Asklemmy

Seems like a bit of a mixed bag. Given the source, it's not terribly surprising though. Marxism is utopian in nature and is built on a highly centralized, command economy. These have had a history of difficulties as they tend to be slow to react to changes in market demand and rely on central planning of a very complex system. That said, some of these ideas are really good and are now part of social democracies. Like most "-isms", it's usually useful to borrow the better parts and be more careful about the rest.

1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic.

Pretty much already happened. Though, there will always be quibbling over the borders and what time in history properly defines them. But overall, I think this one is done and good.

2. Every German who is 21 years old shall be a voter and be eligible for election, assuming he has not been sentenced for a criminal offence.

I'm not sure about German culture, but picking an age of majority and being consistent with it seems like a good idea. I like something in the 20-25 range as that is when the human brain is mostly developmentally mature. But, there may need to be some phase in of rights and responsibilities from an even earlier age to help build maturity as the person develops. 21 seems ok for voting, but I could see an argument for both older and younger.

3. Representatives of the people shall be paid so that workers may also sit in the parliament of the German people.

I agree with this one. While it does have the issue of creating professional politicians, when unpaid, the only people who can be representatives are those who are already rich enough to be able to not work. And most people who seek political power aren't in it for the pay. If they are after money, they use the power provided to make money via corruption. So, it's far better to make politics accessible to all by having pay to support those politicians.

4. Universal arming of the people. In future armies shall at the same time be workers’ armies so that the armed forces will not only consume, as in the past, but produce even more than it costs to maintain them.

This is a tough one. On one hand, you have the Swiss model of conscription and it works. On the other hand, you have the US model of guns everywhere with zero responsibility. Certainly, in the late 19th century context, you can understand the desire to arm the people. Access to arms was one of the primary ways the feudal class maintained power. At the same time, in the early 21st century, does an armed populace stand a chance of over-throwing a corrupt government? That seems a more complicated question. While it seems unlikely for the people to resist a modern military, we've actually seen examples of this happening. Though the results tend to be pretty horrific. If something along the lines of a Swiss model of conscription, training and a true sense of responsibility can be done, I'd be for it. As a largely unregulated system, I can't say I'd agree as much.

5. Maintenance of justice shall be free of charge.

Interpreting a bit, I assume this means government paid access to lawyers and the courts. In which case, yes, absolutely. People's ability to access legal help should not be dependent on their wealth. Granted, short of some really draconian regulations, there will still be issues of wealth buying better help, but that's probably unavoidable.

6. All feudal burdens, all fees, labour services, tithes etc. which have previously oppressed the peasantry shall be abolished without any compensation.

Ya, pretty easy one here. The feudal system was bad and anyone supporting it should feel the gentle kiss of a guillotine on the nape of their neck.

7. All baronial and other feudal estates, all mines, pits etc. shall be converted into state property. On these estates agriculture shall be practised on a large scale and with the most modern scientific tools for the benefit of all.

This starts to get to the heart of Marxism: State owned industry. I do believe that such a system can work, though may be inefficient. As I stated above, highly centralized command economies tend to be slow to adapt to changing conditions and rely heavily on accurate reporting from the bottom up. There can be poorly aligned incentives where a central authority sets a quota and doesn't have a good mechanism for reporting up shortfalls. Or, reporting a shortfall becomes so taboo that manufacturing points just start to lie about it. This results in an overly optimistic central authority and everyone thinking everything is fine, right up until there is no food and everyone starves. That said, with good reporting, well planned incentives and good systems for dealing with shortfalls, central planning has an advantage in being able to get something done. If the State decides that the country needs trains, trains will get built. Unsurprisingly, different approaches to an economy have different benefits and weaknesses. The goal should be to take advantage of each and try to create a mix which works well for everyone.

There is also a problem around the statement "most modern scientific tools for the benefit of al". This is great, if the tools/practices chosen actually are the "most modern scientific tools". If the central authority goes "all in" on a system, and that system is wrong, the result can quickly become a famine. And this sort of "tear everything down and do it our own way" mentality has a bad habit of destroying systems and then falling into traps the previous system spent years, money and lives learning. It's often why, when a government is toppled, bureaucrats from the old regime end up in the new regime. Those bureaucrats have a lot of valuable experience and may be less wedded to ideology than to living and making money. This is also where decentralized systems tend to have a large benefit. If two farms choose different approaches, you are less likely to have both fail for making the same bad choice. This is just harder to control centrally and you will likely end up with people questioning if each approach is using "most modern scientific tools". That phrase is easy to say and really hard to prove.

8. The mortgages on peasant farms shall be declared state property. The interest for these mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.

I'm more a fan of private property than the Marxist system provides for. But, I am all for a Land Value Tax, which amounts to much the same thing. Tax the land based on the value of that land, and it should tend towards more efficient uses. Also, kicking people off the farms they have been running seems like a good way to kick off a famine. Again, going back to the idea that the people currently doing the job probably have a reasonable idea of how to do the job. Replacing them with random people who have no knowledge doing it, usually results in problems.

9. In the areas where leasing has developed the ground rent or lease payment shall be paid to the state as a tax.

As above, a Land Value Tax seems a good place to start. I'm not a fan of the abolition of private property. But, that's really a philosophical difference and I can't say this wouldn't work. If nothing else, it would break up very old land holdings.

10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.

I'd argue that this is an artifact of the time these ideas were written in. Having a central, State backed bank has become pretty common. There is usually some separation (at least on paper), such that the bank isn't the State. But, it's a pretty thin wall in most cases. That said, removing all competition might be interesting. Goodness knows private banks have been very damaging to the economy of late. Though, having only one bank may simply centralize such risk and make any problem systemic to the economy. Though, if that bank does not have an incentive to seek profit or engage in rent seeking behavior, many of those risks may simply not exist. I'm not sure on this point, it's an interesting idea but it also seems like it could be risky.

11. All means of transport: railways, canals, steamships, roads, posts etc. shall be taken in hand by the state. They shall be converted into state property and made available free of charge to the class without financial resources.

So, if you move to a complete, central command economy, the first part makes sense. The State should control the means to transport good and large infrastructure should similarly be owned and operated by the State. Heck, even without the central command economy, I'd like to see a move towards State ownership of basic infrastructure (road, rails, canals, electricity networks, communications networks). And then charge individuals/companies fees to access those networks to pay for maintenance. I'd skip the whole "means testing" bit, as that seems like more trouble than it's worth. Instead, I'd build out a Universal Basic Income which would cover a basic level of use for that infrastructure. Higher levels of service would then be dependent on paying higher fees. The exception to "use fees" would be for transportation networks. Most train rides would be at no cost to the rider, roads would be open access.

12. In the remuneration of all civil servants there shall be no difference except that those with a family, i.e. with greater needs, shall also receive a larger salary than the others.

Holy crap this is dumb. You want to disincentivize workers, this, right here is how you do it. This will also lead to a rapid "brain drain" from civil service. People will get just enough experience to get paid better elsewhere and move on. That, or you will see widespread corruption, as the only reason to hold a civil service job for any length of time would be abuse.