The Communist Manifesto Section 2 [1/3]

The second section, "Proletarians and Communists," starts by outlining the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class.

It goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love," and the claim that people will not perform labor in a communist society because they have no incentive to work.

The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands. These included, among others, the abolition of both private land ownership and of the right to inheritance, a progressive income tax, universal education, centralization of the means of communication and transport under state management, and the expansion of the means of production owned by the state. The implementation of these policies, would, the authors believed, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society.

One particularly controversial passage deals with this transitional period: "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."

It is this concept of the transition from socialism to communism which many critics of the Manifesto, particularly during and after the Soviet era, have highlighted. Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have all asked how an organization such as the revolutionary state could ever (as Engels put it elsewhere) "wither away."

In a related dispute, later Marxists make a separation between "socialism," a society ruled by workers, and "communism," a classless society. Engels wrote little and Marx wrote less on the specifics of the transition to communism, so the authenticity of this distinction remains a matter of dispute. Lenin said that Communism is simply Socialism in a hurry.

10 Conditions For Transition To Communism 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 equal 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. Combination of education with industrial production.

According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• The
• Communist
• Mannifesto
• Chapter

[TheCommunard]

@ImAznnn Yes, but there are still differences between a bourgeoisie and proletariat which doesn't necessarily make a socialist proletariat the same as the bourgeoisie. That's mainly that the bourgeoisie extract surplus value from the production process and pay the proletariat wages based upon labour time or in a piecemeal fashion.

In socialism, there is no surplus value extracted, and those who own the means of production also work it, and they decide what to do with the value created together.

[ImAznnn]

@TheCommunard I think what that guy was trying to say was if the bourgeois was eliminated, everyone else would take their position so everyone is both part of the bourgeois and proletariat. Bourgeois as in they own the land collectively. Proletariat as in they also work for the production so that the economic order prospers.

[TheCommunard]

Continued.... Cuba is a poor example. Anyone knowledgeable in Socialist theory will be able to tell you that Socialism needs to be international or not at all. Cuba is unable to sustain a Socialist economy and it would be wise to switch to a Leninist-Capitalist or Chinese style economy. Then again, this is based upon the premise that we are still trying to follow a Soviet style of Marxism which most actual Marxists - myself included - do not believe is very efficient.

[TheCommunard]

Continued... That reason is that the means of production need to be fully developed before the transition to socialism. This is why they waited until the German revolution was complete to find out if they could rely on Germany's developed economy - of course Germany didn't have a successful revolution but descended into the Wiemar Republic.

In China, Deng Xiaopeng set up the State-Capitalist model for this reason. China IS self admittedly capitalist.

[TheCommunard]

@jeabo0adhd

"Like the "managers" in communist Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba, they will receive higher wages."

Firstly, we can establish that all those states were set up by the soviet Bolshevik model except North Korea which is based on Juche, a non-Marxist ideology.

Secondly, where did the soviet model ever claim to be socialism or communism? Where did Lenin say that he set up a socialist country? He did not, he purposefully set up a capitalist state for a specific reason.

[TheCommunard]

@jeabo0adhd

"If the bourgeoisie was eliminated, out of necessity, people from the lower classes would fill the positions." Why would this occur? What is so necessary about owning means of production? All possess labour power, no need to expropriate others who are equal in nature to you.

[TheCommunard]

@jeabo0adhd

"Very important jobs in the economy," explain this point. The Bourgeoisie own the means of production and extract surplus value from the labour of the Proletariat for their own profit. They rarely expand actual value these days in the US, but prefer to spend their days speculating on fictitious capital causing the rest of us to pay for their gambling blunders.

[TheCommunard]

@jeabo0adhd

"The attitude of success, hard work, and inovation are their traits."

In fact, it is the bourgeoisie who do little work but get all the pay, while those who do all the work, get nothing at all.

[TheCommunard]

Continued... that many are thousands and tens of thousands of different people, people who do not have the time to attend shareholder meetings and are not united and unorganized on how to exert control over the company.

[TheCommunard]

@jeabo0adhd

The working class continually grows, it is the natural order. As you say, the billionaires are the bourgeoisie, the means of production dwindle into fewer hands. Stocks actually allow these companies to gain more control over themselves by diluting the ownership amongst thousands of workers while extracting a large amount of capital from the stock holders for further investment. A bank need only own 10 or 15% of a company to manipulate it greatly, while the rest is owned by many.