Hello everyone, welcome to Theory Thursday! This is a community led project, the point of these posts is to read about 30 minutes of theory every Thursday. Then we discuss with fellow comrades the contents of the reading. This week’s topic we are covering Fredrick Engels’ The Principles of Communism, parts 14-25.

The Reading: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Feel free to discus below your thoughts or insight into this reading.

Next week we will vote on what to read next. Shout out to comrade GrainEater’s Matrix study group, and comrade CriticalResist8’s ProleWiki study guide, go check them out if you would like more resources and discussion on theory. Have a great week comrades, until next time!

  • TT17@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    1. My personal dislikes/disagreements about the reading: Engels prediction for the simultaneous victory of the ‘’’’civilized’’’’ proletariat in England, Amerika, France, and Germany clearly was wrong. These places are the heart of capital & reaction today, and that doesn’t even touch on the loaded language of what he deems as ‘civilized’. Next, while I do agree with his takes on creating a ‘well rounded’, atheist, proletariat with no national allegiances. I have to wonder how exactly would we get this done, his answers weren’t exactly convincing. He seems to argue that the proles will just become experts in everything, disintegrating the roles people fill in society, disintegrating classes, and blurring the lines between urban & rural life. Meanwhile the need for religion and the state will just naturally vanish into thin air. While I do believe in these end goals, I struggle to see how this is all possible using the road map he provides. Maybe I’m just misinterpreting what he is saying, or have a limited creative perspective on the issue. Finally, he opens up a can of worms in section 24/25 in a few ways. He seems to advocate for the use of electoralism to further the cause, working with democratic socialists to a limited degree, and even going so far to advocate support for the bourgeois coming to power over the monarchy. He also seems to take a patsoc angle, ‘turning the constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat’. This is obviously a nuclear grade take, the constitution was written by and for the bourgeoisie, there will be no ‘turning it on them’.

    2. My personal likes/agreements about the reading: There was quite a bit that I enjoyed about the reading, I thought that the way he believes in replacing competition with association was a great line. Also the way he beautifully states, ‘revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes’. The entirety of section 18 is a banger, reading it made my heart flutter and give me chills. Section 18 beautifully states how exactly communists intend to get the project done. I also found it interesting how he states that with the fall of private property, the fall of prostitution will follow, given that prostitution is based off of private property. We’ve had plenty of discussion on sex work on the grad, so I implore people to read further on the subject there. Finally, the way Engels DESTROYS the various flavors of fake socialists with FACTS and LOGIC was just a cherry on top.

    3. How this could be applied today: The need for to abolish private property is absolutely necessary today, as it was made clear by Engels that this is a core theme of communism. The very fabric of our society revolves around the protection of, and rights for, property owners. I’m sure we can all think of a few examples where property rights are given priority over everything else, including human lives. Private property needs to go, this is as true then as it is today. ‘Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society’. I hope the anarchists among us are taking notes, Engels explicitly states that this won’t be done overnight. Next, it is very apparent to me that all of the steps laid out in section 18 are being done, or have already been done, in actually existing socialist countries in one way or another. Thus making section 18 in particular incredibly relevant to today, and personally was my favorite take away from the reading. Lastly there’s the subject of electoralism, as we should know electoralism historically speaking hasn’t been the driver of social progress. Electoralism can be useful, it can be a good addition, if we can make even a small bit of progress through elections then we should be practical in doing so. However for the most part this avenue is a dead end, voting for bourgeois candidate 1 over bourgeois candidate 2 in the bourgeois run election wont bring any meaningful change. At best this avenue will be a temporary band aid solution. There’s a ton of great content by fellow comrades that go into the details of this, please go check them out for a deeper analysis on the subject.

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think using law to as much of an advantage as possible is problematic in itself. Of course we should not idealize “the constitution” or naively forget the bourgeois nature of it, but we can’t act like it was unprincipled for comrades under trial during McCarthyism to plead the fifth, when that was the last bourgeois defense they had.

      • TT17@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you make a good point with your example. Let me clarify, I don’t think its unprincipled to use the law in our favor if we can. Personally I think that it’s damn near impossible to pull off just because of the massive arsenal of bourgeois laws the powers at be have at their disposal. If they want to eliminate you, they can and will find a way to do so within the law that’s specifically structured for that purpose. So if a fellow worker can find a way, despite all the limitations I mentioned, to make the law work in their favor by all means do it. I won’t personally take your commie card for pleading the fifth lol.

        The text in question: *In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat – that is, with the agrarian National Reformers. *

        This statement is controversial for a few reasons, today bad actors use this line in particular to justify some messed up stuff. It’s kind of vague, but it seems like Engels is making the case that we should hitch our wagons to the party that plans on using the bourgeois constitution against the bourgeois in favor of the proletariat. I argue it cannot be done, if communists came to power in the US we’d have to start from scratch essentially, it’d have to all be re-written. It is a document that was written by and for the bourgeois, I struggle to see how that can be ‘turned against them’. Next he uses the 1844 National Reform Association as an example of how this can be done. This is controversial because that association was the beginning of the Homestead Act, which gave white settlers a free pass to move west and sped up the displacement/genocide of the indigenous people already living there. So was the homestead act a ‘win’ for the proletariat? For the settler whites it was a win. Overall it was detrimental, particularly to the indigenous population, and was a tremendous net negative (honestly it was beyond words how bad it was) from a communist perspective. Obviously Engels was limited in his perspective living overseas in 1840’s Europe where information received about these things was questionable at best. We now have the power of hindsight to see that was a very poor take, and that Engels was a product of his time. Finally, and the point of emphasis I wanted to make in my original comment, is that patsocs today still use this quote as justification for their bad beliefs. There’s a ton of resources out there from other comrades that go specifically into why they are a problem. You know very well these people and their toxic stances, based off of your PCUSA post from months ago (sorry that happened to you btw hope that situation is better now), so you know much more than I do about how much of a problem they are. Also there are non-patsocs that argue for similar things, like Gus Hall’s ‘Bill of Rights Socialism’. This again falls into the problem of using bourgeois tools against them, which I argue cannot be done on a large scale. This take also seems to imply that the law is just a neutral tool which can be used by anyone, that it’s impartial, which obviously isn’t the case. It also seems to imply that there’s some kind of pure redeemable essence in Amerikan values/law, which I would argue doesn’t exist. This is all just my takeaway from it, maybe I’m wrong, or overstating it’s meaning and importance.

        • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with everything you said. Engels was definitely a product of his time. The Patsocs like Gus Hall a great deal so I’m not sure if he’s problematic or not in himself. Fortunately I effectively left PCUSA, though not officially as the the person I emailed never got back to me, thus I’m probably still in their records. I think I heard from the ACB people who split (and PCUSA is sueing) mentioned they have inflated records of inactive people.

          • TT17@lemmygrad.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m glad that you agree with me comrade. I was trying to summarize my points without writing a book about it lol. Sometimes that can come across poorly, and requires more in depth analysis on. I’m glad that is seemed to have worked out for you, organizing in the states will be a real roadblock for the young US comrades.

  • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    That was a great read. I like how he discusses the difference between the proletariat and the slave, casually mentioning how slavery is still used in the southern USA. As if it were yesterday. Of course slavery just got shifed to prison labour…

    Also loved the section on actual steps to dismantle private property via huge taxes, eliminating inheritance, etc. Of course it’s a process not an instant result.

    Brilliant reading thanks for posting this.

    • TT17@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re welcome! It’s incredible how an almost 200 year old book can provide us such great insights into our modern society.

  • afellowkid@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The part of this section that stood out for me begins with section 17, “Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?”, where Engels basically explains that there is no instant communism button:

    No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

    In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

    Very often, people ask, “What will XYZ be like under communism/‘after the revolution’?” asking about various laws, industries, work, housing, and ways of manufacturing and acquiring goods and services. I think in many cases, the answer to these questions is a lot more mundane than some people might initially imagine. We see in section 18 a series of ideas of what a proletarian-led society might democratically implement for itself at the start of proletarian leadership. And, as OP pointed out, we see many of these (or similar) measures underway in AES countries today, providing us real-life examples of the process that we can learn from as it develops.

    I think it’s worth noting that Engels points out that these would basically be democratic measures undertaken by the proletarian-led society to continually reduce the prevalence of private property, using various methods to increasingly concentrate “all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade” into the hands of the proletarian state, with the basic aim of ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat, and multiplying the society’s productive forces until “production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”

    As we can see from the real-life AES examples, this is a long process, with some changes being rapid and dramatic and easily intuitive to the average person, and others taking decades of time and having many possible approaches as well as many possible pitfalls, since longer term and larger scale generational changes like that are often harder for people to perceive and carry out from their individual position without learning more in depth about it. (Actually, on that point, I am glad that Engels specifically mentions education in section 18, as I believe it’s an important part in conveying the function of these longer generational processes to individuals in the society and strengthening their self-understanding of how they participate in building and directing their society.)

    I think sections 17-20 could be good to go over with people who seem unclear on how (or why) socialist construction would take place, and on the meaning of terms like socialist-oriented market economy, socialist market economy, etc., as well as going into the reasons why development of the means of production is important (and how and why imperialism purposely hinders and sabotages that development in certain places).

    Those are my thoughts, if anyone notices errors in my reasoning or understanding of the text, please point them out.

    Thanks for leading this study group, I’m looking forward to its continuation.

    • TT17@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Beautifully put, that was a very accurate summary of the text. I’m glad that this is well received, it makes me happy to know other comrades find these posts useful. I’m still working out some kinks, like finding a good time to post it, and using proper formatting. Hopefully I’ll get a little better at it each post I make!

      • afellowkid@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for your reply!

        One suggestion I would make is when you make a new thread, post a link back to the previous week’s thread so people can easily click back through them like a chain. Personally I think the timing and formatting so far are good, but of course, there is no harm in experimenting to find improvements. Thanks again for hosting this study group!