Isms

Explore

Gallery

Isms

Azadism Vs Socialism

Karl Marx's 10 Planks Vs Azadism

Azadism's critique of the 10 Planks listed in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto

| Read this on Instagram: |

Part I⁠

Part II⁠

⁠

Preface

Written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, these planks lay out the goals and objectives of communism, which is an extreme form of (State) Socialism and is the polar opposite to Azadism. One of the reasons why I even called the “

Azadist Manifesto⁠

” a manifesto was as a sort of counter-argument to the principles laid out in the “Communist Manifesto”.

The reason why this is important is because Azadism was set up to contest many of the ideas pushed by Communism and State Socialist ideologies that many are sympathetic to, in general and in our own Panth.

Many Neo-Khalistanis in particular subscribe to Marxist influence, sometimes unconsciously and (as I have exposed in the past-) sometimes consciously. So when I read articles released by Neo-Khalistanis attempting to blame capitalism for everything I always wonder why are they jaanke missing out the actual ideology that underpins the founders of the Indian State and perpetrators of the greatest crimes against humanity and Sikhs. I've asked them to provide evidence of how they understand the terms and explaining their reasoning behind blaming everything on capitalism but stay quiet about communism and socialism, but it became clear they had no idea. Instead they were blindly mimicking whatever leftist slogans they had been brainwashed with themselves.

So this is an attempt to combat misinformation and try and warn Sangat of the reality of these perversive ideologies. Although Azadism is the polar opposite of Communism, I still encourage people to read the Communist Manifesto so they can see for themselves how insane so much of it is. Most don’t realise how broken many of Marx’s ideas were, how his predictions failed and how Socialism evolved to try and fix his mistakes (e.g. reformism). This post will explore the “10 Planks” from an Azadist perspective to hopefully make the Sangat aware and cautious of blindly subscribing to Communism because on the surface it may “sound nice”.

⁠

(01) “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes”

(e.g. zoning laws, planning permission, state land etc - if you don’t control it, you don’t own it!)

The first of these 10 planks is the abolition of private property related to land. Ownership of land would instead be handed over to the state to be managed centrally.

I will use the example of Punjab multiple times throughout these posts for relatability. So, for example, if this were applied in Punjab, it would mean that all the Kisaan would have to give up the land they may have been farming for generations and ownership is transferred to the central government for allocation.

This has been tried before a number of times in history and each time the results have been disastrous. The Azadist Manifesto explored the “collectivisation of industry” under Lenin and Stalin which led to mass famine (

Section V⁠

), but we can also look at the Mughal Zamindari system also. All land was owned by the Empire, and then divided up to be managed by public workers and those loyal to the Emperor.

Implemented such a thing today would be the opposite of what Banda Singh Bahadur had done in freeing the land from the state and handing it back to the people.

For more detail on this, read

Banda Singh was not a Socialist!⁠

⁠

(02) “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax”

(e.g. income tax brackets we see today. Punish success, then wonder why you have none)

I have covered why this is such a bad policy in previous posts, so for a more comprehensive counter-argument from the Azadist perspective, I encourage you to read them (see below). However, the main reasons why this policy is undesirable are:

It disincentivizes wealth creation and investment. By putting an increasingly higher cost on material success, don’t be surprised when entrepreneurship, innovation and and wealth flee your country and settle elsewhere, taking with them opportunity and their taxable income. Then you will have even fewer resources to help the poor, both directly via entitlements and indirectly via employment and access to affordable goods.

The state is not better equipped to spend that money than private businesses who have proven they can satisfy consumer demand through the profits they generate (at least in a free-market where they cannot lobby the government to gain an unfair advantage by restricting competition). State programs are not efficient since they are paid for regardless of performance, and there are no market forces at play to withdraw demand (and profit) to show them that they are inefficient or not serving the interests of the people. State-backed enterprises, which have their costs paid for by taxpayers, are often very difficult to compete with; granting the state a monopoly in that industry and leaving the people with little choice and worse outcomes.

Tax is fundamentally theft. This is self-explanatory. Watch what happens if you refuse to pay it if you don’t support a particular policy. Taxation is simply the forcible acquisition of funds by a government under the threat of violence. Any ideal being proposed should move away from such a barbaric system in the long-term and at least acknowledge it’s fundamental immorality in the short term.

Instead, Azadism advocates for a reduction in the size and scope of state influence in the economy, focusing on core functionality like policing, national defence, the justice system, and tax administration (including welfare safety net). This reduces the amount of money the state needs in the first place. This would then be combined with a lower flat tax rate to begin with in order to promote prosperity and attract and retain wealth in the economy, benefiting everyone in terms of access to goods and services, availability, affordability, innovation and opportunity. Again, this is a simplified argument, and I provide more evidence of the positive effects of a lower tax rate for all, particularly for the poor in Section IV of the Azadist Manifesto.

Links to Instagram Posts:

⁠

Don’t be fooled by catchy slogans — Why Jagmeet is wrong on Taxes⁠

⁠

Tax... is theft — (Part 1) Summary of Section IV of the Azadist Manifesto⁠

⁠

Link to relevant section of the Azadist Manifesto:

⁠

Section IV of the Azadist Manifesto⁠

⁠

(03) “Abolition of all rights of inheritance”

(e.g. A 100% death tax, when you die, it all goes to the state. AKA “Grave Robbery”)

This idea seems extremely unethical from my understanding of Sikhi. It suggests that when you die, you are not allowed to pass on anything to your children that you spent your life working for. This is essentially a 100% death tax, which gives the government greater access to funds that it can use however it wants. You would have to have an insane amount of faith in the competency and benevolence of your government to believe that they will use that money to serve the citizens they took it from. Given the track record of governments throughout history, I have very little faith that these grave robbers will be able to do so. Furthermore, the Economic Calculation Problem proves that it is actually impossible for any centralised group to efficiently plan an economy at that level anyway!*

Finally, if you know that all of your money will be taken away when you die, you will not spend it in a sustainable way to ensure that your wealth builds up over generations. People would just be incentivised to spend it frivolously before the government comes and takes it all. It would also further exacerbate the problem mentioned in the last slide by encouraging people to take their wealth abroad.

*Read the essay:

Battle of the Isms⁠

for a full breakdown of the ECP

⁠

(04) “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels”

(e.g. If you leave, government gets your stuff. If you stand up to tyranny, same thing)

This one is self-explanatory, and we can again apply this to Punjab. If the Indian govt applied this policy it means that all the Punjabis leaving to seek opportunities in the West will have their land taken by the government directly. Not only would this mean this is less funds available to help them set up lives elsewhere, but the central govt would have a direct foothold everywhere whereas the Punjabi people would own less and less of the already subjugated land they live in. Also, what incentive would there be to return? They have nothing to go back to.

Additionally, rebels can be classed as anyone who the State deems as an enemy. So anyone who pleads for their rights, or calls for a Khalistan can all have their land taken off them. Shaheed Parivars especially would be targeted (as they have been already).

India isn’t communist, but Nehru’s vision for India was heavily inspired by the ideology after he visited the Moscow in the then Soviet Union, and subsequently imposed a (state) socialist model for India that countless have suffered from to this day. The parallels between these planks and the Indian state are not a coincidence. Yet, we have Neo-Khalistanis and Sikhs today who support Communism and state-socialism whilst claiming to be against Nehru’s India! They already imposed the economic model you advocate for, and it went against the prosperity of not just Sikhs, but all Indians. It’s only recently they began to try and change this (with varying degrees of “success”).

⁠

(Above) Nehru meets Che Guevera, who is another figure some Sikhs and Neo-Khalistanis seem to idolise due to his status as a “revolutionary”. Sure, he was great at opposing the establishment, but once he and Castro were in power, they chose to adopt state-socialism and Cuba was back to being a dictatorship with a new “theme” — “revolutionary” indeed. Huge lesson for Neo-Khalistanis especially: those who are good at taking over a state may not be good at running that state. It’s two different skill sets.

⁠

(05) “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly”

(e.g. Central Banks. It just gets worse and worse)

Many socialists do not realize that Marx actually advocated for central banking! This isn't a capitalist concept at all; it's the opposite of free-market banking. I consider it one of the largest mistakes that the US ever made to introduce this into their economy. Purchasing power has depleted ever since the dollar was devalued and unpegged from the gold standard, allowing politicians to print money to finance deficit spending and wars of conquest.

This plank gives the state a monopoly on the money supply and can manually set interest rates. IRs are perhaps the most important price in an economy because it determines the cost of borrowing money. By manipulating them, it causes what is known as “business cycles”. If you're interested in learning more about this, I'll share a lecture in my story by an Austrian School Economist (one of the schools that helped push back against a lot of this Communist rhetoric).

This particular plank is so dangerous and it is one of the core reasons as to why we are experiencing such heavy inflation today. This inflation is causing poor families to choose between meals and heating their homes. Central banking is a tool for the government to secure its interests at the expense of the people’s prosperity.

It’s so funny how Neo-Khalistanis who are well aware of this stuff do not make a peep about this information about Nehru and Indira. One of Indira Gandhi’s major policies was to nationalise (bring an industry under direct state control) Indian banks! Why are Neo-Khalistanis who claim to be against them then advocate for the same policies?

This is because they provably don’t understand what it is they are promoting and opposing. I urge the Sangat to not fall into the same trap and blindly follow so-called “Panthic” orgs because they have shown competency in other research areas. Assess everything yourself, and this includes Azadism also!

⁠

(06) “Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State”

(e.g. BBC, or any form of state media / propaganda and nationalised transport)

State media refers to outlets that are controlled or influenced by the government. Examples include the BBC in the UK and nationalist media in India.

While these nations are not necessarily communist, they exhibit elements of communism in many aspects. Their state controlled media being a prime example. North Korea also provides a modern example of state-level propaganda taken to its extreme.

As for state/public transportation, just get on a public train or bus and see for your yourself. This is what happens when you restrict competition in an industry and have one monopoly supplier to choose from (the government).

Azadism has made the case against nationalisation extensively in the Azadist Manifesto, which I encourage you to read, but in short: any enterprise that has all its costs paid for by taxpayers is by default paid for regardless of performance. By removing its competition and ensuring its continuation by government decree alone, you remove the incentive to be efficient with resources as well as to provide a good service. This is because the customers satisfaction doesn’t have any impact on profit, and therefore survivability for your enterprise. Hence, why govt transport tends to be such poor quality.

⁠

(07) “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.”

This was realised in places like the Soviet Union with Lenin and Stalin’s attempts to collectivise the farms. I recommend reading the opening of Section V of the Azadist Manifesto to understand the disaster which this caused (famines). It was so bad that even Lenin had to admit he was wrong and reintroduce a limited level of privatisation again (before Stalin came in and did it again). Mao wasn’t as lenient and only after his death did China abandon its attempt at communism and bring in a degree of capitalism to save themselves from complete annihilation.

Again, I’ll use the India example also because it hits closer to home for us, but this would be akin to the Indian govt directly taking over the farms and factories etc under the pretence to improve land for agriculture. Well, we all saw how well the government’s green revolution went and the current stranglehold it has on the agricultural sector in India.

For a more comprehensive break down on the factors that led to the recent Kisaan Morcha and why it was NOT a victory, read the Azadism essay on it at:

www.azadism.co.uk/kisanmorcha (Link in bio, or DM me)

⁠

(08) “Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”

(e.g. essentially slave labour)

This one relates to the fact that in a communist society, all would be forced to work. The state would be controlling the industries, and so there would be no free labour market. Since all marketism has been annihilated under communism, there is no pricing mechanism that naturally organises labour based on supply and demand (as represented by fluctuating salaries/wages). Instead, you would be assigned a job in line with the central plan and made to hit certain performance quotas.

Industrial armies refers not to labour unions, but the state amassing the population into an army like reserve structure that can be called upon in short notice to allocate to projects the government decides.

In such as system there is very limited choice in employment (if any at all), and absolutely no entrepreneurship. What you do is entirely dependent on the decisions of the totalitarian government. This is pure and simple slavery.

⁠

(09) “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.”

(e.g. forced displacement and cultural genocide)

This is forced displacement of the population, again which we saw in the Soviet Union. It is a very powerful tool for the state to commit cultural genocide and remove any groups and means of self-identification as distinct peoples by making everyone subordinate to the state.

E.g. this would be akin to the Indian govt saying you are no longer allowed to call yourself Punjabi, or Doaban, or even associate with your own Pind. You are all Indians and that’s it, and to ensure this, they will split up communities and scatter them around the nation.

You may think this is not a bad idea, but you must realise that this is forced “Ekta” and people naturally associate based on commonalities. The state must impose inhumane tactics to enforce this goal of uniformity, such as displacement. This is also makes it easier for them to subjugate since it is harder to fight back on lands you are not accustomed to.

⁠

(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”

(e.g. Public schools)

The only one that sounds sort of sane, but again Azadism contests it. Why? Because a public school = state school (remember public sector = state sector). The state sets the curriculum and so this system is prone to propaganda. This is one of the most insidious planks on this list, since people can be easily duped by the word “free”.

It isn’t free, you pay for it through your taxes. And it is for sure not without cost, since you would give up independent thought that leads to innovation and the freedom to question and criticise injustice. Watch interviews with North Korean escapees on how bad this in reality. Are you sure you want to replicate such a thing? Even in the mixed economies of today, public education is full of nonsense and too often misses out basic life skills and smart financial planning. By nationalising schooling, the quality of education relies on the competency of your government.

Without economic competition in schooling you will inevitably face the same challenges that all nationalised industrious do: inefficacy and ineffectiveness. If you are paid regardless of performance the incentive to improve diminishes. In the case of schools it can be even worse, since in many instances if your school performs worse, it often is made eligible for more funding! Complete reversal of the necessary incentive structure to allow schools to constantly improve.

Also, regarding child labour. This has been the norm for centuries, even today your parents were likely made to help out on the farm etc. It is only with the advent of the free market system and greater economic freedom that children don’t have to work in factories anymore. But there was indeed a brief period of hardship societies had to go through so that they were prosperous enough so that parents could work jobs that could support families. Even today, you can get jobs that let you support not only your kids, but your wife and your parents, before retirement age too. This is thanks to capitalism, not communism. In communistic societies (or state socialists societies that trended towards communism) the work conditions were brutal and famines were the norm.

⁠

Conclusion

Hopefully this will help people think twice before becoming Marxpanthis and making Baba Karl Marx their Gurdev. Many of these planks are not only economically unviable and anti-prosperity, but they are also (IMO) extremely immoral. But with one exception. It is only unethical if it is imposed at a state level on everyone involuntarily. Instead, Azadism offers a compromise...

If you believe that Communism works, then through

Azadism’s Stanistan model⁠

, you would have the freedom to come together with other Socialists, pool funds, purchase some land and establish a Communist society. The Azadist government (maybe in the form of a Khalsa Misl system) will protect your rights to do this, so long as participation remains voluntary, members can exit at any time and the outputs of your experiment do not harm a non-consenting third-party. Most reasonable socialists should agree with these terms, if not, then we know where the true authoritarians are.

I personally don’t think these Communist “communes” will be very successful and won’t scale very large (which is fine, I think communism only sort of works on a small scale if it does anyway), but Azadism allows you to prove me wrong. As long as all members are participating voluntarily and are free to leave at any time, there is nothing wrong with this.

This alternative to state-level implementation of Marx’s ideas is what I call “Private Socialism”. And, this is my compromise with Socialists. If you want to try these sorts of things, then be Azadist first, and then Socialist second.

Hopefully by now you would at the very least hesitate when it comes to sympathy for communism. These planks show not only a deep misunderstanding of economics that Marx had, but also the immorality of them highlights the degeneracy of his whole ethical framework.

However, this all immoral if done at the state level with involuntary participation. But in Azadism, there would still be room for communists to implement some of these 10 planks but on a voluntary basis only. Read my previous posts on how such as “Sikhs & City States” and “Stanistan”. But as I mentioned in part 1, for a full understanding, please read “Battle of the Isms”.

⁠