Impressive job! People blow so much hot air that it has become my default assumption.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
I'll add that in living memory, there were European leftists who argued that rights of inheritance should be abolished.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
I think this means that the national bank is the one lending the money.
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.
Thing is, I'm pretty sure that by the time they wrote this - Prussia had introduced (I assume free) public education, and Conservatives in England had enacted laws protecting children from child labor (though by no means as strict as today, obviously). Meaning that this is by no means exclusive to Marxism, and the fact that Marxism gets some things right, does not excuse the ideology itself.
Much of the work of Marx is derivative. What is useful, is derivative, and what is original, is either useless or dangerous.
And I either haven't read these, or haven't in years, so can't vouch for the exact contents, but here's two search results that showed up: Mises Institute talking about it, and MostlyEconimics blog, whoever that is.
It's not exactly unexpected that a libertarian think-tank would try to... taint, if you will, any government interference in the 'free market' with the brush of Marxism in order to discredit it. I'd say that the past few years have discredited the notion that lack of government interference should be a dogma, given how tyrannical large corporations have become.
In any case, this was very interesting, but I will contest that this is an 'intentional tainting of capitalism for Marxist ends'. A lot of these ideas were simply reform ideas that were in the air in the 19th century. I'm definitely sure that this is not a "Marxist wet dream", not with the neoliberalism that has reigned supreme over the past few decades. As bad as you may think things are, actual Marxism would be a good deal worse.
I'll add that in living memory, there were European leftists who argued that rights of inheritance should be abolished.
Yup, US lefties too. And it's already been hampered greatly.
I think this means that the national bank is the one lending the money.
Everything's so regulated that's sort of what's going on anyway, though. Communism is just less efficient and less honest fascism, and our current version of capitalism is just even less efficient and less honest communism.
It's not exactly unexpected that a libertarian think-tank would try to... taint, if you will, any government interference in the 'free market' with the brush of Marxism in order to discredit it.
I agree, but it also doesn't really change Marx's own words.
I'd say that the past few years have discredited the notion that lack of government interference should be a dogma, given how tyrannical large corporations have become.
To some extent. I still think smaller government is vastly preferable, but it's also obvious that someone needs to work the levers of power. I want strong local government, in the ideal sense, I suppose. Less federal power, more state power, and even city/district power. Stop the bleed of power outward, and focus it inward. Cities can represent themselves, and dictate their rules, but don't get to tell the rest of the state how they can live, just because a ton of people are packed into a city.
In any case, this was very interesting, but I will contest that this is an 'intentional tainting of capitalism for Marxist ends'.
I think it's a mix. I think they clearly did want to taint some things, like the value of money being a very clear cut one. But there's also an (un)healthy helping of "oh, yeah, communism doesn't fucking work." It's part intentional tainting, and part standard communist retardation.
I'm definitely sure that this is not a "Marxist wet dream", not with the neoliberalism that has reigned supreme over the past few decades.
Again, I do think it's a mix but, yeah, this wasn't the execution Marx and his people had hoped for, even if it does check a bunch of their boxes.
As bad as you may think things are, actual Marxism would be a good deal worse.
I agree, and never claimed otherwise. Just that there's a surprising amount of overlap, and we're basically in Communism Lite right now already.
Impressive job! People blow so much hot air that it has become my default assumption.
I'll add that in living memory, there were European leftists who argued that rights of inheritance should be abolished.
I think this means that the national bank is the one lending the money.
Thing is, I'm pretty sure that by the time they wrote this - Prussia had introduced (I assume free) public education, and Conservatives in England had enacted laws protecting children from child labor (though by no means as strict as today, obviously). Meaning that this is by no means exclusive to Marxism, and the fact that Marxism gets some things right, does not excuse the ideology itself.
Much of the work of Marx is derivative. What is useful, is derivative, and what is original, is either useless or dangerous.
It's not exactly unexpected that a libertarian think-tank would try to... taint, if you will, any government interference in the 'free market' with the brush of Marxism in order to discredit it. I'd say that the past few years have discredited the notion that lack of government interference should be a dogma, given how tyrannical large corporations have become.
In any case, this was very interesting, but I will contest that this is an 'intentional tainting of capitalism for Marxist ends'. A lot of these ideas were simply reform ideas that were in the air in the 19th century. I'm definitely sure that this is not a "Marxist wet dream", not with the neoliberalism that has reigned supreme over the past few decades. As bad as you may think things are, actual Marxism would be a good deal worse.
Thanks, it was fun to dig into it again.
Yup, US lefties too. And it's already been hampered greatly.
Everything's so regulated that's sort of what's going on anyway, though. Communism is just less efficient and less honest fascism, and our current version of capitalism is just even less efficient and less honest communism.
I agree, but it also doesn't really change Marx's own words.
To some extent. I still think smaller government is vastly preferable, but it's also obvious that someone needs to work the levers of power. I want strong local government, in the ideal sense, I suppose. Less federal power, more state power, and even city/district power. Stop the bleed of power outward, and focus it inward. Cities can represent themselves, and dictate their rules, but don't get to tell the rest of the state how they can live, just because a ton of people are packed into a city.
I think it's a mix. I think they clearly did want to taint some things, like the value of money being a very clear cut one. But there's also an (un)healthy helping of "oh, yeah, communism doesn't fucking work." It's part intentional tainting, and part standard communist retardation.
Again, I do think it's a mix but, yeah, this wasn't the execution Marx and his people had hoped for, even if it does check a bunch of their boxes.
I agree, and never claimed otherwise. Just that there's a surprising amount of overlap, and we're basically in Communism Lite right now already.