I made a post yesterday that made reference to what have come to be known as the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto

Which are:
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 right of inheritance.
4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5: Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6: Centralisation 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 liability of all to labour. 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 equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.

I'd like to discuss these basic tenets of Communism.

Do you consider yourself a communist or an anti communist or other?

Other
I consider that Marx had some ideas that could potentially translate to today. Whilst not a Communist nor far from an expert on the subject, I do see value in some aspects of Marx's thoughts.

I'd like us to discuss those 10 planks though if we could.

I do not subscribe to communism although I see some preference to this over what there is now. Having said that the state is not something that I would trust to be ideal. I would perhaps prefer it over private business to run the country as a whole. I think public work systems can work but of course they are always labelled as wasteful.

As far as community over individual I could go for that as long as I can still be an individual. If all land is owned by the state then everybody should have an equal share in theory. Right?

1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

It's a reasonable suggestion on the surface. You can't in reality own land anyway, the best you can do is rent it from the earth by your sound stewardship of it. Land ownership in the form it has been employed in hierarchical societies is unjust and inequitable. It's a major historic factor in poverty
But surely the acceptance of that rule by a society opens the door to the State arbitrarily deciding you or your whole community must be displaced from your ancestral homelands whenever it's deemed necessary. Surely it could be argued that for a society to be just and fair, the right of an individual to live their life on a piece of land that they work is an essential...

Yes but the state has Been known to force people to move anyway so land is like all rights in that it is only yours as given and you might lose it tomorrow. Most people would support a fairer system of land ownership I would think.

I hear you. In Britain, the State has the option of compulsory purchase of land which effectively means you can get booted off if they want to put a road through or summat. As far as I know you do get to choose where you move to though.

Is it necessary to remove the right to 'own' a bit of land in order to deal with such things as the feudal hangover manifested in the form of hereditary country estates etc?

Yes a florist here was moved down the street to build a city hall. The florist tried to fight it I think. It is called eminent domain or something. Not often used I guess but when they use it you.know the score.

As for tax I know everybody hates taxes but if you can say to me this is what your taxes buy I.e teachers roads fire stations etc I am cool with it.

Ah so on to plank 2

This is summat that reveals a big hole in my understanding of Marx's plan. As in he stated that part of the ultimate aim being removal of currency.....I don't see how tax fits with that Perhaps someone with more knowledge could enlighten me.

Tax though, yes I think most sensible people would consider it fair to contribute toward infrastructure, education, health care etc.
That's what we are told our taxes go toward. Which is something of a lie. Aside from black budgets, governmental waste etc, it's my understanding that the taxes mainly go toward paying off the loans that were taken out from private banks in the form of bonds to pay for infrastructure etc. Loans that are repayable with interest. Nowadays we are also expected to pay taxes that end up bailing out private businesses such as banks, Comet redunancy payments etc.....

The common argument against a progressive tax system is that the wealthy, the entrepreneurs, generate jobs and revenue for the economy and that taxing them highly would discourage their entrepreneurial activities. I have to say I call Bullshit on that one.
If someone who generates an income of say 500k PA pays 50% in tax, they'd still be left with summat like 10-15x the average UK wage (which the vast majority don't earn anyway). Is the argument that given that, these people would say "harumph, I'm gonna get a shelf stacking job in Lidl's for £15k PA then"?

Yes of course tax is not what it should be etc. Most things need removing and starting over or at least improving. I based my response on the ideal. Of course even the they will still use taxes for things that people disagree with. However in theory tax is o.k.
I naturally disagree with the whole job creation thing. The jobs that are created tend to be very low wage jobs.

Number 3. Abandoment of the right of inheritance. Ummmmmmmm Get fucked If I want to leave my guitars to me youngest I will.

dubmeup wrote:
The rich tend to be self employed and/or not resident for tax purposes anyway.
They also get totally legal tax breaks for investment which gives them income for doing literally nothing, this income literally comes from the poor who must borrow to get by and pay interest- said interest goes to pay the investors who pay sod all tax and basically bum rape the poor for a situation that is by design.

Most people take PAYE jobs because they cannot ever hope to have the money required to get kicked off in business, some like myself buck that trend but they're usually bloody lucky or pigheaded bastards...more often a combination of both

dubmeup wrote:
BTW, all 10 of the above feature in national socialism as in Germany way back when you know who was running things.
You can add 11. Single party state and abolition of democracy.

It'll have to be 12 andy. I've already baggsied 11

dubmeup wrote:
Heh, true though innit :p
Lets face it, whats the difference at the end of the day? A different name for it and different slogans but its still a boot stomping on a face. A left hand threaded wingnut is still a wingnut.

Aye andy but I was rather hoping to have a look at them planks and chat about them. See if any bits are sound, see if others may lead on to developing new ideas, consign shitty stuff like telling me I can't give me kid me 6 string when I die to the bin...that sort of thing

dubmeup wrote: One of my favourite things to quote about the Soviet Union is the following:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Pajitnov
I'm sure they used the money wisely, though, for the benefit of all people in the Soviet Union.

There is very little positive in the ten planks of Communism. Having a more rural population as in point 9 would be a good thing in a healthy culture, but the interests of the people can never be served by points 1-8 so this really becomes irrelevant. Whatever happens you just end up toiling away to maintain the state bureaucracy.

Point 10 sounds okay when expressed in those terms, but people get a 'free education' in Britain. Fat lot of fucking good that is. We pay far too high a collective price for that free, state-run education.

Ok, I do agree. I can sort of perhaps see some value in plank 2 but only in the context of a capitalist society which as I said confuses me in the context of Communism....
Plank 9 is a bit like the 2nd law of thermos for people Human entropy. I don't get it personally.

Oh I give up trying to discuss this seriously. The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto are nothing more than a recipe for dictatorship. Anyone who supports them is imo as mad as a bottle of twats.

dubmeup wrote: If Communism was really about sharing things equally then it would be logical for them to abandon money as a means of exchange and have a completely planned economy, which is supposedly what its advocates believe in. Surprisingly Communist states never give up money because it's the best means of controlling the population. You know that you're free from the repression of capitalism when you have to pay a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax". Oh, what it is to be free!

In terms of making steps forward, IMHO you're doing the right thing based on what you've written on the forum. People need to be as self-sufficient as possible and separate themselves from the state to the greatest degree possible, and ideally, although this is the hardest part, do so in conjunction with other like-minded people. I still think the Amish people have basically got the right idea, albeit I don't think it's necessary to follow some of their more quaint religious beliefs. But it has to be said they look a lot happier and more content doing it than many of us living in our 'sophisticated' society.