Labour-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist. Why does he sell it? It is in order to live.

But the putting of labour-power into action – i.e., the work – is the active expression of the labourer’s own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labour itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another. The product of his activity, therefore, is not the aim of his activity. What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold that he draws up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds. What he produces for himself is wages; and the silk, the gold, and the palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the labourer who for 12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so on – is this 12 hours’ weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours’ work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the silk-worm’s object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker.

Karl Marx, Wage-Labour and Capital

This pamphlet is a good starter for Marxian Economics.

I wish I would’ve read it before I read Capital Vol. 1.

(via rethinksocialism)

Reblogged from bryniffer craniston
As prosperity declines, social anomalies grow commoner. You don’t get more aitchless millionaires, but you do get more and more public-school men touting vacuum cleaners and more and more small shopkeepers driven into the workhouse. Large sections of the middle class are being gradually proletarianized; but the important point is that they do not, at any rate
in the first generation, adopt a proletarian outlook. Here am I, for instance, with a bourgeois upbringing and a working-class income. Which class do I belong to? Economically I belong to the working class, but it is almost impossible for me to think of myself as anything but a member of the bourgeoisie. And supposing I had to take sides, whom should I side with, the upper class which is trying to squeeze me out of existence, or the working class whose manners are not my manners? It is probable that I personally, in any important issue, would side with the working class. But what about the tens or hundreds of thousands of others who are in approximately the same position? And what about that far larger class, running into millions this time—the office-workers and black-coated employees of all kinds—whose traditions are less definitely middle class
but who would certainly not thank you if you called them proletarians? All of these people have the same interests and the same enemies as the working class. All are being robbed and bullied by the same system. Yet how many of them realize it? When the pinch came nearly all of them would side with their oppressors and against those who ought to be their allies. It is quite easy to imagine a middle class crushed down to the worst depths of poverty and still remaining bitterly anti-working-class in sentiment; this being, of course, a ready-made Fascist Party.
— George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier (via desukapital)
Reblogged from bryniffer craniston
Everyone who knows anything of history also knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex (plain ones included).
— Karl Marx, Letter to Kugelmann (1868)
Reblogged from Mohandas Gandhi
I’m not a Democrat, I’m not a Republican, and I don’t even consider myself an American… I’m speaking as a victim of this American system. I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don’t see an American dream, I see an American nightmare… They have got a con game going on, a political con game and you and I are in the middle. It’s time for you and me to wake up and start looking at it like it is, and then we can deal with it like it is.
— Malcolm X, May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965 (via fuckyeahmarxismleninism)
Reblogged from bryniffer craniston
One day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America?’ And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s market place. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, ‘Who owns the oil?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘Who owns the iron ore?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two thirds water?’ These are questions that must be asked.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

And this is what really got Dr. MLK killed.  (via black-culture)

THIS

(via killthemass)

…anti-poverty, anti-war, pro-Black and Brown unity agenda (re: “beyond vietnam”)

Now this is truth.

(via somepolitics)

They never show this side of MLK. Ever. They want us to believe being kind to our oppressors is the answer. It’s not.

(via dank-potion)

Reblogged from A Bokononist
Bourgeois class domination is undoubtedly an historical necessity, but, so too, the rising of the working class against it. Capital is an historical necessity, but, so too, its grave digger, the socialist proletariat.
Rosa Luxemburg (via bazinganaz)
Reblogged from Irish I Was Smart
Youths are passed through schools that don’t teach, then forced to search for jobs that don’t exist and finally left stranded in the street to stare at the glamorous lives advertised around them.
— Huey P Newton   (via warriorsrise)
Reblogged from Irish I Was Smart
We must recognize, and loudly proclaim, that every one, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, THE RIGHT TO LIVE, and that society is bound to share amongst all, without exception, the means of existence at its disposal. We must acknowledge this, and proclaim it aloud, and act up to it.
— Peter Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread (via guerrillanetwork)
The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism. All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

Karl Marx (via guerrillanetwork)

I think this gets at the critical insight that I took from studying Marx - our social relations were radically different in the past, and there is no reason to expect that they wont be radically different in the future. The temptation to view the status quo as natural or necessary should be resisted. (via interruptions)

Take notes.

(via bbcity)

Capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the middle classes.
— Howard Zinn (via americandissident)
Reblogged from SIN FRONTERAS