Skip to main content

The Communist Plan Unpacked

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.

Comments

Shaunak Sastry said…
Christine,

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?
Christine said…
Shaunak, thanks for pointing that out (and for reading/commenting). I will admit that I don't know a lot about the educational system in other nations. I was able to find that UNICEF found Canada, Finland, Korea, and Japan to have top ranked systems while Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary and the United States scrape the bottom of the barrel. Unfortunately, I am not aware of how their education system is run, administered, or structured. I do know that the private schools in the US pay their teachers less but somehow have better learning outcomes and provide safer environments for the students than their public counterparts (of course, that is in general - there may be individual cases that don't fit the mold).

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."

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...

Whose means justifies their end?

I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...