So early man, controlled as he was, decided to obtain the communal surplus of production by any means necessary and, thus, began the tremendous record of hatreds and divisions which has afflicted mankind ever since.  The surplus was primarily sought by the more productive members, although others demonstrating less productive but more ingenious, unscrupulous or aggressive qualities were also involved.  Knowing that as long as the tools, equipment, land, resources, fishing waters, and other means of production were owned by the commune only the latter could claim whatever was produced, the more productive members began to employ a wide variety of techniques to obtain their own means of production.  Communal members initially agreed at the previously-mentioned self-governing meetings to oppose this action not only because conditions were such that it endangered the welfare of all but also because a minority were seeking to obtain various means of production that were owned by everyone.  In the beginning punishments such as ostracism and the threat of same acted as a sufficient deterrent.  But as productivity continued to increase more and more individuals in a variety of trades deserted the commune and began to seek private ownership of the means of production and distribution--private property.

Note: What is Private Property

In the broadest sense of the phrase private property can be defined as those things of value which are owned and controlled by one individual or a small group instead of society as a whole.  Potentially any object could be private property.  However, the most important material objects, by far, are the means of production (land, factories, buildings, raw materials, tools, equipment, etc.) distribution (trains, carts, trucks, pack animals, wagons, planes, ships etc.) and exchange (banks, credit unions, insurers) which create and distribute wealth rather than items of consumption (cars, food, clothing, housing, etc.) which are consumed by the populace at large.  The owner does not normally employ the latter to produce additional wealth or exploit those who labor.³⁶   Although both the objects of production/distribution and those of consumption could be privately owned, private property, in the economic sense, only refers to wealth-producing items--the means of production, distribution, and exchange--which are owned by one individual or a small group of people.  Any item which can be used to produce wealth and is privately owned is private property.³⁷

-------------------------------------------------------------------

³⁶ "But no economist would think of classing it (a frock coat--Ed.) as my private property, since it does not enable me to command any, even the smallest, amount of other people's labor."
Source 58 , page 248

³⁷ "Private property...exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals."
Source 51 , Vol. 1, page 761

The most important group of rebels seeking to institute private ownership of the means of production, however, participated in the commune's overthrow not because they wished to consume, trade and store the surplus which their labor created but because they sought to avoid labor altogether by consuming and storing the surplus of others.  Each member of this group asked himself, "Why should I labor at all when others can be 'persuaded' to work for me while I keep everything they produce beyond a certain amount--the amount necessary to keep them alive?"  Realizing less fortunate or resourceful members of the commune could be exploited through effective employment of force and deception, this group simply banned together and imposed their will or gave some of their surplus to other communal members who agreed to execute the needed coercion.  The latter were, in effect, the first army or police force (mercenaries).  As a result of this dissenting group's efforts, the overwhelming majority of those who were not within its membership or that of its politico-military unit were enslaved.  Those newly-arisen property owners who did not enslave others, either because they lacked the resources or because of the nature of their trades, were quickly overshadowed in importance by this new class--the slaveowners.  In essence, the first of the private property systems--slavery--had arisen as the result of the materialization of a surplus of production.³⁸   The means of production and distribution were no longer owned by the entire communal membership but by a small group of property owners who acted in concert when it was to their mutual benefit.  In essence, society became an organism in which some individuals owned the fishing equipment, some owned the land; some owned the tools for various trades etc., while the overwhelming majority owned no means of production or distribution whatever.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

³⁸ (a) "Therefore, before slavery becomes possible, a certain level of production must already have been reached...."
Source 4 , page 222
(b) (Add) "...slavery also was invented.  The slave was useless to the (people--Ed.)...of the lower stage....  Human labor power at this stage yielded no noticeable surplus as yet over the cost of its maintenance."
Source 64 , Vol. 2, pages 214-215

As a consequence of private property being instituted, society rapidly changed from the nearly classless condition of communal times to a class society with a rapidly widening economic gap replacing the relative equality of earlier days.  The interests of people no longer coincided but were diametrically opposed.³⁹   To the extent that the slaveowners received more produce, to that extent they slaves received less and to the extent that the slaves received more, to that extent the slaveowners received less.  Understandably, this entire rearrangement of man's relationship to man was opposed by those who were put on the short end of the stick--the enslaved.  The latter often resorted to revolts, rebellions, and the seizure of the elite's property ⁴⁰ --most of which the owners would never have had were it not for the exploitation of the enslaved.  Revolts, such as that led by Spartacus, a Roman slave, were brutally crushed.  From the point of view of the property owners, these actions were criminal when, realistically, the enslaved were merely reappropriating that which they produced.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

³⁹ (a) "The very moment civilization begins, production begins to be founded on the antagonism of orders, estates, classes and finally on the antagonism of accumulated labour and actual labour."
Source 53 , pages 58-59
(b) "...the hypocritical phrases of the possessing classes to the effect that in the present social order right and justice, equality of rights and duties and a general harmony of interests prevail...."
Source 7 , page 26
⁴⁰ "History is full of constant attempts by the oppressed classes to throw off oppression....  Such civil wars mark the whole history of the existence of the class society."
Source 41 , page 15

In order to cope with the struggle--the class struggle--which now existed between the haves and the have nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the rulers and the ruled⁴¹ (those inbetween are of far less importance historically and, as will be shown later, will disappear altogether), the haves created a dictatorship of the rich, a dictatorship of the private property owners, a dictatorship encompassing every aspect of man's relationship to man.  Whether Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian, Saracenic, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Byzantine, Medieval European, American, British, Japanese, German, French, or Italian, every society which has evolved beyond the primitive communal stage has been a dictatorship of the exploiters⁴² and dominated by the class struggle.⁴³   Throughout its history mankind has been making a long journey from the somewhat idyllic condition of primitive communes to the beautiful society of future communism.  But inbetween has been the unavoidable dictatorships of slavery, feudalism, and capitalism⁴⁴ --each resting upon the sanctity of private property, each a private property economy based on exploitation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

⁴¹ (a) "What is the class struggle?  It is the struggle of one part of the people against the other; the struggle waged by the masses of the rightless, the oppressed, the toilers, against the privileged, the oppressors, the parasites...."
Source 16, page 81
(b) "Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle between them--such is the picture of the slave system."
Source 75 , page 35
⁴² (a) "But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages (since primitive communal times--Ed.), viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other."
Source 62 , page 79
(b) "And the new society during all 2,500 years of its existence, has never been anything but the development of the small minority at the expense of the exploited and oppressed great majority; and it is today more than ever before."
Source 64 , Vol. 2, page 255
⁴³ (a) "...all past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles...."
Source 10 , page 91
(b) "...all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes...."
Source 59 , page 13
(c) "The history of all hitherto existing society (since primitive communal--Ed.) is the history of class struggles.  Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another...."
Source 59 , pages 42-43
⁴⁴ (a) "Slavery was the first form of exploitation peculiar to the world of antiquity; it was followed by serfdom in the Middle Ages, and by wage labour (capitalism--Ed.) in modern times.  These are the three great forms of servitude, characteristic of the three great epochs of civilization."
Source 64 , Vol. 2, page 324
(b) "Thus the state of antiquity was above all the state of the slave owners for the purpose of holding down the slaves, as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage labour....  In most of the historical states, the rights of the citizens are besides, apportioned according to their wealth, thus directly expressing the fact that the state is an organization of the possessing class for its protection against the non-possessing class."
Source 64 , Vol. 2, page 321

Note:  WHAT IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY ECONOMY

A private property economy is any economic system in which all or nearly all of the means of production and distribution are owned by a minority of individuals--the "moneybags"⁴⁵ and "knights of the moneybag"⁴⁶ --who exploit the laboring masses.  Exploitation is accomplished through ownership of the means of production and, thus, all things produced by same.  Because members of the propertied elite own whatever is created, it is relatively easy for them to set aside for personal consumption a large amount of that which is produced.⁴⁷   In feudal society, for example, landowners ⁴⁸ often retained 1/2 of all crops harvested by their serfs. ⁴⁹

⁴⁵ Source 51 , Vol. 1, pages 166, 167, 176

⁴⁶ Source 51 , Vol. 3, page 90

⁴⁷ (a) (Add) "Capital (Capitalism--Ed.) has not invented surplus-labour.  Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the labourer, free or not free, must add to the working time necessary for his own maintenance an extra workingtime in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production."

Source 51 , Vol. 1, page 235

(Subquote) "Those who labour...in reality feed both the pensioners...(called the rich) and themselves." Edmund Burke 1:C., page 2

(b) (Add) "...the acquisition of riches by the present-day capitalists consists just as much in the appropriation of the unpaid labour of others as that of the slaveowner or the feudal lord exploiting serf labour, and that all these forms of exploitation are only to be distinguished by the difference in the manner and method by which the unpaid labour is appropriated."
Source 7 , page 26
⁴⁸ (Add) "Feudal society represented a division of classes under which the vast majority--the peasant serfs--were completely subjected to an insignificant minority--the landlords, who owned the land."
Source 41 , page 16
⁴⁹ "Almost everywhere there are a few rich peasants among them--here and there millionaires--who play the usurer and suck the blood of the mass of the peasants."
Source 64 , Vol. 2, page 57

Note:  WHAT IS A DICTATORSHIP

The word "dictatorship" also merits clarification because its employment conjures up in the minds of many an image at variance with reality.  It often creates strange and ominous images of individuals or small cliques of ruthless and oppressive men passing down orders to a beleaguered citizenry.  Force is liberally employed; jails are filled with the opposition; dissent is suppressed; elections are a comic extravaganza periodically foisted upon the masses for appearances sake; spies are everywhere; and educational media are nothing more than obvious propaganda arms of the oligarchy at the top.  Such a description of a dictatorship is more the product of textbooks and Hollywood movies than the real world.  Certainly it is an accurate representation of some countries where the leadership put forth little effort to hide reality; but for an analysis of the prevailing private property world, it is misleading and unrealistic.  Because progressing technology (changing material conditions) has necessitated not only more careful, more coordinated, use, repair and improvement of the productive items but also greater worker incentive, ⁵⁰ the ruling classes throughout history have been increasingly compelled to rely less upon undisguised force and more upon deception ⁵¹ (agreements and persuasion) weighed in such a manner as to give the ruled the impression that they are receiving their just desserts.  As a consequence of this evolutionary process, dictatorship today is subtle, well-hidden and hypocritically disguised.  Today's dictators do not flaunt their control and wealth, rarely take part in direct political leadership and expend great effort to justify their society and promote its alleged service to the masses.  They do not give fiery speeches, imprison everyone who utters a word of dissent or carry on wars of open conquest, unless the situation becomes so critical as to warrant actions of this nature.  Instead, they maintain a sinister control of society, that is so all-encompassing in its influence, so shrewd in its makeup, so thorough in its employment, so hypocritical in its portrayal, so devastating in its effect that those caught up in its tentacles are consumed before they are aware of what is occurring.  The latter become enmeshed within its fibers, think as it desires and die for its preservation.  People are not conquered but molded, like young trees bound to a stake.  Force still exists, of course, more powerful than ever, but is kept under raps and only employed when deception fails.  Since sophisticated methods of control are the dominant method of today, only they should be associated with the word "dictatorship."  Undoubtedly one of the most powerful manifestations of this control, if not the most powerful, lies in the fact that although people can act as they choose financial strings are always attached.  If an individual engages in behavior which the ruling class dislikes, he is fired from his employment as many times as it takes to get the point across.  Or the Internal Revenue Service looks more closely at the legalities of his tax return.  Or he is denied promotions which have obviously been earned.  Or he is demoted under circumstances that are clearly intended to send a message.  Attacking, endangering, or otherwise adversely affecting the financial security of people is more than sufficient to keep the overwhelming majority of human beings in line.  The power of the purse is much more powerful than that of brute force when directed against those who have something to lose.  The ruling class can also use wealth to promote the kind of behavior they desire as well.  Those who see injustices but keep their mouths shut, those who actively work, either through propaganda or physically, for the perpetuation of ruling class domination are given preferential treatment in numerous ways.  Knowing that it has more money than all other groups and that almost everyone has his price, the ruling class has become extremely adept in putting the right amount of money in the right hands at the right time in order to obtain desired results.  They know that financial domination allows for less reliance upon force or intimidation.  Bribery, kickbacks, payoffs, donations, contributions, purchases, gifts, loans, bonuses, options, raises, money-laundering, high-buys, low-sells, and hundreds of other economic manipulations can be just as effective as any gun and far more easy to conceal and/or justify from a propaganda perspective.

⁵⁰ "The new productive forces demand that the labourer shall display some kind of initiative in production and an inclination for work, and interest in work.  The feudal lord therefore discards the slave, as a labourer who had no interest in work and is entirely without initiative and prefers to deal with the serf, who has...a certain interest in work essential for the cultivation of the land and for the payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal lord."
Source 75 , page 36
⁵¹ (a) "Those revolutions (revolutions in European history--ED.) have taught the landowners and capitalists a lesson; they have taught them that they have to rule the people by deception, by flattery; that they have to adapt themselves...and, sharks though they are, declare: 'We are revolutionary democrats, please wait a bit and we'll do everything for you."
Source 39 , Vol. 2, page 132
(b) (Add) "...the more civilization advances, the more it is compelled to cover the ills it necessarily creates with the cloak of love, to embellish them, or to deny their existence; in short, to introduce conventional hypocrisy--unknown both in previous forms of society (primitive communes--Ed.)...."
Source 64 , Vol. 2, page 3

---

Page 27

TO GO TO PART 5 (CLICK HERE )