1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
The Immortal Goon wrote:How many working class people have a bunch of land that they own? Would it not be better that this land be put to use in an efficient way for the benefit of all? If not a public park, a farm to feed the people?
Some do, it isn't even particularly expensive in itself without any structures on it, even in the UK an acre only costs as much as a used car if it is in a rural area. Many people don't choose to own land but that doesn't mean there is any benefit in denying everyone the legal possibility. Why make it illegal? Oh for "efficiency", lol, I don't know how we are supposed to believe a communist's snake oil claims of "efficiency", your practical track record is decidedly sub-par. How gullible do you think we are?
-------
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Since this has been accepted by virtually everyone that isn't a fan of inflicting self-harm or rich, I'm not even going to attempt to dispute it.
The key word is "heavy", yes all governments thirst for cash like a drug addict thirsts for heroin and to acquire it they confiscate it and they confiscate more from those who have more because it is just more lucrative that way. The only push back is if they take too much (ie heavy tax) they will kill the golden goose and get no more golden eggs to feast on. Wise tax collectors then moderate their appetites so that may continue to feast forever. So progressive tax is about raising revenue for government but a "heavy" one is about making everything that is not government destitute; the parasite killing the host.
-----------
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Fuck the crown. And quite frankly, do you think things would be better or worse if every rich asshole in government had to start at the same starting line that you did?
It isn't just Royalty or the rich that make gifts of property to those they favour in the next generation, only the destitute have nothing to give. If one had an unlucky start I can see the envious malevolence at work that would delight in bringing down all those more fortunate down to the same sorry condition however civilisation as a whole does benefit enormously from one generation standing on the shoulders those that went before. Mozart's music continues to delight people today, he is often considered the foremost musical genius, in no small measure that achievement was built on the foundations of his own father's musical accomplishments. If Mozart had to have a tone deaf musically illiterate parent just so that he could start on the same level as the unluckiest musician for "fairness" then likely he would have produced less and of much less quality and we would all have missed out. Some, perhaps most, projects are too big to be encompassed by one life and must be inter-generational.
------------------
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Virtually already done with "rebels," though emigrants get to go gallivanting around the world, putting their money into Swiss banks away from anyone else. They can go fuck themselves since they seem intent on fucking everyone else for their enjoyment.
It depends on the nature of the rebellion. Any law breaking is a rebellion, if the law says I must not drop litter and I do so anyway then I am rebel, I might rightfully expect a punishment for that, but total confiscation of all my property? That's a bit disproportionate. What is rebellion in a communist society, mocking communist policy or party leaders? But okay rebels are naughty people, from a certain point of view, and so punishment is to be expected. An emigrant though? Migrants aren't rebels or law breakers by default they are just people moving from one place to another place, that is unless it is against the law to move from one place to another.. oh right like the USSR and DPRK.. Okay that makes some dystopian sense then.
---------
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Immortal Goon wrote:We all generate money. Why shouldn't we all have a say in how it's applied, made, and used?
Because that is a logistical impossibility that no one wants anyway. But Marx is saying he wants an exclusive monopoly on credit and capital which is not the same as saying he wants democratic oversight. Anyone can issue credit in "capitalism",
anyone, providing they conform to the regulations created by government, that is democratic oversight. A total monopoly is a completely different beast which clearly springs not from concern over possible malpractice but from the rotten loins of the most greediest and reckless lust for power.
------------------------
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Do remember this is a proletarian state he's talking about, not like Germany or the United States today deciding to do this.
What difference does that make? Also I wonder how the US is not a "proletarian state" given it has universal suffrage and constitutional rights to bear arms for all citizens.
--------
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.
The Immortal Goon wrote:This is probably less important than it was a hundred years ago when malaria was killing everyone in the First World. But it's not a horrible thing to propose.
It's a non point, basically a filler as by now he is running out of ideas but still wants to make an even 10 points.
--------------------
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
The Immortal Goon wrote:When we first got industrial machines, we were supposed to do less labour. Instead, we had to do more.
When we first got computers, they were going to be time-savers. Instead, we had to spend more time at work.
When the internet first came out, it was supposed to make work more efficient so we could spend less time doing it. Instead, we are virtually always on the clock—even when not being paid for it.
Why not have a system where the good stuff we have makes our lives easier? Not just more bearable with luxury goods, but actually easier?
Marx is talking about reintroducing slavery and you are talking about how "bad" it is that some people like working for money more than they like sitting around bored and idle, a completely different thing.
It isn't illegal to be idle or work part-time but as productivity grows so do our appetites so in general we continue to choose to work so that we can afford more of all the new stuff the productivity has created. We could choose idleness but we tend to choose more luxury instead.
I say that as one who tends to choose idleness..
How will an "equal liability to work" do for idle me?
--------------
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Not unlike the above, we have the money, the power, the production—why not make things easier? Why shouldn't a kid from Baltimore be able to go out and see the world when the infrastructure is there to allow it? Wouldn't that make him or her a better person with a broader perspective?
Food production has always been land intensive but as increasing productivity reduced its labour intensity to a tiny fraction of its hunter-gatherer baseline it became more and more adaptive to specialise land use and this results in the rural and urban divide. It is more efficient to live in the city if one is not a farmer. Marx is talking about regressing the adaptive trend of civilisation, de-specialising land use back to its hunter gatherer origins.
Fuck knows what you think are talking about with your kid from Baltimore but the fact is his travel opportunities are unprecedented in the whole of human history. If he wants to broaden his perspective he can hop on a plane to the otherside of the world and go hiking in the Australian Bush for a week or two. This has, once again, absolutely nothing to do with Marx's goofy scheme to undo all practical progress in land usage.
--------
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Nobody seems to oppose this any more.
It is a common enough thing these days though it isn't completely without opposition.