are doing rather well, with a huge trade surplus. In 2016, it was in the region of $270bn: an all-time record high. It is not necessary to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics to know that one country's surplus is another's deficit. Trump can at least add up and is not at all happy with this figure. And since diplomacy is not really his strong point, he has said so publicly to Merkel.
Trump and Merkel Image Socialist AppealImage: Socialist Appeal
Trump says: 「If the Germans don't do something, I will cut the import of German cars into the U.S.」 Now, this is very dangerous talk. If he continues down that road, that is a recipe for a trade war. The Germans would immediately retaliate, blocking certain American goods. Protectionism is the export of unemployment. Trump says he wants more jobs in America for Americans, which means fewer jobs for Germans, Chinese and others. That is the root cause of the antagonism between Washington and Berlin.
Trump went to Poland, where he met with an enthusiastic response. The choice of this visit was not at all accidental. Relations between Poland and Germany have been strained for a number of reasons, particularly over the question of imposing quotas for refugees. In fact, the fault lines in Europe are deepening all the time. The problem with Europe is that that the European countries don't agree on anything very much these days. That is why Mr. Trump went to Poland: to deepen the cracks between Germany and its eastern neighbour.
His next stop was Paris, and that was also not accidental. Trump wants to drive a wedge between France and Germany. For his part, Macron was pleased to receive him to encourage the Americans to put pressure on the Germans, who already have enough on their plate with the negotiations over Brexit. That explains why Trump is so keen to express his solidarity with London, holding out the tempting prospect of a trade deal, sometime in the future – which may, or (very likely) may not, materialise.
Europe
The bourgeois economists are empirical and impressionistic. They detect a very slight growth in Europe – just over one percent (rather more in Germany) and they joyfully proclaim that the euro crisis is resolved. But the euro crisis is not resolved. In reality the crisis of European capitalism continues to deepen. In spite of the small upturn, the underlying fundamental problems remain. Nothing has been solved.
The economic experts of the IMF are publishing alarming reports about the state of the banks in Europe. The ECB has ploughed in billions, but as a result, when the next crisis comes, as it will as night follows day, it may lead to the collapse of the euro and possibly even threaten the unity of the EU itself. On 3 June 2017 The Economist stated: 「The currency changed from an instrument for convergence between countries to a wedge driving them apart.」 These few words show how the intelligent bourgeois are grasping what the Marxists said long ago.
Added to the already unstable situation within the EU is the refugee crisis. The imperialist meddling in the Middle East and North Africa has opened the gates to a flood of humanity desperate to escape the living hell it has been plunged into. This is putting enormous pressure on the EU member states, especially those most exposed to the daily arrival of new refugees and migrants.
War on migrants Image public domainImage: public domain
Europe is thoroughly divided on this issue. Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are refusing to take any refugees. The problem is further exacerbated by the internal migration from the poorer EU countries to the richer ones, which in turn is provoking tensions even in a country like Germany, where the right wing is riding on the refugee question to win a section of the electorate.
This is in complete contrast to the situation after 1945, when Germany absorbed a far bigger influx of refugees from Eastern Europe. That was in a situation of world capitalist upswing. But in a situation of deep economic crisis and the stagnation of the productive forces, the influx of refugees only serves to create new contradictions that cannot be solved on the basis of capitalism. This is yet another factor of instability, increasing the centrifugal tendencies within the EU.
Brexit
The tendencies towards the breakup of the EU also expressed themselves dramatically in Brexit. The vote in the referendum was yet another example of the mood of anger and bitterness that exists everywhere beneath the surface. The result was a political earthquake.
The bourgeois commentators were stunned when the 「Leave」 vote won. And those who were most shocked were the advocates of Brexit themselves. They never imagined they could win, and therefore had no plan and no strategy. Even now they do not appear to have the slightest idea what they are doing. The decisive sections of the British bourgeoisie did not want to leave the EU, but were forced to accept the result of the referendum, which will be disastrous for British capitalism and will also cause serious problems for the EU itself.
Brexit paralysis 1 Image Socialist AppealImage: Socialist Appeal
Brexit has created very serious problems in Ireland. The border between the independent south and the north, which is part of the UK, was made practically irrelevant in recent years. If the border is reintroduced when Britain leaves the EU it would have a devastating economic impact on both the south and the north. As a result the whole Irish national question could be revived with the most serious implications. The politicians are struggling to reach some kind of a deal over this complicated question. Whether the end result will be sufficient to square the circle remains to be seen.
The British imagined they would have an easy ride. But that was never going to be the case. Even if Merkel wanted to be nice to the Brits (which is not at all clear), she cannot do London any favours because that would encourage others to follow its example and leave. To complicate things further, Merkel suffered a defeat in the elections and has the nationalist and anti-EU Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) breathing down her neck. All the fine talk about 「European solidarity」 is instantly forgotten, as the national antagonisms come to the surface. The outcome will create big problems both for Britain and the EU.
Greece
In Capital Marx explains that during a boom, credit is easy but when there is a crisis all that changes into its opposite. The modern day Shylocks are demanding their pound of flesh from the Greeks. But there is no way that Greece can ever pay what Berlin and Brussels are demanding. All this has consequences. They are whipping up immense class hatred and polarisation in Greece and in all countries of Southern Europe.
After a decade of indescribable suffering, austerity, poverty and misery, what has been solved in Greece? The nation has been plunged into a desperate crisis. The young people have no work and are driven to emigrate, while the old are deprived of their pensions and driven to commit suicide.
Alexis Tsipras Image Пресс служба Президента РоссииImage: Пресс служба Президента России
Revolution is not a straight line, there will inevitably be ups and downs that we must be prepared for. After so many years of strikes, protests and demonstrations the Greek workers are exhausted and disappointed. They will say: 「Everyone betrays us. We trusted Pasok, but Pasok betrayed us. We trusted Tsipras, and he also betrayed us – What more can we do?」 In the next general election SYRIZA will do badly according to opinion polls, falling to around 20% or even less. The Communist Party may make some small gains, but will not be able to fill the vacuum left by SYRIZA due to its sectarian stance. By default the New Democracy stands to gain, not in terms of any significant swing towards it, but simply in percentage terms. This would mean a right-wing coalition centred on ND would come to power. This would be a weak unstable government, but it would be forced to continue and deepen the attacks on the working class without having any authority with the working class. In these conditions there would be a renewed radicalisation to the left.
The present moods will not last forever; they are of a transitory character. The depth of the crisis is such that the workers and the youth have no alternative but to return to the struggle. New and even more violent explosions are being prepared for the future.
France, the bankruptcy of Macron's 「Centre」
French capitalism was in crisis long before 2008. But last year's elections in France provided the European bourgeois with an apparent respite. They were terrified that Marine Le Pen would come to power, as Trump had done in the USA. Like Trump, Le Pen is a reactionary chauvinist. She is also hostile to the European Union, and that, especially following the Brexit debacle, provoked serious concern in Brussels and Berlin. What really terrified the French bourgeois was the sudden surge of Mélenchon in the polls, at the very end of the campaign, because he would have certainly won against Le Pen or even Fillon in the second round – and had some chances to win against Macron.
The rise of Mélenchon shows that there is a growing polarisation between left and right. Jean-Luc Mélenchon came close to beating Le Pen, and he could have done so except for the criminal stupidity of the so-called Trotskyists in France. If you add up the votes of these two small parties, they made the difference between Mélenchon or Le Pen standing in the second round.
A direct clash between Mélenchon versus Macron in the second round would have changed everything. But that was prevented by the splitting antics of the sects. It would have been entirely possible for them to begin a campaign with a revolutionary programme, and then withdraw in favour of a vote for Mélenchon. They didn't do that because they are typical sectarians who place the interests of their own petty sects before the general interests of the French working class.
Emmanuel Macron Image WEFImage: WEF
In the end Macron won, and the bourgeois breathed a sigh of relief. The extremes were defeated and Moderation had triumphed at last! The good news sped from Paris to Berlin, to Rome, even in London they were opening bottles of champagne in the City. The Centre had won, but what do these people mean by Centre? They mean the Right that disguises its true nature by posing as something that it is not.
Macron has risen to power on the basis of the disintegration of the two parties that traditionally had the majority of voters (the Socialists and Republicans). In these elections the Socialists were crushed and the Republicans also lost heavily and did not reach the second round of the Presidential election. The PS may end up like the Pasok in Greece. The right-wing Republicans are also in very bad shape: prominent leaders have left the party to join Macron's government (or party); the others are split in different fractions.
The Communist Party has been compromised by its links to the discredited Socialists and is now a marginal element in French politics. On the other hand, the Front National, despite its electoral defeat, won 1.3 million more votes than in 2012. But La France Insoumise, the party of Mélenchon, won 3 million votes and is now, together with the unions, the main opposition to Macron's policies. In an opinion poll in October, 35% put La France Insoumise as the main opposition party, 13% pointed to the Front National and only 2% to the PS and the CP! Mélenchon's party is now the main opposition both in parliament and on the streets.
france insoumise 23 sept lead MathieuMD wikicommonsImage: wikicommons
It is not true that Macron won by an absolute majority. The absolute majority – including those who cast blank votes or abstained – did not vote for Macron! And this 「silent majority」 will not be silent for long. In fact, it did not take long for Macron to expose himself, since he immediately confirmed his intention to change the labour law to make it easier to sack workers.
Marx said that France was the country where the class struggle is always fought to the finish. The truth of that statement will soon be clear to everybody. We will see big demonstrations, strikes and general strikes. A repetition of 1968 is not at all ruled out: in fact, it is implicit in the situation.
Italy
Greece was the weakest link of European capitalism. Spain is only one step behind Greece. Italy is only one step behind Spain. And France is one step behind Italy. The Italian economy has been stagnating since the hard economic blow of 2008. Consequently scores of small and medium businesses have gone insolvent leaving them unable to pay back their debts.
The European banking system is in a disastrous state. It is weighed down with debt, and is only being propped up by the European Central Bank (ECB). That cannot continue indefinitely, since the ECB is being underwritten by the Germans. And they are not prepared to finance the deficits of the countries of southern Europe through their contributions to the ECB.
In Italy, there has been a major banking crisis. The fact is that the Italian banks are mainly bankrupt. According to EU rules governments are not allowed to bail out banks, but Italy was an exception. If the Italian banking system collapses it could bring down the whole European financial system. But the illegal bailouts solved nothing fundamental. Italy is in a deep crisis – not just economically and financially but politically.
Italian elections 1 Image Socialist AppealImage: Socialist Appeal
There is a collapse of confidence in political parties. This was revealed clearly in the December 2016 referendum on constitutional reform where Renzi was massively defeated. The problem of the Italian bourgeois is that they do not have a strong government. But how can they get a strong government when they don't even have a strong party? They used to have the Christian Democracy, but that is finished. Berlusconi's Forza Italia is also weakened. And the Democratic Party, a bourgeois party formed from fusing a section of the old Communist Party with what was left of the Christian Democracy and other small bourgeois organisations, is in decline.
There is a process of complete fragmentation of the so-called Left which, put together don't even reach seven percent in the opinion polls. In the past the Italian ruling class could rely on the PCI leaders to hold back the working class. But as a result of decades of Stalinist degeneration and numerous betrayals of the working class, the once all-powerful Communist Party has been totally liquidated.
In this vacuum we have seen the rise of Beppe Grillo and his Five Stars Movement. This is a protest movement, mainly petit-bourgeois in composition, with a confused mishmash of policies – some of them reactionary in character. In fact, it is not a party at all, and doesn't have a structure. And its main programme is rejection of the euro. But given the absence of any alternative on the Left, it is attracting working class votes on the basis of their anti-establishment line, which can be summed up in the slogan: 「Kick them all out!」
Grillo's movement is an unstable and contradictory phenomenon, which is not likely to last. Its internal contradictions will soon come to the surface and it will rapidly enter into crisis. It is impossible to say at present how precisely the situation will unfold, but it is not a favourable situation for the Italian bourgeoisie.
The Italian working class, on the other hand, has extraordinary revolutionary traditions. The crisis of Italian capitalism will inevitably produce new and unprecedented explosions on the lines of May 1968 in France or the Hot Autumn in Italy in 1969. Once the big battalions begin to move, the entire situation will be rapidly transformed, with the emergence of new political formations of a very left-wing and radical character, as occurred in the years before and after 1969.
Spain
Despite a partial economic recovery, the crisis of the regime that started in 2008 is by no means resolved. The years of economic crisis, mass unemployment and attacks on living standards, combined with corruption scandals, have created a severe crisis of legitimacy of the whole of the Spanish bourgeois democratic regime. The long cycle of mass mobilisations in 2011-2015 eventually found a political expression with the emergence and rise of Podemos, which in the 2016 general elections won 21% of the vote.
The right-wing PP government is extremely fragile and must rely on the Basque nationalists for a majority in Congress. It has been undermined by corruption scandals. If the Left had united to overthrow it, it would have been finished. But the leaders of both Podemos and the United Left (Izquierda Unida) have revealed a complete inability to offer a serious alternative, while Pedro Sánchez the 「left」 leader of the PSOE has openly gone over to the side of reactionary Spanish nationalism. Now, after the result of the 21 December Catalan elections, where Ciudadanos emerged as the first party, the Spanish ruling class is increasingly promoting and supporting this new right wing party, which is as reactionary as the PP, but which appears with new leaders and without the dead weight of corruption and the anti social programs which the PP has accumulated.
Rajoy Image fair useImage: fair use
The Catalan question has served as a catalyst that has revealed deep fault lines in Spanish politics. All the parties of the Left are now divided and in crisis. The right wing is stoking the fires of reactionary anti-Catalan feelings and Spanish nationalism to mobilise the most backward layers of the population and the Left has no answer. As a result, despite everything, it cannot be ruled out that Ciudadanos and the PP may win the next elections.
This is the price the Spanish Left has to pay for the betrayals of the leaders of the PCE and PSOE four decades ago when they agreed to the reactionary 1978 Constitution that signified the retention of the old Franco state, together with the Monarchy, the domination of the Roman Catholic Church and the maintenance of the old repressive state apparatus, which they varnished with a thin layer of 「democracy」.
The brutal nature of the Spanish state was revealed by the vicious repression of people in Catalonia whose only 「crime」 was their desire to vote for their own future. Now all the old demons are reappearing. Spanish society is as deeply divided as it was 40 years ago. The youth and the most advanced layers of the working class understand the reactionary nature of the 1978 Constitution and are prepared to fight against it.
Today the masses have shown their combative spirit on the streets of Barcelona. Tomorrow it will be the turn of the workers and youth of Euskadi, Asturias, Seville and Madrid. There will inevitably be defeats and setbacks as a consequence of the short-sightedness, stupidity and cowardice of the leadership. But the workers and youth of Spain, who have repeatedly displayed their willingness to fight in recent years, will learn new lessons.
There were many defeats in the past also, like the two black years that followed the defeat of the 1934 Asturian Commune. But the defeats we are talking about today are not at all comparable to that defeat. Today the forces of the working class remain intact, while the mass basis of reaction is infinitely weaker than it was then: there is no Moorish Legion, no reactionary Carlist peasantry, and the students who joined the Falange in droves then are now solidly behind the working class and the Left.
Finally, in a revolutionary period, such defeats can only be the prelude to new upheavals. In action, on the streets, in the factories and on the campuses, they will rediscover the revolutionary traditions of 1931-37 and of the marvellous struggle against the Franco dictatorship. Spain in the next period will once again find itself in the forefront of the revolutionary struggles in Europe.
Catalonia
The attempt of Catalonia to exercise the right of self-determination has been the most serious challenge ever to the 1978 regime. There are different elements to the equation. First of all, the backward and reactionary Spanish ruling class and its state, inherited wholesale from the Franco era. They consider any attempt to question the unity of Spain as a challenge to their whole regime which would then pose other questions (the Monarchy, austerity, etc). Therefore they were prepared to use all means at their disposal to smash the attempt to hold a referendum: police repression, seizing of ballot boxes, sealing off of polling stations, the sacking of the Catalan government and the arrest of its members, etc.
On the other hand, the Catalan government, made up by bourgeois and petty bourgeois nationalists, had lost the support of the Catalan bourgeoisie (the bankers and capitalists), which is opposed to independence. These nationalist politicians considered the independence referendum at worst as a way to exert pressure and extract concessions from the government in Madrid or at best, as a way to exert pressure on and force the EU to intervene and push the Spanish government to organise a mutually agreed referendum. In the case of the bourgeois nationalist PDeCAT (formerly CDC), which was completely discredited by its right-wing austerity policies, repression and corruption scandals, there was also a cynical calculation of using independence as a way to reinvent itself and stay in power. These parties were not prepared to use the revolutionary means that are required in Spain to exercise the right of self-determination.
Catalan independence demo 1 Image Jordi Joan FabregaImage: Jordi Joan Fabrega
They were forced to go further than they intended by the irruption of the masses in the movement, a third factor that they had not taken into account. On September 20 (when 40,000 rallied against Civil Guard searches in Catalan government buildings), October 1 (when hundreds of thousands organised to ensure the referendum took place and 2 million voted) and October 3 (when millions participated in a protest general strike against brutal police repression) the masses entered the scene in a forceful way and started to become aware of their own power. That put the Catalan government in an impossible situation: they were forced to declare the Republic, but they were not prepared to use the necessary methods to defend it: mass mobilisations in the streets, the occupation of official buildings, a general strike, resistance against the Spanish police. In other words, what was needed was a revolutionary uprising. That is what explains their vacillations, wavering and indecisiveness after the referendum, the "suspended" proclamation of the republic on October 10, the constant appeals for negotiation, the near betrayal of the movement on October 25 and the meek proclamation of the Catalan Republic on October 27, after which they fled the scene.
Meanwhile, the masses which participated in the movement (a section of the working class, the youth above all, and the middle-class and petty-bourgeois layers which are the backbone of this democratic movement) have become increasingly critical of their own leaders. The emergence of the Committees for the Defence of the Republic and the role they played in the November 8 general strike show the way forward. A Catalan Republic is a basic democratic demand that challenges the whole edifice of the Spanish regime. Marxists support the struggle for a Catalan Republic but we have the duty to explain that it can only be achieved by revolutionary means. That requires the current leadership to be replaced by one which is firmly based on the working class. Furthermore, the Spanish-speaking workers in Catalonia need to be won over, which can only happen if the struggle for a Republic is linked to the struggle for jobs, housing, against austerity, and is also seen as part of a wider struggle across Spain against the 1978 regime. The slogan which sums these ideas up is "For a Catalan Socialist Republic as a spark of the Iberian revolution".
Catalan protest Image CUP Sant MartíImage: CUP Sant Martí
The December 21 Catalan elections did not solve anything. In fact, they represent a defeat for the Spanish monarchist regime, as supporters of independence have renewed their majority in the regional parliament and are likely will take control of the Catalan government. In parliamentary terms we are back to a situation similar to that which existed on the eve of the 1 October referendum. With ebbs and flows, the democratic national movement will continue. The task of the Marxists is to intervene energetically and reach the most advanced layers of the youth already drawing revolutionary conclusions.
Britain: the Corbyn phenomenon
Not long ago Britain was one of the most stable countries in Europe. Now it is one of the most unstable countries, experiencing one shock after another. In Scotland the national question has receded somewhat as a result of Corbyn's surge, but it has not been resolved and can resurface with renewed force in the event of a new economic crisis. Beneath the surface of apparent tranquillity there was a seething anger, indignation and above all frustration, a burning desire to change the situation that lacked a clear point of reference.
The change in consciousness was eventually expressed in the extraordinary rise of Jeremy Corbyn. In 2015 Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party by an accident, but was immediately met with massive opposition from the Blairite wing of the party.
Corbyn Revolution Image Sophie J. BrownImage: Sophie J. Brown
Theresa May saw this and drew the logical conclusion. She called a snap election in June 2017, firmly convinced that she would get a big majority and crush the Labour Party. Labour's Blairite right wing were secretly hoping that Labour would suffer a humiliating defeat, which they saw as the only way to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, and they attempted to sabotage the campaign.
Everyone was predicting a conservative landslide. But instead it was a crushing defeat for the Conservatives, the media and Labour's treacherous right wing.
Once the campaign started, Jeremy Corbyn held enthusiastic mass meetings, mainly of the youth. Corbyn came out with the most left-wing programme Labour has had for decades and he immediately connected with the mood of discontent in society. No one expected this political earthquake.
Hundreds of thousands of people, mainly youth, joined the Labour Party. The membership was 180,000 before Corbyn became leader. Now it is 570,000, making Labour the biggest party in Europe. Everybody could see that the real victor in those elections was Jeremy Corbyn. He enjoys colossal support at grassroots level.
Corbyn Glastonbury Image Raph PHImage: Raph PH
The right wing was decisively defeated at the September 2017 Labour Party conference, which showed that the left has won the majority in the party branches. Despite this, the MPs, the councillors and in particular the full-time apparatus remain under the control of the right wing. The ruling class and its agents will not easily surrender control of the Labour Party, but for the present they are compelled to abandon the attempt to get rid of Corbyn and adopt a waiting tactic.
This subterranean mood of revolt is looking for an expression. In Britain it found one in Corbyn, and it is necessary for the British Marxists to orient their forces to this movement. But while supporting Corbyn against the right wing it is necessary, in a positive and friendly manner, to patiently explain the limitations of Corbyn's programme and the need for a thoroughgoing revolutionary programme for the socialist transformation of society.
It is likely that Labour will win the next election and Corbyn will form a government. Any attempt to implement the reforms included in his program will be met with fierce resistance from the ruling class and the active sabotage of the Blairite fifth column, as well as attempts to tame the more radical parts of his program. A section of the ruling class is playing with the idea of a realignment in British politics, in which a new centre formation or coalition would be created with the participation of the 「left」 of the Conservative party and the right wing of the Labour Party. This is not an immediate perspective, but it could be implemented as a way of bringing down a Corbyn-led Labour government. In a period of political polarisation and economic crisis, however, a centre party or coalition would have very little basis. The experience in government and a possible split in the party would prepare the grounds for a further radicalisation of the ranks of the LP.
Russia
The upheavals in Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimea had a significant impact on the whole political spectrum in Russia. But the nationalist euphoria in 2014, when Putin's index of popularity exceeded 84%, has gradually dissipated. The fall in oil prices and (to a lesser extent) Western sanctions led to a fall in the ruble exchange rate and a 13% rate of inflation in 2015.
The high refinancing rate of the Central Bank (the interest rate paid by banks when borrowing money from the Central Bank), together with the economic sanctions imposed by the West has had its most serious impact in the financial sector, which led to the bankruptcy of dozens of banks. Faced with this situation the government used financial reserves to support the biggest financial and industrial groups with close links to the state, leading to a further concentration of capital.
On the other hand, the government used administrative measures to combat unemployment, in fact, forbidding mass layoffs. To reduce the budget deficit, a number of very effective measures were introduced, aimed at reducing corruption and tax evasion. This blow was aimed mainly at the middle and petty bourgeoisie, in particular small family businesses such as the owners of lorries and delivery vans.
In addition to purely economic reasons, Putin reacted in this way to moods of protest in the middle strata in the big cities where he is least popular. Here, Putin acts on the principle 「to my friends everything is permitted – to my enemies, the full force of the law.」
At the same time, a reform of the higher education system was implemented, which worsened the position of the mass of teachers and lecturers, whom Putin deemed disloyal. In this way, Putin was able to maintain a high level of support both in his own layer and among pensioners and low-paid workers at the expense of the middle layers of the big cities. The discontent of the latter found its political expression through a bourgeois demagogue, Alexei Navalny.
Putin Image Russian Presidential Press and Information OfficeImage: Russian Presidential Press and Information Office
After 2014, all parliamentary parties, including the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), adopted a position of complete support for Putin and his government, voting in the Duma for every bill proposed by the government. Of course this does nothing to increase their popularity. For almost ten years, the CPRF has been in constant crisis. There has been a permanent witch hunt in which people were expelled from the party on trumped-up charges of "Trotskyism" – although all of them were loyal supporters of Zyuganov.
The membership of the Communist Party in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other large cities fell by two-thirds. This left a vacuum in the opposition to Putin which was successfully occupied by Navalny. He is a typical demagogue, presenting himself as 「a man of the people」, slavishly copying the American tradition. But he stands out sharply in contrast to other oppositionists. The basis of his campaigning is the use of social networks and especially YouTube, where he puts out his videos about corruption in the higher echelons of power.
Navalny himself has been deprived of the right to take part in the presidential election because of two convictions on charges of corruption. Periodically Navalny calls his supporters onto the streets. The scale of these mobilisations across the country is approximately 100,000 people dispersed across major cities. Most of them are young people, who are attracted by Navalny's apparent determination and his skillful use of social media.
Over the past year, Putin has managed to curb inflation and, in general, overcome the crisis – at least temporarily. However, with the current level of oil prices, Russia's budget deficit remains high and in 2-5 years the reserve funds will inevitably run out, while Russia's opportunities for external borrowing are now minimal. If the price of oil stays low for three or four more years, the whole situation will change into its opposite.
When that moment comes, Putin (who will obviously be re-elected president) will face a serious problem. The government will no longer be able to solve the budget deficit without making deep cuts in public spending. At that point his popularity will evaporate completely. That is why Putin is using every opportunity to tighten his control over the internet, and impose restrictions on freedom of speech and other democratic rights.
But for the time being Putin still has room for manoeuvre. He can avoid slashing public spending or making drastic attacks on living standards. That is the main reason why the opposition has not met with any great success in mobilizing proletarian elements.
At this stage, those who participate openly on the streets are mainly middle class and petty bourgeois. Although Navalny has advocated an increase in the minimum wage, he has not had any success in establishing a link with social problems. There is a limit to how far the opposition to Putin can succeed on the basis of democratic demands and denunciation of corruption.
Nevertheless, many young people have rallied to the opposition, especially school and university students. They have taken to the streets in significant numbers. This is an important symptomatic development. The history of Russia shows that the awakening of the student youth is a sure anticipation of a big future movement of the working class. 「The wind always blows through the tops of the trees first.」
Eastern Europe and the Balkans
The rise in Eastern Europe of right-wing nationalism and anti-immigration rhetoric is an attempt on the part of the governments of the region to divert the growing malaise caused by the low standards of living and the toll imposed by the capitalist crisis on the mass of the population, in a situation where the working class has not yet decisively entered the scene.
Higher rates of GDP growth (relative to those of Western European countries) mask the reality of extreme capitalist exploitation of a skilled working class under a regime of low wages, imposed to maximise capitalist profits and foreign investment. A recent study of the European Trade Union Institute (「Why central and eastern Europe needs a pay rise」) shows that wage differentials between Western and Eastern Europe, which up until 2008 were slowly decreasing, have increased over the past decade.
IWWD in Poland Image own workImage: own work
As a consequence, there have been important signs of radicalisation of the youth, the first symptoms of which are the mobilisations against corruption in several countries, which reflect a growing rejection of the whole establishment. Key sections of the working class have also begun to go on the offensive on the industrial field – in many cases for the first time since the collapse of the Stalinist regimes – carrying out important strikes aimed at substantial wage increases and better working conditions.
In Slovakia, thousands of students demonstrated in April 2017 demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Robert Fico on corruption charges. This was followed in June by a massive strike of the 12,000 workers at the three VW plants in Bratislava, which won a 14% rise in wages. A 7% wage rise was also granted by KIA and Peugeot to avoid strikes, inspiring worries that the movement could spread.
Important movements have also taken place in opposition to reactionary measures. In Poland, the attacks by the right-wing government against what remains of abortion rights provoked the Black Protest movement of tens of thousands of women in October 2016, which forced the government to retreat.
In the former Yugoslavia the process of radicalisation is more advanced. A growing mood of rejection of the corrupt, reactionary bourgeois regimes on part of the youth and the working class was clearly expressed in the insurrectionary movement of February 2014 in Bosnia. Over the past year there have been significant strikes. The all-out strike of 2,400 workers of the FIAT plant in Kragujevac in July 2017 is just the most significant of a number of radical strikes in smaller factories and workplaces. Repeated strikes and protests were also carried out by the railway workers in Bosnia.
The youth protests against Vucic's victory in the Serbian presidential election of April 2017, while broadly dominated by petty-bourgeois illusions, have revealed a growing layer of youth open to revolutionary ideas. The potential for the Yugoslav Marxists was shown by the fact that they had leading roles in the protests in Novi Sad.
Latin America
The electoral debacle of Kirchner in Argentina, the defeat of the PSUV in the National Assembly elections in Venezuela, the defeat of Evo Morales in the referendum in Bolivia and the removal of Dilma in Brazil have plunged the reformists and 「progressive」 intellectuals on the continent into despair. They talk of a 「conservative wave」 and the advance of counter-revolution, without understanding any of the real processes involved.
For a period of 10 or 15 years, most of South America experienced a revolutionary wave, which affected different countries with different degrees of intensity. There was the election of Chavez in Venezuela in 1998 and the revolutionary events in the defeat of the coup in April 2002 and the struggle against the bosses' lockout in December 2002-January 2003, the Argentinazo in 2001, the uprising in Ecuador in 2000 which overthrew Mahuad, then the overthrow of Lucio Gutierrez in 2005, which led to the election of Correa in 2006. In Bolivia there was the Cochabamba 「water war」 in 1999-2000 and then the Gas War uprisings of October 2003 and June 2005, which led to the election of Evo Morales. In Peru there was the Arequipazo uprising in the south in 2002.
One might add to these the massive movement against election fraud in Mexico in 2006 and the Oaxaca commune of the same year, the huge and sustained movement of the Chilean students, the mass mobilisations in Honduras against the coup in 2009, even the election of Lula in Brazil in 2002, although of course not a revolutionary event in itself, all reflecting the yearning of the masses for fundamental change.
As a by-product of these huge movements of the workers (and in some countries the peasant masses) a number of governments came to power that were generally described as 「progressive」 or 「revolutionary」. Clearly they were different one from the other. While for instance Chavez, in a confused way, groped for and was pushed towards revolutionary change, Evo Morales, Correa and the Kirchners in Argentina were striving to reestablishing order after the entry of the masses into the scene, while Lula and Dilma were reformists in power carrying out a programme of counter-reforms. The Left in El Salvador has had almost no room for manoeuvre and is starting to roll back some of its modest reforms, generating disillusionment amongst the masses towards the FMLN. This mood is being capitalised, in the first instance, by the mayor of San Salvador, Nayib Bukele, who has been expelled from the party and has widespread sympathy amongst the youth.
However, all of these governments enjoyed a certain degree of stability for a prolonged period of time. This in part was the result of the strength of the movement of the masses, which the ruling class could not defeat in a direct confrontation (the coups in Venezuela 2002, Bolivia 2008 and Ecuador 2010 were defeated). Above all, they benefited from a period of high prices of raw materials and oil which allowed them to carry out some social programmes while avoiding a direct clash with the masses.
Driven by economic growth in China, prices of raw materials went up steadily between 2003 and 2010. Oil prices increased from $40 a barrel to over $100. Natural gas had been around $3/MMBtu and increased to between $8 and $18. Soybeans jumped from $4 to a peak of $17/bu. Zinc went from a low point of under $750/mt to a record high of $4,600, copper from under $0.60 per pound to $4.50 and tin from $3,700/mt to a peak of $33,000/mt.
This boom in the prices of commodities and sources of energy which gave these governments certain room for manoeuvre came to an end and brought the whole region into recession in 2014-15. This is the root economic cause for the electoral and other defeats of these governments which had always remained within the limits of capitalism.
Crowd celebrating anniversary of Cuban Revolution Image stttijnImage: stttijn
With the rise of the Venezuelan Revolution, Cuba had a certain economic respite. This has now come to an end. The Cuban economy is still based on the planned economy, but the reforms which have been introduced have opened a bigger space for capitalist economy, allowing small businesses as well as attempting to attract large scale private investment. The aim is to increase productivity by using capitalist methods without introducing any measures of workers' control. Even today many of the social conquests remain, but their scope is increasingly limited and its quality worsened. There is a growing social differentiation. This is very dangerous. This year there will be elections in which for the first time the president will not be one of the Castros nor anyone from the historic leadership of the revolution. We will see clashes and pressures by the capitalist right wing, internal and foreign, but also a reaction in the opposite direction on the part of those who have not benefited from these reforms and those who want to defend the socialist revolution.
Despite the pathetic moaning of the Latin American 「Left」, the removal of Kirchner in Argentina and Dilma in Brazil cannot be attributed to a 「shift to the right」. The coming to power of Temer and Macri has seen massive protest movements of the working class against the open policy of attacks carried out by the right wing. What is opening up in Latin America is not a period of social peace and capitalist stabilisation, but rather one of sharpening contradictions and increased class struggle. This has been proven with the insurrectionary movement in Honduras, after the 2017 election. Before, in Guatemala, in 2015, an inter-bourgeois conflict opened the way for a mass mobilisation of the youth, the peasant organisations and the working class. That process has not finished yet. In 2017 we saw a general strike demanding the resignation of president Jimmy Morales and 107 members of parliament. Other countries will follow the same road, like Mexico which will hold presidential elections this year, an event which the masses will use to express that they are sick and tired of capitalist barbarism.
Venezuela
The attempt of the Venezuelan oligarchy, with the backing of imperialism, to overthrow the Maduro government seems to have been defeated for now. The mistakes and vacillations of the opposition leadership, as well as the reaction of the masses, who came out in force during the Constituent Assembly elections in July 2017, put a temporary end to the opposition's offensive in the first half of the year. But that does not change anything fundamental in terms of the economic crisis, or the policies of the government.
Angel Prado a Bolivarian candidate who ran against the PSUV in the municipal elections Image Green LeftImage: Green Left
Venezuela remains mired in a deep recession, with hyperinflation and rapidly diminishing foreign currency reserves, and this is having a very negative impact on the living standards of the masses. Imperialism continues to tighten the noose with financial sanctions. The government continues a policy of making concessions to the capitalists and negotiating with the political representatives of the opposition. Their only aim is to remain in power. The temporary defeat of the opposition's offensive has opened up the window for a sharpening of the internal differentiation within the Bolivarian movement. There have been workers' demonstrations and the emergence of left-wing candidates to rival the official ones in the municipal elections.
Our position is clear: we oppose the overthrow of the Maduro government by the opposition as that would be a disaster for the masses. At the same time we cannot support the policies of the government, which lead directly to disaster and defeat for the Bolivarian revolution.
There is a growing mood of criticism towards the Bolivarian leadership, which cannot have the same authority as Hugo Chavez. The decision of Eduardo Saman, a former minister who stood out as a champion of workers' control and an opponent of big business and capitalist multinationals, to stand as a candidate in the municipal elections of December 2017 was a clear indication of this changed mood.
Although it was always clear that the bureaucracy was determined to sabotage Saman's campaign, it was nevertheless a turning point that opens up new possibilities for the Marxist tendency in Venezuela.
India and Pakistan
Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 on the basis of a widespread disillusionment with the Congress party, both by the working masses and by a layer of the bourgeoisie itself. But he has not been able to satisfy any of the forces that brought him to power. His demonetisation drive and the Goods and Services Tax reform were meant to facilitate business, but instead they have added to the weakening of the economy, which fell from above 9% growth rates to less than 7% in 2017.
The brief period of high growth between 2014-2016 has now given way to a sharp slowdown. Even during the period of faster growth unemployment actually increased and Modi launched a whole series of attacks on the workers' movement. The result has been a rise in class struggle. Students, peasants and workers have all taken to the streets. In September 2016 more than 180 million workers came out on strike that is around 50% more than during a similar general strike called a year earlier.
In Kashmir too, the masses took to the streets in a movement that shook the government, which only managed to temporarily subdue the movement by using heavy repression. Nevertheless, the movement had a certain influence in the rest of the country, in particular amongst the student youth.
Modi 2018 Image WEFImage: WEF
Modi has been trying to divert attention away from these developments by whipping up Hindu sectarianism, but this can only work for a limited period. At a certain point it will be cut across by the rising working class.
The events in Pakistan and India are closely linked. The Indian and Pakistani ruling classes have a common interest in maintaining a state of conflict between the two countries in order to divert the attention of the masses. But the position of the Pakistani ruling class is increasingly weak.
As the US is withdrawing its aid to the regime, China is stepping in. The Chinese have a special interest in Pakistan as an ally and buffer against India, as well as a hub for Chinese naval and maritime operations in the Indian Ocean. However, Chinese investments are not creating jobs or solving the contradictions in society.
The national question is becoming increasingly poisonous and in places such as Baluchistan, the Chinese presence is exacerbating sectarianism, which is merely a cover for a bloody proxy war between antagonistic external powers (America, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran...). Every day the reactionary policies of the ruling class are being exposed in the eyes of the masses, who have nothing but contempt left for the rotten elite that rules and plunders the country.
In the past the PPP leaders played a role in channelling the anger of the masses, leaning on the tradition of struggle in the late 1960s under Ali Bhutto. But after long periods in government carrying out austerity, the PPP is mired in corruption and largely discredited. This allowed Sharif's Muslim League to make a comeback. Now Sharif is also exposed in the eyes of the masses as a corrupt bourgeois politician who has nothing to offer them.
There has been a growing mood of rejection of all the politicians, who are seen as self-serving anti-working class and anti-poor gangsters. In the past the army would have taken power by now, but the army itself is split and demoralised. The generals are reluctant to accept responsibility for clearing up the mess. It is in this context that we see the beginnings of struggles of the workers and youth.
Africa
In South Africa, many years of rising class struggle have shattered the tripartite alliance (ANC-CPSA-COSATU). The strike movements and the movement of the youth in the universities led to the rise of the Economic Freedom Fighters and the new trade union federation led by NUMSA. Although the movement has temporarily subsided, the regime has been seriously affected by all these upheavals.
Economic crisis, mass anger, the open looting of state resources by the upstart black elite around Zuma and the Gupta family, is destabilising the situation and undermining the authority of the ANC. The big bourgeoisie, which collaborated with Mandela to stabilise the situation after the revolutionary events of the 1980s and 1990s, has come into conflict with the nouveau riche layer and the ruling clique around Zuma.
Zuma 2018 Image WEFAImage: WEFA
On the other hand, the ruling class cannot afford to discard the ANC because it does not have an alternative party to stabilise the situation. Aware of this, the Zuma wing has been recklessly raising the stakes in a dangerous game. This open split between the two camps and the potential split within the ANC could have revolutionary consequences for Africa's most advanced economy.
In Nigeria, after the tremendous upsurge in class struggle in January 2012, the main pillar of bourgeois rule, the PDP, stood discredited in the eyes of the masses. That is why they hurriedly cobbled together a new party, the APC – in reality a fusion of smaller parties – and put at its head Buhari, whom they considered a good candidate to garner support among the mass of the population and cut across the growing radicalisation.
This manoeuvre was possible because the leaders of the NLC, the main trade union federation, instead of building on the 2012 movement, spent all their authority in reining in that movement, while at the same time refusing to promote an independent party of the working class. It is in this vacuum left by the labour leaders that Buhari could step in. But in spite of all this, none of the burning problems facing the Nigerian masses have been solved. This was recently expressed in the agitation for a Biafran Republic in the south east. Although crushed by the military, it reveals the underlying tensions in Nigerian society. And once the last remnants of illusions in Buhari finally dissipate, we will see a resurgence of the class struggle on an even bigger scale than in 2012.
In West and Central Africa, mass movements against the corrupt and exploitative local bourgeoisies in several countries have increased sharply over the past period. These were enormous movements that stretched over long periods of time and mobilised millions of peoples. The masses closely followed the heroic uprising in Burkina Faso, while the fragile economies of these countries are being hit particularly hard by the global economic crisis. The attacks by the weakening regimes on democratic rights, more recently in Togo and the DRC, served as the straw that broke the camel's back. In particular, the mass of young people equate their general oppression with the decades old governments. The widespread misery in the region, as well as the treacherous role of the bourgeois opposition leaders – whose sole interest is to replace the regime heads – confirm both the correctness of the theory of the permanent revolution and the need to build an international revolutionary organization. Because of lack of a fighting leadership, after a huge upsurge of mass mobilisations, the movements receded. The only conclusion that the masses can draw from all this is that they can have no trust in the old leadership. Marxist theory and revolutionary organization is what is required to break the logjam.
Pessimism of the bourgeois
The hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution provided the strategists of Capital with an opportunity to reflect on history – and worry about the future. On August 15th, 2017 Martin Sandbu wrote in the Financial Times:
「Two anniversaries we mark this year – the centenary of the Russian Revolution and the decade since the start of the global financial crisis – have more in common than is apparent at first sight.
「The global financial crisis […] shook to its foundations the model that had emerged victorious from the cold war.
「The stultifying communism that the Soviet bloc had evolved to by the 1980s collapsed under the weight of its own economic and political contradictions. The political turmoil of the last year demonstrates that we are now watching to see whether open market economies will suffer the same fate.」 (Our emphasis)
He continues:
「Friedrich von Hayek's insight that flexible market prices contain more information than any planning mechanism can hope to gather centrally; and that dispersed decision-making therefore acts more efficiently than state authorities can do. […]
「Yet it had a rude awakening in the global financial crisis, which undermined any claim of western financial capitalism to being the best way to organise an economy.」
And he concludes:
「What happened 10 years ago this month was the horrifying realisation that financial claims accumulated over the previous boom years did not add up, that the future economic production which they were claims on was insufficient for them all to be honoured in full.
「[…] market liberalism, in its turn, betrayed the dream it had promised. Western economies are today far poorer than the trend before the crash predicted. The crisis and its aftermath have left the young, in particular, with little reason to hope for the same opportunities to prosper as their parents and grandparents.
「[…] a social system can survive disillusion for a long time. […] But when people can no longer count on their livelihoods, support snaps.」
Some of the more serious capitalist experts are beginning to understand that their recipes of the last 30 years are no longer working. In an article that appeared in the German paper Die Zeit under the title 「Neoliberalism is dead」 we are informed that even the IMF has admitted that their policies do not have the desired effect. But of course, they never draw all the necessary conclusions. [Source: Neoliberalism is dead, by Mark Schieritz, Die Zeit, June 2016)
Wolfgang Streek of the Max Planck Institute listed all the problems of capitalism in a long article published in New Left Review entitled, 「How will capitalism end?」 (May/June 2014), which in 2016 he expanded into a book. He says that there is a crisis of legitimacy of the capitalist system because it is no longer providing what it did in the past and people are therefore beginning to question the system. This explains the electoral volatility that can be observed in many countries. He also poses the question as to whether a 「democratic system」 can provide the policies that capitalism needs. What he means is whether they can impose on the working class what the bourgeois need.
In his article Streek states that capitalism 「will for the foreseeable future hang in limbo, dead or about to die in an overdose of itself, but still very much around, as nobody has the power to move its decaying body out of the way」. This is not a bad description of the state of present-day capitalism.
It is significant that Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, felt the need to answer Streek in an article with the interesting title 「The case against the collapse of capitalism.」 (FT 2 November 2016). How well the strategists of capital understand the sickness of their own system!
Lenin relevant 2018 Image public domainImage: public domain
Lenin explained that if it is not overthrown, the capitalist system will always recover from even the deepest crisis. Even in the 1930s there were periods of recovery. The bourgeois press has been talking about a recovery for the last seven years. In reality this is the weakest recovery in history and certain things flow from this.
Of course, the capitalist system still has important reserves and if the capitalists and bankers feel themselves threatened with losing everything, they will introduce Keynesian measures. But these reserves are not unlimited and they have been used up at an alarming rate in the last ten years. As a result, when the next crisis comes, as it inevitably will come, they will be in a far weaker position to mitigate its consequences than they were previously.
They constantly repeat that they have learned the lessons of 2008. But they also said they had learned the lessons of 1929. And as Hegel pointed out, anybody who studies history will have to conclude that nobody has ever learned anything from it.
In the final analysis, no matter what the bourgeois do, whether they adopt Keynesianism, monetarism, protections or anything else, they will be wrong. In the Middle Ages the priests used to say: all roads lead to Rome. Now we can use a slightly different variant: under capitalism, all roads lead to ruin.
Conclusion
Not so long ago it seemed that nothing much was happening in the world. A discussion of world perspectives would have to concentrate on one or two countries. But now the same revolutionary process is taking place to a greater or lesser intensity in every single country of the world without exception. What we are therefore discussing is a general process of worldwide revolution.
For Marxists, a discussion of economic perspectives is not an academic or abstract intellectual exercise. What is important is its effect for the class struggle and consciousness. But since consciousness always lags behind events, there was an inevitable delay between the beginning of the crisis and the intensification of the class struggle.
The bourgeoisie, always blindly empirical, were unable to see the explosive accumulation of subterranean discontent that was quietly gathering force. They were congratulating themselves that no revolution had taken place. Once they had recovered from the initial shock, for the bankers and capitalists it was 「business as usual」 Like a drunken man dancing on the edge of a precipice, they carried on with the merry carnival of money-making, which acquired an even more feverish pace while the conditions of the masses went from bad to worse.
Trotsky explained what he called the molecular process of revolution. In the History of the Russian Revolution he points out that, what determines the consciousness of the masses is not just the economic crisis, but rather the accumulation of discontent built up over the whole previous period. The discontent of the masses accumulates unnoticed until it finally reaches that critical point when quantity is transformed into quality.
Trotsky relevant 2018 Image public domainImage: public domain
Now, suddenly, the sense of relief of the ruling class has been replaced with pessimism and foreboding. There are social and political convulsions everywhere, accompanied by extreme instability on a world scale and violent alterations in world relations.
Even if the economy improves, it does not automatically register in the consciousness of the masses, which has been shaped by the memories of decades of stagnant or falling living standards. The very weak recovery in the USA signifies only a very relative improvement, confined to certain sectors. It does not affect the unemployed workers in the rustbelt. And everywhere else, it does not feel like a real recovery, and it has not restored any sense of confidence in the system or optimism in the future, but quite the opposite.
We see the same story reflected in the British referendum on EU membership. There are many reasons why the vote went in favour of Brexit. But a very important reason was revealed in the sharp regional differences between north and south. The bankers and speculators of the City of London did very well out of membership of the EU, which gave them privileged access to the lucrative financial markets of Europe. But membership has done nothing whatsoever for the poor areas of the north-east or Wales, which have suffered decades of deindustrialization, and the closure of the coal mines, steel plants and shipyards.
The growth of inequality
Everywhere there is a burning anger against grotesque levels of inequality, with obscene wealth of a tiny parasitic minority standing in sharp contrast to the growing poverty and despair at the bottom. The serious bourgeois are increasingly worried about this tendency because it is endangering the stability of the entire system. Everywhere there's a burning hatred of the rich. Many people ask: if the economy is doing so well, why are our living standards not improving? Why are they still cutting welfare, health and education? Why do the rich not pay taxes? And to these questions they find no answers.
The bourgeois are getting increasingly alarmed about the political consequences of the crisis. Far from feeling the benefits of the so called recovery, most working class people are worse off than they were before the crash. The McKinsey Global Institute found that 65-70% of 「income segments」 in advanced economies experienced either stagnation or a fall in their income between 2005 and 2014. Countries like Italy saw all income segments affected. (Poorer Than Their Parents, McKinsey Global Institute)
In the wealthiest and most powerful capitalist country that has ever existed there has been no real increase in living standards for nearly forty years. Indeed, for most Americans living standards have been falling. And this is no exception. In all countries, the present young generation is the first since 1945 that cannot expect a better standard of living than their parents.
Polarisation of wealth in the US continues unabated. From 2000-2010 profits went up by 80% and wages by 8%, while average family incomes actually went down by 5%. These figures show that the massive increases in profit were achieved at the cost of the working class. (The Economist, What about the workers? May 25th 2011)
The figures for pre-tax and disposable income understate the case. They do not take into consideration other factors such as increasing working hours and increasing casualization, whether due to zero hour contracts or temporary employment, and cuts to welfare services. These all add to the total pressure on working class families.
The crisis has its most painful and direct effects on young people. For the first time in many decades the new generation will not have the same living standards as their parents. This has serious political consequences. In all countries, the intolerable pressure on the youth finds its expression in a sharp increase in political radicalisation. On all questions the youth stands much further to the left than the rest of society. They are far more open to revolutionary ideas than other layers and are therefore our natural constituency.
Lessons of the collapse of Stalinism
In 1991 the collapse of the Soviet Union changed the course of history. At that time, the bourgeoisie and its echoes in the Labour movement, the reformists, were euphoric. They talked about the end of socialism, the end of communism, and even the end of history.
What Francis Fukuyama meant by his notorious aphorism was not that history as such had ended, but that the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that socialism was finished. It would therefore logically follow that the only system which could possibly exist was capitalism (the free market economy) and in that sense history had ended.
Fall of Berlin Wall Image public domainImage: public domain
What was astonishing about the fall of Stalinism was the speed with which the apparently powerful and monolithic regimes collapsed once they were challenged by mass movements in Eastern Europe. That was a reflection of the internal rottenness and decay of the regime. But the decay of senile capitalism is increasingly becoming clear to millions of people.
When the Berlin Wall fell Ted Grant predicted that seen in retrospect the fall of Stalinism would only be the first act of a worldwide drama which would be followed by an even more dramatic second act – the global crisis of capitalism. We now see the truth of this statement. Instead of universal prosperity there is poverty, unemployment, hunger and misery. Instead of peace there is war after war after war.
The same processes that suddenly caused the downfall of Stalinism can occur in capitalism. In one country after another we are witnessing sudden shocks that are testing the resilience of the system and exposing its weaknesses.
The institutions of bourgeois democracy, which were previously trusted blindly, are beginning to be discredited everywhere. People do not trust the politicians, the government, the judges, the police, the security services, even the Church: the whole system is coming under intense scrutiny and criticism.
A representative of WikiLeaks was asked on British TV: 「are you seriously suggesting that the intelligence services of the US are telling lies?」 He replied, 「why not? They always tell lies!」 This is what many people are now beginning to believe.
The mass organizations: the crisis of reformism
The crisis of capitalism is also the crisis of reformism. Everywhere the traditional parties of both the right and the left are in crises. Organizations that seemed to be solidly based and immutable are entering into crises, declining and even collapsing altogether. The reformist parties that have collaborated in governments that carried out deep cuts have been rejected by their traditional electorate.
To one degree or another, and at one pace or another, the same processes can be seen in practically every country in Europe. As in France, so too in the Netherlands, where the right-wing party of Geert Wilders was defeated in the elections. The bourgeois breathed a sigh of relief. But far more significant than the defeat of Wilders was the crushing debacle of the Dutch Labour Party, which was practically wiped out. The party lost 75% of its support.
The rise of the Workers' Party of Belgium is also a significant development. This ex-Maoist sect is now a left-reformist party, although it claims to be Marxist and Communist. In Wallonia, the French-speaking region, they are only just behind the Socialists. The same is true in Brussels. In the red belts they can get around 25% of the votes. But they are also beginning to grow in Flanders.
The masses are looking for and demanding a change. They need to find an organized political expression for this anger. Over the last period, the Greek masses have done everything in their power to fight to change society. There have been many mass strikes, general strikes and mass demonstrations. But here we come to the most important question: the subjective factor.
In their attempt to find a way out of the crisis, the masses turn first to one political option, they put it to the test, and then discard it and look for another. This explains the violent swings of public opinion to the left and the right. But they do not find what they are looking for. The people who ought to lead – the labour politicians, the social democrats, the so-called ex-communists, above all the trade union leaders – don't want to fight against austerity and for a serious change in society.
Trotsky explained that betrayal is implicit in reformism. By this he did not mean that all reformists betray the working class deliberately. There can be honest reformists as well as the corrupt careerists and bureaucrats who are the agents of the bourgeoisie within the workers' organizations. However, even honest left reformists have no perspective for a socialist transformation of society. They believe that it is possible to carry out the reforms that the workers require within the limits of capitalism. They regard themselves as supreme realists, but under conditions of capitalist crisis this 「realism」 stands exposed as the worst kind of utopianism.
The Pasok, which for decades was the mass party of the Greek working class, collapsed because of its betrayals and participation in governments of cuts. The workers turned to Syriza, which was previously a very small party. Alexis Tsipras became the most popular political leader in Greece. He held a referendum, asking 「Should we accept the cuts of Frau Merkel?」, and there was a massive response.
The people of Greece voted overwhelmingly to reject austerity: not just the workers but also the middle classes, the taxi drivers and small businessmen. At that moment Tsipras could have said, 「We are not going to pay one euro to these gangsters! Enough! We'll take the power into our own hands and appeal to the workers of Spain, Italy, Germany and Britain to follow our example. We must fight against the dictatorship of the bankers and capitalists: for a genuinely democratic socialist Europe.」
Had he done that, he would have received overwhelming support. People would have been dancing in the streets. And the Greek people would have been prepared to make sacrifices, big sacrifices if necessary, to back their leaders – on one condition: that they were convinced that they were fighting for a just cause and the sacrifices would be the same for all. Tsipras could lifted his finger and it would have been the end of capitalism in Greece. He could have expropriated the bankers, the shipping magnates and industrialists.
But Tsipras is not a Marxist. He is a reformist and therefore it did not enter into his head to base himself on the power of the masses. He surrendered to the blackmail of Berlin and Brussels and he signed a far worse deal than the one originally proposed, leading to a colossal demoralization and big drop in support for Syriza, although he is still there because there is no alternative.
The process also affected Spain, which is passing through a profound political crisis. Like the rise of Syriza in Greece, the rapid rise of PODEMOS was a clear reflection of massive discontent with the old parties and a burning desire for change. But the confused and vacillating policies of the leadership caused disappointment among its followers even before they had come to power. Pablo Iglesias' flirtation with Social Democracy led to a slump in the votes for Podemos and a sharp division among its leaders.
Pablo Iglesias Foto Flickr Parlamento EuropeoImage: Flickr, Parlamento Europeo
Now the leaders of Podemos are looking to their right – towards the PSOE, in the hope that some sort of deal can be struck to remove the hated Rajoy government. This has led them to a moderation of their language and they are under enormous pressure to appear more respectable and 「statesman-like」. This will further confuse and disorient their supporters.
The new leader of the Socialists, Pedro Sanchez, is the palest of pale reflections of Jeremy Corbyn and Mélenchon. Nevertheless, for having dared to pose the question of a coalition government with Podemos and the Catalan nationalists, the Spanish ruling class attempted to remove him. This was rejected by the ranks in the internal elections, which returned Pedro Sanchez as general secretary.
The above-mentioned cases are different variants of the same process. Everywhere the reformist and ex-Stalinist parties are in crisis. Some have experienced splits, while others have disappeared altogether (Italy is an extreme example of this, where both the old socialist and communist parties have vanished). We have also seen the emergence of new political formations, such as Syriza and Podemos.
Like the foam on the waves of the sea, these new formations are a reflection of deep and powerful currents beneath the surface. However, these new formations lack a stable base in the working class and the trade unions. As a result of this, and also their mainly petty bourgeois composition, they are inherently unstable and may collapse as quickly as they arose.
The example of Corbyn in Britain is so far an exception to the rule. As we have explained, this development was the result of an accident, but as Hegel explained, an accident that revealed a necessity. The strong side of the Corbyn movement is that it has provided the necessary focal point for the accumulated discontent of the masses, especially the youth. Its weak side will be revealed when the limited nature of the left reformist programme is put to the test in a Left Labour government.
This means that our tactics have to be flexible at all times, attuned to the concrete conditions and the level of consciousness of the working class and above all its most active and advanced layers. In all of these cases our approach must always be the same: critical support.
We will support the left reformists in the fight against the right wing, always pushing them to go further. But at the same time we must patiently explain to the advanced workers and youth the limitations of a programme that does not aim to overthrow capitalism but seeks only to reform it from within – a utopian policy which, irrespective of the good intentions of its advocates, under the conditions of capitalist crisis, can only lead to defeat and prepare the way for a swing to the right.
Radicalization of the youth
Political and social instability are sweeping like a hot wind from one European country to another. The changing consciousness was reflected in an opinion poll for the youth published in Quartz, April 28, 2017. It was part of a European Union-sponsored survey, titled "Generation what?" Around 580,000 respondents in 35 countries were asked the question: 「Would you actively participate in large-scale uprising against the generation in power if it happened in the next days or months?」 More than half of 18- to 34-year-olds said yes. The article concludes: 「Young Europeans are sick of the status quo in Europe. And they're ready to take to the streets to bring about change.」
Youth revolting Image own workImage: own work
The report went on to focus on respondents from 13 countries to better understand what young people are optimistic and frustrated about in Europe. Among these countries, young people in Greece were 「particularly interested in joining a large-scale uprising against their government, with 67% answering yes to the question.」 Respondents in Greece were also more likely to believe politicians were corrupt and to have negative perceptions of the country's financial sector.
Young people in Italy and Spain were next, with 65% and 63% willing to join a large-scale uprising, respectively. In France, a country that has revolution written into its DNA, 61% of the youth answered yes. But even in in the Netherlands, which has so far escaped the worst of the crisis, a third of young people agreed with the statement, rising to 37% in Germany and almost 40% in Austria.
During the election campaign, French teenagers held rallies in Rennes and other cities to protest against both presidential candidates. Some protesters blockaded schools, while others marched towards the city centre with placards that read 「Expel Marine Le Pen, not immigrants」 and 「We don't want Macron or Le Pen.」 The report notes that respondents from France complained of a number of negative developments—too much corruption, too many taxes, too many rich people—compared to the rest in the EU.
These figures indicate that a profound change is taking place. The report concludes: 「Voter apathy among the young has long been described as a worrying trend. In the UK, for example, youth turnout rates at general elections fell by 28 percentage points, from 66% in 1992 to 38% in 2005. But this declining electoral participation is not necessarily evidence of political apathy.」
The problem of leadership
Some superficial people have asked: 「if things are so bad, why has there not been a revolution?」 The ruling class was congratulating itself that this has not happened, since they initially feared the worst. And since the worst did not immediately materialise they breathed a sigh of relief and returned to the merry carnival of money-making, while everybody else has seen their living standards and future prospects crushed. In other words they behave like a man who is sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
In reality there is nothing surprising about the delay in the process of revolution. Over many decades the bankers and capitalists have built powerful defences for their system. They control the press, radio and television. They enjoy virtually limitless financial resources, which they use to buy the services of political parties – not only of the right but of the 「Left」, and also of many 「responsible」 trade union leaders. They can count on the support of university professors, lawyers, economists, bishops and the most privileged upper layers of the intelligentsia. And if all this fails, they can always resort to the policeman's truncheon, the judges and the prison system.
But there is another, far more powerful barrier to revolution. Human consciousness, contrary to what the idealists think, is not progressive and certainly not revolutionary. It is innately and profoundly conservative. Most people are scared of change. Under normal conditions they will cling to the familiar, to what they know: familiar ideas, parties, leaders, religions. This is quite natural and reflects an instinct for self-preservation. It goes back into the days when we lived in caves and feared the dark recesses where dangerous animals lurked.
There is something comforting in routine, habit and tradition, in treading the old, well-known paths. As a rule, people will only accept the idea of change on the basis of great events that shake society to its foundations, transforming consciousness and forcing people to see things as they really are. This does not occur gradually, but in an explosive way. And that is precisely what we see now taking place everywhere. Consciousness is beginning to catch up with a bang.
The most important question is the question of leadership. In 1914 the German army officers described the British army in France with the following phrase: 「Lions led by donkeys.」 And that's a very good description of the working class everywhere. The reformist leaders play a most pernicious role, clinging to the 「free market」 even when it is collapsing all around them.
The right-wing reformist leaders are completely corrupt. They abandoned all pretence to stand for socialism decades ago and become the most faithful servants of the bankers and capitalists. They willingly take upon their shoulders the responsibility for cuts in welfare spending and attacks on living standards in order to defend capitalism. But in so doing they discredit themselves in the eyes of the masses who earlier supported them.
There was a clear logic in this. In a period of capitalist upswing it was possible to make concessions to the working class, especially in the advanced capitalist countries of North America, Europe and Japan. But in a period of deep crisis the bourgeois say they can no longer afford reforms. On the contrary, they demand the liquidation of those reforms that were won since 1945. For the masses, reformism with reforms makes sense. But reformism without reforms, or rather, reformism with counter-reforms, makes no sense at all.
The long period of capitalist upswing that followed the end of the Second World War set the final seal on the degeneration of the Social Democracy. This degeneration has penetrated deep into its ranks. Most of the older activists in the Social Democratic parties and the trade unions have been demoralised by the previous period. They are disillusioned, disoriented and profoundly sceptical. They are completely out of touch with the real mood and they do not reflect the class.
This layer of activists never understood anything. They do not represent the present or the future but are only a reflection of the demoralization of past defeats. The situation is even worse with the ex-Stalinists, who have completely abandoned any socialist perspective or revolutionary class instinct they may once have possessed. Some of them may come back into activity when the class struggle rises. But mostly these and left-reformists and ex-Stalinists are so deeply impregnated with the spirit of scepticism that they are an obstacle in the path of the militant workers and the youth who are seeking the road of socialist revolution.
Our position as a revolutionary organization cannot be determined or influenced in any way by the prejudices of this layer. Our tactics are based on the real situation: the organic crisis of capitalism, which in turn is producing a new generation of class fighters, which will be far more revolutionary than the older generation ever was. We must base ourselves on the youth: both the students and school students and above all the working class youth who are cruelly exploited and are wide open to revolutionary ideas.
This is a period of sudden shocks and changes in the situation, which affect all countries without exception. The political centre is collapsing everywhere and this is a reflection of growing class polarization. Where there was previously political stability, there is growing instability. Elections lead to one shock after another: sharp swings to the right and left. Things that were not supposed to happen are now happening. Therefore, we must be prepared for big changes, which can happen quicker than we think. If the left disappoints the aspirations of the masses, there can be a move to the right, which in turn prepares bigger swings to the left.
IMT ideas Image FightbackImage: Fightback
We must follow the process as it unfolds. We must arm ourselves with revolutionary patience, since it is impossible to impose our own timetable upon events that must follow their own course according to their own speed. But we must also be prepared for sharp and sudden changes, which are implicit in the whole situation. Colossal events can come upon us far sooner than what we think. There is no room for complacency. We must build the forces of the IMT as quickly as possible. We must have a sense of urgency. We are on the right road. We must prove ourselves in action and in practice to be the true and worthy inheritors of the traditions of 1917, of Lenin and Trotsky, and the Bolshevik revolution.
We must have absolute confidence in our class, the working class, the only creative class, the class that creates all the wealth in society, and the only truly revolutionary class that holds the fate of humanity in its hands. We must have total confidence in the ideas of Marxism and, last but not least, we must have confidence in ourselves: absolute confidence that, armed with the ideas of Marxism, we will build the forces that are necessary to lead the struggle to change society, to put an end to this regime of cruelty, injustice, exploitation and slavery, and bring about the victory of socialism throughout the world.
個人積分：3210分
文章編號：70172602
Wu jill wrote:
這兩個工作的年薪，我查過都還不錯，加上我之前有過客服的相關經驗，相對的後面的工作薪水是比較高的 但是媽媽也62歲了 我跟朋友討論 大家意見都不太一樣 有些人說我太心狠 我媽年紀那麼大了 讓他自己一個人住我放心嗎 有些人建議我去國外工作個幾年回來至少也存了一筆錢 如果父母生病至少還有辦法處理 但是相對的國外工作一定會有風險， 所以小妹現在很徬徨希望各位大大可以提供一些意見讓我參考參考謝謝
文章有點長 不好意思
別讓愛成為綁架妳的繩索，去國外試試吧。照顧的問題是要有錢才能辦到的事。還有。照顧的責任不只有妳一個人的。在法律上或是情感上都是如此。
以前照顧父母也都是我自己一個人在擔負。我上頭還有個姐姐。也嫁人了。但是。法律上她依舊是有責任。並不是她嫁出去了就一點點責任也沒有。
為什麼？。試問。萬一父母有財產。嫁出去的就不能分了嗎？答案是都可以分。產財與負債處堙權是你們共有的。只不過妳們可以協商來達成共識。法律不強制你們一定誰來照顧。畢竟照顧者需要的是心意不是規定。
所以給你幾個建議。希望對妳會有幫助。
1：把妳跟父母的距離拉開。不是要妳不關心她們。但是為了之後可能需要的照顧費用。妳真的需要去賺錢。並成為有能力的經濟支柱。而距離是你目前最需要的。畢竟還年輕。這個世界妳也還沒有去闖過。父母不該成為妳舉足不前的因素。
2：竹十田田土新與兄弟姐妹們討論一下父母的問題。因為妳的決定可能為他們將要帶來責任。你自己的那份不會消失。而那份責任是需要大家一起討論的。不是妳說了算。也不是誰說了算。這個協商。
3：生命中。很多的愛與執着會變成束服。當然環境逼迫也是原因。所以。換個環境。給自己一點空間。對大家都好。還有工作。本身重要的不只是收入的大小。真的喜歡不喜歡。有沒有未來發展性也很重要。因為再過十年。妳若還是有現在同樣的困擾時。妳己不再年輕了。那時妳的選擇會更少了。怎麼辦呢？
4：環境決定觀念。綁在一個死局中，唯一能夠看到的。不是希望而是絕望。
母親跟妳討論也只是將她的恐懼傳染給妳。對妳的生命一點幫助也沒有。而妳至少還會思考下一步怎麼做才好。那麼妳就更應該先逃脫出來。重新思考妳要走的人生與方向。
5：人不可能不被講話。做任何決定都一樣。妳留在母親身邊就叫孝順了嗎？不會！對妳有意見的人會說：你怎麼都不去工作。還連累自己的母親？
好了。妳去工作了。丟母親在家。又會有人說：妳真不孝順。出去工作母親在家萬一跌倒了怎麼辦？
好吧！你請了看護好了。是不是又會有人說：哇！有錢了。還請看護耶？㺺在是了不起了就對了？再怎麼樣的看護也不是自己子女那麼有心來照顧的。
聽不完的。唯一只能不去理會他們先把自己顧好比較重要。有能力了。再回來照顧母親。他們同樣會說妳孝順。
我今年也遇到照竹土月金父親的問題。長年我照顧我沒有過怨言。但姐姐幾年才回來看父親一次。一回來就意見一堆堆。
最後我叫姐姐幫忙出點看護費。她立馬己讀不回。這就是人性。說人的時候很簡單。很大力。但要他們一起承擔。就算只有一小部份也會覺得與她們無關了。
而我不是要告訴妳他們有多可惡。我只是要告訴妳。是妳給了他們機會如此。不要先怪他們。要先問問妳自己。為什麼妳會認為妳可以把這個世界撐起來？
妳有比較高嗎？還是妳有超能力？
後來，我姐不太敢再對我照顧父親的過程有所意見。而我卻總是動不動就問她有沒有意見。
她若一有意見我就立馬把帳單或我的開銷傳給她。沒叫她付錢。只是給她看看。再囉嗦。我就叫窮。姐姐妳可以幫我出一點嗎？
嘿～她還不給真不行了。因為我是用求的。
日尸竹最後阿爸走了。我原本要負擔一切費用。並跟姐姐說。不要遵守什麼有的沒有的習俗。一切交由禮儀公司處理。錢我付完了。
但她又再一次的意見大爆發。
什麼不能坐着吃飯、什麼時候要做什麼。準備什麼。不能吃葷食。要做法會。什麼等級的法會都有規定。
我很心平氣和的問：姐姐妳確定要搞這麼嚴重？法會真的要做？
那妳要答應我兩件事。第一。妳做法會時人要到。妳家的孩子也全要到。
第二。我傳給妳的帳單如果有什麼問題不要跟我講。請直接跟禮儀公司討論。因為我很忙。
我一個人要張羅所有致喪事誼與聯絡。而且我還沉溺在父親往生的痛苦中。沒有心情跟妳討論這種小事。
後來，姐姐出了幾萬塊。姑姑們也不敢再多話了「背後怎麼罵我的我不知道」
但我的耳根子自此。真的清淨了。
這是我的故事。是我面對家人在照顧方面的經驗。而妳與我不同的是。妳還年輕。還在剛起步的時間點。父母也還有沒到了真的需要人照顧的時候。趕緊離開。出去打拼吧。有打拼還有機會。留在原地只有大家一起等浪費生命而己。
個人積分：922分
文章編號：70172803
