What about Communism?

I came across the work of Jean-Pierre Dupuy while reading of all things Slavoj Žižek’s Less Than Nothing where he praised Dupuy The Mark of the Sacred as the most “radical critical analysis of the “mystery of sacrifice” as a fundamental ideological category”.1 Of course the driving force behind Dupuy is the work of two other thinkers, Rene Girard and Ivan Illich, both of whom would lead Dupuy on a journey to understand the deep roots of violence and how it was religion that developed over thousands of years and under a myriad of circumstances ways of both expiating and transforming violence into social practices in ways that obviated the deathly power it held over people’s lives. As Zizek tells us:

Although the “official” topic of Dupuy’s The Mark of the Sacred is the link between sacrifice and the sacred, its true focus is the ultimate mystery of the so-called human or social sciences, that of the origins of what Lacan calls the “big Other,” what Hegel called “externalization” (Entäusserung), what Marx called “alienation ,” and— why not?— what Friedrich von Hayek called “self-transcendence”: how, out of the interaction of individuals, can the appearance of an “objective order” arrive which cannot be reduced to that interaction, but is experienced by the individuals involved as a substantial agency which determines their lives?

So for Dupuy it is the central quest of how Order arrives in our lives, how we humans create the very powers of order that ultimate become our masters and thereby control our behaviors in work and play. From Girard he discovered the ‘Mimetic Hypothesis’:

Girard’s theory may be thought of as an inverted pyramid, balanced on the mimetic hypothesis. Everything arises from this , the idea that our own desires are not our own, that we desire what others tell us by their own desires is desirable. From this it follows that those whom we take as our models automatically become our rivals. Human violence is not the manifestation of an innate aggressiveness; it is the result of a peculiar deficiency, a lack of being that inevitably brings us into conflict with those whom we believe will be able to remedy it.2

I can see why Zizek was hooked on this, since his whole system is based on the central insight of ‘lack’. As Zizek puts it without the logic of sacrifice, without this dark need or lack at the heart of the human, this need to fill the lack of our own desires through sheer competition with our rival, and without the sacrifice of some literal scapegoat violence would bring all our social relations to naught. It is only “through the sacrifice, the big Other, the transcendent agency which sets limits to our activity, is sustained. The third link in this chain is hierarchy: the ultimate function of sacrifice is to legitimize and enact a hierarchical order (which works only if it is supported by some figure of the transcendent big Other)” (Zizek, KL 21668).

If this is true then do we really want to continue down this path? Do we want to continue to create a world based on domination and hierarchical order? Wasn’t the whole premise of Marx and Engels based on the truth of dissolving all forms of hierarchical order. Even as Zizek says: “the aim of the proletariat is not simply to negate (in whatever way) its enemy, the capitalists, but to negate (abolish) itself as a class. This is why we are dealing here with a “third way” (neither proletarian nor capitalist) which is not excluded, but also with a suspension of the principle of contradiction (it is the proletariat itself which strives to abolish itself, its condition)” (Zizek, KL 22508). In our time we have to broaden this beyond the old forms of nationalism and realize the proletariat is global, and that it is to these individuals on a global scale that any such movement toward emancipation should be addressed. We act locally, but think globally. Nothing new in this. Yet, for the most part we seem to be repeating ourselves to each other rather than to those in the great commons who need this message.

But is this even needed anymore? Is it possible that with all our talk, blogging, publishing, etc. were actually contributing to the problem of abolishing labor and the conditions of the proletariat. I mean when is too much information just that: too much? Think about it. In Washington D.C. there exists the Library of Congress which houses within its own precincts one of the largest troves of books, manuscripts, maps, etc. in the world. It has a collection of more than 158 million items includes more than 36.8 million cataloged books and other print materials in 470 languages; more than 68.9 million manuscripts; the largest rare book collection in North America; and the world’s largest collection of legal materials, films, maps, sheet music and sound recordings. And in their facts and questions they explicitly state that they do not even house every book being published in the U.S. much less the global world.

One stands before this glut of information like a barbarian Visigoth might have as they entered Rome for the first time in awe and triumph at the overpowering complexity of civilization. As reminds Alex Wright in his book Glut: Mastering Information Through The Ages remarks:

In an era when almost anyone can publish—and millions do—digital technology has fueled an unprecedented surge of individual expression. In the legions of bloggers, artists, politicians, journalists, and everyday citizens taking advantage of the Internet’s ease of communication, we are witnessing the rise of vast populist networks threatening the power of old institutional hierarchies. The recent success of pop philosophy books like The Tipping Point and The Wisdom of Crowds seems to attest further to the appeal of the new populism, suggesting a growing faith in an emergent order guided not by an elite class of philosophers but by the will of the people.3

Of course most of us out here in dark zones of the internet look on such optimism and see it for what it is a sort of populist fantasy more than a truth that is truly infiltrating the consciousness of the proletariat and awakening them from their zombie lives in the global mill of capitalist slavery. Yet, to be fair to Wright he also shows us the other side of this InfoWorld of the net:

In the human management of distributed control, hierarchies of a certain type will proliferate rather than diminish. That goes especially for distributed systems involving human nodes—such as huge global computer networks. Many computer activists preach a new era in the network economy, an era built around computer peer-to-peer networks, a time when rigid patriarchal networks will wither away. They are right and wrong. While authoritarian “top-down” hierarchies will retreat, no distributed system can survive long without nested hierarchies of lateral “bottom-up” control. As influence flows peer to peer, it coheres into a chunk—a whole organelle—which then becomes the bottom unit in a larger web of slower actions. Over time a multi-level organization forms around the percolating-up control: fast at the bottom, slow at the top. (Wright, KL 4396)

The key word here is hierarchy. As Dupuy reminds us it was the French sociologist and anthropologist Louis Dumont who came closest to apprehending it in its pure form. He called it “hierarchy,” while noting that this term was meant in its etymological sense of a sacred order (from the Greek word formed by combining hierós, sacred, and árchein, to rule). But what is it, really? Dupuy tells us that far from being a succession of levels in which a higher level includes or dominates a lower level, hierarchy, is an encompassing of the contrary” (KL 216). He goes on to say:

One has only to recognize that the verb “contain” has another meaning— of blocking, inhibiting, repressing— in order to construe hierarchy, understood as the encompassing of the contrary, in an entirely different and much more disturbing sense, namely, as a system that is constantly in danger of being overturned. Just so, the most stable social order is the one that contains the threat of its own collapse, in the two senses of the verb “to contain.” (KL 245-248).

But how does civilization contain the threat of its own demise? Dupuy says its through ritual sacrifice or scapegoating that all civilizations in history have found a way of staving off collapse and apocalypse. ” As he tells it sacrifice contains the outbreak and spread of violence, yet when a civilization faces such impending threats to its existence as to be overthrown by disorder and violence, when the administration of justice loses its transcendent authority, ritual killing can no longer be distinguished from murder. (ibid. KL 260) At such times of immanent collapse there is an old mythical association that arises: the myth of Pan – or, panic. Panics and stampedes can generally be broken down into two categories: acquisitive panics, where people rush headlong in a rush or panic to acquire something of value – say a better seat in a theater, or a chance to get that “must have” doll for a Christmas present when the shopping center doors open on Black Friday; and the typical image of a panic or human stampede – a life or death surge away from some form of danger – such as people trying to escape a burning night club. Both forms of behavior can lead to a human stampede and the deaths of scores, or even hundreds of people.  Listverse documents ten of the worst panic attacks happening in public spheres (here). Another happened in World Cup finals in South Africa where 19 people were killed and 132 were injured in the crush at the national stadium in Abidjan (here).

Yet, as Dupuy attests there is another side to this mythical panic. Pan was considered by the ancients as at once civilized and a source of terror. The etymology of the word itself suggests a phenomenon whose effects are all-encompassing and serve to bring forth a new order , a new totality, a new direction or orientation, even if it is only flight from danger. Here the relation between a disordered set of individual behaviors and an emergent pattern of order is one of self-transcendence; its form is hierarchical, in the sense I have just described, namely, that the emergent order appears to govern individual behaviors from the outside, even though it is itself a consequence of the synergistic coordination of these same individual behaviors. Since these behaviors represent disorder, the emergent order contains them, in the two meanings of the word. “In this case order does not, as Dumont supposed, contain disorder while at the same time being its contrary. Instead disorder steps outside of itself, as it were, so that it stands in a relation of exteriority to itself, and in this way creates an ordered, self-regulating system” ( Dupuy, KL 271-278).

Dupuy uses the recent economic collapse or crisis in 2008 as an example:

What is at issue here is the impotence of orthodox economic analysis in the face of a crisis that blurs all the familiar distinctions of neoclassical theory . When an entire economic system reaches the point of behaving like a panic-stricken crowd, there is no alternative but to discard the prevailing doctrine. This was understood by an economist of genius, John Maynard Keynes, on the occasion of a crisis even more terrible than the present one. Not the rationalist Keynes, not the proto-cybernetician encountered in economics textbooks in the chapter on “Keynesian” economics, but the Keynes who perceived that, in times of market panic, mass psychology becomes the ruling force. Economic theory, blinded by its own pride, still fails to see this. (KL 288)

This notion that even the authoritarian Keynes perceived market panic in terms of mass psychology rather than in his usual mathematical and systematic rational instrumentalist economics is telling. One is reminded of Wilhelm Reich’s writings on the psychology of the masses during its deadliest era of Facism:

The degeneration of the Workers’ International to a chauvinistic national socialism was more than a collapse of the old freedom movement, which had always been nothing but international. It was an unprecedented outbreak of the emotional plague on an enormous scale in the very midst of the suppressed social strata, in which great minds had placed hopes that they would one day create a new order in the world. A nadir of this “national socialist” degeneration was the racial hatred felt by the white workers against the black workers in the United States and the loss of all socio-political initiative and perspective in many a large union. When the freedom idea is seized upon by the mentality of sergeants, then freedom is in a bad plight. Old and brutal injustice revenged itself upon those masses who had nothing to sell but their working power. Unscrupulous exploitation and irresponsibility on the part of powerful capitalists struck back like a boomerang. Since the idea of internationalism had failed to take root in man’s structure , the national socialist movements took the wind out of its sails by exploiting the intense desire for international socialism. Under the leadership of “sergeants” who had risen from the ranks of the suppressed, the international socialist movement split up into nationally confined, isolated, mutually hostile mass movements, which merely gave the appearance of being revolutionary. To make matters worse, a number of these rigidly nationalistic mass movements became international movements, no doubt owing to the effect of the old international orientation of their followers. Italian and German National Socialism became international fascism. In the strict sense of the word it attracted masses on an international scale in the form of a perverse “nationalistic internationalism.” In this form it crushed genuine democratic revolts in Spain and in Austria. The heroic fight of the genuine revolutionaries who had been isolated by the masses of the people (1934– 46), was another Thermopylae.4

This often quoted passage makes the point that there are two forms of revolt, one that becomes reactionary and harbors a perverse dream of the nation state writ large in a globalist empire, and another that is a genuine democratic revolt of the people, the proletariat against the conditions of its own slavery. Marx himself never said that the collapse of capitalist civilization was inevitable, what he did do in the first book of Capital in Chapter 32: The Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation was present the notion that “capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a natural process, its own negation. This is the negation of the negation. It does not re-establish private property, but it does indeed establish individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: namely co-operation and the possession in common of the land and the means of production produced by labour itself.”5 Zizek uses Hegel to further this thought by telling us that the “properly Hegelian solution to this dilemma is that a truly radical change is self-relating: it changes the very coordinates by means of which we measure change . In other words, a true change sets its own standards : it can only be measured by criteria that result from it. This is what the “negation of negation” is: a shift of perspective which turns failure into true success.” (Zizek, KL 11869)

So if we read Marx correctly in his statement that the negation of the negation does not re-establish private property, but it does indeed establish individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: namely co-operation and the possession in common of the land and the means of production produced by labour itself. This establishment of a new form of individual property based on co-operation and a common possession of the land by the proletariat for the means of life and work is communism in Marx’s sense and no more. People want to revise Marx without realizing what he said in the first place. This difference between private and individual property seems to me to have been overlooked in most of our understanding of just what Marx and Engels were trying to convey to us about communism. Why? One always hears about Marx wanting to eliminate private property, but one never hears about the corollary establishment of a new mechanism of ‘individual property’. But one must remember that individual property must always be associated with possession in common of land and production produced by labour itself. Without this basis the whole system falls apart.

How many remember in The Communist Manifesto that Marx and Engels tells flatly that the “abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.” No instead what they advocated was something specific, something singular: “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.” So it was never some abstract notion of property that they sought to abolish, it was its latest incarnation in ‘bourgeois property’.

And what is Bourgeois property? Marx and Engels tells us: “Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour.” Then they go on to define capital as not only personal power but as social power: “therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.” And, wage labour? Wage labour is that “quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer (i.e., What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence.). Communism is not against this form of base labour, instead what it is against is as they tell us:

We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

What they seek in the above is to eliminate the surplus, that which produces profit for all those ruling class elite who have enslaved the proletariat in an endless game of capital. Jehu over at The Real Movement makes it clear that the “aim of capitalist production is always and everywhere the production of surplus value, of profit — the self-expansion of capital and the extension of the labor of the working class beyond the duration necessary to satisfy the needs of the producers.” Marx and Engels tells us the difference between bourgeois and communist society is one of accumulation. In the “bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.”

Again they are very concrete in just what they intend by the abolishment of private property. The intend to do away with that top layer of the ruling class elite who own 90% of the property of the world:

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

Communism has no issue with property per se, what they have issue with is those who would enslave others in appropriation of it. As they tell it: “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.” The bourgeois intellectuals of Marx’s day bewailed and berated the communists that such destruction of the existing system would do away with Western Culture. Marx and Engels reiterate that for the enormous majority, this grand culture of the bourgeois has been nothing more than the “mere training to act as a machine”. Communists would return the machines to their individuality.

But what about the Nations, all those differing cultures of the planet with all their differing modes of production, etc.? What of them? Marx and Engels tells us that the workers have no country:

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

So they do see the notion of the proletariat taking charge of the nation as political agents, of rising to be its leading class but with a difference that makes a difference. What is this difference between the proletariat and the bourgeois that would make a difference? They begin by informing us of the notion of how ideas are transmitted, how the ruling class of all ages control the enculturation process. “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.”

This is where it gets good and troublesome, for Marx and Engel begin relating that most societies have always left vestiges of past ideas hidden and surviving within the transformation from one group to another through the ages as different ruling classes would take command and then rebuild new social institutions. But most of these never eliminated the ruling class ideas of past civilizations and that would ultimately be there downfall. As they tell it:

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms. The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

The point being one cannot have the one without the other. Communism requires both a radical rupture in property and ideas as part of its ongoing transformation of society in the global era.

To begin this, and against my friend Jehu who seems to think communism must abolish the State we must see what Marx and Engels told us:

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Marx and Engels were very clear on this, they saw the proletariat taking over the nation State, creating itself as a new ruling class, and taking charge of the instruments of production within a centralized arena. They also realized that this would not be possible unless it was done despotically, at least at the beginning: “…in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production…”. And they even laid out ten basic tenets that would need to be enacted for this to succeed:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Now this is where it gets tricky. And, one of the reasons that Communism as it was incarnated in Russia and China never ultimately succeeded. Marx and Engels tell us that in the “course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character”. They go on to say:

Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

As we see both Russian and China developed by “force of circumstance” new ruling elites of proletariat intellectuals but did not follow through with sweeping away the existence of all the old class antagonisms of classes generally. The point being that they did not go far enough, they did not create an “association”, and thereby did not enact the free development of each as the condition for the free development of all. Is this still possible? Yes. This is what Communism is now and will always be.

This is where I take issue with the likes of Zizek. He tells us:

No wonder Hegel formulated this same limitation apropos politics: especially as communists, we should abstain from any positive imagination of the future communist society . We are, of course, borrowing from the future, but how we are doing so will only become readable once the future is here, so we should not put too much hope in the desperate search for the “germs of communism” in today’s society. (Zizek, KL 5196)

I ask: Why not? Where else are you going to find the germs of communism if not in today’s failing society? Should we just sit around twiddling our thumbs, pretending that we have no answers, but just a load of crock shit like Zizek? Over and over Zizek seems like the blindman leading the blind. He keeps repeating the same refrain that he has no answers, just more questions. I keep saying who gives a crock about the questions, what we need is action not words.

Those like Jehu keep pounding us with repeatable messages from the outside trying to wake Leftists up who seem to be in some sleepmode at the moment:

In this conflict the aim of abolition of labor itself can only appear as the conscious aim of the proletariat. It is, therefore, the only class of the two in modern society that is capable of a fully authentic consciousness, a consciousness expressed in an aim where the aim is identical with its result. And this consciousness is, by definition, not the consciousness of a class, but a communist consciousness, a consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution in the mode of production. The question of the proletariat acquiring an authentic consciousness hinges on the possibility of setting as its aim the abolition of labor; it cannot be done on their behalf, nor by measures that approximate this aim in the struggle over wages. No increase in wages can ever put an end to labor. (here)

What he is saying is that intellectuals as a vanguard guiding the proletariat to the light is finished, caput. The proletariat will have to do this for themselves if it is ever to get done. Until they attain a communist consciousness they will continue to sleep in the bourgeois temple of capital as slaves and minions of the dark sith elite. Finito! Think of it, for Zizek Capitalism and Communism were not two different and distinct animals. No. As he states it:

Capitalism and communism are not two different historical realizations, two species, of “instrumental reason ”— instrumental reason as such is capitalist, grounded in capitalist relations, and “really existing socialism” failed because it was ultimately a subspecies of capitalism, an ideological attempt to “have one’s cake and eat it,” to break out of capitalism while retaining its key ingredient. Marx’s notion of the communist society is itself the inherent capitalist fantasy; that is, a fantasmatic scenario for resolving the capitalist antagonisms he so aptly described. In other words, our wager is that, even if we take away the teleological notion of communism (the society of fully unleashed productivity) as the implicit standard by which Marx measures the alienation of existing society, the bulk of his “critique of political economy,” his insights into the self-propelling vicious cycle of capitalist (re) production, survives.(Zizke, KL 5982)

Am I hearing him right? He’s just told us that communism as socialism is just a “subspecies of capitalism” – a way of breaking free of capitalism while retaining its productive capacities. But he goes further he tells us that for Marx communism is inherently a capitalistic fantasy. How so? For Zizek it all comes down to the failure of twentieth-century intellectuals who “forever forfeited the role of the vanguard which knows the laws of history and can guide the innocents along its path. The people, however, also do not have access to the requisite knowledge—…” (KL 22456). So if neither the intellectual nor the proletariat itself have the requisite knowledge then who does? How is it to be attained? Zizek puts it this way the people, the proletariat itself is the answer, “and intellectuals should propose the questions to which they are answers. The situation is like that in psychoanalysis , where the patient knows the answer (his symptoms are such answers) but does not know what they are the answers to, and the analyst has to formulate the questions. Only through such patient work will a program emerge” (KL 22480).

Many theorists of communism at the moment seem to think that we just need to change the term, rephrase communism as something else, that we can keep the content of the communist message without the name, but as Zizek reminds us “the problem with this easy solution is that the very taboo with regard to the word “communism” is the result of the defeat of the radical emancipatory struggle, so that when one abandons the word, one sooner or later also betrays the content covered by this word” (KL 24496).

So no for better or worse we have no other alternative to capitalism but communism. But to me this is no dark matter, but a bright sign that all those men and women, those actual individuals that lived and died in the struggle to attain this communist Idea did not live in vein. It is still a living Idea and not some utopic dream world or fantasia of the capatialistic mind. It’s still up to the proletariat of the world to attain this new and radical world of Communism. Do I have the answers? Obviously not, as Zizek says it: the proleatariat: “They are the answers.”

 

 

1. Zizek, Slavoj (2012-04-30). Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism (Kindle Locations 21656-21657). Norton. Kindle Edition.
2. Dupuy, Jean-Pierre (2013-10-30). The Mark of the Sacred (Cultural Memory in the Present) (Kindle Locations 916-920). Stanford University Press. Kindle Edition.
3. Wright, Alex (2007-06-01). Glut: Mastering Information Through The Ages (Kindle Locations 4206-4211). National Academies Press. Kindle Edition.
4. Reich, Wilhelm (2013-07-02). The Mass Psychology of Fascism: Third Edition (Kindle Locations 3978-3992). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.
5. Marx, Karl (2004-02-05). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: A Critique of Political Economy v. 1 (Classics) (Kindle Locations 13290-13293). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

1 thought on “What about Communism?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s