A group of workers enter the boss’s office and tell him that they have just taken over the factory. “You can’t”, says the boss. “I own it”
“And how did you come to own it?” asks one of the workers.
“It was left to me by my father”, says the boss.
“How did he get it?” asks the worker.
“He got it from his father”, says the boss.
“And he?” asks the worker.
“From his father”, says the boss.
“And he?” persists the worker.
“He fought for it”, says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride.
“Well”, say the workers, all together this time, “We’ll fight you for it”.
A capitalist is walking through his factory with a friend.
Friend asks, “What did you tell that man just now?”
“I told him to work faster”, answers the capitalist.
“How much do you pay him?” asks the friend.
“Fifteen dollars a day” answers the capitalist.
“Where do you get the money to pay him?” asks the friend.
“I sell products”, answers the capitalist.
“Who makes the products?” asks the friend.
“He does”, answers the capitalist.
“How many products does he make in a day?” asks the friend.
“Fifty dollars worth”, answers the capitalist.
“Then”, concludes the friend, “Instead of you paying him, he pays you thirty-five dollars a day to tell him to work faster”.
“Huh”, and the capitalist quickly adds, “Well, I own the machines”.
“How did you get the machines?” asks the friend.
“I sold products and bought them”, answers the capitalist.
“And who made those products?” asks his friend.
To which the capitalist can only respond…”Shut up! He might hear you”.
Boss to employee: “Young man, you have risen very fast in this company. Two years ago, you began as an office boy. In a couple of months, you were a clerk. Then, you became a salesman, after that assistant manager, then manager. Now you are the vice president of the company. What have you to say about all this?”
Employee: “Thanks, Dad”.
Illusory woman, or the real thing?
I can feel the torment. Maybe a ghost.
She toys with my heart, beating uncertain.
Floating in space, drained by indecision.
Was she imagined? Only a figment?
Why does my pressured heart want to explode?
She makes my head hurt. I don’t understand.
I can’t change the past. Disease-ridden fool.
Impossible resolved, but not a clue.
Mystery woman. Pleonastic phrase.
It would take a true genius to answer.
Not me. The inflicted and conflicted fool.
She helped me spend a moment in the clouds.
Before they darkened for the thunderstorm.
The quick ascent always followed by “Boom!”
Sudden realities, hard to accept.
Sullen mortality, I’m not a god.
Or else I could hurl lightning and demand.
I need to sit down. I feel so dizzy.
Anxious. It seems like I can’t even breathe.
I can’t expel the demons I so fear.
The voices I hear, are they in my head?
Or are they people telling me the truth?
I am losing consciousness, like a dream.
A hollow heart, predisposed to shut down.
In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx goes into detail to disprove Lassalle’s idea that under socialism the worker will receive the “undiminished” or “full product of his labor”. Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the “wear and tear” of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people’s homes, and so on.
Instead of Lassalle’s hazy, obscure, general phrase (“the full product of his labor to the worker”), Marx makes a sober estimate of exactly how socialist society will have to manage its affairs. Marx proceeds to make a concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there will be no capitalism, and says:
“What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers’ party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes.”
It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.
The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.
“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.
But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is “equitable distribution”, that this is “the equal right of all to an equal product of labor”, Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.
“Hence, the equal right,” says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to “bourgeois law”, which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the “equal right” is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).
But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:”… With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal.”
The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production–the factories, machines, land, etc.–and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle’s petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods “according to the amount of labor performed” (and not according to needs).
The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our” Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists.
Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of “bourgeois laws” which continues to prevail so long as products are divided “according to the amount of labor performed”. Continuing, Marx says:
“But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.”
And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) “bourgeois law” is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. “Bourgeois law” recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent–and to that extent alone–“bourgeois law” disappears.
However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, “He who does not work shall not eat”, is already realized; the other socialist principle, “An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor”, is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish “bourgeois law”, which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.
Now, there are no other rules than those of “bourgeois law”. To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.
The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.
But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of “bourgeois law”, which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.
I know something. You chose to not be mine.
I know your heart, and it is not divine.
You’re a liar and a thief in my mind.
So pretty, deviousness forgiven.
Heartbreak quelled, and you are not the reason.
Missive received; don’t know where it went wrong.
Tale of the tape that didn’t measure up.
So much effort, so little my reward.
One better favored, in God’s eyes he tries.
Aggressive and victorious. I die.
Another day, another dollar short.
It eats me inside, worse than Gilbert Grape.
Thwarted by the cruelest practitioner.
I could love you tender, when my heart’s true.
The maiden who wouldn’t let flowers bloom.
I’ll show you that I care; I’m not careless.
Too careful for the good of what I want.
I’m aware of your state of mind. It’s trite.
I’ll take the blame for being so fickle.
No harm will come because I’ll lick my wounds.
And I promise not to show you the scars.
Disappointment wanting, waiting for life.
It’s neither here and you are never there.
Mine, yours, always maybe. What’s the difference?
Mesmerize my eyes with your Satan grin.
They say the man died from complications.
Time did not heal, it only made it worse.
Deadly infectious, devastation, death.
It flowed from his heart, arteries and veins.
An external wound wreaked havoc inside.
A shock to his system. Felt the first time.
Allergic to a cure that won’t heal him.
Broken again by underlying cause.
He was too weak to begin. Now he’s lost.
Feverish. Advancements came much too late.
Another victim. Supposedly fate.
His skin would rot, and pieces went missing.
He was blinded by unknown memories.
The zenith brought him abruptly to end.
His will stopped flowing, forced him to resign.
You could see it in his face. A trapped man.
Everyone else had health, while he withered.
He numbed himself, drank down the problem.
Until his organs failed to handle it.
He stopped thinking, believing it the cause.
Too much fluid on the brain; cleansing smarts.
Susceptible to sudden paradox.
Wantonness wandering, writing the wrongs.
No one can contain acquiescence of hope.
Could you really blame a terminal man?