In the Communist socio-economic organisation, the relations of production would operate the mode of production and employ each worker according to his abilities, and benefit each worker according to his needs. Hence, each worker could direct his and her labour to productive work suitable to his and her innate abilities — rather than be forced into a narrowly defined, minimal-wage “job” meant to extract maximal profit from the labour of the individual worker, as determined by and dictated under the capitalist mode of production. In the classless, collectively-managed Communist society, the exchange of value between the objectified productive labour of one worker, and the consumption benefit derived from that production, will not be determined by or directed to the narrow business interests of a bourgeois capitalist class, but, instead, will be directed to meet the needs of each producer and consumer, of each member of society. Although production will be differentiated, by the degree of each worker’s abilities (by what work he and she can do) the purpose of the communist system of industrial production will be determined by the collective requirements of society, not by the profit-oriented demands of an individualistic bourgeois social class who live at the expense of the greater society. Under the collective ownership of the means of production, the relation of each worker to the mode of production will be identical, and will have the social character that corresponds to the universal interests of the communist society. Therefore, the direct distribution of the profits generated by the labour of each worker — to fulfil the interests of the working class, and so to his and her own interest and benefit — will constitute an un-alienated state of labour conditions, which restores to the worker the fullest exercise and determination of his and her human nature.

yeah, this **** worked out real well. ask the former soviet "workers" or, better yet, try to interview a "worker" in communist china

Capitalism reduces the labour of the worker to a commercial commodity that can be traded in the competitive labour-market, rather than as a constructive socio-economic activity that is part of the collective common effort performed for personal survival and the betterment of society. In a capitalist economy, the businessmen who own the means of production establish a competitive labour-market meant to extract from the worker as much labour (value) as possible, in the form of capital. The capitalist economy’s arrangement of the relations of production provokes social conflict by pitting worker against worker, in a competition for “higher wages”, thereby alienating them from their mutual economic interests; the effect is a false consciousness, which is a form of ideologic control exercised by the capitalist bourgeoisie.

oh the evil bourgeoisie; it's all their fault. too bad this TRIPE didn't show that in a fluid capitalist society, the worker may become the capitalist and by change of fortune, vice versa. communist theory is one dimensional bull**** that enslaves people to the hive.

and, the rulers of the hive have all the power, thus no different except worse than what Marx railed against.......

um, you want more??????

No, but Obama does!

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Wait, 9 planks? I thought there were 10. You conveniently forgot public education and abolition of child labor

Anyways as a critique on class conflict and capitalism it is hard to ignore, which is what I am getting at here. That is what it is useful for, not predictions or a "handbook" so to speak. Did you actually read it or...?

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

Leninism. Missing the point.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

WOW! What an intelligently worded, thoughtful response! Holding yourself to your own standards, I see.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

No, I want your actual thoughts rather than copy/pasting things you find on the internet. You're missing the point of why I brought it up.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

my minor is in political science. I read it, Das Kapital and others. My military background is in military political affairs, so yes I was have gone deeper than reading this as part of a survey course. I did leave off #10 because this was an idea that had merit. Marx wrote his thoughts during the industrial revolution, where society was transforming from agraian to an indsutrial one. There were growing pains, but none so harsh that enslavement to the collective was desireable. National socialism, though facist, was a similar collective experiment. It failed, so did Leninist Communism. Maoist thought, as evidenced by Pol Pot, "brought the worker back to an agraian state" where he was slaughtered. Stalin starved millions in forced farm collectivsation. This is a failed socio political idea. It does not work, except to enrich those at the top and enslave all others. It is the biggest hoax sold to mankind in centuries.

no, you are missing the point by espousing that th eonly reason communism did not work before is because of those who tried to impose it and a "pure" communist system would be the world worker's paradise. never going to happen because it does not work

That is not at all what I'm saying. Actually IIRC Marx's pure communist point of view is kind of an oxymoron since it dissolves all government

You're the one who said Marx is a "load of crap". When I point out a decent use of his literature you just copy and paste quotes. His work is a social critique, which in context of feudalism and capitalism in the late 1800s is a very interesting viewpoint and not invalid of those times. Many of his points regarding class conflict specifically are still worth looking at. It may be an academic argument, but it is still valid. Completely discounting his work as a whole is just sophomoric. As a handbook on how to run a country (i.e. Leninism) it obviously doesn't work, as I've said. There's good reason he's seen as one of the founding fathers of social research and critique.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

I think you confused TBO with someone else. He didn't say that at all. Perhaps you think anyone who finds anything compelling or interesting in Marxian theories believes this nonsense. Silly you.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

POST OF THE DAY

Observation is different from theory.

And...?

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth