On the subject of the manifesto's demands in chp. 2 (n.b. nationalisation, increased taxation, etc.)

Why should communists today not push for them as Marx did in 1847? For the same reason Marx already no longer did in 1857: the movement moves on (meaning both the workers movement and the material conditions). From the 1872 (almost 30 years later) preface to the manifesto:
Marx chose these measures because they were included in Engels' draft, and Engels in turn chose them for the draft because they were demands of the Communist League, the Communist League getting them from the demands of the workers and artisans themselves.

The utopians (the most notable being Fourier, Owen and the Saint-Simonians) advocated building communities, usually in the New World, without private property. Which is a bit like some modern anarchist groups. Marx thought that the problem with this is threefold: 1. It is limited to the commune where this takes place, and leaves most of humanity untouched. This limit in space also means a limit in time - they all eventually collapsed. 2. It doesn't come from the workers themselves, it is not a product of the real movement. 3. It doesn't take the material conditions to a higher level as it were, it doesn't abolish the contradictions and antagonisms in modern society (such as the division of the economic and political), it only repeats them since the utopia built in the mind was either fantasy (the anti-lion etc.) or just bourgeois social law idealised.

Marx's answer to these problems of course was proletarian class struggle:
Marx recognised that the demands of the workers at this time was limited but it nevertheless brought the workers together to associate and yield political power (even if not in power) as a class. They would then discover these limits in practice and move beyond them as the communists (The Communist League in this instance) had foreshadowed in theory. Their prior consciousness of the ultimate aim of this movement, the momentum gained in the struggle (meaning the demands being met, and the subsequent effects on society as a whole) and the weight of their worldwide association would only be an extra push in doing what would be necessary - abolishing private property, undoing the State, etc.
(1/2)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm
amestris.country/
amestris.country/Manifesto
amestris.country/Direct_meritocracy
amestris.country/Vision
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm
The aim of the communists it to push the movement beyond its apparent limits, to show that taxation, nationalisation of the banks, cooperativization of private property is not enough – after Marx indicates these 10 demands he makes it clear that they are not enough. But there are some forms of activity that supposed "communists" (rarely actual workers) advocate that can not when pushed beyond their limits get where we want to go, and the very act of taking part in these activities is of little to no help and in many cases has a negative effect on the movement. Communists are the extended arm of the proletarian movements; all they should serve to do is tail and support whatever has traction in authentic workers' movements, to see these demands when they go beyond succeed and when they merely remodel capitalism aid them in achieving their invariant path to failure. It's the only way to go forward.

Communisation theorists (I have in mind Troploin, the rest aren't as good IMO) advocate the immediate abolition of money, private property, etc. because they have identified the contemporary movement itself as going after this demand, of having it at the core of the movement (they word it better). The difference between this and other left communists is only in their understanding of what exactly this entails, the fine print so to speak (though this is a separate subject).
(2/2)

...

Better?

Good effort post. But it raises the question of what the genuin proletarian movements are. Which "movement" does Troploin speak of? Are they seers reading the subconcious will of the proletariat? Why in that case do so many leftcoms for example shit on Rojava?

Not trying to bust your balls, just wanna know what your view is.

Wherever you look, you will see things that go from being as basic as causes for a higher, actually livable minimum wage, to the most utopian yet radical things like this which I recently found: amestris.country/ (their open source economy page isn't even terrible and they at least seem to understand that a truly post capitalist system has to annul the value form and money, that the commodity is at the center of capitalist relations).

No, conscious.

Within the same letter I linked (Marx's exchange with Ruge) you will see that the central task of communists according to Marx should be to critique whatever, wherever.

For Rojava, it's the absence of class struggle in its ideological fabric that stands as central issue for most Marxists (they're known to be reading a lot more Judith Butler than Marx or Bakunin over there, if any Marx or Bakunin at all). Of course the Kurds in Rojava have a perfect reason to fight for regional independence, at least on the basis of the fact that they've been a persecuted ethnic minority for the past century in the region (virtually every Marxist critique of Rojava, from Troploin's in 2014 to that Czech communist group's earlier this year, have acknowledged this, and more). The point is to note that there is nothing actually revolutionary about this; that our support goes to them only insofar as we realize that the good things they will achieve will never sufficiently address the fundamental problem of going beyond capitalism, of having a class basis, or even attempting to have meaningful alternative angles of struggle.

Good post. Besides communization ultra-leftists, are there any other groups who apply up-to-date marxist analysis/critique?

The anarchist side of communization isn't bad either (Invisible Committee), but honestly a lot of good, not even necessarily "alternative" people try to ponder the question again like Moishe Postone, who's just the rare academic Marxist to do more than the regular left-quetism.

Also while I really like the intent behind the various communisation theory journals (to radically reapproach communism from a materialist basis), I'll never "be a communizer" in the sense that to me, at least as far as my understanding goes now, the period of transition, the program and the party form are all part of the revolutionary movement. But I'm starting to like Dauvé's writings, beyond his "public image". Communizing is no more than a particular conception of revolutionary de-socialisation as all genuine proletarian organizations concieved it, though no one ever denied the transition to socialism was a progressive socialisation.

Heh, glad to know I'm not the only "Bordigist with communizing characteristics" around here. I was starting to worry that I was the only one.

Not sure if I'm a "Bordigist", both because I don't really think that was ever really a thing, nor that it really could be (he's like 75% Lenin tbh), but he is theoretically quite influential on me.