APP - Marxism - What is it really?

[T. A. Gardner]

Um.... a.... isn't that what I said?

Not exactly. You tied your statement to productivity. I expanded it to the whole nature of humanity. In other words, Marxism / Communism doesn't just destroy productivity, it destroys people. It crushes the soul.

 

[Ross Dolan]

"Monarchial" is defined as Related to a monarchy or monarch. There is no difference.

There is a difference. The are spelled differently for one. In any case, the point I wanted to make is that some people crave to be a dictator...some crave to be a monarch. Napoleon for one.

I can think of others.

I would say that's true to an extent. From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs. That would imply some equal distribution baseline on things like food, clothing, shelter, and the like. The problem becomes any "needs" beyond that. Then you end up with the question of who deserves what and how much and as we've seen, that ends up being a small oligarchy that runs things deciding among themselves what everyone gets, which is mostly they get everything.

If you are saying that you do not want a socialistic nation...I agree. As I said, I am a apitalist...one who at one point in his life worked on The Street. But I do not share your disdain for socialism...or for the ability of a socialistic nation to prosper. And I consider the negatives of unfettered capitalism to be no less dangerous to humanity than the negatives of unfettered socialism.

I'd agree. Europe and much of the West is too Socialized in my opinion. The way I see it is Socialism in society should provide the bare minimum for everyone. Beyond that, you provide for yourself--that is you participate in the economy and that economy is Capitalist in nature.

I sort of agree with your view of what I said, but not completely. This is because of a view I have about the work force that you do not share. We can discuss that, but I am interested in acknowledgement that because of the stance I am taking, it is not appropriate or proper to suggest that I am a socialist. I am far to the left of the political system, but I argue that one can be very far left and still be a champion of capitalism and free enterprise.

Can we agree on that?

I can agree to that. What I want is that those with much more cannot manipulate the system to keep those who aren't in that group from entering.

Great...and I would go a step further with a reminder that during relatively recent times, we have seen the kinds of reactions that can occur when the divide between wealth ownership becomes excessive. France in the late 18th century and Russia during the early 20th century are examples of citizenry, normally very (excessively) compliant...turning against what they legitimately feared, and overturning it.

I could imagine it happening here. I do not see any way that people like Trump, Murdoch, Musk, and the Waltons will ever be satisfied with the share of the pie they own. They will always be trying to gain more...even crumbs. And the battle to be THE RICHEST will cause that ever rising line of disparity to increase.

So...to move on! I am hoping you can agree to my ask in my third paragraph here. If so, I would like to discuss something I alluded to in my second paragraph response.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In reply to your third paragraph:

More government and more socialism result in greater disparity between rich and poor. The Middle-Class shrinks, not grows. That happens everywhere Socialism takes hold. Europe, as but one example, pulled back from the heavy-handed Socialism that took it over following WW 2 until about the 1980's when it became obvious that it was bankrupting nations there. Even today, many Socialist programs in Europe are unsustainable. Greece teeters on bankruptcy continuously. Britain's NHS is slowly consuming the UK like a cancer. Perpetual welfare simply doesn't work.

Socialism in Mexico drug that nation down for over a century. The corruption was endemic and when the worst of their Socialism ended, it resulted in the crime cartels taking over in the vacuum. The same thing happened in the Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Only there, the crime cartels went legit and became mega rich oligarchs.

Your fourth paragraph misses reality. The size of the pie isn't fixed. I don't care if Trump, Murdoch, Musk, Vanderbilt, or Morgan become insanely wealthy. What matters is that they and government don't make it so the rest of us have at least the opportunity to do likewise. The amount of wealth in the world today far exceeds what was available say 100 or 300 years ago. The pie can grow or shrink. Having an opportunity to make it grow for you is the important thing. To take an extreme example, in N. Korea you have near zero opportunity to get a piece of the economic pie. The Emperor, Monarch--for that really is what Kim Il Jong is--owns everything and you get only what he so magnanimously hands out. Socialism takes from economic opportunity, it doesn't grow it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

In reply to your third paragraph:

More government and more socialism result in greater disparity between rich and poor. The Middle-Class shrinks, not grows. That happens everywhere Socialism takes hold.

I disagree with this. It seems to be a gratuitous defense of "we want less government." I much prefer "we want better government" to "we want less government." But those are preferential comments...and the "facts" used to support both are mostly rationalizations.

In any case, I will continue to support "we want better government" and you will almost certainly continue to support "we want less government."

Europe, as but one example, pulled back from the heavy-handed Socialism that took it over following WW 2 until about the 1980's when it became obvious that it was bankrupting nations there. Even today, many Socialist programs in Europe are unsustainable. Greece teeters on bankruptcy continuously. Britain's NHS is slowly consuming the UK like a cancer. Perpetual welfare simply doesn't work.

Socialism in Mexico drug that nation down for over a century. The corruption was endemic and when the worst of their Socialism ended, it resulted in the crime cartels taking over in the vacuum. The same thing happened in the Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Only there, the crime cartels went legit and became mega rich oligarchs.

Once again, I disagree. The United States (being one of the least socialized countries of the world) is ranked among the top 5 with the MOST wealth disparity...and is ranked as having, by far, the MOST wealth disparity among the industrialized nations of the world. Sweden (one of the most socialized) is ranked almost alongside it as having the MOST wealth disparity.

Your fourth paragraph misses reality. The size of the pie isn't fixed.

I didn't suggest it was. BUT WHATEVER SIZED IT IS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT...what I said about it holds.

I don't care if Trump, Murdoch, Musk, Vanderbilt, or Morgan become insanely wealthy. What matters is that they and government don't make it so the rest of us have at least the opportunity to do likewise.

Now that, T. A. IS missing reality. In any case, it calls my earlier questions back into consideration. HOW MUCH OF (WHAT AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT IS) "the pie" must the top 1% or top 10% owns before you consider it to be inappropriate?

Name a figure. I've already given you what the figures are for today's pie. When will you see it as excessive? Or do you not see any figure as excessive?

The amount of wealth in the world today far exceeds what was available say 100 or 300 years ago. The pie can grow or shrink.

It can, indeed...and I have not suggested otherwise.

Having an opportunity to make it grow for you is the important thing. To take an extreme example, in N. Korea you have near zero opportunity to get a piece of the economic pie. The Emperor, Monarch--for that really is what Kim Il Jong is--owns everything and you get only what he so magnanimously hands out. Socialism takes from economic opportunity, it doesn't grow it.

Okay...we disagree. I still say that most indicators show that wealth disparity is not a function of socialism vs. capitalism...and that is my point.

It also is my point that America would profit greatly from borrowing some socialistic ideas and incorporating them into the American economy.

Where we can agree (in some part) is that once EVERYONE has "what is needed"**...wealth disparity will continue. Some will always have more. Often it is the result of having contributed to the common good, but just as often it is the result of cheating others out of what should rightfully be theirs...and marrying into it.

**We almost certainly disagree on what "what is needed" with me preferring that it be closer to "having sufficient" than to just essentials. I suspect you prefer closer to "just essentials." I may be wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The problem with capitalism, which is every bit as degrading as the problem with socialism, is that in its unfettered condition (which, despite what you mentioned, it always is) is that it eventually leads to a very few having such a marked advantage over the masses, that it eventually becomes monarchial.

Historically this is the opposite of the facts.

It was the rise of free markets of the Renascence that led to the fall of the monarchies and collapse of imperialism. Capitalism gave rise to the middle class with the market revolution.

The rich have ways to stop any laws that are designed to limit how much wealth they are allow to obtain and accumulate...PERIOD. Some might think the desire to become THE RICHEST can be "contained" but you cannot stop people for whom the pursuit of money is a compulsion...from pursuing it.

Any law limiting how much wealth a person can produce is immoral on it's face. This would be on the level of demanding that we scar people to keep them from being too attractive.

There are a few questions I often ask of people who see this problem differently from how I see it...who see that it can be contained. Here they are with a reasonable predicate:

THE PREDICATE: The top 10% of families now own 60% of the total wealth of the US; the bottom 50% owns 6%; the top 1% of families own between 30% - 40% of all the wealth. (All this from 2022...with almost certainty that the wealth percentage numbers have increased for the top 10% and 1%...with the percentage of wealth percentage for the bottom 50% decreasing in the intervening years.)

We have to begin with noting that your claim is simply not correct.

The middle class has 43% of income presently in America. This is a shocking decline from 62% in 1970



Still vastly different than your claim.

Share of total U.S. household income held by the middle class has plunged since 1970 | Pew Research Center

www.pewresearch.org

THE QUESTIONS: At what point do you think that the disparity requires significant "containment by law?"

Would you propose laws to lobotomize the most intelligent among us because the distance between their knowledge and those with the least knowledge is too great?

Containment by law of intellectual disparity?

How much would you say that the top 10% have to own of the nation's wealth before that containment by law be applied?

How much should the top 10% of football players be allowed to dominate the Superbowl before containment laws be applied to ensure no one does better than another.

How much would you say that the top 1% have to own of the nation's wealth before that should happen?

I have asked these questions on the Internet dozens of times...and never had a response that truly dealt with them. Would you?

You proposal seeks to punish success. It is the lowest common denominator solution. Reduce those who are better to the least among us.

 

[IBDaMann]

Historically this is the opposite of the facts.

All we need to do is compare the US to Venezuela.

This discussion is over.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's a current example of how Socialism shrinks, not grows, the Middle Class.

California's Middle Class Declines as Low and High Incomes Surge, Study Shows | KQED

Over the past two decades, the state lost 7% of its middle-income earners while its low- and high-income population grew, new research shows.

www.kqed.org

https://www.ccbuilders.org/moderate-middle-income-california-racial-wealth-gap

How California Has Destroyed Its Middle Class | California Policy Center

California has declared war on its middle class, and the special interests controlling the state are doing everything they can to impose this punitive economic model on the rest of America. It’s a quasi-feudal system, with the entire population divided into aristocrats and serfs. The means to...

californiapolicycenter.org

In California the Middle Class is leaving or becoming the working poor.

California's population drain

Other

siepr.stanford.edu

 

[T. A. Gardner]

All we need to do is compare the US to Venezuela.

This discussion is over.

That comparison shows exactly what I'm talking about. Venezuela prior to Chavez had a slowly growing middle class. It was a reasonably wealthy nation on the whole. Poverty was a problem that would have worked itself out over time with a growing economy. Chavez came in, instituted Socialist programs on the nation and the middle class started to collapse. Maduro doubled down on this and destroyed the middle class. The rich either aligned with Maduro and were unaffected or they left the country with their money. The middle class fled if they could.

What was left was a small fraction of the population that were filthy rich and everyone else lived in poverty. That's how Socialism rolls.

 

[martin]

That comparison shows exactly what I'm talking about. Venezuela prior to Chavez had a slowly growing middle class. It was a reasonably wealthy nation on the whole. Poverty was a problem that would have worked itself out over time with a growing economy. Chavez came in, instituted Socialist programs on the nation and the middle class started to collapse. Maduro doubled down on this and destroyed the middle class. The rich either aligned with Maduro and were unaffected or they left the country with their money. The middle class fled if they could.

What was left was a small fraction of the population that were filthy rich and everyone else lived in poverty. That's how Socialism rolls.

Agreed, pure socialism like pure most ways of arranging human affairs , e.g. pure democracy, is a bad way of doing things. Purity in opposing socialism is similarly a bad idea.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Agreed, pure socialism like pure most ways of arranging human affairs , e.g. pure democracy, is a bad way of doing things. Purity in opposing socialism is similarly a bad idea.

Small amounts of socialism, carefully managed and not allowed to grow in scope, is a good thing for society. But to the maximum extent possible a society should rely on personal and corporate responsibility as its primary economic driver. Keeping a boot on the neck of government is a good way to do that.

 

[Damocles]

Actually, it doesn't "escape" me. In fact, it is one of the reasons why I would never advocate for a change to a socialistic system here in America. So, essentially, I agree with you on this, TA. Unfettered socialism (or communism) fail because of human nature.

However, there is a similar liability for capitalism and free enterprise that I think ought be considered. A "human nature" type of fundamental truth that escapes those espousing that socialistic ideas be dismissed out of hand. I will refrain from discussing that truth (those truths) because I do not want to run afoul of rules about not derailing the conversation.

Would you consider a discussion of the other side of this issue to be a derailment of your post?

If he does you could start another thread. I'd participate.

Marxism has failed to get people, other than the leaders, to thrive everywhere it has been tried. That discussion is boring as we have examples everywhere that show it does not work, it is impossible to show it will work "this time".

in contrast, "unfettered capitalism" has never existed anywhere at all, and therefore we have no examples of failures relating to it.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

I did not use the word "monarch." I said "monarchial." There is a difference.

I think Marxism does not want wealth distributed evenly...and if it does, it would be another reason why I do not advocate for Marxism.

I am a capitalist. But just as some socialistic societies have adopted features of capitalism (to great advantage), I think we should incorporate some socialistic features into our capitalistic society.

There will always be some people with more than others...and some with MUCH more than others. Fine by me.

Let's discuss this point...and then go on to the other comments you made.

So do you own the means of production?

 

[Ross Dolan]

If he does you could start another thread. I'd participate.

It doesn't. No need for another thread.

Marxism has failed to get people, other than the leaders, to thrive everywhere it has been tried. That discussion is boring as we have examples everywhere that show it does not work, it is impossible to show it will work "this time".

I have conceded that it doesn't work...although China is still the 2nd most robust economy on the planet; seems destined to surpass us with a decade or two; and has been primarily socialistic. So the constantly mentioned "it doses not work" is vastly over-rated in my opinion.

In any case, I am a capitalist...and it is my opinion that free enterprise is a necessity to true economic success. China was smart enough to see that borrowing from capitalism in that respect would be helpful. Unfortunately, we are unwilling to realize that borrowing from socialism may be helpful to our system.

in contrast, "unfettered capitalism" has never existed anywhere at all, and therefore we have no examples of failures relating to it.

And?

 

[Ross Dolan]

So do you own the means of production?

Not sure what you are asking, Guno. Obviously I, personally, do not. Not sure if you were being ironic.

But if your question was actually, "In whatever you are advocating, will individual ownership still exist?"...

...then my answer is: Without a doubt.

I certainly am not advocating for general socialism with ownership being "governmental."

I am essentially saying, "We have more than enough for everyone to have all of the necessities of life. If we insure that EVERYONE has sufficient, there will be more than enough for capitalism and free enterprise to thrive, so that the people who want MORE THAN JUST SUFFICIENT to strive for it the way they do now...via capitalism.

Places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait...have essentially no poverty among the general population. The do have an established poverty population among immigrants who come to those countries to do the labor citizens will not do. That is because they are very wealthy countries...and will not tolerate poverty for their citizens.

WE are a shitload more wealthy than they. But we ARE willing to tolerate it. I just would like to see that change.