quick question on the manifesto

[DiggerII]

in the manifesto it says that communists call for the "confiscation of all property of all emigrants and rebels". what exactly does this mean? is this goal applicable today?

[KC]

That basically means that the proletariat should confiscate the land of those that leave the country during/after the revolution and also of those that rebel against it. Although it might still be applicable today, we must also take into consideration Marx's comments in the 1872 German Preface to the Manifesto:


Originally posted by Marx
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. 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 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 Assocation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm), 1871, where this point is further developed.)

[DiggerII]

did marx have a feeling that loads of people would leave, like what happened with the catholics in vietnam?

[Janus]

No, Marx wasn't very keen on making such predictions or assumptions concerning the minute details of a revolution.

The confiscation of property is more or less the first step towards abolishing it in a post-revolutionary society.

[DiggerII]

k, but with the confiscation of said lands, to whom does the ownership go to? i'd assume it's distributed to the poor and unpropertied.

[KC]

It's "owned" by the proletariat as a class.

[DiggerII]

okay, but then who's to decide who that land is given to, how it will be worked, what will be worked upon it etc.?

[DiggerII]

Excellent very cool. But i have to wonder, will these decision making bodies take into account the voice of the entire proleteriat, perhaps in th form of a vote? Or will a Trotsky figure start birthing loads of committees to solve such issues?

[Janus]

will these decision making bodies take into account the voice of the entire proleteriat, perhaps in th form of a vote?
These kinds of decisions would best be effected based on votes through local councils,etc. Decentralization reduces the need for a large, inefficient bureaucracy to try to maintain all of this.

[KC]

But i have to wonder, will these decision making bodies take into account the voice of the entire proleteriat, perhaps in th form of a vote? Or will a Trotsky figure start birthing loads of committees to solve such issues?

The exact form that this organization will take isn't determinable because it depends on many different factors, such as material conditions, the form and intensity of the class struggle in the territory, the politico-economic makeup of the territory, and even things like geography or the layout of towns or population density.

[Democratic Socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:18 am
No, Marx wasn't very keen on making such predictions or assumptions concerning the minute details of a revolution.
Hence why you should not buy into Marx. Perhaps he was relevant to people in the 1800's, perhaps even up until the 1940's but he holds absolutely no barring in the modern world. Marx couldn't have imagined the world as it functions and appears today, and since his writings are so based in his time and circumstances, he should be discounted with extreme prejudice.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 07, 2007 08:09 pm--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 07, 2007 08:09 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:18 am
No, Marx wasn't very keen on making such predictions or assumptions concerning the minute details of a revolution.
Hence why you should not buy into Marx. Perhaps he was relevant to people in the 1800's, perhaps even up until the 1940's but he holds absolutely no barring in the modern world. Marx couldn't have imagined the world as it functions and appears today, and since his writings are so based in his time and circumstances, he should be discounted with extreme prejudice. [/b]
http://www.isreview.org/issues/50/marxism.shtml

[Democratic Socialist]

See though, the article argues more that socialism and the movement connected is not dead. I agree with that. Marx's analysis are archaic and outdated.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 07, 2007 09:19 pm
See though, the article argues more that socialism and the movement connected is not dead. I agree with that. Marx's analysis are archaic and outdated.
So who's analysis do you favour?

And why have you got a picture of Jesus as your avatar? I would have thought that his analysis was even more archaic.

[Whitten]

Karl Marx didnt tell people how to wage a revolution, what society should really look like afterwards, or make any super human predictions. The Scientific principles of marxism, which is all marxism really is, are still as applicable today, to the revolutionary movement, as they were 150 years ago.

[Democratic Socialist]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+February 07, 2007 08:23 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ February 07, 2007 08:23 pm)
Democratic [email protected] 07, 2007 09:19 pm
See though, the article argues more that socialism and the movement connected is not dead. I agree with that. Marx's analysis are archaic and outdated.
So who's analysis do you favour?

And why have you got a picture of Jesus as your avatar? I would have thought that his analysis was even more archaic. [/b]
I don't favor any analysis. Instead, I look to examples of socialism being put into action in the modern world. We have not had a decent written work laying out socialism yet and so it's hard to look to anyone in particular.

Christ didn't really analyze anything. He did something, namely die for the sins of humanity. That action is not in any way archaic.

[Hit The North]

Christ didn't really analyze anything. He did something, namely die for the sins of humanity. That action is not in any way archaic.

Belief in such mystical bullshit certainly is archaic though.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Democratic Socialist+February 07, 2007 08:09 pm--> (Democratic Socialist @ February 07, 2007 08:09 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:18 am
No, Marx wasn't very keen on making such predictions or assumptions concerning the minute details of a revolution.
Hence why you should not buy into Marx. Perhaps he was relevant to people in the 1800's, perhaps even up until the 1940's but he holds absolutely no barring in the modern world. Marx couldn't have imagined the world as it functions and appears today, and since his writings are so based in his time and circumstances, he should be discounted with extreme prejudice. [/b]
Marx was the first socialist to break it down into a scientific theory, not just based on utopic feelings like socialists before him.

Marx is completly relevent even today. Yes it would be great if he had magical sorceror powers, however, he didn't really need 'em.

[Severian]

Originally posted by DiggerII+February 06, 2007 11:10 pm--> (DiggerII @ February 06, 2007 11:10 pm) did marx have a feeling that loads of people would leave, like what happened with the catholics in vietnam? [/b]
He knew that large number of people had left after past revolutions: aristocrats leaving France, Tories fleeing to Canada after the American Revolution. The upper class doesn't usually like having its property and power taken away, or willingly adjust to the new social order.


Originally posted by Democratic [email protected]

Janus
No, Marx wasn't very keen on making such predictions or assumptions concerning the minute details of a revolution.Hence why you should not buy into Marx.

Hm - you shouldn't buy into Marx because he "wasn't very keen on making such predictions or assumptions concerning the minute details of a revolution"? Are you just coming up with random reasons to trash him, or do you seriously mean it, DS?

If you seriously mean it, please explain why it's a good idea to make predictions or assumptions about the minute details of future events, and show us how you can do it accurately. No? Didn't think so.

Anyway: Marx developed a method of analysis which can be applied to many situations. So we don't have to be bound by things he wrote about the situation in the 1840s, or make all kinds of minute predictions in advance.

We can use Marx's method of analysis to think for ourselves as events develop. It's an effective method. If you can point to a better one, that's great, but somehow I doubt you've even examined Marx's method.

[Janus]

perhaps even up until the 1940's but he holds absolutely no barring in the modern world.
Why not? Capitalism still functions on the same basic level as it did back in Marx's time.

Marx couldn't have imagined the world as it functions and appears today, and since his writings are so based in his time and circumstances, he should be discounted with extreme prejudice.
Capitalism is progressing and advancing just like how Marx predicted it would. My point was that Marx never bothered with the minute details of the future.