 |
| Pellizza by Volpedo Joseph (1868-1907 ) |
In 'exciting musical performance by Giorgio Gaber "Someone was a communist," he announced, with a clear poetic intuition, this idealistic vision of the world: "Someone was a communist because he believed they can live and be happy only if they were the others."
This to me is the 'original, comprehensive, essence of communism.
A 'statement that seems even "sentimental", inner, spiritual (in the face of those that reduce the' idea of \u200b\u200bcommunism in the cold materialism, which, if anything, is based on research of means that it would allow achievement), a 'good idea.
But instead the 'equality is something good and right, yes, but it is also the' irrepressible element of a society that aspires to be happy.
stress a company, namely a consortium, a group of individuals who want and feel the need of belonging and shared values, laws, Memory.
Those who have nothing, who fears losing the little they have, as if having a great time and sees those who have everything or even too much, has lost the requirement of 'equality: is the' whole of society suffers and who will inherit negative and certain consequences.
Yet, in and of itself, private property is not the demon, as he also had to observe Simone Weil: This is a basic need for all human (and not only that, now that I think, many animals mark the their territory that ...), something, in a subsequent economic mechanism, giving rise has upset injustice.
Needless to pretend it is not so: it is, rather, mathematician.
"Robinson, 'the sword', has made Friday his slave. But to succeed in this, Robinson needs something else than the sword. Not everyone owning a slave. For be able to use necessary to have two things: first, the tools and objects for the work of the slave and, secondly, the means necessary for its maintenance. So before slavery becomes possible, you have a certain level is reached in production and appeared to be some degree of inequality in the distribution. And because the work of slaves to become the dominant mode of production of an entire society, it must be an even greater della produzione, del commercio e dell' accumulazione della ricchezza...
In ogni caso, quindi, presuppone già il possesso di un certo patrimonio superiore alla media. Come è sorto questo patrimonio? E' certo chiaro in ogni caso che è possibile che esso sia frutto di rapina e che quindi poggi sulla violenza, ma ciò non è affatto necessario. Può essere stato ottenuto col lavoro , col furto, col commercio, con la frode. Anzi, prima che possa essere rubato, in generale è necessario che esso sia stato ottenuto col lavoro.
In generale la proprietà privata non appare affatto nella storia come risultato della rapina e della violenza. Al contrario. Essa sussiste già, se anche limitatamente a certi oggetti, nella comunità primitiva naturale di tutti i popoli civili. Già entro questa comunità essa si sviluppa, dapprima nello scambio con stranieri, assumendo la forma di merce. Quanto più i prodotti della comunità assumono forma di merci, cioè quanto meno vengono prodotti da essa per l' uso personale del produttore e quanto più vengono prodotti per il fine dello scambio, quanto più lo scambio soppianta, anche all' interno della comunità, la primitiva divisione naturale del lavoro, tanto più disuguali divengono le fortune dei singoli membri della comunità, tanto più profondamente viene minato l' antico possesso comune soil, the more you push the community toward its dissolution and its transformation into a farming village plot ...
Wherever private property is acquired, this happens as a result of changing relations of production and exchange, in 's interest and increased production of' increase of traffic, so for economic reasons. The violence here has absolutely nowhere.
E 'even clear that the' institution of private property must already exist before the robber can 'steal' of others' well, then that violence can certainly change the state of possession, but not produce private property as this ... even if we exclude the possibility of every robbery, every act of violence, all cheating, if we assume that all private property was originally based on the work of its owner, and that throughout the process further only equal values \u200b\u200bare exchanged with equal values, However, with the progressive development of production and exchange, we come necessarily to 'current capitalist mode of production, the monopolization of the means of production and livelihood in the hands of a small class size, the degradation of' other class, which is the 'overwhelming majority, the class of proletarians impoverishment, we come to alternating periods of production and commercial crisis and spiraling all today' s anarchy of production. The whole process is explained by purely economic causes without even once there was need for the robbery, violence, the State or any political interference. "
(F. Engels, Antidühring, 1878)
0 comments:
Post a Comment