In theory, the concept of communal property sounds like a good plan, but when examined in detail, I question whether it is a viable option. For example, Engels outlines the steps he believes should be taken to lead towards a communist society. Engels calls for "Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.)," and "Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people." Who will control the expenditure and use of this capital? What will be done with this money? How will the emigrants and rebels support themselves and live if all of their possessions have been confiscated? If we are relying on the government to use this capital to create an "expansion of production," history (and our national debt) has shown us that this is an unlikely outcome.
Engels also calls for "Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost." Education from the age of 5 to the age of 18 is provided by the state and federal governments, yet this system continues to fail in its educational goals every year. Indeed, the public school system offers an often dangerous and inadequate education for all.
Most importantly, Engels' plan relies on the government to confiscate, monitor, and appropriately utilize our society's capital. Unfortunately, the government is run by the bourgeoisie, and therefore can not be given the means to create or impede a progression towards a communist state.
Engels also calls for "Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost." Education from the age of 5 to the age of 18 is provided by the state and federal governments, yet this system continues to fail in its educational goals every year. Indeed, the public school system offers an often dangerous and inadequate education for all.
Most importantly, Engels' plan relies on the government to confiscate, monitor, and appropriately utilize our society's capital. Unfortunately, the government is run by the bourgeoisie, and therefore can not be given the means to create or impede a progression towards a communist state.
Comments
I really think you're raising some important questions here. However, I think there's a common thread to most of our comments which we need to appraise these texts.
First of all, classical Marxist/Communist texts are, like anything else, products of a historical period; and I think by making comparisons to the US national debt as an example of the failure of the state to monitor capital misses the point here.
As far as the national debt is concerned, it is the very convenient use of state intervention that has led us to where we are now. A supposed 'free market' where there was supposed to be no state intervention failed due to the greed of the few; and now we talk about bailouts. I think this bailout is within the Marxist conceptualization; not outside it.
As far as nationalization of education is concerned, I think it would be very enriching to look for examples outside the US. One cannot evaluate everything using the US as an example, and when the glove does not fit, claim the 'failure' of such ideologies. Let's look at China and Russia as examples to see how nationalized education DOES work.
What do you think?
For the national debt, the point that I was trying to make is that when the government is given money and resources, those resources are generally misused. The proof I gave for this statement is that historically, the United States (as well as a number of other governments) has mismanaged their resources to the point that we are billions of dollars in debt.
I agree that our readings were written in another time, though these issues are still of importance today. I think Saqib said it best when he said, "Given the historical framing of these writings... the claim that such a system will propel civilization forward was more than understandable."