Skip to main content

The Communist Plan Unpacked

By Christine
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?
January 17, 2010 at 8:50 AM
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."
January 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...
2 comments
Read more

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
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 ...
6 comments
Read more

Is participation just a rhetoric?

By
Participation and participatory strategies are used in different spaces globally to involve communities and ensure their voices in the discursive space. The culture centered approach foregrounds active participation of community members in the construction of shared meanings and experience (Dutta, 2008). Basu and Dutta (2009) underline the importance of participation of community members in the enunciation of health problems as a step toward achieving meaningful change. My experience with participatory projects involving children and community members also bears testimony to the importance of participation in impacting society; effecting a sustainable social change. But at the same time, this question looms large in my reflexive spaces that "Is it all just a co-optive process as the structural issues have remain untouched?" Basu and Dutta (2009) discuss different approaches of participation, critique the top down participatory campaigns and provide an alternative theorizing o...
2 comments
Read more