Road to Communism from the Manifesto

[Y2A]

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

Alright so Marx plans on having his Vangard of the worker take away all our land and spread it out evenly. Which of course has been proven to suceptable to corruption during previous revolutions. We all remember how the Khmer Rouge took away the Bourgrousie land and sent everyone to the rural areas of the country to toil in labor camps. But even with the faults of the pasts modern day Marxists seem to think that it is ok for the state to own all land and even arrogantly say it in the name of "freedom", ridiculous.


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Well what do you know.... A government that not only has complete control over all lands but also has heavy taxes on those that work to benifit the nation's economy. What could go wrong?


3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

I actually agree with this one to a certain degree but it forgets that there are people that actually work from the bottom to get what they have. It assumes that everyone that owns a home or any property did not earn it. It punishes the middle-class along with the rich and also those who have made it out of poverty.


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

So if you disagree with the state they can take away all your assets. Yet again, how can such a glorious system fail.


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

It would be great of such a system could work, but no Centralization does not because it assumes that the state will voluntarly give back what the people earn.


6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Can anyone say propaganda. This is byfar the stupidest ideal of the marxists.


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.

Again, this would be good assuming that the it actually worked for the benifit of the people.


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

Forcing people into labor camps. How is that not oppressive?


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

To a certain degree, I agree.


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

Another one that is not as horrible as the others. But I still do not see why education must be completely free. While I do not believe in complete privatizaion of higher education I do not believe in complete socailization either.

[Osman Ghazi]

Edit: Rather than make a new post, i will continue this one.

Firstly, not everyone here agrees exactly with all the principles of Marx and I don't vey highly that he knew how to make a successful revolution in the year 2004 considering that he was born 150 years ago.

1. It isn't state ownership, it is public ownership of the land. Tell me a socialist state where there wasn't equal distribution of the land.

2. By that it means that you tax people who have a lot of personal wealth, not the poor.

3. You seem to forget that having a father who is good at business doesn't entitle you to any money.
Edit: So I should have more opportunities than other people because my father was able to accumulate more wealth? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.

will post more later, shcool now.

Edit: 4. Try to tell me one state that wouldn't take my property away if I committed treason? What, there are none? Thought so.

5. Centralizations main problem is not that it is open to curruption, (although it is far more susceptible than a decentralized system) but that it is too unresponsive to the demands of the people. Plus, again, you are characterizing us all as orthodox Marxist Communists when in fact, we are merely leftists which includes socialists, anarchists and syndicalists just to name a few.

6. If we are talking about a decentralized 'state' apparatus, i would suggest independant communications obviously. As for transportation, I think that transportation between two areas should be jointly controlled by the gov. of those areas. (The problem is that if you wanted to travel through many areas, there would be a lot of 'red tape'.

7. What you siad isn't really a criticism because the people wuold ensure that it worked for their benefit. People aren't stupid. Eventually they would figure it out if they were being ripped off.

8. Capitalism forces people to work to earn a living and you have no problem with that. I think that it is probably the terminology of 'industrial army' that you are against. I haven't seen a system where you can get benefits unless your working or looking for work. You still don't have to work at any one place. You can choose where you work. Although, to guarantee labour, it would probably be necesary to have say the start of the year as the only time you could leave.

9. I'm not sure this is actaully possible as most people probably do not want to leave their homes. It is good in theory though.

10. Yes, I could see you being against the abolition of child labour (joke). All it means is that everyone has the right to an education. I think that maybe, just as in factories, you would be able to elect foremen and managers, in schools, the parents would be able to elect principals and teachers. That way, if you didn't liek the way they taught, you could still have another option.

[Hoppe]

3. You seem to forget that having a father who is good at business doesn't entitle you to any money

You're entitled to his money if the father, in his will, decides to give it to his children. No one can claim to have a right on this money besides the father. That the money belongs to society is moral nonsense.


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

Mitterand tried it in France somewhere around 1984 (coincidence?), and it was a huge disaster.

[Iepilei]

1. If you're looking for the bloke who mentioned the vanguard of elites, you'd be better off turning to Lenin. Marx speaks to make land a non-purchasable commodity that can no longer be used for profit or exploitation. The concept of non-ownership of land isn't anything new or corrupt, it stems back to my people. You remember us, right? Your illusion to the "Red" Khmer's is disgusting, as even the Vietnamese worked vigorously to fight these corrupt and tyrannical monsters. They murdered intellectuals cause pol-pot wanted an ignorant agricultural nation.

2. Economics and/or Goverment 101, here. Progressive taxes affect the top > bottom. It works to tax the existing wealth until everything is stabilised. Those capable of paying more, should be able to pay more. That way you're not taxing the bulk of your taxbase, allowing more to send their monies in the direction of the market. Heh.

3. I agree with what you say here. I believe this is something that was designed to keep wealth from being accumulated over the years. I do strongly believe this needs some tweaking or dare I say, "revisioning?" But I suppose when socialism is actually in effect inheritance won't be needed anyways.

4. I also agree with your stance on this one. I believe this is the major one that opened Marxism up for corruption. People can interpret any of these as they wish, and so they do. Of course, I believe Marx meant it in a different light. If you move, then your house will stay here and cannot be sold for profit. If you take up arms and shoot at people, we'll seize your assets. In all reality what Marx wanted isn't too far from what the US does under the same situations (atleast regarding rebellion).

5. There is an old saying someone told me the other day: "Don't ever bank on owed money, as anyone who owes you ANYTHING will always wait till the last possible day to get it to you." This proves true with any organisation, really, even the modern banking system. I know, personally, I've fallen victim to this several times - often waiting 3 months before money owed has reached my hands (god bless paper-pushing). You assume state banks will be different than private banks in that regard. You assume too much.

6. Transport is highly logical. Communication on the other hand, isn't. This, again, was another proposition in Marx's 10-point political agenda which held precedence only in the 1800s. I believe in independant news and radio broadcasts. I agree with you, 100%, that otherwise just leads to violent propaganda. Every system has a learning curve, I suppose.

7. Not if you have a vanguard leading it. In order for the people to operate and work the means of production and distribution, you must ALLOW them to work the means of production and distribution. I don't know about you, but when I'm working somewhere, I feel as if I work better when the manager is nowhere to be found. Not because I slack off, but because I feel I have control over what I do and how I do it. Give me what needs to be done and how much (the common plan) and I'll see that it gets done. Don't breathe down my neck.

8. Everyone always talks about communism not being able to work because, "what about those who don't want to work?" And when we suggest, "well, either they work or they starve," we're suddenly the bad guys here. Heh, no I do see where you can misconstrue this to massive proportions. I believe anyone who is capable of working, should work. I mean, it's only fair right? Even Lenin (who I disagree with at times) said the idle wouldn't be given a handout. But aside from the "people should work" situation, lets look at labour camps. Personally, I disagree with them to an extent. I don't believe all prisoners should be placed into them. However, I do believe those who have a proven past for crime and violence should be. They should work to offset the cost of their own stay, not us.

9. Not much complaint here. Pretty neutral ground for everyone.

10. I believe in complete socialised education and health. Marx did because it would allow more students the access and ability to become what they wanted in society - instead of it resting entirely on what their families could afford. Alot of people for privatised education (atleast partial) point to scholarships, and I suppose while that's all fine and dandy, there are limited amounts... and not everyone is elligible. I believe anyone who wishes to persue higher educations should be able to with no restraints (other than population limits per school).

[Y2A]

Firstly, not everyone here agrees exactly with all the principles of Marx and I don't vey highly that he knew how to make a successful revolution in the year 2004 considering that he was born 150 years ago.

That is why the title says "For Marxists" and not "For Communists". I do realize there is a difference.

[Urban Rubble]

Good stuff guys. I have nothing to add, I just like reading these things. It's nice to see a Capitalist come up with some actual arguments instead of regurgitating the same old bullshit.