Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Share feedback related to your experience on College Confidential to help us shape future initiatives.

The 10 Points of Marx's Communist Manifesto

tiff90tiff90 - Posts: 1,370 Senior Member
How many do you think have been adopted American politicians? How successful have those 10 points been?

"1. Abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3. Abolition of all right to inheritance
4. Confiscation of all 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.Centraliztion 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 of cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of label. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing; 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 labor in its present form. Combination with education and industrial production."
Post edited by tiff90 on

Replies to: The 10 Points of Marx's Communist Manifesto

  • barbara960barbara960 Registered User Posts: 462 Member
    So what are you getting at here?
  • jablalfjablalf Registered User Posts: 591 Member
    So what are you getting at here?

    There are 6 stages of history. Marx would say we're in the process of transitioning from capitalism to socialism. When we adopt all these concepts, and the people "overthrow" capitalism, then we'll reach socialism.
    How successful have those 10 points been?
    We should ask this question to Chavez... oh, that's right, look what "socialism" has done to Venezuela.
  • BogneyBogney Registered User Posts: 2,364 Senior Member
    What has it done to Venezuela? How was it before?
  • poetgrlpoetgrl Registered User Posts: 13,334 Senior Member
    Americans really don't understand what it means to not have "property." I don't mean land. I mean, to not even own your own life, to not have a chance to choose your own work, to have the STATE decide who gets to go to college or who gets to play soccer or who gets to dance or write or bake bread.

    It's so foreign a concept to us that we really don't even know what we are talking about when we talk about communism or socialism.

    It's beyond the scope of our understanding. Imagine your children being told what to study, where to live, that they could not go to college, or one child being chosen and having a life far, far from home because he/she was gifted at age 10 or 11, and you having no say whatsoever in whether this would happen or not, no way to change things, just "this is what the state has decided for you."

    It goes much deeper than spreading the wealth. It's a complete handing over to the STATE of all self determination.

    Really awful.
  • NonAntiAnarchistNonAntiAnarchist Registered User Posts: 921 Member
    I'm just waiting on my class consciousness. That's when I'll realize the cheap, plentiful food I makes use of everyday is really just another cheap trick of those dang capitalists.

    In reality though, abolishment of private property is probably the main tenet of a communist society, and although property rights are gradually being destroyed by the state, we're nowhere near complete abolition.
  • tiff90tiff90 - Posts: 1,370 Senior Member
    Marx concludes that an overthrow of the rich is inevitable. I see how influential the points are to some liberals. Although not as drastic, there are some correlations between the points and US policy.

    Is Marx right in stating that the revolution is inevitable? I always thought it was ironic for Marx to attack the rich for oppressing the poor, when he supports oppressing the rich to make up for it.

    Marx also states that the first step in the revolution is democracy. I disagree with the position that one party could represent all people in a given class. I have seen how some of these ideas have rubbed off on young progressives, although not quite so radical. The Marxist school of IR is gaining some ground, too. Especially with the debt of developing nations.
  • MomCat2MomCat2 Registered User Posts: 961 Member
    Here's a very good article discussing the 10 points, and how they pertain to the US:

    THE TOAD REPORT: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
  • BigGBigG Registered User Posts: 3,885 Senior Member
    I am not understanding 6. in the TOAD Report.

    Interesting thing, Marx always envisioned communist revolutions taking place in developed countries. The only ones have been in less developed countries and those didn't "stick". The only real remnants of Marx's vision are the rather snarky oligarchial fascist regimes in various countries. (Yes, "oligarchial fascist" is a pleonasm, used here to express contempt.)
  • NonAntiAnarchistNonAntiAnarchist Registered User Posts: 921 Member
    Number 5 is completely inaccurate. Though I agree with his conclusion (Obama is not a communist), the whole article is poorly argued and reeks of bias.
  • Tyler09Tyler09 Registered User Posts: 2,768 Senior Member
    He doesn't support oppressing the rich, he supports destroying the rich...and the poor, because individuals won't own things.

    Abolition of private property is the main tenet. It hasn't happened, and people can't really imagine what it would be like to not own things because it's in our culture. For example, poetgrl's interpretation was entirely wrong; it's actually the opposite of what Marx says communism is. (People do more of what they want because they aren't forced to specialize in a single occupation, whether or not that would work)

    I don't cast judgement because the results of communism aren't consistent with our values as a capitalist society, and they aren't suppose to be. I will say, OP, that you need to read the texts again because you don't understand what you're talking about.
  • Son of OpieSon of Opie Registered User Posts: 1,200 Member
    I think inheritance and family ties destroy any "pure" capitalism in the long run. There's no such thing as a level playing field after the first generation.
  • HuntHunt Registered User Posts: 26,873 Senior Member
    I guess people in Sweden are groaning under the yoke of socialism. Right?
  • NonAntiAnarchistNonAntiAnarchist Registered User Posts: 921 Member
    Who said anything about socialism?

    The means of production in Sweden are not exclusively owned and controlled by the state, so it's not a socialist system anyways...
  • HuntHunt Registered User Posts: 26,873 Senior Member
    The whole tenor of this kind of thing is to suggest that we are slipping into Marxism because we have (supposedly) heavy taxes and some of the other things on the list. My point is that Sweden is further along the spectrum on most of these items, and I don't think things are all that terrible there. Those wringing their hands about this are more likely to mention some third-world country that would have big problems no matter what economic system they have.
  • NonAntiAnarchistNonAntiAnarchist Registered User Posts: 921 Member
    I get your point, but Sweden is still largely a private property society. I think the most damning feature of socialism is the abolishment of private property, and thus money prices. Tax policy creates incentive problems and changes the structure of production, but an economy can still operate, and perhaps operate well under such policy. An economy with state owned means of production, however, is doomed to failure.

    I found this an interesting comparison:

    Sweden information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more

    United States information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more
This discussion has been closed.