Bang on WUB. Marx stated the ultimate aim (though not the exclusive aim) to be the abolition of currency and then set about devising a plan to get to that position in a manner that obviously precludes ever getting there.
Communism...as mad as a can of rabbits.

Like I said early in the thread though, there are a few aspects of his thoughts that make sense.

dubmeup wrote:

I don't see how you've reached that conclusion?

dubmeup wrote: Where'd you pull that bolded bit from?

I don't see how anyone could fail to reach the conclusion.

dubmeup wrote: So for the record it was laziness?

Here's yer chance Gue. Show me how Marx didn't come up with a plan that was always destined to get stuck at the dictatorship of the proletariat. That'd be a good start.

dubmeup wrote:
You're forgetting that you're actually not normal dubs

You really are mr Lazy today aren't you dubs.

Ok I'll give you some clues:

Do you think Bureaucratic dictatorship of a managing class a'la Stalin or the various Stalinist regimes based on the USSR is what Marx meant by Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

Marx and Engel's were writing about a historic example called the Paris Commune:That's called counter revolution

SOme insight:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

Cheers for that Gue and tbh yes I am feeling lazy today

No I don't think Marx and Engels did equate the D of the P to what Stalin subsequently did. I'm not judging Communism by Stalin here. Neither am I suggesting that they wanted anything other than a fair and just society, I'm inclined to think they had good intention.

What I am saying is that I think certainly the ten planks and the systems required to realise them are very very flawed and ultimately only serve to encourage the Stalinist kind of dictatorship.
I'm also suggesting that there are innate logic flaws. The D of the P being one of them. As I understand it the classes outlined were a description of the starting point. Once the revolution had taken place they would be irrelevant. The Proletariat would not exist in a post revolution society, any more than the other classes. How could a D of the P exist if the P had ceased to exist?

Marx's theory does nothing to prevent the elite from carrying on doing what they have always done.
Nor does it take account of how stupid the proles are for the most part and therefore how easily subverted they are in anything they try to do, even if by force.
They are out-thought and out-gunned in every respect imaginable. In todays word that is even more the case than ever before.
It is far easier to kill a million people now as Brezhinsky pointed out...and thats precisely whats happening. Global fertility rates are dropping, IQ points are dropping, profits and wealth is at record levels for the rich.

Looking to useless crap from blokes who lived a long time ago in a very different world to 'solve' anything is at best really really fucking stupid. You want to fix anything then you do it yourself and tbh thats going to mean for yourself and your immediate family...maybe a friend or two if you're lucky and if they have some brains.

Its always been this way and it'll remain this way for all the reasons stated above, we are dosed up to the eyeballs with chemicals, we are indoctrinated with incredible amounts of media programming as never before in human history.
Hitler and his cronies would have fucking orgasms looking at whats been done today...they are NOTHING compared to what has been accomplished today. We are heading for total domination of the human race by stealth.

Paris Commune:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

Is C+Ping from wiki an example of NOT being lazy?

dubmeup wrote:
These aren't the basic tenets of communism, Dub. Marx makes it clear he sees this as a transitory state of affairs - "by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production". One of the big issues with Marx was his apparent endorsement of 'revolutionary vanguardism' - the anarchists (who at the time had a tendency to also call themselves communists - Marx and anarchists envisioned pretty much the same end result) were proved correct by history in pointing out if you let people have absolute power they are not going to let it go. But it also needs to be remembered there's a deterministic side to Marx whereby communism/socialism can be seen to be historically inevitable - I'd say that's wrong.
He also has to seen in context - for example, abolishing the right of inheritance didn't mean you can't pass on your guitar. This was in the context of vast wealth held within elite families while millions of industrial workers owned virtually nothing. The point about inheritance is about how vast wealth is transferred across generations maintaining the grip of those in charge, not taking auntie Mary's broach she left you at gunpoint.
It also has to be remembered that TCM is essentially a polemic and probably the least important work Marx ever produced. Marx never really said much about what he expected communism to look like. What he was really concerned with was an enormous and highly detailed (though ultimately unfinished) critique of capitalism which is perhaps even more relevant today than it was then.

Marx had a lot to say that was of value. But like everybody, he was wrong about stuff too. I think this anarchists vs Marx thing is a bit pointless - Marx shouldn't be on a pedestal, just his good ideas kept and his shit ones ditched, like any thinker.

"Marx shouldn’t be on a pedestal, just his good ideas kept and his shit ones ditched, like any thinker. "

Aye, that's exactly what I'm hoping this thread to be about.

Your point about the guitar Vs handing down vast wealth is both relevant and sound. At what point along the line of wealth is the cut off though?

dubmeup wrote:
Ah well, that's the million dollar question innit? Would I be happy if when my (very) old dears finally shuffle off this mortal coil the state took their house? Should the state already take some of the way less than extravagant wealth they accumulated? - free money for the state because they're dead, based on wealth they were already taxed on.
The real issue is that wealth matters - everybody wants it, most of us need it. I'll be fucking devastated when my folks die - I won't really be rubbing my hands and thinking Wahey! Me and sis get to sell the house and split the profit!. But I'm not rich and I don't want the state spending it on Trident submarines and my parents would want us to have it.
The dilemma is created by the material conditions - if it simply did not matter that there was this pot of wealth milling around, the issue wouldn't even occur to anyone. If I didn't have to worry about the rug getting pulled from under me, if I didn't have to think that money is mine!!!! as a prerequisite for survival, if I didn't (and as it happens I don't, but you get the point) feel the need for X, Y and Z disposable commodities of superfluity then what? Some house and some stuff has become available for people to use. Give me the stuff that has sentimental value and I'll be off. But no! I'm working my fucking arse off here like my father did before me - you may be dead, but I've got a little boost in the struggle to survive. Or if you were luckier in life, a whopping great slice of investment capital. £££££££ in consolation in my time of grief. You may be lost, but your bank balance lives on.
It's the wealth of my bloodline. The cash value of my forefathers. The holy accumulation of my ancestors. Wipe away those tears - I'm a-goin' to Disneyland!
What a sad fucking state of affairs.

The day humanity moves off this rock then all of a sudden all this squabbling over 'wealth' will look a bit silly.

We're starting to get into it now

dubmeup wrote: To me it appears as though that is just a superstitious belief you made up after reading lot's of reactionary Conspiracy theories.
I'd agree there are flaws in the logic but not of Marx's reasoning

That is of course a major objective [Marx suggests] of Human Evolution, the abolision of class distinctions, inequality, division, exploitation etc, the bolded is a very strange statement, i think reading a bit on the Paris Commune might be useful, Marx criticised the Communards for not going far enough post revolution, leaving bank holdings intact etc, no revolution ends metaphysically, but is always ongoing somehow apparently you think Class distinctions immediately vanish?

You have to guard against counter revolution, which not many revolutions have been successful in doing.

Personally, I believe in the right of the individual to own land and property....every individual. So communism is a no-no for me on that plank for a start.