What exactly does Marx mean?

[Nolan]

What does Marx mean when he says this in the Manifesto of the Communist Party?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. etc.

Certainly he doesn't mean tax like we know it today?

Discuss.

And:

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

[which doctor]

You have to view this in the historical context in which the Communist Manifesto was written: the revolutions of 1848. This list of demands is historically specific to the workers movement of that specific moment in time. At the time of its issuance, these demands were very progressive, though they may seem outmoded or naive to modern readers.

For all purposes, modern readers should disregard this part of the manifesto.

[jake williams]

You have to view this in the historical context in which the Communist Manifesto was written: the revolutions of 1848. This list of demands is historically specific to the workers movement of that specific moment in time. At the time of its issuance, these demands were very progressive, though they may seem outmoded or naive to modern readers.

For all purposes, modern readers should disregard this part of the manifesto.
This, plus anyway clearly the income tax today is not heavily progressive. Wages are taxed pretty highly. Income is not.

"Confiscation of the property of emigrants" is what we would now call safeguards against capital flight, which historically a number of state-oriented developing capitalist countries (eg. South Korea and I think possibly for a time, Japan), but which is today disappearing. Moreover, it's absolutely essential to have any progress, even much more so today, because with free capital movement the actions of one small government can be rendered almost irrelevant quite quickly.

[ZeroNowhere]

Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew. -The German Ideology, 1845


But Herr Heinzen also promises social reforms. Of course, the indifference of the people towards his appeals has gradually forced him to. And what kind of. reforms are these? They are such as theCommunists themselves suggest in preparation for the abolition of private property. The only point Herr Heinzen makes that deserves recognition he has borrowed from the Communists, the Communists whom he attacks so violently, and even that is reduced in his hands to utter nonsense and mere day-dreaming. All measures to restrict competition and the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals, all restriction or suppression of the law of inheritance, all organisation of labour by the state, etc., all these measures are not only possible as revolutionary measures, but actually necessary. They are possible because the whole insurgent proletariat is behind them and maintains them by force of arms. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way.

Herr Heinzen however wants all these measures as permanent, final measures. They are not to be a preparation for anything, they are to be definitive. They are for him not a means but an end. They are not designed for a revolutionary but for a peaceful, bourgeois condition. But this makes them impossible and at the same time reactionary. The economists of the bourgeoisie are quite right in respect of Herr Heinzen when they present these measures as reactionary compared with free competition. Free competition is the ultimate, highest and most developed form of existence of private property. All measures, therefore, which start from the basis of private property and which are nevertheless directed against free competition, are reactionary and tend to restore more primitive stages in the development of property, and for that reason they must finally be defeated once more by competition and result in the restoration of the present situation. These objections the bourgeoisie raises, which lose all their force as soon as one regards the above social reforms as pure mesures de salut public, as revolutionary and transitory measures, these objections are devastating as far as Herr Heinzen’s peasant-socialist black, red and gold republic is concerned.-Engels on Heinzen, 1847


In treating of the laws of inheritance, we necessarily suppose that private property in the means of production continues to exist. If it did no longer exist among the living, it could not be transferred from them, and by them, after their death. All measures, in regard to the right of inheritance, can therefore only relate to a state of social transition, where, on the one hand, the present economical base of society is not yet transformed, but where, on the other hand, the working masses have gathered strength enough to enforce transitory measures calculated to bring about an ultimate radical change of society.

Considered from this standpoint, changes of the laws of inheritance form only part of a great many other transitory measures tending to the same end.

These transitory measures, as to inheritance, can only be:
a. Extension of the inheritance duties already existing in many states, and the application of the funds hence derived to purposes of social emancipation.
b. Limitation of the testamentary right of inheritance, which -- as distinguished from the intestate or family right of inheritance -- appears as arbitrary and superstitious exaggeration even of the principles of private property themselves.-Marx on inheritance, 1869.


As an economical measure, it would avail nothing. It would cause so much irritation that it would be sure to raise an almost insurmountable opposition which would inevitably lead to reaction. If at the time of a revolution it was proclaimed, he did not believe that the general state of intelligence would warrant its being sustained. Besides, if the working class had sufficient power to abolish the right of inheritance, it would be powerful enough to proceed to expropriation, which would be a much simpler and more efficient process.-Record of a speech by Marx on inheritance, 1869.


However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm). That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated.- Preface to the Manifesto, 1872.

[Nolan]

It's so fucking infuriating to see that passed off as proof that the U.S. is Marxist.

[Wolf Larson]

From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.The income tax will eventually be everything, as in, no one gets a wage. Everything is free. Like travel on the highways. Equality. If this happens with a Bolshevik minority controlling a centralized government I'm not so sure I'd like it. Marx eventually wanted hierarchy abolished but history shows once people have power they don't voluntarily give it up. There would almost have to be a second anarchist revolution against the communist state after communism was established globally. This didn't happen in Russia or China in part because the people in power didn't want to give power up to the people and in part because socialism wasn't global and the US was constantly attempting to end communism so the state mechanism had to be kept in place in order to fend off capitalism while spreading communism. Or maybe I'm projecting my anarchistic fantasies? I think the progressive income tax was part of the expropriation plan but don't listen to me because I've spent most of my time reading anarchist literature. I'm not a big fan of using the state apparatus to facilitate communism. I'd rather give power straight to the workers.

[Invincible Summer]

If this happens with a Bolshevik minority controlling a centralized government I'm not so sure I'd like it. Marx eventually wanted hierarchy abolished but history shows once people have power they don't voluntarily give it up.
Or maybe because material conditions would make such an action strategically unfeasible?


There would almost have to be a second anarchist revolution against the communist state after communism was established globally.
What's the first anarchist revolution?


This didn't happen in Russia or China in part because the people in power didn't want to give power up to the people and in part because socialism wasn't global and the US was constantly attempting to end communism so the state mechanism had to be kept in place in order to fend off capitalism while spreading communism.
So which one was it? The two seem to contradict each other; the latter makes it seem like "the people in power" (as if they were a single, monolithic entity) wanted to give the people power but couldn't, whereas the former suggests they were power-hungry dictators.


Or maybe I'm projecting my anarchistic fantasies?
Yes. :p

[Wolf Larson]

Or maybe because material conditions would make such an action strategically unfeasible?


What's the first anarchist revolution?


So which one was it? The two seem to contradict each other; the latter makes it seem like "the people in power" (as if they were a single, monolithic entity) wanted to give the people power but couldn't, whereas the former suggests they were power-hungry dictators.


Yes. :p

I worded it wrong. I meant to say there would have to be a second revolution after the first. Meaning after the socialist revolution there would have to be an anarchist revolution to get rid of the state. If there were just one collectivist non hierarchical revolution to begin with that did not preserve the state apparatus there would be no need for a second of an anarchist nature. Marx wanted communism to end up in a state of collectivist anarchism but this didn't happen did it? Why? What I'm saying is, perhaps for this to happen after the communists take over the state and spread socialism an anarchist revolution may be necessary to disassemble or transform the state apparatus. To take the state apparatus out of a managerial class's hands and put it into workers hands. What has history shown us? What happened in socialist nations when a small political class controlled the state? Also, me being an anarchist I favor just one swift immediate transfer of the means of production. No incremental socialism that preserves the state. I'm of the opinion that hierarchy is just as big a problem as capitalism. I also thanked your post because I enjoy respectful discussion on such topics ;) It can be divisive. This state nonsense.