Policies advocated by many Marxists redundant in a Marxist state?

[RedSonRising]

Many of the policies of taxation and safety nets proposed by Socialist parties in many of the political systems of the world, as well as some proposed by Marx himself, coincide with (at times bourgeoise) "Liberal" tendencies and somewhat contradict the point of a Workers' Democracy in my opinion. If the workers own the means of production, for example, and their wage/pay-rate is democratically controlled in respect to the quantity of production of the individual and overall workplace, why have policies such as a large government welfare state, a progessive income tax laying the burden on the successful, and other such things which modern center-leftists use as bandaids to the inequalities of the free market? In reference to this, Lenin's expression that "those who shall not work, shall not eat" sort of enforces this. If the system is fair to producers, laborers, and service providors, why then implement strategies to undermine the ability to gain the fruits of their labor? Due to this I find arguments typical of Republicans in reference to economic policy valid (though in place of capitalism I would have socialism, where the system is actually fair and "keeping what you earn" has real value.)

[Le People]

Buddy, you need to do some serious reading up on the subject. What you are referring to is Social Democracy, not Revolutionary Leftism. Social Democracy is a cheap way of throwing a bone to the working. A progressive tax would be instiututed because the socialist state does not mean that the rich have been completely eliminated. If you read into the early days of the Soviet Union, you'll find that many of small buisness owners were allowed to maintain their buisness because it was at the time economically impossible to eliminate them. I suggest you read "What is to Be Done?" by Lennin, and "Two Tactics of Social Democracy" by Lenin to understand the difference between Revolutionary Communism and reform socialism. The learning section of the board may also help. I hope this helps comrade.

[RedSonRising]

Yes, that was the conclusion I came to myself, that much of the overwhelming top-down state aims at the working class were very divergent from revolutionary leftism...I was simply seeking other opinions, as some Marxists advocate such methods regardless. The Communist Manifesto itself includes a heavily graduated income tax as a main objective, even after the abolition of private property.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, that was the conclusion I came to myself, that much of the overwhelming top-down state aims at the working class were very divergent from revolutionary leftism...I was simply seeking other opinions, as some Marxists advocate such methods regardless. The Communist Manifesto itself includes a heavily graduated income tax as a main objective, even after the abolition of private property.
Firstly, it doesn't. Secondly, Marx called the ten planks antiquated in 1872.

[RedSonRising]

Firstly, it doesn't. Secondly, Marx called the ten planks antiquated in 1872.


What constructive feedback. Well in my copy they are present, it is coupled with other documents and I may have mistaken myself.


Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax.

Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Regardless of trying to point out erroneous details of my questions, Id like opinions and other answers as to the methods and validity that certain parties are adopting....some theorists are more egalitarian than others, and I think that enforced egalitarianism contradicts proletariat autonomy.

[Le People]

The concept of proletarian automny, which is socialism, is different from Communism. What you are propsing, by going against a leveling the social playing field, would have us stall out at the socialist stage of production. I'm not saying that socialism is rotten, but what I am saying is that it, like all class rule, eventually needs to be overcome.

[mikelepore]

Well in my copy they are present.

From the Marx-Engels joint preface to the 1872 German-language edition of the Communist Manifesto:

"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."

"... But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter."

[mikelepore]

My answer to the initial question is: In my opinion, such proposals as the graduated income tax should not be included in any document that sets out to describe either the administration of socialism or the path to socialism, because they are not part of that administration nor that path to achieving it. Insofar as individual members of the socialist movement may believe that such measures are good ideas as long as capitalism still exists, I suggest that they work for those proposals as individuals. Individual socialists may join capitalist reform coalitions in addition to joining the socialist movement. A published socialist program itself should not endorse reforms of capitalism, because it is a contradictory message simultaneously to propose fixing something and also scrapping it.

[RedSonRising]

The concept of proletarian automny, which is socialism, is different from Communism. What you are propsing, by going against a leveling the social playing field, would have us stall out at the socialist stage of production. I'm not saying that socialism is rotten, but what I am saying is that it, like all class rule, eventually needs to be overcome.

I'm sorry if I'm not getting your point correctly, but are you saying that by allowing a more individual version of "proletariat autonomy" in a socialist economy, production would become unproductive in the progress towards communism?

[Le People]

No, not unproductive. It is still retaining a class character, which needs to be whithered away. Production can be up, but if the idea of a proliteran state, remains, then socialism can not progress to Communism. A whithering away of the state begins with a whithering away of classes.

[RedSonRising]

If a standard of equal education, opportunity (not in the bullshit "Liberal" sense) in production/service provision and by consequence income, healthcare, was all under subject of worker ownership, would the earnings of an individual earning more at the same rate as a coworker due to more individual production really divide into classes? I believe that to be of a certain class, you are given/banned from certain priveleges. If such components of the state were made public/worker-operated, would the differences in wage simply give the worker the real "fruits of their labor" while making no consciouss distinction between human worth between the two examples? In my opinion, no divergence in class will emerge from such differences, which accord to actual individual contribution, simply an individual realization of deserved income. What do you specifically define as a Proletarian State? Forgive if you are tired of my questioning, I simply want to fully understand your opinions. What I find most troubling to communication between theorists and simply revolutionaries is the lack of definition and distinction between terms.

[mikelepore]

What causes the separation into classes isn't that some have more income. What causes classes is the system of allowing that unequal income to be transformed into ownership of the means of other people's survival, the tools of production. The classes are made more sharply defined by inheritance of that ownership status by the owners' children. Some people own the tools of production but don't operate them, and some people operate the tools of production but don't own them. With that basis, we have classes. If this private ownership of the means of human survival were not permitted, if it were not not adopted as an institution, no amount of unequal income due to unequal work and earning could result in a separation into classes.