Money system is a derivation of land, upon which constructed capitalism. In the first part of the manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians, Karl Marx talks about the “oppressor and oppressed” relationship between the two classes. Capitalization of property and lands has changed the social classes from clear division of clergies, aristocracy and peasants into solely two classes, one with capital and the other without. The money system accompanying capitalism set up the ground for “egotistical calculation,” which “has transformed personal worth into mere exchange value.” Money derives from the land but it is not the land; instead, it is an alienation of land. Capital, or private property, can be understood as the transformation and alienation of land, which people work hard for. Because money only has the exchange value but not productive value, proletarians can only earn what is enough for their subsistence. As industry thrives, competition arises between capitalists, for gaining more customer and profit means more private property for the bourgeois. Wages decline as a result of competition, proletarians live a worse life while bourgeois live a better life. When the situation comes to a point, when the majority of the society, proletarians, are so poor that they cannot afford to buy the commodities they produce, the epic of over-production will happen, according to Marx. The suffering of poor and hard life, the fact that working hard doe not pay back proportionally, eventually brings proletarians everywhere together to fight against the bourgeois. Revolution is inevitable.
Monthly Archives: February 2014
Marx and the Communist Manifesto
Marx delved into the many details describing why the current system was failing and was always bound to fail. He repeated the themes of antagonism and struggle. The proletariat was always in a losing battle against the bourgeoisie. He pointed out that the free market had gotten out of hand. A candle lit by the bourgeoisie had turned into a wildfire, which burnt down cities. The destruction did not stop at borders or coasts. The system caused barbaric nations to be dependent on civilized ones just as the workers were dependent on the ruling class. After listing the problems he claimed he had a solution: communism. He outlined his plan in ten points which included abolition of private property and centralization of industry and credit to the state among others.
As in any quality piece of writing, Marx addressed a few potential counterarguments. He stated that the proletariat already were stripped of everything to be abolished in his plan, so only the bourgeoisie would be hurt. He claimed that workers gained nothing. He forgot to consider however that in the current system, the proletariat did not even gain the most basic human needs of food, water, and shelter if they did not work. In communism, one could not become wealthy through laziness, but neither could he become wealthy though hard work. If he was lazy, he would at least not die of starvation, dehydration, or lack of shelter for the most part because all of that was provided by the state. Therefore, the easiest option with the highest benefits was to work very lightly. Human nature always causes people to seek the lowest cost highest benefit option.
The Rise of Muscovy
Today’s reading focused on the rise of the Russian people after the influx of the Mongol hordes, in particular, the law code drafted by Ivan Vasilievic, the Grand Prince of Rus, which first made an appearance in 1497. Vasilievic, along with his children and nobles, comprised this code for the purpose of governing his nation, and for the purpose of administering justice in the most efficient manner possible. This law code, which is significantly larger than the others previously examined in our reading, is entitled “The Sudebnnik”(roughly translated to “code of law”) lines out 68 key commandments of Ivan’s Rus society, commandments which he believed would unite his people and make his lands easier to govern.
One notable modification in this law code when compared to others previously examined in class is it’s introduction of a trial system. The system (explained throughout the law code) is meant to bring a more systematic and (seemingly) fair version of justice to an accused party. Legitimate trial proceedings did not exist in Rus, instead a simple law code of “do the crime, pay the financial consequence” was in place, a system that had not developed alongside a formal trial proceeding, basically leaving a prince or lord of a town to decide the proper consequence for the action of an individual, without much chance for the accused to rebut the accusations. The law code provided a clear way for the people of Rus to see the way in which the judicial process would be conducted, a development that led the people of Rus to develop into a more modern, fair society.
Law and economy in Post-Kievan Rus
The Mongol invasion and occupation of Rus changed the economic structure of the country. People in the countryside needed the protection of nobles. This was essentially the roots of the serf system. The law system had also considerably evolved from past systems. The laws were written out and included provisions such as swearing on a cross, an equivalent to among other things our modern day swearing on the bible, and that all where equal in the eyes of the law. Most of the cases that we have records of have to do with property disputes. Fires where not uncommon so records where often destroyed. The system for evidence was also interesting. It appears as though those who were illiterate placed extremely high value on written documents while those who could read including judges placed a higher value on human evidence, even when the memories where 60 years old. It appears that dueling could be used to challenge evidence as well as a manner of determining the case.
I found the equality written into the law to be very interesting. It was declared in the first point of the first set of laws, However it only refers to men. Also the fact that it was written does not necessarily mean it was followed. In our own history we had a time that our constitution said all where equal, yet all people where not treated equally. I wonder if it was the same here? This of course does not even address the fact that the rights of women and children are not addressed there.
Interchangeable Parts
“These workers, forced to sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, and all the fluctuations of the market.”
I chose this passage because it relates directly to the readings and class topics that have been discussed over the past week. It expresses very similar ideas to those of Oastler and Heine, and the tones are very similar to Marx’s estranged labor.
Marx notes the differences between classes and the shifts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The lower tiers of the middle class, the tradespeople, morphed into the proletariat as technology made their trades obsolete. Marx argues that capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable because it wears down the proletariat and continues to exhaust its resources with no sign of slowing down. The members of the working class, regardless of age and sex, are treated as interchangeable parts in the capitalist system; they are a “commodity like every other article of commerce.” They are susceptible to all the uncertainties of the market and the demand for labor. Technology was improving rapidly and replacing human workers with gears and steam; not only was the worker treated as a disposable commodity in the market, he was also not guaranteed any security in his job whatsoever.The worker was paid barely enough wages to maintain his life. He did not earn enough money to acquire any personal property; he had to live under the roof of a landlord who exploited him further. This is Marx’s main argument for the abolition of private property rights. The vast majority of the population was already absolutely unable to acquire any private property, so this is in reality not a right at all, but a privilege reserved for the upper classes.
Putting An End To Feudal Strife
The unification of Russian lands around Moscow and putting an end to the feudal strife was the key to finally vanquishing the Mongol yoke in 1480. The desire of Russian princes to boost Russian economy in a centralized state is reflected in the new codes of law. Both the Novgorod Judicial Charter and the Moscovite Sudebnik of 1497 provide the foundation for land ownership and the legal guide to protect it in the court of law. This is a big leap forward compared to The Iaroslav’s Statute and Pravda Russkaia which mostly concentrated on judging most common crimes, as well as violations of moral and family values. The new documents describe in detail the structure of the court procedures to determine a person’s right to land. The figure of the judge appears, but still remains a passive force during court. The parties fighting for land have to assume the active role, produce written documents and witnesses , while the judges act as supervisors hoping that the decision would become obvious in the course of the trial. A flaw from the standpoint of contemporary litigation, this was still a great step forward in developing the legal structure of Russian society. An accent on the role of written documents presented as evidence and certifying the right to land is also an important new development. Reducing the freedom of peasants by binding them to land is a controversial measure that reduced their freedom, but at that point of time it seems to have positively contributed to developing the economy of the Russian state in post- Mongol time.
Societal Aspects of Post-Kievan Rus
I believe that a lot can be learned about the society of Rus through the interpretation of legal documents such as the Novgorod Judicial Charter. As we already know the Russian Orthodox Church has played a vital role in Russian history since its introduction to the area, and this is a perfect example of the influence it had. By far the most frequently repeated phrase in this legal document is “kissing the cross”. This term referred to the act of kissing the cross as a symbol of a litigants promise to tell the truth during a court case. While this is similar to our modern system of swearing on the Bible, it would mean drastically more to an ancient society which revolved around religion.
This document also shows the considerable power that the Church itself wielded at the time. Like in previous legal codes, the Novgorod Charter states that a portion of fines leveed on criminals would be sent to the archbishop as well as his lieutenant and the steward. This meant that the Church more than likely commanded vast wealth at this point and would have owned large amounts of property coming from criminals who were unable to pay their fines.
Another aspect of this document that I found incredibly interesting was the equality that was commanded by the document. The first rule stated is that “everyone is to be judged equally, whether boyar, [a man of] middling means, or a poor man [lit., a young man]. While we cannot always tell how often these rules were enforced, this shows a clear attempt to give all freemen a legal equality that would not have been seen in other parts of the world at this point in time. However, it should be noted that while this court system seemed to be set up fairly, it revolved around witness testimony, something that has historically been a problem. Not only does your memory change over time, it would not be difficult to bribe or intimidate somebody to say that you were right in your argument.
Class Divide: The Bourgeoisie and The Proletariat
From The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, I chose the passage in Chapter 1- Bourgeoisie and Proletariat that reads: “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”
I chose this passage because it speaks about the class divide and struggle that we have encountered in various readings. From the period of Enlightenment, through the French Revolution, Nationalism and Nation Building, and into the Industrial Revolution, there have always been distinct differences between classes and the way they were treated. The manifesto was written with the intention that it could be read by the public, and appeal to a general audience that did not need to be highly educated. This theme relates to what we discussed in the previous class about the writings of Smith, Owen, and Marx. All three of these works address the differences and struggles between classes. This particular passage from the manifesto addresses the same issue. As society progresses and changes, the classes have also changed and have become more divided. Marx says that the Bourgeoisie must become educated about the conditions and poor treatment of the Proletariat, whose only valuable asset is their power to perform labor.
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto is the crowning achievement of Karl Marx. The groundwork for the economic and social aspects of communism. Marx, a German philosopher and economist was extremely discontent with the results of the industrial advancements made with capitalism. As a reaction to the rise in capitalism, Marx created The Communist Manifesto. The bourgeois continued to separate themselves from the working class economically due to the lack of attention paid to worker’s conditions, as well as extremely low wages. Marx saw the economic elite become too powerful. Marx uses a unique mixture of analytic commentary, as well as romantic diction to convey his message. Beginning with the distinction of the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeois (the economically wealthy) and how the bourgeois use and exploit the hard labor the proletariat put into their work, as well as the holding of a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth. Marx eventually calls the “workers of the world” to unite as one, as reclaim what is rightfully theirs, most likely by force.
The most vital passage within The Communist Manifesto is the ten measures in which all communism can be based upon. These pillars of Communism are Marx’s integral points. Starting with the “Abolition of property in land and confiscation of ground rents to the State”, Marx’s points are each a unique response to the problems that Marx’s exposes in the beginning of the manifesto. Marx concludes that if these points are followed, the proletariat and bourgeois class distinctions will cease to exist, thus the public will lose political character. This is vital to the existence of the society, as there would no longer be any conflict among individuals on a political scale.
Do you agree with Marx’s ten points? Would you add or remove any while still maintaining the core of communism? Do you think this type of society would ever be possible?
Judicial Charters
The judicial process during the late 15th century in Russia, particularly including the Novgorod and Muscovite societies, is significantly different from the times of the Pravda Russkaia. From a first glance at both the judicial charters of Novgorod and Muscovite, such things including the structure of the documents and its intended audience differ substantially.
In both charters, the document is directed more towards the higher most positions of power in their society, such as the archbishopric if Novgorod the Great and Pskov, the Grand Prince, and the mayor, and their duties in terms of what is expected of them in a case. For instance in both judicial charters it states that evidence of some sort should be provided when a case is brought to court.
Yet what I found the most intriguing was the overall structure for the Muscovite judicial charter. While reading the judicial charter of the Muscovite society I found the steps in which they took to determine the most adequate outcome to be significantly similar to that of the judicial system in our modern day society. In particular, for example, the charter discusses in a land dispute between two groups it is first brought in front of a judge. From there, if the judge deemed necessary, the dispute or case would be brought fourth the Grand Prince.
After reading through this passage I find myself wondering why these societies were so advanced, in terms of judiciary systems, than most other societies during this time.