Epoch of the Marxist Youth

For aspiring and studying marxist youth to come together and discuss the true way forward
 
HomeHome  PortalPortal  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
solpacvoicis
Soviet Administrator


Posts : 365
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:20 pm

Alright, so, in the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx describes, after the proletariat has taken over the government and established democracy, that the following things would generally need to be done in advanced nations:

Karl Marx wrote:
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. 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 transport 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 public schools. Abolition of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Now, let's discuss whether or not this is effective, suggested adding and subtracting of the list, etc...

i'd especially like to ask you what you think would need to be done in europe and the u.s. should the become socialist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
calinis
Mcarthy's spawn


Posts : 191
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:27 pm

no i dont think it is effective and the us will never be socialist.
(my post got deleted wth???)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:32 pm

After revolution one of the most important things to do is become self sufficient since a blockade or a heavy embargo can be expected
Back to top Go down
solpacvoicis
Soviet Administrator


Posts : 365
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:33 pm

yeah, check your messages, it was spam, and dude, insulting the dead? tch, that's a new low...(lol jk)

why wouldn't it be effective? elaborate.

i'm speaking hypothetically - also, this topic is more for those with a real understanding of socialism.

and yes, i agree with you about becoming self-sufficient. =]


Last edited by solpacvoicis on Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
calinis
Mcarthy's spawn


Posts : 191
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:40 pm

it wont be effective because of the reasons i stated in the PM i sent plz provide response here
Back to top Go down
View user profile
solpacvoicis
Soviet Administrator


Posts : 365
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:53 pm

calinis wrote:

socialism cannot work bczu a command economy cannot effectively allocate reources depend unpon consumer behavior. under a free market economy, the laws of supply and demand allow the economy to flourish and a t least if the economy isnt doing well it can be predicted and fixed to some degree by the fed, however under socialism things will be produced like crap because competition is not a guiding factor so overproduction may be evident but the stuff will be crap. and it hasnt been achieved yet? why do you think it can know rather than fall under state capitalism?

the consumers are controlling the economy.

competition is still a factor, its just that company control and private property (NOT personal property, so don't go there) is being eliminated, in favor of a democratically controlled public property

because the system has never been given a true chance to flourish - through the continued revolution and the preventative measures against usurpation of the state (the elected being workers who merely meet once a month for a week to discuss and pass laws suggested in their communities, the ability of the community to immediately revoke any elected officials status, etc.), it CAN be achieved and not fall under state capitalism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
calinis
Mcarthy's spawn


Posts : 191
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:03 pm

completely DISAGREE.
under socialism the government controls the economy. what you're advocating is no government at all which works WORSE that the government controlling the economy.
but both fail. the free market is the only way it works.

state capitalism is one big corporation (it seems like) which is the inevitable result of any attempts to enforce socialism, ironically enof.

but srsly companies need to pay their labour while making a profit of the products. so under socialism what then? and money needs to be the incentive for work. what you have is just a bunch of products and no incentive to sell them beccause everyone is equal. no change to make a profit -=fail
Back to top Go down
View user profile
solpacvoicis
Soviet Administrator


Posts : 365
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:12 pm

we are discussing socialism here, not communism where there is no government - in socialism there is a government that no longer acts as a government (it ceases to be a truly separate entity since its controlled by direct democracy)

read through the first post, i said nothing about getting rid of money. money dies out on its own under socialism, which is for another topic, so leave that alone.

basically, you start off with increasing the national minimum wage so that people can live off of it with the basic necessities, then you start seizing property for the state and start setting up various industries where people who have no jobs can work.

you expand from there, making the entire country a mix between city and country, evenly spread out labor, which is maintained locally by the people and protected and reinforced by the "state" that they have full control of (see previous posts about true democracy and directly elected representatives from amongst the community)

there is a huge profit, especially from the graduated income tax (basically ensuring that no individual companies make more than X amount of money, even those on state property) which is used to fund public works projects (expanding public transportation and communication) and social safety nets (such as healthcare)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
calinis
Mcarthy's spawn


Posts : 191
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:28 pm

you're destroying a balacing act and a system that naturally achieves equilibrium. the more you intefer in the economy the more troubles will be created. those who risk everything and invest in a new product DESERVE the fruits of their labou and deserve nothing less than that. and notice that collectiization fails. those who were allowed to keep the profits of their labour on privatily owned farms in the soviet union achieved greater then those who worked in collective farms. under socialism prices would be fixed by the government and also trading with other countries woukld be restricted. you cant provide jobs for everyone, you would just be making jobs that arent neccessary. people who are poor are poor (generally) because of their mistakes or their parents mistakes. and also minium wage laws hurt the economy because you have to pay your labour more thus loosing a profit and without profit no inncentive for innovation with no new telechologies = failed society
Back to top Go down
View user profile
solpacvoicis
Soviet Administrator


Posts : 365
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:56 pm

no, under socialism, that would not happen, its state capitalism that does the whole price fixing and attempting to run the nation as a corporation - there aren't any real leaders, they are workers themselves - why do anything to hurt yourself?

no, because it would produce more goods, which, should there be excess past what storage can save, would be traded or given to other countries in need

did you miss the whole discussion about fluctuating capital? did you miss that lecture on the great depression and constant flips between regression and growth? CAPITALISM DOES NOT ACHIEVE EQUILIBRIUM!

note how the ussr was the only nation NOT affected by the great depression

acutally, farms would be worked like a factory, and the food produced would be sold off at distribution centers (the former supermarkets and such)...they'd be making a lot of profit (which the graduated income tax would level off to enough to live more than comfortably, and that money would be used to fund education, healthcare, etc, that they are going to use)

no one drops everything and goes off with a new product anymore, unless they KNOW that its going to revolutionize industry itself (well...there are stupid people out there who will try, but its only these people who become successful)

no, minimum wage laws would help stabilize the economy.

the point is stable, though slow, economic growth with no danger of decline except in its destruction, as opposed to capitalism, which is fast, dangerous, economic growth, inevitably followed by decline
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Steel
Radical


Posts : 25
Join date : 2008-07-04

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:14 am

IIRC at this point Marx was convinced that the collapse of capitalism was imminent and that it would occur before it's 'historic mission' (that is, to develop the mop to the point where a socialist society was feasible) was complete.

But I really can't remember where I read it =p. Even if that is not quite correct Marx and Engels stated that they would have changed this section:

In the Preface to the 1872 German Edition they wrote:
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.”



However, by the time Marx had written the Critique of the Gotha Programme he was in favour of Labour Time Vouchers. and certainly did not believe that goods would continue to be produced to sell under socialism:

Karl Marx wrote:
Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?

Even so, we have the capacity to end scarcity almost immediately after a socialist revolution, it would therefore be unnecessary to do much of the above. I am certainly not in favour of most of it and essentially it is more appropriate for patching up capitalism than for the transition to a socialist society.

------

Quote :
state capitalism is one big corporation (it seems like) which is the inevitable result of any attempts to enforce socialism, ironically enof.

This is entirely false, the so called socialist regimes aimed to implement nothing more than state capitalism, and indeed (as I understand Lenin himself admitted), were capable of doing no more - owing to the backwardness of their countries.
In state capitalism, the state takes the role of the capitalist class, were it 'one big corporation' the states bureaucrats would benefit from the ownership of all industry and would legal own it. Quite clearly this was not so.

Quote :
also minium wage laws hurt the economy because you have to pay your labour more thus loosing a profit and without profit no inncentive for innovation with no new telechologies = failed society

Wages are just another cost no different to those incurred by the use of raw materials or electricity. Therefore by your argument any price increase would result in a failed society.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
solpacvoicis
Soviet Administrator


Posts : 365
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:19 am

ah, thank you steel! previously i was just using my own assumptions about what a socialist society would be like...

i still think that a system of price and selling might need to be implemented in the beginning of a socialist nation, simply because nothing else has been tried before.

what do you think, specifically, we would be able to use? how would it work? i'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zapata420
Leftist
avatar

Posts : 3
Join date : 2008-07-13

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:58 am

That calinis guy doesnt belong here his arguements are simple-minded and reactionary to say the least. But I'm glad some more intelligent people put him in his place.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
axcept green or die!
Radical
avatar

Posts : 66
Join date : 2008-07-04
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:35 pm

the ten planks are fail. i hate them. they are state capitalist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://karlmarxforum.darkbb.com
Steel
Radical


Posts : 25
Join date : 2008-07-04

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:10 pm

Well most of my post was a little off topic =P (and probably this one as well)
I just think that too much attention is given to these points, especially considering that Marx and Engels believed that they were outdated.

Anyhoo, I don't draw a distinction between what would more normally be called socialism and communism, which was an idea introduced by the Bolsheviks, and I don't believe that Marx and Engels drew such a distinction (Engels spoke of Scientific Socialism and communism as essentially the same). Nothing I have read from most social democrats (prior to the first world war) seems to indicate that a dividing line between the two was justified. For example in 'A New Catechism of Socialism' socialism is defined like this:

Quote :
By Socialism we understand the system of society the material basis of which is social production for social use; that is, the production of all the means of social existence — including all the necessaries and comforts of life — carried on by the organised community for its own use collectively and individually.

So at the very least the British social democracy (and the SDF were a extremely opportunistic organisation) recognised socialism as essentially the same as communism. Allowing this line to be drawn gives undeserved legitimacy to state capitalism, enabling those who advocate it to gain from being associated with Marx or other socialists, despite the fact that they hold very different views.

I think that ending capitalism (I'd include a system of price and selling here) is essential, simply because not doing so would be a betrayal of socialist principles. I think that ideally a revolution would be an organised affair that was the result of a conscious socialist majority voting for (and being members of) a socialist party, which would then enact legislation which effectively transferred ownership of all the means of production, distribution and so on to the whole of society, as well as other measures which will have to be discussed nearer the time (like the exact structure of how the administrative bodies of the new society will look). Naturally the party would stand on a platform of socialism and nothing else, to ensure that it only attracts socialists as members and accurately and honestly show that every single person who voted for them wants a communist society. For it to then not do this is unthinkable and, I should hope, impossible due to proper control of the party's deputies by the whole of the party membership. Furthermore (and more importantly =P), it would mean that the inadequacies of market distribution remain in place. For example, they are only a decent method of distribution when there are few externalities. Which makes it hard to judge the environmental costs of an industry, or the benefits of a healthy workforce. Also, you keep some of the problems of capitalism and for-profit production, even allowing for worker control and so on. It implies that we would still have scarcity and therefore that not all people would have sufficient access to goods to satisfy their needs, as well as the fact that production would not be geared towards meeting those needs in the first place.

Although I do agree that it would be a big step to change from a capitalist to a socialist society, which is why I think that it is essential that it be organised and that street fighting be kept to a minimum. Not only does this mean the actual transition runs smoother it means that the socialist party will remain legal, allowing for the most open form of internal democracy so that the transition can be extensively discussed and planned to the satisfaction of all beforehand.

I think ending scarcity would be the most essential step (and a post on communism is not complete without its mention =D) since it is indispensable if a free access society is going to run properly. Work will then be contributed voluntarily on the understanding that it is necessary to keep society running and that the individual will be able to take what they need from society in return. The most major problem I foresee with this is for shortages in certain goods that may occur (especially right after the transition to socialism) I suppose then it would be necessary to for people to impose a limit on those who consume these goods (to ensure that one person is not able to consume excessively at the cost of another). The exact nature would be up to the people affected themselves but I suppose it would be best considered a sort of voluntary rationing. Personally I'm not a great fan of Labour Time Vouchers.

It would be necessary to keep track of the demand for items perhaps by using smart cards or just through the stock in stores and tailoring production of these goods to be just over the amount that's likely to be consumed, you'd need a series of reasonably centralised bodies to help the movement of expertise and new technologies as well as to help move resources on larger scale.

Hopefully that went some way to answering you (Only the last paragraphs seem to be directly relevant =P) but I thought I'd mention the rest of it so you could see what I'm getting at (socialism and communism being the same is important for me). As far as economics goes I'm a bit all over the place since most of its learned a little here and a little there.

I'd certainly be interested to hear what you think about that, and what you'd propose instead (however, I won't be able to reply immediately since I don't think I'll be able to get online for the next 4 days or so).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
calinis
Mcarthy's spawn


Posts : 191
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:31 pm

socialism is a command economy which means the price is fixed as opposed to letting the market settle based on consumer needs and wants both the consumer and producer should have a say in order to reach prosperity it follows that one would need to know what consumers want and also to be able to show scaricty and how people would react to changes under socialism you have no signs to be able to communcate prices yes capitalism goes in cycles it doesnt always do good but no economy can always do good thats why under capitalism people can predict recession inflation etc and as a result the fed steps in and provides extra money supply or selling bonds etc to achieve stability also in capitalism people work for their own selfishness which produces more effecticeny the invisible hand concept shows this the people who produce your computer dont care about you but they produce good qualities for their own self interest. in the wealth of nations, adam smith summarized it well "Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of their fellow-citizens."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto   

Back to top Go down
 
Discussion on the Socialist Plan in the Manifesto
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» The Communist Manifesto: A Communist Confession of Faith
» Big Intervention Plan
» The Friends of Summer Wine Appreciation Group & Discussion Forums
» VISION & GUIDELINES STATEMENT
» Hearing 1-25-10 - Discussion Thread - CLOSED

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Epoch of the Marxist Youth :: Critical Marxist Thinking :: Party Discussion-
Jump to: