Chae

A REVISIONIST REVOLUTION IN MARXIAN THOUGHT
Chae Canada

Written May 2007 for my final World History ISU (Independant Study Unit). I wrote this back before being a little more seasoned in my thinking, I was pretty far left here - didnt leave alot of room for alternatives. After re-reading I see some flaws, but thought it better to post up before editing, see what, and if, anyone has anything to provoke my mind to delve deeper into it. Its a long read, I handed it in 22 pages (albeit double spaced) when finished with cover page and bibliography. Enjoy or dismantle, both are welcome.

-----

Marxism is irrelevant to the modern day 21st C. for several key reasons. When the Communist Manifesto was written, it was written for a world in a transitional phase between World Orders. Industrialism was taking over the world and with it the economic and social system of Bourgeois Capitalism. It transformed the family unit from interdependent on one another, into completely independent and separate parts of the same machine, if you will. Sons were no longer crucial to work the farm for the family’s food supply, or critical to the maintenance of the home. With the Industrial Revolution, a new wage-earning class was forged, and with this class came a flocking to the industrial centers, where jobs and homes were offered. This migration from the rural to the urban caused huge problems within the fabric of society. It created the plight of joblessness, flooding the urban cities with more people than jobs. It created homelessness, flooding with cities with more people without jobs who couldn’t afford decent living quarters, and with no rural area to return to. Crime became rampant, and a feasible means of sustaining oneself within a society that cared very little for ones wellbeing. All the horrors of Industrialisation were becoming apparent.

The realization of Industrialism gave a wide breadth to its symbiotic counterpart, which is akin to our current mode of living, Bourgeois Capitalism. The basic economic theory of Capitalism is that production and the capital (profits) must trump themselves continuously. If this does not occur, the system fails and inevitably collapses, and with it, everything that was involved within that system. If the system does not constantly grow and branch out, everything comes crumbling to the ground. Capitalism became the newest form of Monarchy, with the Capitalist becoming royalty in their own right. The Capitalist society, in order to be called a legitimate society, required the creation of a new class within this new system, and manufactured the wage-earning working class.

This brand new tier within the Western caste became the newest form of peasantry during the 19th Century. Exploitation and poor-treatment became a necessary evil of life to those belonging to the wage-earners. There was no recourse made available to the working man against the cruelty and indifference that was shown to him by his majesty, the Employer. His plight was suffered silently behind the mask of the machine, and no rights were allotted to him. He was viewed as merely a ‘flesh appendage to the machine he worked’(1)

With this drastic change in the societal fabric of the West, came equally drastic and entwined changes in the economic style that the West functioned within. Marx saw the economic theory of Capitalism as an extremely flawed one, with many contradictions. The way that Marx viewed a Capitalist society was quite simple, while being quite complex at the same time. Marx’s theory was based primarily on the economic relationship of man to man within the Capitalist system. There are two factors to his theoretical equation; one being the Capitalists themselves, the other being the working masses. Both these classes were forged from the Industrial Revolution, and both these classes exist in one form or another still in the 21st Century. It was said by Friedrich Engels in his writings that ‘on a small scale it(*) created the middle class. On a large scale, it created the Working class.’(2) In Marx’s time, the working masses that he named the Proletariat were exploited and mistreated within a society that cared very little for them. If we take a look into Marx’s own theories on the working proletariat, we can understand how the world functioned during that time.

MARXIST THEORY: 
PRODUCTIVE FORCES, PRODUCTIVE RELATIONS

Starting at the base of Marxism we come upon his theories of production. Nature supplies humans with the raw materials in order that we can produce something out of them. The ability of man to work and produce is called the productive forces. Just having the ability to produce is not yet enough, in order for humans to function properly, we must trade and exchange our produce for other necessities. These are called the productive relations. These two aspects of production are symbiotic; they cannot exist independently (on a large scale). In this way, everyone works for everyone; there is no inherent hierarchy or class system that can be seen.

THE COMMODITY

Marx’s own definition of a commodity is this: ‘a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another’(3) . The products of man, by way of the productive forces, become commodities by way of productive relations. This means that each commodity has two separate values; a use value, and an exchange value. The commodity has a use value because it can be used by someone, but the exchange value is much more complex. Take this example: a pile of sand has a value because it can be used for some purpose; but it would take a very large pile of sand to be exchanged for even a small piece of aluminium. What then comes into play is the question of whom or what determines the ratios at which these goods are valued? This is where the means of production come in.

THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

The means of production relate to the machines, tools, and equipments used in the production of the commodity. If we look at what goes into creating a piece of a car engine for example; we come out with several different parts of an equation. The tools involved in the production, i.e. machines, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. are one part. The raw materials needed in the creation of the final product, i.e. metals, plastics, woods, are another. Marx saw these as parts of the ‘capital’ equation: 

A + B = C (A = tools B = materials C = commodities) 

Broken down like this, however, you will realize that there is one piece of the equation missing. Marx saw these parts as fixed capital, the prices of the machinery and materials do not change, and therefore the commodity’s value will remain constant. Where then does the Capitalist necessity of ‘profit’ come from? The missing part to that whole equation is the component of Labour. In order for this equation to work, the Labour of the worker must be seen as both a part of the final equation of capital and profit, and as a commodity in itself. The product-commodity cannot be manufactured without the exertion of the worker who assembles it. Therefore, a workers labour must be bought and sold much the same as the raw materials or the machines that he works. The difference in this is that the labour is what Marx refers to as variable capital, meaning that the Capitalist manufacturer dictates the price of that labour. Like all commodities, labour is subject to the law of Supply and Demand, meaning that if there is a shortage of workers, the exchange value (wages) of their labour rises; and if there is a work surplus, they fall accordingly. The problem that occurred within Marx’s time era, is that the ratios and values of the labour were dictated by those who would be paying for that labour. This creates obvious conflict and bias in the way that the wages are doled out. The Capitalist goal is to make a profit, and if we go back to the previous equation of:

A + B = C (A = tools B = materials C = commodities)

…we notice that labour is not factored into it. When we factor in the labour, we see that labour is the only variable capital in the entire equation. Where then does the final profit come from? It cannot come from the fixed capital, because those prices are steady and not able to be manipulated by the manufacturer. The profit must be derived from the variable capital, or the labour component of the production. This means that a worker gets paid less than what his actual labour exchange value is worth. If he works for 10 hours, he gets paid for 6 hours because he is the only component of variable nature to be manipulated, and therefore the Capitalist manipulates him accordingly.

Although unfair and exploitive, this process is essential to the survival of a Capitalist system, and essential to the sustaining of the standard of living that us in the 1st World enjoy. Without the extortion of profit from the process of production, there would be no means to continue production, and the process would become linear, not the Capitalistically-cyclical way it is now. We recognize this as just ‘the way it is’ in our world, but we do not realize that eventually this will lead to the downfall of Capitalism and our very ‘stable and untouchable’ lives that we lead now. Nor do we recognize that it is indeed, not as cyclical as it may appear to be.

Capitalism runs openly on the basis of free market, free competition, and free trade. Free market runs openly on the basis of competition between companies within a given market. This leads to fierce competition to keep your company from bankruptcy, while trying to bankrupt your competitors. If one company produces the same product as another company, equal in quality ' but lower in price ' the consumers will buy the cheaper product. Therefore, every company is constantly trying to lower their prices, and referring back to the capital equation, the only feasible way to do this is by lowering the exchange value (wages) of the labour exerted on it. Eventually, prices are lowered as low as possible and wages are as low as possible so that the Capitalist can make the most profit while spending the least capital. This is where Capitalism devours its own head. In time, the wages are so low that the workers creating the products cannot even afford them. This is not so much a problem in the 21st Century as it was back in the 19th Century, due to the ability to affordably ship the product off to a nation that can afford to buy them ' but in Marx’s age, this was seen as an inevitable downfall in the Capitalist system, which has since evolved and adapted to the times we live today.

This pissed people off, for obvious reasons. The working class saw their peril, and they were none-to-impressed by it. They wanted something to be done, but there was no recourse made available to them so that they could do anything about it! Marx stated that the reality of his theories would eventually bring about an inevitable violent uprising of the mass proletarian working class. He settled on the notion that no other avenue was possible, that the only way to achieve a truly fair and equal society was to seize the power and the control from those who used it to exploit others. He called for the ‘workers of the world, [to] UNITE!’(4) and to create a global society based on ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’(5) ' surely a noble thought? It was, and still is quite a noble sentiment, even in today’s monstrously Capitalist society. What Marx was looking forward in the future to, was a state based upon his principles, and based upon Socialist policy. This is not how his name came to be revered later on, at the beginning of the 20th Century. The name of Marx would be tarnished for decades to come, and any idea of democratic-socialism shunned for quite a while during the early-mid 1900s, for fear of letting Communist ‘rule’ (somewhat of an oxy-moronic term) emerge again.

MARXISM IN PRACTICE: 
FORMATION OF THE USSR

The first Marxist state to emerge came at the hands of Lenin in Russia. It based itself upon Marxist principles, mainly on the principles of liberation of the working class from tyrannical rule. A very important concept to remember about the Russian Revolution is that it was about freeing the people from an Absolutist-Czarist Regime. This is important to recognize, because it debunks the theoretical concept of the inevitability of violent revolution in order to bring about a Marxist, or Communist state.

The exiled Social Democratic Party that Lenin belonged to, was rampant with internal conflict in the year of 1903, when it held a conference in London. The reason for this conflict stemmed from the control of the party. The result was a split; Lenin’s group having slightly more than 50% of the members, was named the Bolsheviks (meaning majority men) while another group led by Trotsky was named the Mensheviks (minority men). These groups had opposing views, while still agreeing on base Marxist principle. The Bolshevik faction would be the ones to overthrow the provisional government in 1917, in 1918 would execute the entire family of Czar Nicholas II (on orders of Lenin), and change their name to The Communist Party.

Once the Communists gained control of the nation, Lenin realized that the country was left in total economic turmoil. The working class was primarily made up of the children of peasants that migrated to the cities in search of work. They were illiterate, and the working class was a tiny fraction of a vast peasantry. Lenin saw his newly opened state as a fragile and delicate butterfly cocoon. One cannot just pry open a cocoon and expect a beautiful creature to emerge ' the larva must develop itself and free itself from its own restraints. ‘There was not, and could not be a definite plan for the organization of economic life. Nobody could provide one. But it could be done from below, by the masses, through their experience. Instructions would, or course, be given and ways would be indicated, but it was necessary to begin simultaneously from above and below.’(6)

If only his successor would have taken the same standpoint. It goes on to say in ARG: LENIN that whenever plans have been introduced from above, without the involvement of the masses, the so-called ‘socialism’ has turned into a grotesque authoritarian travesty.(7) This is illustrated easily in the 5-year plans of Stalin, where the same wage earning working class that the early Soviets liberated from tyrannical rule, was now under siege from it’s ‘savior’ government. The proletariat became yet another appendage to the machine, but this time the machine was the State. This is completely contradictory to the purest-Marxian principles, and in fact makes almost a complete 180o turn in the opposite direction. Stalin enslaved the working class, making them work for the State, instead of the other way around. Stalin was looking at the concept of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ from a different angle than Marx or (arguably) Lenin. While Marx saw it as the people having the most say in the workings of the State, and therefore the State = the People. This means that the People hold a dictatorship over themselves, by way of, or through the State. Stalin saw it as the State being there for the People, supported by the People, and therefore the State itself holds the dictatorship, regardless of the involvement of the masses. These two viewpoints are similar, and hold common ground, but when put into practice, have incredibly different outcomes. One is the Utopia of socialist society, the other noted appropriately as ‘concentration-camp socialism’(8)

Another factor of the straying off the Marxist path that was the USSR is the emergence of the very unappealing personality that was the Iron Man, Stalin. When Marx put forth his ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ idea, or even his political theory, he did not include a statement of whether a single man would be responsible for the sole control of the party. The philosophical teachings of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), someone who influenced Marx greatly, say that ‘the united will of the People could be embodied in and represented by a single individual’(9) but this completely clashes with the essence of Socialist behavior, which is ‘multi-vidual’ involvement. The extremely important question of ‘Who exactly is the State?’ arises, and historically we used the explanation that turned out to be wrong.

FAILURES IN MARXIST THOUGHT / A 10 POINTS CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM

It is not an unobserved fact that Marxism in the 20th Century, and even more so in the 21st Century, does not seem to be relevant or work. This is greatly due to a misconception of Marx’s core principles that he laid out in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. There are several key components to the 10 Commandments of the Manifesto that are generally misunderstood, and therefore discredited as outdated or ridiculous. At the same time, many of his concepts are in place in 1st World societies and governments today, in one form or another. This criticism is intended to bring to light the admirable qualities and to eradicate the irrelevant characteristics of Marxist theory.

1. ABOLITION OF PROPERTY IN LAND AND APPLICATION OF ALL RENTS OF LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES (10)

This is probably the most hated, and misinterpreted concept of the 10 Points. People feel threatened by this idea because they say it infringes on the human right of ownership, and of free market and of freedom to pursue happiness, by way of large properties, etc. These are all valid and fair reasons to oppose this point. The People work hard for their money, and so they should be allowed luxuries such as private property in order to enjoy their wealth.

The problem this poses is that it creates an inequality in society, and it solves nothing to close the wealth gap between the antagonistic classes of bourgeoisie and wage earners. The bourgeois can afford to buy larger property, build more factories or businesses on them, and perpetuate the cycle Marx is trying to eliminate.

An ‘easy’ reconciliation to this issue is this: firstly, abolish the market of buying and selling property in the private sector, and move it into the hands of the State. Allow the public to continue to own property privately, but make the State the real-estate agent. Secondly, have the State take ownership of the means of production, such as agricultural lands, mining industries, fishing industries, etc. and take it out of the hands of the private sector. Doing this does not eliminate jobs or violently disrupt the economy, because the only aspect changing in the businesses is the ownership. There may be slight cut backs due to an initial overspread of government monies ' but it would soon be regulated by profits from these industries being diverted solely to the hands of the People, by way of the State. This requires very organized and structured branches of government, but it is not an impossibility to achieve. It also insures that the working class people are taken care of, because essentially, they are employing themselves.

2. A HEAVY PROGRESSIVE OR GRADUATED INCOME TAX

This has already been implemented in most 1st World nations, where the richer members of society are taxed more, the less wealthy taxed less. The concept of from each according to his ability is used here. A relative tax, according to the amount of money that is brought into ones household makes perfect sense in a Socialist society, or nearly any society for that matter.

3. ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE

This is another controversial issue of the 10 Points. Abolition of inheritance is an issue that is seemingly outdated for the 21st Century. What is it that is being abolished? Children inheriting their deceased parents house, their life savings? These things are in today’s society very common occurrences, and would cause outrage among the masses if they were restricted from them. The 3rd point is one that can be left out of 21st Century Marxist Socialism; it is irrelevant and dated in today’s world.

4. CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS

This is another that must be left out of a 21st Century Marxist society. Classifying the term ‘rebel’ is dangerous. A rebel can be seen as someone who opposes the establishment, and in a blended Marxist/Western-democratic society, the freedom to express oneself, and the freedom of free opinion would reign supreme. Rebels would not just be eliminated or looked down upon, because then we would enter the failed world of Soviet Dictatorship. Point 4 is left out.

5. CENTRALIZATION OF CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE, BY MEANS OF A NATIONAL BANK WITH STATE CAPITAL AND AN EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY

Understandably, the idea of the government having sole access to all of ones money and funds is one that can be hit or miss. It is thought that if the government can access everyone’s money ' they will. This is not necessarily the truth. Laws can be enacted that restrict government access and government prying into the pocket books of the members of its Nation. The will of the People is king.

This is essential to a fair and equal society. If banks and even a portion of the nations money are in the hands of the private sector, then that private sector controls the livelihoods of a portion of the People. The People themselves, and therefore the State, should be in control of their own livelihoods, and therefore their own money. Private banks can set unreasonably high interest rates, repayment rates, and etc. on the sole purpose of turning a profit to benefit them. A State owned national bank with exclusive monopoly could control all the funds of the nation, and set the rates according to the well being of the People it represents.

6. CENTRALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORT IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE

Communication is one of the most important and pertinent aspects of an organization running smoothly. If communication is lacking within a nation, governments cannot organize themselves, the People cannot contact one another, and important information cannot be passed around. Communication is the key component to any society, any government, any group, any union, and any business.

What does not work for this aspect of the point is that it leaves itself far too open for government abuse. There is the possibility that the nation could fall into a situation similar to that of the United States and the National Security Agency, where they implement legal phone taps on ordinary citizens. This can be avoided, again, through the passing of laws to keep close tabs on the government. Not allowing them any room to maneuver around these laws so that they can again absolute control of the nation.

7. EXTENSION OF FACTORIES AND INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTIONS OWNED BY THE STATE; CULTIVATION OF WASTELANDS, AND IMPROVEMENT OF SOIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMMON PLAN

This goes hand in hand with the seizure of all privately owned property by the State. The State owns the means of production in order to insure that workers and lower class citizens enjoy a reasonable means of living. The government then becomes the owners of the factory, and they can set the standards and conditions that are worked in, by will of the People it represents.

The cultivation of wasteland and improvement of soil is acceptable, but must be carefully followed through. With the environment in the fragile state is in at the moment, we must be careful of what we classify as ‘wasteland’. Marshes and bogs are important and functional parts of our environment, which do many things for free that would cost us large amounts of money. If these are classified as wastelands, and subsequently destroyed, we lose a portion of our living environment, and a part of our national budget in order to undo the damage we’ve done. The government would need to work in unison with NGOs and Environmental groups in order to functionally work on this point.

8. EQUAL LIABILITY OF ALL TO LABOUR. ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARMIES, ESPECIALLY FOR AGRICULTURE

This is not so relevant in the 21st Century 1st World. The factory worker, for the most part, has been phased out and no longer makes up the majority of the population in most 1st World nations. The formation of industrial armies is applicable, but this could also constitute a mandatory enrollment into the army, which violates the rights we hold dear in our prosperous nations. Armies that are employed in government agriculture would be very beneficial not only to the People, but also to the economy of the nation. Armies are already structured so that the troops are housed, clothed, fed, etc. and therefore the payments for these activities can be dropped without putting the workers into dire living conditions.

9. COMBINATION OF AGRICULTURE WITH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES; GRADUAL ABOLITION OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TOWN AND COUNTRY, MORE EQUABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION OVER THE COUNTRY

Combining agriculture with manufacturing can be beneficial for several reasons. Firstly, industry and manufacturing plants draw workers close to them. If they are located near to the agricultural centers where their food is produced; there is less wasted food, environmental pollution is reduced because transport distance is greatly reduced, job markets enlarge because of increased population near to agricultural work, more efficient development of agriculture so that there is a surplus of product that benefits national economy. Equable distribution of the population throughout the nation helps to reduce large city centers where crime and poverty run rampant. The People are not as reliant on the cities for their jobs, earnings, etc. and so more jobs can open up elsewhere.

10. FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. ABOLITION OF CHILDREN’S FACTORY LABOUR IN ITS PRESENT FORM. COMBINATION OF EDUCATION WITH INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, &c., &c.

Free education has already been put into place in most developed nations around the world. Public schools funded by the government give students the opportunities to educate themselves and learn different trades and professions. The abolition of children working in factories had been gradually abolished from 1803 until 1891, and laws have been put in place to stop that from occurring again. The Factory Act of 1847 brought the work week for women and children under the age of 18 down to 10 hrs/week. The acts progressively got better until 1878 when it was said that no children under 10 may work anywhere, and enacted mandatory education for children up until age 10.(11) The combination of education with industrial production is somewhat outdated for the 21st Century. Our current majority population does not work in industrial factories, as was the case in the 19th Century. This aspect of the 10th and final point would be left out in a modern application of Marxism.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

The world today is very different from the world that Marx and Engels were describing in their written works during the mid-late 19th Century. In some ways, they were successful in getting their message across, and getting their policies integrated into the modern societies we currently live in. Public schools, health care systems, and the graduated income tax ' all these were called for by Marx himself in 1848. Some of what he proposed to be done is outdated for our time. Industrialism is for the most part a thing of the past, and in the 1st World we have a small percentage of factory workers compared to the 1800s. Western economy is decent enough that the vast majority of People can enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, without suffering through debilitating work conditions. In the 21st Century, the most noticeable flaw and dated aspect of Marxist thinking is the theory of revolution. We in the developed world have moved to a point where violent revolution and government overthrow is out of the question. The 3rd World developing nations, however, are seemingly always in a state of revolution one-way or the other, whether it be rightwing militia or leftwing rebels. This illustrates the main reason that Marxism is seemingly irrelevant in the 21st Century to the 1st World nations: we are comfortably ignorant of the fact that we are, in fact, the Bourgeoisie of the world. It is our money and demand that is clear cutting the Brazilian Amazon for charcoal to make pig iron for our cars. It is because we are enjoying a comfortably lifestyle that workers are paid next to nothing for their labour, and have little alternative than to cut that mystical forest down for us. Our exploitive nature renders Marxist thought somewhat unappealing, because it seeks to do away with our capitalistic and selfish ways of life.

The easiest way to apply Marxism to our current mode of living, without the insertion of a violent rebellion or revolution, is to transfer the means of production solely into the hands of the State. This is, of course, a Utopian viewpoint, because it would require a very high-level of participation within the society, as well as a closely monitored, and uncorrupted governmental system.

The fundamental problem with earlier states ‘adopting’ the Marxist theory is that these states were brought about and forged by revolution. This is the immediate downfall of a Marxist or Communist state. The revolution occurs illegally, in the underground sector, which instantaneously alienates the People from publicly choosing their representatives. This is the sole reason that the USSR failed to truly embody the will of the People of Russia, and the most significant reason that Maoist-China has never truly represented the interests of the Chinese, or its satellites. The parties were brought about by violent means, and its leaders elected from within an estranged body, separate from the People it claimed to represent. Although popular in action, these newly formed governments were hastily assembled and left very little time for them to be checked against the will of the masses, until too late.

In essence, true Marxism can only be brought about peacefully, in an already established democracy. The leaders of a Marxist based party must be elected by the People it will some day represent, not by a group that merely maintains their unwavering allegiance to the Public. It a sense, it is contradictory to Marx’s own belief that the only way to bring about a peaceful, democratic-socialist state is by a violent uprising of the People. It is also, in a sense, the purest embodiment of Marxist thought, that the People dictate their own existence, not groups who are estranged from them. This contradiction lies in the immense and measureless difference between the ages. In a time where absolutism was commonplace, violence was the only way to thrust Public opinion upon those who needed to listen to it. This still pertains to developing nations in the 3rd World. In today’s developed-world-society, democracy is already installed into our mindsets and into the social order of our lives, and it is easy to make changes and amendments to our modes of living through Public pressure and Public debate. There is no need for revolution anymore, and so a blend of Marxist-Socialism can be put into place to benefit the masses peacefully and successfully.

Marxism can live on; it’s just a matter of giving it a much-needed facelift, tummy-tuck, and maybe some augmentation surgery to make it more appealing our image-crazed 21st Century world…

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS…

----

REFERENCES:

1. Marx, Karl / Engels, Friedrich The Communist Manifesto, Penguin Books, 1848
* ‘Industrialisation, the Industrial Revolution (c. 1815-1860)
2. Engels, Friedrich, The Conditions of The Working Class in England, 1844 
3. Woodfin, Rupert, Introducing…Marxism, Icon Books UK, 2004 (reference to Das Kapital, Marx) (p. 44) 
4/5. Marx, Karl / Engels, Friedrich The Communist Manifesto, Penguin Books, 1848 (p. 52) 
6. Lenin Collected Works 26:365 (Birchall, Ian, A Rebel’s Guide To: LENIN, Bookmarks, 2005 (p. 37)) 
7. Birchall, Ian, A Rebel’s Guide To: LENIN, Bookmarks, 2005 (p. 37) 
8. Newman - Grenier, Impact textbook, Mcgraw-Hill, Ryerson, 1996, p.360 
9. Parkinson, C. Northcote, The Evolution of Political Thought, Viking Press (p. 272) 
10. Marx, Karl / Engels, Friedrich The Communist Manifesto, Penguin Books, 1848 (p. 32/33 
11. Website reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Act 

-----

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

-BOOKS- 
1. Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1844 
2. C. Northcote Parkinson, The Evolution of Political Thought, Viking Press 
3. Ian Birchall, A Rebel’s Guide to LENIN, Bookmarks, 2005 4
. Karl Marx / F. Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Penguin, 1848 
5. Rupert Woodfin / Oscar Zarate, Introducing…Marxism, Icon Books UK, 2004 
6. Newman - Grenier, Impact textbook, Mcgraw-Hill, Ryerson Publishing, 1996 

-WEBSITES- 
1. Wikipedia Source, search ‘Factory Act’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Act)