which of the following of Marx's ten points do you support?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

None

[The Mikado]

Again, the "emigrant" one can be understandable in some circumstances, but we are so far divorced from any such circumstance that it's hard to imagine.  Hell, I can't think of a revolution since the Iranian one that completely restructured their society from the ground up the way he's discussing (rather than simply removing the top guy like Egypt or Tunisia).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Again, the "emigrant" one can be understandable in some circumstances, but we are so far divorced from any such circumstance that it's hard to imagine.  Hell, I can't think of a revolution since the Iranian one that completely restructured their society from the ground up the way he's discussing (rather than simply removing the top guy like Egypt or Tunisia).

It's interesting that most people seem to be forgetting when this little list was published. Very, very interesting, actually.

[angus]

I voted for the second and last ones.  They go together.  If you have public schools, you have to raise the revenue for them.  

But I qualify:  I support only the first sentence of the last one.  And I support the second one provided we ignore the words heavy, progressive, and graduated.  

So that's, at most, 2 of 10.  I suppose I'm not the ideal marxist.

Also, I don't read "forced relocation by the government" as "market-driven construction of suburbs."  I think some of you are reading far too much into number 9. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also, I don't read "forced relocation by the government" as "market-driven construction of suburbs."  I think some of you are reading far too much into number 9. 

Including you, as there's nothing about 'forced relocation' there.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I support 10, the other ones are impractical to out-right insane.

The fact that 8 people agree with "Abolition of all rights of inheritance" sort of shocks me. I even never thought Marx would sink that low.
 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I even never thought Marx would sink that low.

Ah, but how many people had estates of any meaningful size in 1848? Obviously the proposal was at the extreme end of thinking about the problem of land and wealth at the time, but isn't quite as extreme as it looks, given the context.

[angus]

Also, I don't read "forced relocation by the government" as "market-driven construction of suburbs."  I think some of you are reading far too much into number 9.  

Including you, as there's nothing about 'forced relocation' there.

Well played, realpolitik.  Your serve.


I'm tempted to point out that the image brought to mind when reading the prescription in question must be radically different in some posters than in others, but I suppose that the comments herein make that point evident already.  

In any case, "suburbs" makes me think of well-tended grassy lawns and newer houses occupied by white-collar workers and their overachieving children, and of helicopter moms and martini-swilling dads taking walks on nice summer evenings.  Bulletin Number Nine makes me think of horse-drawn carriages upon which ride stern figures in star-studded berets informing slumdwellers of which ones will be relocated to the outskirts of town for farming projects.  Both images may be equally horrifying to you, but not to me.


edit:

Again, the "emigrant" one can be understandable in some circumstances, but we are so far divorced from any such circumstance that it's hard to imagine.  Hell, I can't think of a revolution since the Iranian one that completely restructured their society from the ground up the way he's discussing (rather than simply removing the top guy like Egypt or Tunisia).

It's interesting that most people seem to be forgetting when this little list was published. Very, very interesting, actually.

The same thought occurred to me.  Especially in the phrase "...in its present form" when subsequent to child labor.  I'd considered considering the plight of children working in factories as they did during Marx's lifetime, but in the end thought more about the well-maintained little girl in the well-maintained suburban house selling lemonade in front of her three-stall garage, or of the more urbane youth casting the daily paper from a knapsack as he rides his bicycle through his neighborhood in order to earn a little extra cash for movies or girlie magazines.  Those ordinary instances of child labor which we encounter in developed countries are of little concern, since the children performing such labors are generally blessed with stable, suburban materialism, and parents who keep them attired in the latest fashions even when they're unable to sell any lemonade or newspapers.  

You might think of it more of it as a deliberate amnesia.  After all, the question doesn't ask us specifically to put ourselves into Marx's shoes.  (Surely those must be terribly uncomfortable shoes, as they were made in the period during which all shoes are uncomfortable.)  The question merely asks whether we support--present tense--the various talking points of Marxism.

In other words, Marx is so far removed from our modern experience that one cannot imagine that he'd ever conceive of the modern pressures.  Could a social reformer from a time when the average peasant worried about where his next meal would come from imagine a 30 percent obesity rate?  Or a society in which folks argue more about when, and by what means, a pregnancy may be terminated than about workers rights?  No doubt the USA has tremendous social problems, but they would be better understood by Groucho Marx than by Karl Marx.  

[Link]

None, accept the last one, which we already have.

This.

[phk]

Can anybody clarify what "Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." means? Like woodshop? Lol.

[angus]

Can anybody clarify what "Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." means? Like woodshop? Lol.

Being a 21st century Yankee, that's how I interpreted it.  And yes, it was one of the two that I agreed with (with some modification.) 

Tracking is a politically incorrect word in our society.  And we spend five times as much, per child, on the least intelligent as we do on the most intelligent students in our society.  Bizarre.  This is one point of Marxism that our public schools--assuming you support the existence of public schools--could take to heart. 

Free and mandatory is okay with me.  And collect enough revenue to run them.  But don't try to teach everybody calculus.  That's not helping anyone.


And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mould a new reality
Closer to the Heart
Closer to the Heart

The Blacksmith and the Artist
Reflect it in their art
Forge their creativity
Closer to the Heart
Yeah, it's closer to the Heart

Philosophers and Ploughmen
Each must know his part
To sow a new mentality
Closer to the Heart
Yeah, it's closer to the Heart

You can be the Captain and
I will draw the Chart
Sailing into destiny
Closer to the Heart
Closer to the heart.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Only #10... sort of.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I support 10, the other ones are impractical to out-right insane.

The fact that 8 people agree with "Abolition of all rights of inheritance" sort of shocks me. I even never thought Marx would sink that low.

What ? Maybe outright abolition is quite extreme (it's Marx, after all), but inheritance rights are one of the greatest and most unjustified factors of economic inequalities.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Can anybody clarify what "Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." means? Like woodshop? Lol.

that was my first thought too, but my guess is it means having factories provide education.

[lowtech redneck]

None, accept the last one, which we already have.

I was going to pick that until I saw the 'combine education with industrial production' thing.

I thought all conservatives supported that though? Again, think about it

I guess I just need a more explicit definition, what came to my mind (it being Marx and all) is to have the 'educational' labor of children produce societal goods (such as metal shops essentially using children as inefficient state employees in order to efficiently utilize resources as well as socialize children into socialism).

But yeah, I support private schools supplementing public schools, though I think education is too much of a 'public good' to make even subsidized universal private education practical.

[minionofmidas]

Can anybody clarify what "Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." means? Like woodshop? Lol.

Like state regulation of / involvement in apprenticeship. And, you know, preserving the traditional system of apprenticeship by ensuring it's not lost in the transition from an artisanal to an industrial mode of production.
Which, of course, was pretty much done in Germany (and worked well for a very long time. And totters on as a corpse today.)

But yeah, woodshop works too. Provided it teaches working-class children some marketable skills (as it was supposed to).

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I support 10, the other ones are impractical to out-right insane.

The fact that 8 people agree with "Abolition of all rights of inheritance" sort of shocks me. I even never thought Marx would sink that low.

What ? Maybe outright abolition is quite extreme (it's Marx, after all), but inheritance rights are one of the greatest and most unjustified factors of economic inequalities.

How is it unjustified that people should be allowed to decide what happens to their own property after they pass away? It's still their property, if they want their spoiled children to have it so be it. If they want to donate it to the communist party then that's what it should go to. Right to property is a fundamental human right and that right does not disappear when you die. 

[minionofmidas]

That would make it fairly unique among human rights then.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Can anybody clarify what "Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." means? Like woodshop? Lol.

Like state regulation of / involvement in apprenticeship. And, you know, preserving the traditional system of apprenticeship by ensuring it's not lost in the transition from an artisanal to an industrial mode of production.
Which, of course, was pretty much done in Germany (and worked well for a very long time. And totters on as a corpse today.)

But yeah, woodshop works too. Provided it teaches working-class children some marketable skills (as it was supposed to).

oh, that's interesting. I thought Marx would think the apprenticeship system exploits the apprentice.

[minionofmidas]

Can anybody clarify what "Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." means? Like woodshop? Lol.

Like state regulation of / involvement in apprenticeship. And, you know, preserving the traditional system of apprenticeship by ensuring it's not lost in the transition from an artisanal to an industrial mode of production.
Which, of course, was pretty much done in Germany (and worked well for a very long time. And totters on as a corpse today.)

But yeah, woodshop works too. Provided it teaches working-class children some marketable skills (as it was supposed to).

oh, that's interesting. I thought Marx would think the apprenticeship system exploits the apprentice.

Hence why he wants it reformed / taken over by the state (with details not specified). For certainly, unskilled factory labour (especially of the type they had in the British textile industry in the early 19th century... which still used the old title of apprentice but didn't teach kids anything) was worse.

[republicanism]

How is it unjustified that people should be allowed to decide what happens to their own property after they pass away? It's still their property, if they want their spoiled children to have it so be it. If they want to donate it to the communist party then that's what it should go to. Right to property is a fundamental human right and that right does not disappear when you die. 

It is not that easy.

For example, several 19th century conservatives would have argued that it is totally justified to pass a powerful political position on to your son when you day. That was/is the base of the dynastic system by the way.

We abolished that, and rightly so.

I don't argue that we should abolish the right to pass economic power on to your children as we did with political power, but it is definitely not a "human right".

Besides all that, keep in mind historical context.
I think Al or Lewis mentioned it:  Very, very, very few people owned a significant amount of land and capital in the mid 19th century. And almost all of them had blood in their hands.
The way the landlords adopted their huge estates in the 18th and early 19th century was an extreme ugly and brutal chapter of modern history (the Highland Clearance in Scotland is perhaps the best known example, but only one of many).
It was unacceptable even by the very elastic "morals" of liberal capitalism, and of course these people should have been expropriated just like a bank robber is expropriated of his "property" when caught.

[© tweed]

#3 is integral to meritocracy: a preferred term-of-art used to frame the neoliberal onslaught.

[minionofmidas]

#3 is integral to meritocracy: a preferred term-of-art used to frame the neoliberal onslaught.

Well, yeah. And the myth that a meritocracy actually existed was fundamental to the Postwar Consensus. Especially to the Center-Left.
Then again, inheritance taxes high enough to hurt did play a role in breaking up the great landed estates of Britain.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to your own property is indeed a human right. No one should be able to take your property away from you like the Nazis did from the Jews.

As for inhereting political power and offices, obviously that is not property. No one owns political power, and thus it cannot be passed on. I doubt Marx just ment political power when he called for complete abolition of all rights of inheritance. Historic context might explain why Marx was in favour of it, but I don't see how historical context justifies that people today might support it.

[courts]

I suppose 10 is the only one I can really endorse fully, maybe 9 if you omit the last half. Sorry, I know that's horrific statism to all the principled Yellow Avatars on forum arguing for 8 year olds to taste the sweet, sweet taste of freedom that can only come from inhaling industrial pollutants at their job building plastic crap for tasteless white people.