The 10 planks of communism

[redfist.]

So, I recently started reading up on marxist "properly" (just started reading the Manifesto, Das Kapital 1 is next), and in one of the introductory works that I read (Marx for Beginners by Rius) and in it, the 10 planks of communism were presented.

I assume most of you know them, but here they are anyway:

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

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

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

The one I am concerned with is the one in bold. Now, the reason is, as follows: In the opening pages of the Manifesto, Marx defines the post-industrial bourgeoisie society as one marked by centralization of political power (through the representative, or parliamentary, democracy), property, capital (I believe, can't remember exactly) and, I think we can assume, commodity. Now, in the 5th of the Communist planks, he defends centralization of commodity in atleast one of it's forms, as defined by the opening pages of the first in Das Kapital series. In the book by Rius, he mentioned that Marx also assumed that these planks would be implemented after the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (i.e a worker's state, and therefore, the means of production would be in the hands of the proletariat). So, my question is: Was Marx pro-centralization of commodity in a traditional state organ?

[Blake's Baby]

Marx was writing in 1847. Specifically, thinking about the German Empire which was at that time a weird confederation of states run by aristocracies. He was in favour of capitalism developing the productive forces, and saw centralisation of the economy as a positive development in that regard. By the 1870s, once capitalism had done that itself (without the working class playing really any role in it) the '10 planks' were already regarded by Marx and Engels as obsolete. In short - in very different historical circumstances 165 years ago, Marx and Engels proposed measures which were instead taken by the bourgeoisie to stabilise and develop capitalism, which Marx and Engels saw at that time as being positive compared to the feudalism that still existed in Europe.

Why do you ask?

[redfist.]

Centralization seems to be so counter-productive of what the proletariat is trying to achieve: the ownership of the means of production. And it also kind of gives some legitimacy to the whole marxist-leninist though of centralization of commodity.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah, as Blake said, this was what we'd call 'early Marx'.

I'm not sure in which works, but 'later Marx' pretty much renounced this early set of demands.

In Capital, he expanded his economic philosophy in a very extended way, and that pretty much runs contrary to the mere reform demands presented in the list above.

Marxism isn't about centralising this, or reforming that, or providing full employment/better pay here and there, it's about a revolutionary break with capitalism and the establishing of a new social system. Think of how different the world today is from 500-1000 years ago. That's the difference we're talking about. This can't be done with mere economistic reforms by liberal/social-democratic governments, or even centralisation by a 'Communist Party'-style government as in the 20th century. It's something much grander, much more revolutionary than that. Many on the left still fail to understand this, but it's crucial if our historically-based conception of what Marxism demands is to be accurate.

[redfist.]

Yeah, as Blake said, this was what we'd call 'early Marx'.

I'm not sure in which works, but 'later Marx' pretty much renounced this early set of demands.

In Capital, he expanded his economic philosophy in a very extended way, and that pretty much runs contrary to the mere reform demands presented in the list above.

Marxism isn't about centralising this, or reforming that, or providing full employment/better pay here and there, it's about a revolutionary break with capitalism and the establishing of a new social system. Think of how different the world today is from 500-1000 years ago. That's the difference we're talking about. This can't be done with mere economistic reforms by liberal/social-democratic governments, or even centralisation by a 'Communist Party'-style government as in the 20th century. It's something much grander, much more revolutionary than that. Many on the left still fail to understand this, but it's crucial if our historically-based conception of what Marxism demands is to be accurate.

In other words: The Communist Manifesto is not really a good representation of how to achieve communism, and revisionism is stupid?

[Red Commissar]

Marx was writing in 1847. Specifically, thinking about the German Empire which was at that time a weird confederation of states run by aristocracies. He was in favour of capitalism developing the productive forces, and saw centralisation of the economy as a positive development in that regard. By the 1870s, once capitalism had done that itself (without the working class playing really any role in it) the '10 planks' were already regarded by Marx and Engels as obsolete. In short - in very different historical circumstances 165 years ago, Marx and Engels proposed measures which were instead taken by the bourgeoisie to stabilise and develop capitalism, which Marx and Engels saw at that time as being positive compared to the feudalism that still existed in Europe.

Why do you ask?

Yup. And here's Marx and Engels saying that if you are curious:
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

Bolded for emphasis

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, [/b]no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II[/b]. 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. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.

But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.


In other words: The Communist Manifesto is not really a good representation of how to achieve communism, and revisionism is stupid?

No one is saying that- but rather we should be mindful of the time that the Communist Manifesto was written in when those proposals were very radical. The main points of the Communist Manifesto are still relevant, that is the idea of class struggle, private property's effects, and the role of the proletariat.

[redfist.]

No one said that it was ideologically irrelevant either, but the 10 planks (presumably, outside of the proletariat uniting on several levels, the actual revolution etc.) are no longer relevant to instigating/bring about communism. Am I wrong about that?

[redfist.]

I apologize if I caused confusion by not separating clearly between the ideological foundation laid by the Communist Manifesto, and the seemingly outdated revolutionary methods, when making the comment you replied to, Red Commissar ;)1

[subcp]

The general principles of the Manifesto are sound (class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie, etc.). The specific policy demands are not principles, and were quickly antiquated- which was recognized by both Marx and Engels. The Manifesto is an historical document for the most part. Aspects of Marxism that are still relevant today can be seen in works like Capital, the Grundrisse, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Anti-Duering, German Ideology, etc.

[Lokomotive293]

Centralization seems to be so counter-productive of what the proletariat is trying to achieve: the ownership of the means of productio.

How so? The concentration and centralization of capital seems to be the precondition for socialist revolution being successful. It's exactly what capitalism does, it socializes production without socializing the means of production, so under capitalism in its final stage, we basically have a planned economy already, and all we really have to do is expropriate the 30 or so families that own it and take control of it ourselves.

[redfist.]

The problem being that WE don't take it from them. Some form of government does.

[Skyhilist]

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Wait, I have a question for more experienced Marxists based on this, actually (if this isn't a good place to ask, please tell me and I'll start another thread about it). Suppose there were like family heirlooms in a family that held value to that family but not really significant monetary value. Would those items to be allowed to be inherited as well, or does this "plank of communism" mainly refer to things like houses, cars, etc.?


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

Also, how would you define these terms? If communism is supposed to be global, then how can you possibly define what an "emigrant" is precisely? Moreover, how long would you have to be gone to be considered an emigrant? For example, if I study abroad for a year in a distance land with the intent to come back after that year, am I an "emigrant"? Finally, what do they mean by "rebels"? Suppose the state is not representing the interests of the working class and the working class chooses to revolt, wouldn't they then be considered "rebels"? In which case, wouldn't this have the potential to in fact work against the interests of the workers in some cases?

[Lokomotive293]

The problem being that WE don't take it from them. Some form of government does.

Nevertheless, we shouldn't be against centralization, in fact we want centralization to go further than it is possible under capitalism, we should be against private ownership of the means of production. Of course a few monopolies together with the capitalist state running the economy is not in our interest. The question is, though, if the same thing done by "small businesses" is any more in our interest (Assuming it were possible to go back there, which it is not)
Or were you talking about after the revolution? Because in that case WE are the government.

[redfist.]

Are you implying that bourgeois ownership is the same as the proletariat owning the means of production? Wah? I am talking about socialism (i.e. the step between capitalism and communism). Do you see the revolution as one continuous process until communism, or do you see it as capitalism-revolution-socialism-communism? If the latter, then, under a marxist-leninist (i.e. a centralized planned economy) system, then no, we are NOT the government.

[Lokomotive293]

Are you implying that bourgeois ownership is the same as the proletariat owning the means of production? Wah?

Where did I say that?


I am talking about socialism (i.e. the step between capitalism and communism).

Ok.


Do you see the revolution as one continuous process until communism, or do you see it as capitalism-revolution-socialism-communism? If the latter, then, under a marxist-leninist (i.e. a centralized planned economy) system, then no, we are NOT the government.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say, I'm afraid. I see the revolution as the act of the proletariat taking over political power. After that, we are the government, the state is our state. As long as we still need it...

[redfist.]

The question is, though, if the same thing done by "small businesses" is any more in our interest .

I thought you were talking about decentralization as it could result in a similar situation, except the proletariat would own the means of production and there would be no hierarchy in the workplace.

I asked you to define what you meant by revolution (Is it a continuous process that ends with communism, or is the revolution immediately followed by socialism which leads to communism?). I suppose it is trivial. Never mind that. What I was getting at is: under a marxist-leninist form of socialism, we would neither be the government, nor control the means of production, hence my original statement ("It is counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve). See what I mean?

[Lokomotive293]

I thought you were talking about decentralization as it could result in a similar situation, except the proletariat would own the means of production and there would be no hierarchy in the workplace.

Ah, ok. I was talking about advocating decentralization under capitalism, i.e. the idea that small businesses are somehow "better" than big monopolies. But, anyway, I also don't see how decentralization under socialism would be practical, or desirable. Only through the centralization of production is it possible to have the technological standard we enjoy today. Decentralizing things would seem to go contrary to the movement of history.


What I was getting at is: under a marxist-leninist form of socialism, we would neither be the government, nor control the means of production

What do you mean by "a Marxist-Leninist form of socialism"?

[redfist.]

Ah, ok. I was talking about advocating decentralization under capitalism, i.e. the idea that small businesses are somehow "better" than big monopolies.

Ah, I understand. It would be weird for me to advocate that, espescially on this board :grin:


But, anyway, I also don't see how decentralization under socialism would be practical, or desirable. Only through the centralization of production is it possible to have the technological standard we enjoy today. Decentralizing things would seem to go contrary to the movement of history.

Are you thinking about things that are absolutely essential here (i.e. hospitals, transportation, communication, school systems etc.)? In which case, I agree. But the production of things like clothing, food etc., should be decentralized and purely controlled by the workers, as a central organ is not fit to plan out the needs of an entire population. That planning (i.e. the planning of how much food, clothing and things of that nature) should be done by the people, as they are more in touch with their own needs. Since they own the means of production, it will also allow them to use these resources as they see fit.




What do you mean by "a Marxist-Leninist form of socialism"?

Well, a form of socialism where political power (another thing that should be decentralized by the way, imo), commodity, land and capital is in the hands of a state organ (i.e. centralized).

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Ah, ok. I was talking about advocating decentralization under capitalism, i.e. the idea that small businesses are somehow "better" than big monopolies.

The big problem being small businesses eventualy evolve into big companies.


I also don't see how decentralization under socialism would be practical

This is not a matter of practicality, it is a matter of freedom. It might not be the most practical thing to do, but it is what must be done. To use a state to reach a stateless society is hypocritical, and there is no logic in doing it.


or desirable.

When somebody says this I have the enormous compulsion to call them fascists, but, since fascists call themselves right-wing, I am going to have to settle with: STALINIST!!!
If you want to live in a dictatorship why are you supporting a movement that stands for the liberation of the working class, and, subsequently, the liberation of humanity?


Only through the centralization of production is it possible to have the technological standard we enjoy today.

:laugh:
I can only laugh at this, because does not even make sense! It is the same reaction I have when reading the arguments of right-wing libertarians.
Again, why are you supporting an ideology that stands for the emancipation of the working class when you say the state must be in control!?
It makes no sense. If the state takes control then the workers are not in control.
Even worse is the fact that you actualy believe workers cannot organize by themselves.
I think you are just a confused fascist.


Decentralizing things would seem to go contrary to the movement of history.

I see you really do have a strong desire to be ruled. I now think that if you had the chance to become a slave, you would do it, but only if you were a slave to the communist party!

Here is the toughts of Proudhon on what it is to be ruled: To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. ... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Strange that you want all of these things done to you.


What do you mean by "a Marxist-Leninist form of socialism"?

I beleive he means stalinism, an ideology very similar to yours.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Also, how would you define these terms? If communism is supposed to be global, then how can you possibly define what an "emigrant" is precisely? Moreover, how long would you have to be gone to be considered an emigrant? For example, if I study abroad for a year in a distance land with the intent to come back after that year, am I an "emigrant"? Finally, what do they mean by "rebels"? Suppose the state is not representing the interests of the working class and the working class chooses to revolt, wouldn't they then be considered "rebels"? In which case, wouldn't this have the potential to in fact work against the interests of the workers in some cases?

This isn't a discussion about policy under 'communism', this is a discussion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The DotP begins the tranistion to communism, it isn't communism in and of itself. In creating communist society there can be no dictatorship of the proletariat because the proletariat will already have abolished itself. So if the DotP exists, then communism can't, by definition.

Under the DotP there will also be non-revolutionary areas (hopefully, the revolution will be progressing there, but the working class won't take control everywhere simultaneously) and thus places that 'emigrants' can emigrate to. In other words, those who flee when the revolution is progressing in a territory can expect that their property will have been collectivised if they decide to return later.

If 'the state' is not representing the wrking class then something has gone terribly wrong because the revolutionary territory is the dictatorship of the proletariat; if it is not under the control of the working class, then it is the counter-revolution and needs to be overthrown. The Manifesto is talking about those who rebel against the dictatorship of the proletariat - not what happens in a failed revolution when a bureaucratic clique takes control of the state and installs themselves as the managers of national capital. That wasn't a situation Marx wrote a contingency plan for.

[Lokomotive293]

Ah, I understand. It would be weird for me to advocate that, espescially on this board :grin:

There are a lot of people calling themselves leftists who actually do advocate that. But, never mind.


Are you thinking about things that are absolutely essential here (i.e. hospitals, transportation, communication, school systems etc.)? In which case, I agree. But the production of things like clothing, food etc., should be decentralized and purely controlled by the workers, as a central organ is not fit to plan out the needs of an entire population. That planning (i.e. the planning of how much food, clothing and things of that nature) should be done by the people, as they are more in touch with their own needs. Since they own the means of production, it will also allow them to use these resources as they see fit.

I think the production of food and clothes should be centralized as well (it is quite centralized already), just because it makes things so much easier. Why should we go back to everyone sewing their clothes for themselves, when we can have it done in much shorter time in huge factories? You need to imagine that, in the beginning, central planning is essentially just like developed capitalism turned on its head: Instead of two giant corporations controlling the market and running things for a profit, everything will be owned by the state and run democratically, under the objective to fulfill the needs of the people. And yes, central planning CAN be democratic, that's more a matter of how it is done than of if it is done at all.


Well, a form of socialism where political power (another thing that should be decentralized by the way, imo), commodity, land and capital is in the hands of a state organ (i.e. centralized).

That's not specifically Leninist, though, as Marx said the same thing. And, I think history has shown that that is just what we need. Again, centralization of political power does not automatically mean that things will be undemocratic.

[Lokomotive293]

The big problem being small businesses eventualy evolve into big companies.

That was my point.


This is not a matter of practicality, it is a matter of freedom.

How is it freedom if we have to work much longer hours because production is "decentralized"?


To use a state to reach a stateless society is hypocritical, and there is no logic in doing it.

That's a different question altogether, and I know you are an Anarchist and not going to share my views on this.


When somebody says this I have the enormous compulsion to call them fascists, but, since fascists call themselves right-wing, I am going to have to settle with: STALINIST!!! If you want to live in a dictatorship why are you supporting a movement that stands for the liberation of the working class, and, subsequently, the liberation of humanity?

:laugh:
I can only laugh at this, because does not even make sense! It is the same reaction I have when reading the arguments of right-wing libertarians.
Again, why are you supporting an ideology that stands for the emancipation of the working class when you say the state must be in control!?
It makes no sense. If the state takes control then the workers are not in control.
Even worse is the fact that you actualy believe workers cannot organize by themselves.
I think you are just a confused fascist.

I see you really do have a strong desire to be ruled. I now think that if you had the chance to become a slave, you would do it, but only if you were a slave to the communist party!

Yea, it's so easy to just misrepresent the other's position and throw out a few insults, why bother making a real argument at all? What I am saying is this: Production, under capitalism, is highly centralized already. That is a huge benefit for society, as it means that we have trains and airplanes, modern means of communication, and mass production in general. So, when the working class take over political power, the first thing we have to do is centralize the means of production in the hands of the worker's state (which, as you can see from its name, will be controlled by the workers), and establish a system of production according to a social plan. When the state as an organ of class rule is no longer needed, it will wither away. What will remain is just administrative functions, but "political power", and with it all the means of suppression and "law enforcement" will disappear.
You can disagree with this position and we can have a discussion about it in a civil manner, but if you are just here to call everyone you disagree with a "confused fascist", I will not reply to you anymore.


I beleive he means stalinism, an ideology very similar to yours.

I don't really have a problem with an Anarchist calling me Stalinist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

*If the state takes control then the workers are not in control.

The workers and the state will be one and the same.

[redfist.]

There are a lot of people calling themselves leftists who actually do advocate that. But, never mind.

Laughable.




I think the production of food and clothes should be centralized as well (it is quite centralized already), just because it makes things so much easier. Why should we go back to everyone sewing their clothes for themselves, when we can have it done in much shorter time in huge factories? You need to imagine that, in the beginning, central planning is essentially just like developed capitalism turned on its head: Instead of two giant corporations controlling the market and running things for a profit, everything will be owned by the state and run democratically, under the objective to fulfill the needs of the people. And yes, central planning CAN be democratic, that's more a matter of how it is done than of if it is done at all.

It's regressive because it's just taking the traits of a capitalist society (in the Manifesto, he also pointed out that the capitalist times were a time of centralization, just not in government hands, but in a privileged few's hands) and putting them into a state organ parading as socialist. That is no guarantee, and can you provide any historical evidence that suggests this will happen (i.e. it being run democratically, the state serving the interests of the people. Political centralization is about serving the interests of the people whom the power is centralize to. You need look no further than the U.S. to see that)? And even if, why risk it? And why would you be againt putting the means of production in the hands of the proletariat? Because they have to work "longer hours"? Ever heard of such a thing as work regulations?




That's not specifically Leninist, though, as Marx said the same thing. And, I think history has shown that that is just what we need. Again, centralization of political power does not automatically mean that things will be undemocratic.

As established by the second post in this thread, this view was later abandoned by Marx.

[redfist.]

The workers and the state will be one and the same.

Well, this depends.

[fractal-vortex]

Redfist! To understand what is "communism", it is necessary to examine carefully the experience of the former USSR, China, etc. i.e. the transitional states. Marx is outdated.

[Blake's Baby]

They were not 'transitional states', they were capitalist states.

[conmharáin]

As established by the second post in this thread, this view was later abandoned by Marx.

What Marx abandoned was a specific demand, his reason for doing so being that capitalism had more or less already accomplished it. Centralization has already happened. We can more or less expect that whatever agency seizes political power, as a necessary step toward wresting it from the bourgeoisie, will, by necessity, assume a centralized character. This does not mean an undemocratic character; it does mean that dissent, while noted, cannot be appeased through compromise. Thankfully, when the notion of protecting property becomes obsolete, we can expect political and social administration to become obsolete.

[redfist.]

Redfist! To understand what is "communism", it is necessary to examine carefully the experience of the former USSR, China, etc. i.e. the transitional states. Marx is outdated.

But those states were authoritarian, and opposed to the tendencies I'm leaning towards.

[redfist.]

What Marx abandoned was a specific demand, his reason for doing so being that capitalism had more or less already accomplished it. Centralization has already happened. We can more or less expect that whatever agency seizes political power, as a necessary step toward wresting it from the bourgeoisie, will, by necessity, assume a centralized character. This does not mean an undemocratic character; it does mean that dissent, while noted, cannot be appeased through compromise. Thankfully, when the notion of protecting property becomes obsolete, we can expect political and social administration to become obsolete.

I already pointed out, that Marx pointed out that the "capitalist-era" (i.e. the era of the capitalist mode of production) was marked by centralization of commodity/land/capital/political power, except it was in the hands of the ruling class, not the state. Centralized in what way?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

So, I recently started reading up on marxist "properly" (just started reading the Manifesto, Das Kapital 1 is next), and in one of the introductory works that I read (Marx for Beginners by Rius) and in it, the 10 planks of communism were presented.

I assume most of you know them, but here they are anyway:

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

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

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

The one I am concerned with is the one in bold. Now, the reason is, as follows: In the opening pages of the Manifesto, Marx defines the post-industrial bourgeoisie society as one marked by centralization of political power (through the representative, or parliamentary, democracy), property, capital (I believe, can't remember exactly) and, I think we can assume, commodity. Now, in the 5th of the Communist planks, he defends centralization of commodity in atleast one of it's forms, as defined by the opening pages of the first in Das Kapital series. In the book by Rius, he mentioned that Marx also assumed that these planks would be implemented after the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (i.e a worker's state, and therefore, the means of production would be in the hands of the proletariat). So, my question is: Was Marx pro-centralization of commodity in a traditional state organ?
The minute that anybody brings up "ten planks/pillars of communism" I would ignore them or at least take what they say with a very big grain of salt because they probably aren't the most knowledgeable of Marx and communism. I don't know who Rius is but I would have put the book down when I came across that because I don't think I could take someone authoritatively speaking on Marx if they write that.

Marx was pro-centralization of production to a worker's government based on a social plan made by the working class who controlled the government/production.


The problem being that WE don't take it from them. Some form of government does.A government of the working class presumably which contains YOU and I.


It's regressive because it's just taking the traits of a capitalist society (in the Manifesto, he also pointed out that the capitalist times were a time of centralization, just not in government hands, but in a privileged few's hands) and putting them into a state organ parading as socialist.It's taking progressive traits of capitalism and adapting them towards a more worker orientated plan. Capitalism centralizes production across many areas, creates international relations, mass production, technologically advanced production past what was dreamed of at the beginning, etc. Just because something is a trait of capitalist production does not make it bad. We can take these traits and put them to better use. Of course we'll be against things "parading as socialist" but why must we presuppose it can't genuinely be socialist?


That is no guaranteeThere is no guarantee that any revolution will be successful.


(i.e. it being run democratically, the state serving the interests of the people. Political centralization is about serving the interests of the people whom the power is centralize to. You need look no further than the U.S. to see that)
Well the power will be in the hands of the workers so by your logic it will be about serving the interests of the workers whom the power is centralized to. I'm not in favor of some C.C. running the country.


And why would you be againt putting the means of production in the hands of the proletariat? Because they have to work "longer hours"? Ever heard of such a thing as work regulations? I don't think anybody said they were. What Lokomotive293 is saying is decentralized production makes for longer hours, more time spent working than a centralized system of mass producing. At least that's what I'm getting from her.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

This is not a matter of practicality, it is a matter of freedom. It might not be the most practical thing to do, but it is what must be done.I think it's the more practical thing to do and also more conducive to real freedom than "decentralization" of production is. Centralization of production would be less wasteful for our resources, would be more productive and sufficient, would be better at raising the standard of living for those in areas not as developed, etc, etc.


To use a state to reach a stateless society is hypocritical, and there is no logic in doing it.Why is it hypocritical? Why is there no logic in doing it?


When somebody says this I have the enormous compulsion to call them fascists, but, since fascists call themselves right-wing, I am going to have to settle with: STALINIST!!!
When somebody says this I have the enormous compulsion to call them a immature, childlike, dumbass. "Stalinist!" "Fascist!" Seriously? That's all you got?

If you want to live in a dictatorship why are you supporting a movement that stands for the liberation of the working class, and, subsequently, the liberation of humanity?I don't think anybody said that...

:laugh:
I can only laugh at this, because does not even make sense! It is the same reaction I have when reading the arguments of right-wing libertarians. How does it not make any sense? Centralization of the productive forces happen in capitalist society without government ownership of them in a lot of cases and because of the centralization of capital in the hands of a smaller number of capitalists we have what we have now. We wouldn't be living like we do today(like me typing to you from a computer most likely made in a different country) if the productive forces in society stayed decentralized in countless small businesses.

Again, why are you supporting an ideology that stands for the emancipation of the working class when you say the state must be in control!?
It makes no sense. If the state takes control then the workers are not in control.Why do you deny that there can be a government of the working class? It makes no sense!

Even worse is the fact that you actualy believe workers cannot organize by themselves.A viewpoint that nobody has said, but nice strawman.

I think you are just a confused fascist.I think you're just a very confused ignorant person.




I see you really do have a strong desire to be ruled.Because it's been noted that centralization of the productive forces seems to be the way production has been moving towards in history? That's just stating facts at this point.


Here is the toughts of Proudhon on what it is to be ruled: To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. ... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Strange that you want all of these things done to you.
More like all of these things done to the capitalist class and counter-revolutionary elements in other classes in society. Because that's what the state is for in the DoTP, to suppress the inevitable counter-revolution.

[subcp]

That's not specifically Leninist, though, as Marx said the same thing.

After 1871 he seems to have been far less enthusiastic about the idea of the working-class utilizing the state-form during the DotP; and depending on how conservative ones reading, appears that he abandoned such thinking after the Commune:




Marx, after the Paris Commune, left us with some memorable words in which he expressed, in the best possible way, the essence and the nature of the communist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. We must return to him in order to lay the basis of our perspective.

Marx, correcting what he had written twenty-five years before, wrote:




"The working class cannot content itself with taking over the state machine as it is, in order to make it serve its own ends. In fact the state is bourgeois as such and not simply because its cogs are in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The state is not a neutral, but a class instrument. Howeverwhat makes an apparatus bourgeois is not the bourgeois origin of the personnel who command it, but its own nature as an apparatus opposed to the rest of society." (Marx, The Civil War in France)




The communist revolution, in the course of its affirmation, gives life to insti*tutions which are different from those of the bourgeoisie by their very nature, such as the Commune and the soviets.




The Commune was: "The political form, discovered at last, in which the economic emancipation of labour could be worked out." The class struggle did not finish with the political victory of the class: "The Commune does not do away with class struggles,..... it creates the rational medium in which that class struggle can run through its different phases in the most rational and human way ... It begins the emancipation of labour, its great goal." (Ibid)

[conmharáin]

What exactly is a commune in this sense?

[Positivist]

These are not intended to represent features of a communist society but rather policies of a transitional workers state, and further a workers state as it would have have been structured in incompletely industrialized nineteenth century Europe.

[subcp]

But a conception of working-class revolution that foreshadowed a completely industrialized (and then 'post-industrialized') Europe and world capitalism- if anything Marx's calls for autonomous power in the hands of the organs of class power instead of the 'Commune-State' based on that experience was forward thinking, since at the time capitalism was still underdeveloped. The problem is when Leninists use early writings of Marx as justification for a Marxist conception of the transitional state as a great many things- which does have an impact on contemporary visions of the revolutionary transition period.


What exactly is a commune in this sense?

I'd always taken it to mean the forms of power that the working-class creates to exercise its dictatorship; the democratic decision making bodies of workers during the Paris Commune, then later the soviets. The specific form isn't what is as important as the content and function- things like general assemblies, workplace and neighborhood committee's, etc. fulfill the same functions.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

After 1871 he seems to have been far less enthusiastic about the idea of the working-class utilizing the state-form during the DotP; and depending on how conservative ones reading, appears that he abandoned such thinking after the Commune:



Marx, after the Paris Commune, left us with some memorable words in which he expressed, in the best possible way, the essence and the nature of the communist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. We must return to him in order to lay the basis of our perspective.

Marx, correcting what he had written twenty-five years before, wrote:




"The working class cannot content itself with taking over the state machine as it is, in order to make it serve its own ends. In fact the state is bourgeois as such and not simply because its cogs are in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The state is not a neutral, but a class instrument. Howeverwhat makes an apparatus bourgeois is not the bourgeois origin of the personnel who command it, but its own nature as an apparatus opposed to the rest of society." (Marx, The Civil War in France)




The communist revolution, in the course of its affirmation, gives life to insti*tutions which are different from those of the bourgeoisie by their very nature, such as the Commune and the soviets.




The Commune was: "The political form, discovered at last, in which the economic emancipation of labour could be worked out." The class struggle did not finish with the political victory of the class: "The Commune does not do away with class struggles,..... it creates the rational medium in which that class struggle can run through its different phases in the most rational and human way ... It begins the emancipation of labour, its great goal." (Ibid)
[/LEFT]
Where is this quote coming from? Not remembering the first quote which was attributed to Marx in the Civil War in France I searched for it in the book and couldn't find it. Then I went to MIA and it searched all of Marx's works for that quote and it was nowhere to be found.

Anyways if we remember correctly Marx famously criticized the Commune for not taking over the banks, so I'm pretty sure he was still down with the centralization of the banks to the worker's government.

[Fourth Internationalist]

What exactly does a centralized bank do in the dotp? Just seems a bit weird having banks and the dotp.

[subcp]

Where is this quote coming from? Not remembering the first quote which was attributed to Marx in the Civil War in France I searched for it in the book and couldn't find it. Then I went to MIA and it searched all of Marx's works for that quote and it was nowhere to be found.

Anyways if we remember correctly Marx famously criticized the Commune for not taking over the banks, so I'm pretty sure he was still down with the centralization of the banks to the worker's government.

Quoted from here:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2505

I haven't had time to go over the first and second drafts, introductions, etc. though it may be a different translation from Engels' 1891 postscript; which is also where it enthusiastically talks of taking over the bank in state hands.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm


It is therefore comprehensible that in the economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the Commune ought to have done. The hardest thing to understand is certainly the holy awe with which they remained standing respectfully outside the gates of the Bank of France. This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in the hands of the Commune – this would have been worth more than 10,000 hostages.

[Lokomotive293]

After 1871 he seems to have been far less enthusiastic about the idea of the working-class utilizing the state-form during the DotP; and depending on how conservative ones reading, appears that he abandoned such thinking after the Commune:

[/LEFT]

In all shortness, what Marx said is this: The working class cannot use the same state as the bourgeoisie, it cannot simply take over the bourgeois state and use it for its own purposes. Instead, it has to smash that bourgeois state and build itself a new, different one, a state that serves the interests of the working class and withers away as soon as it is no longer needed. None of this speaks against the centralization of political power in the hands of the workers' state under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and none of this speaks against the centralization of the means of production and economic planning, which, as you may remember, is what this debate used to be about.

It's also pretty interesting to read Lenin's interpretation of the parts you quoted in State and Revolution

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm

[subcp]

I don't agree with your interpretation; and this has been a point of contention in other threads (on the semi-state)- what exactly separates, then, the semi-state (if it takes on centralized command of the monopoly of arms, organizes production and distribution and is combined with the political expression of the working-class engaged in the transformation of all things) from the bourgeois state? It would be a bourgeois state with a red-flag in it.


It is generally the fate of completely new historical creations to be mistaken for the counterparts of older, and even defunct, forms of social life, to which they may bear a certain likeness. Thus, this new Commune, which breaks with the modern state power, has been mistaken for a reproduction of the medieval Communes, which first preceded, and afterward became the substratum of, that very state power. The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm#B) that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.Marx explicitly names the bourgeois state by the functions it had added onto itself after originally co-opting the existing mercantile-feudal states at the beginning of the bourgeois revolutions and transformation of production-social relations;

"If you look up the last chapter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch07.htm) of my Eighteenth Brumaire (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm), you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it"

A bit quoted by Lenin in S&R;

I think Marx is pretty clear that the base nature of the semi-state is the bodies of armed workers which replace existing bourgeois armed forces;


The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.This passage is interesting because it hints at what happened later, briefly, immediately after the October Revolution- the DotP as the Commune; later, as the soviets; the semi-state as the monopoly of arms responsible to the DotP- not one and the same organism.

In both instances, it was the expressions of class power (the commune, the soviets) that were the DotP, that is, the revolutionary political movement of the working-class during revolutionary ferment, while the 'semi-state' (or 'Commune-State') is simply the monopoly of arms which is at the service of the DotP- not merged with it. The distinction made by Marx in the passage quoted above is an important one, as is his language and emphasis, on the relationship between two different things (DotP / semi-state). Lenin started off in a similar fashion, but later in the degeneration and isolation of the revolution, the semi-state (red gaurds/red army) merged with the worker's councils, the territorial councils, peasants councils, soldiers councils and the Bolshevik Party- a bureaucratic-military machine.

[Fourth Internationalist]

In all shortness, what Marx said is this: The working class cannot use the same state as the bourgeoisie, it cannot simply take over the bourgeois state and use it for its own purposes. Instead, it has to smash that bourgeois state and build itself a new, different one, a state that serves the interests of the working class and withers away as soon as it is no longer needed.

I have a question: What exactly is the difference between the two things? I've never really understood what it's supposed to mean.

EDIT - My question from earlier if no one saw it: "What exactly does a centralized bank do in the dotp? Just seems a bit weird having banks and the dotp."

[The Feral Underclass]

Redfist! To understand what is "communism", it is necessary to examine carefully the experience of the former USSR, China, etc. i.e. the transitional states. Marx is outdated.

Why is it?

[Blake's Baby]

I have a question: What exactly is the difference between the two things? I've never really understood what it's supposed to mean...

That the 'proletarian state' needs to be built on a different basis. For example, the councils.


EDIT - My question from earlier if no one saw it: "What exactly does a centralized bank do in the dotp? Just seems a bit weird having banks and the dotp."

In 1847, a central bank would distribute funds to set up enterprises. Capital would still need in some ways to be assigned to increase production, in order to produce the necessary goods for the population.

[Die Neue Zeit]

EDIT - My question from earlier if no one saw it: "What exactly does a centralized bank do in the dotp? Just seems a bit weird having banks and the dotp."

Besides what Blake's Baby said, a state-owned financial monopoly is responsible for society's entire money supply, including the traditional insurance and underwriting of private deposits.

One of the things this modern fiasco has shown is a litmus test to separate the weasels from the sweepers. Consistently, soc-dems have steered clear of establishing state-owned financial monopolies.