APP - Marxism - What is it really?

[T. A. Gardner]

NOT "FAIR." STOP MAKING THAT MISTAKE, because it changes everything about the issue.

If you insist on bringing that thought to the discussion, at least be reasonable enough to use the words, "Make it fairER." Even that still would be wrong, but not nearly as wrong. I think most people here in America are smart enough to understand that the economy will NEVER BE FAIR. But it certainly can, by dint of government regulation, be fairer...at least fairer than having the top 1% of the population owning one third of the total wealth of the nation...while some people starve; go without adequate shelter; and have inadequate healthcare. It certainly can be FAIRER than having the top 10% of the nation owning TWO THIRDS of the total wealth of the nation...while some people starvel; go without adequate shelter; and have inadequate healthcare.

Your wealth redistribution scheme won't work. Making a market "fair(er)" or otherwise trying to make sure wealth is distributed equally among all participants requires the participant's willing cooperation.

First, you need a market or economy where all participants are relatively equal in terms of ability to produce and operate within it. If, instead, what you have is a cross-section of humanity with morons and geniuses, lazy and energetic, and everything in-between, then you will never get to anything approaching "fair," at least in terms of end results. In such a society, even if the playing field is completely level, those that are smarter and more energetic will outperform those that aren't.

Government regulation, contrary to your view, is usually a source of unfairness rather than making things more equal. For example, if I came up with a completely new product, invention, or system that was in great demand but unregulated by government because government didn't know it could even exist, I'll get filthy rich selling it to everyone--at least until the government steps in and starts regulating that market. Then my profits will diminish because I'm spending to meet those regulations. I might even go to government and ask for regulations--lots of them. I would do that to prevent competition. I'm already established in this market so the regulations simply mean for me, paying the costs to meet them while my product is still selling well. Potential competitors are faced with very high startup costs, so they have difficulty entering the established market.

The system could be called "fair" in the sense that the regulations apply equally to everyone, but in reality, I'm already set in a position where I can afford them while for others wanting to enter the market, they are too expensive and high a hurdle to allow them in. So, they are actually unfair in practice.

Also, by world standards, the "Poor" in America are actually quite well off compared to the Poor in most other nations. People in America rarely are starving. They might be hungry and like more food, but they aren't starving. Adequate shelter and healthcare are arguable as to what constitutes that.

Wealth redistribution, at best, is temporary. At worst, it's simple robbery.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Geebus...

This is just another case of leftist saying "nuh-uh" doesn't make them right. It is simple reality. "Unfettered capitalism" has no examples of failure, while your special socialism has myriad effective examples of failure.

The REALITY is that you offer YOUR feelings/opinions about socialism as FACT about socialism, Damo. I offered facts.

The top 1% do own over 30% of our nation's wealth...and the top 10% own 66% of our nation's wealth. The bottom 50% only own 2.5% of our nation's wealth. Some of those people work two jobs and have a spouse also working...and are barely getting by in a nation with immense wealth. THAT CAN BE MADE LESS SEVERE...it can be made FAIRER.

And as for your OPINION that unfettered capitalism has no example of failure...I suggest it is failing right here in America because of those FACTS. And as for socialism, as I have mentioned before, the second most robust economy on the planet is that of China...with many experts predicting that China will pass America soon. (Trump is helping that happen.)

Just saying "nuh-uh" isn't an argument, it is fantasy.

If you think what I am writing here is just saying "nuh-uh"...there is something wrong with your computer. See if you can get it fixed.

You wish for what you want then expect others to just accept what you say without evidence.

No I do not. When asked what I want...I give an honest answer. I do not for one second suppose we will come even close to what I want in the next several decades...perhaps not in the next century. I have always made that clear. Where the hell do you come up with the accusation that I expect others to just accept what I say?

Not only do I not expect that...I would consider it stupid to do so. I would love for people to at least consider it.

It's why I call socialism a religion.

I do not care why you call socialism a religion. In any case, it certainly is not mine. I think capitalism/free enterprise should blow it out of the water, but because of the excesses we are allowing, America is not even coming close to doing that.

You scream BS and the rest of the Faithful join in, but they have no evidence either. Don't worry, there are myriad faithful who will always accept that "this time" it will work....

BORROWING from socialism to make America stronger and fairer...will work in my opinion. You apparently disagree.

Fine. You may be correct...and I may be dead wrong.

Am I suppose to simply accept that I am wrong and accept that you are correct...just because you want me to?

 

[Ross Dolan]

Your wealth redistribution scheme won't work. Making a market "fair(er)" or otherwise trying to make sure wealth is distributed equally among all participants requires the participant's willing cooperation.

At no point have I ever suggested that wealth be distributed equally among all participants. NEVER.

I have posted thousands of posts in several fora...and I defy you to find any post of mine that suggests that.

First, you need a market or economy where all participants are relatively equal in terms of ability to produce and operate within it. If, instead, what you have is a cross-section of humanity with morons and geniuses, lazy and energetic, and everything in-between, then you will never get to anything approaching "fair," at least in terms of end results. In such a society, even if the playing field is completely level, those that are smarter and more energetic will outperform those that aren't.

Government regulation, contrary to your view, is usually a source of unfairness rather than making things more equal. For example, if I came up with a completely new product, invention, or system that was in great demand but unregulated by government because government didn't know it could even exist, I'll get filthy rich selling it to everyone--at least until the government steps in and starts regulating that market. Then my profits will diminish because I'm spending to meet those regulations. I might even go to government and ask for regulations--lots of them. I would do that to prevent competition. I'm already established in this market so the regulations simply mean for me, paying the costs to meet them while my product is still selling well. Potential competitors are faced with very high startup costs, so they have difficulty entering the established market.

The system could be called "fair" in the sense that the regulations apply equally to everyone, but in reality, I'm already set in a position where I can afford them while for others wanting to enter the market, they are too expensive and high a hurdle to allow them in. So, they are actually unfair in practice.

Also, by world standards, the "Poor" in America are actually quite well off compared to the Poor in most other nations. People in America rarely are starving. They might be hungry and like more food, but they aren't starving. Adequate shelter and healthcare are arguable as to what constitutes that.

Wealth redistribution, at best, is temporary. At worst, it's simple robbery.

The rest of this doesn't mean beans, Damo, because you started from an extremely erroneous premise.

Get your shit together and we can have a reasonable discussion on this issue. I'm ready .

 

[Damocles]

Am I suppose to simply accept that I am wrong and accept that you are correct...just because you want me to?

You expected me to accept your exclamations as evidence.

However, the only "claim" I made is that there has been zero examples of unfettered capitalism on which to judge. I only point out that the examples you give are not "unfettered" by any measure. Then I give an opinion on why it is that we never see "unfettered" capitalism. I have not asked you to believe anything, I simply presented fact on which I based an opinion.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You expected me to accept your exclamations as evidence.

I DO NOT. I EVEN EXPLAINED THAT I WOULD CONSIDER YOU A FOOL IF YOU DID.

However, the only "claim" I made is that there has been zero examples of unfettered capitalism on which to judge. I only point out that the examples you give are not "unfettered" by any measure. Then I give an opinion on why it is that we never see "unfettered" capitalism. I have not asked you to believe anything, I simply presented fact on which I based an opinion.

There were other claims you made...so your claim now that "the only claim I made" is not correct.

I would love to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion of this issue. But it would be better if we both watched the phrasing a bit more carefully.

Here is what I consider a good place to start:

The statistics indicate that the top 1% own one-third of the total wealth of America...and that the top 10% own two-thirds of the total wealth of America...while the bottom 50% own only 2.5% of the total wealth. I already consider this a significant problem...which could easily lead to the kinds of solutions the people of late 18th century France and early 20th century Russia devised.

I do not want to see that happen. I want us to find a way to figuratively release the steam build-up before the explosion.

AT WHAT POINT, Damo, WOULD YOU SEE THE PROBLEM AS SEVERE ENOUGH TO DEMAND REMEDIATION? (We'll talk about the nature of the remediation...what might work and what should be avoided at all costs later. Please, just answer the question as proposed.)

 

[Ross Dolan]

Geebus...

Your wealth redistribution scheme won't work.

Ummm...I just realized this thread is APP.

I have made remarks to both of you that I consider marginally inappropriate for this area of the forum. I apologize. I'll attempt to do better as the discussion goes on.

If I screw up, please let me know immediately. This topic normally brings out the fire in me...and at times, I tend toward being volcanic.

 

[IBDaMann]

The statistics indicate ...

Aaaah, fabrications then. Just open with "I'm going to fabricate some numbers now."

that the top 1% own one-third of the total wealth of America.

Let me guess, you aren't going to explain why this completely innocuous thing is somehow a problem.

..and that the top 10% own two-thirds of the total wealth of America.

This is trivia. Were you planning on getting to something important?

..while the bottom 50% own only 2.5% of the total wealth.

Invert the chart and put them on the top.

I already consider this a significant problem.

Obviously you do, but until you explain why it is a problem, you are simply wasting bandwidth.

..which could easily lead to the kinds of solutions the people of late 18th century France and early 20th century Russia devised.

Nope. Large percentages of people starving is a problem. Nobody starving amid differing wealth levels is not a problem.

I want us to find a way to figuratively release the steam build-up before the explosion.

There's no steam to release.

AT WHAT POINT, Damo, WOULD YOU SEE THE PROBLEM AS SEVERE ENOUGH TO DEMAND REMEDIATION?

I imagine @Damocles would first need to see a problem. I don't imagine @Damocles sees a problem. You certainly haven't articulated any problem.

 

[IBDaMann]

At no point have I ever suggested that wealth be distributed equally among all participants. NEVER.

You are still the totally dishonest coward that we all know and love. You want all the wealth redistributed, just not equally. You just want leftists to have a bit more than everyone else, and you want the people who were once very wealthy to be punished for it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Since this thread has picked up some, I will continue the deep dive.

Marx continues;

{

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what theyhave not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster.

United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to anend.The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

}

Open borders and the destruction of national identity are currently relevant as the democrats import tens of millions of illegal aliens in an effort to disrupt American culture and American identity.

We see here the source of the democrat program as Marx outlines how the destruction of nationality to be key to gaining political supremacy for the Communist movement. The democrats are on script and enacting the Marxian recipe with absolute precision.

Note also the glaring hypocrisy as Marx simultaneously damns and praises nationalism. As a foundation of the middle class Marx demands that nations be razed, while at the same time promotes nations under proletarian rule.

In a Pollyanna manner he likewise declares that under Communist rule, exploitation will vanish - though offers no explanation of how such a magical thing will occur.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I DO NOT. I EVEN EXPLAINED THAT I WOULD CONSIDER YOU A FOOL IF YOU DID.



There were other claims you made...so your claim now that "the only claim I made" is not correct.

I would love to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion of this issue. But it would be better if we both watched the phrasing a bit more carefully.

Here is what I consider a good place to start:

The statistics indicate that the top 1% own one-third of the total wealth of America...and that the top 10% own two-thirds of the total wealth of America...while the bottom 50% own only 2.5% of the total wealth. I already consider this a significant problem...which could easily lead to the kinds of solutions the people of late 18th century France and early 20th century Russia devised.

I do not want to see that happen. I want us to find a way to figuratively release the steam build-up before the explosion.

AT WHAT POINT, Damo, WOULD YOU SEE THE PROBLEM AS SEVERE ENOUGH TO DEMAND REMEDIATION? (We'll talk about the nature of the remediation...what might work and what should be avoided at all costs later. Please, just answer the question as proposed.)

Please remember that this is APP.

This is to be a civil debate of facts, not a flame fest.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You expected me to accept your exclamations as evidence.

However, the only "claim" I made is that there has been zero examples of unfettered capitalism on which to judge. I only point out that the examples you give are not "unfettered" by any measure. Then I give an opinion on why it is that we never see "unfettered" capitalism. I have not asked you to believe anything, I simply presented fact on which I based an opinion.

I will offer two examples of unfettered capitalism;

Yard Sales
Old style flea markets

Both are marked by a seller offering goods, and a buyer offering money. Prices are not set by governments or corporations. The only persons involved in the transaction are the buyer and the seller.

Unfettered capitalism. It is the natural state when governments are no involved.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You expected me to accept your exclamations as evidence.

However, the only "claim" I made is that there has been zero examples of unfettered capitalism on which to judge. I only point out that the examples you give are not "unfettered" by any measure. Then I give an opinion on why it is that we never see "unfettered" capitalism. I have not asked you to believe anything, I simply presented fact on which I based an opinion.

I notice, Damo, that you have still not replied to my question about when you would consider the wealth distribution problem to be great enough to demand remediation.

Why is that? Why do you suppose does nobody from the right-wing favoring side ever answer that question?

We have a trillionaire now...and probably will have more within a relatively short time. Just sayin'!

 

[Damocles]

I notice, Damo, that you have still not replied to my question about when you would consider the wealth distribution problem to be great enough to demand remediation.

Why is that? Why do you suppose does nobody from the right-wing favoring side ever answer that question?

We have a trillionaire now...and probably will have more within a relatively short time. Just sayin'!

Wealth is not a zero sum game. One person becoming wealthy does not damage another. What you see as a "problem" to be solved by taking from others is simply your own jealousy wanting to drag someone down. You want to punish others for being more successful than you. It's weak.

One thing I know, no other economic plan has ever given more people freedom, wealth, and success than capitalism. We live in a nation where a poverty stricken home has fast internet, two televisions, smart phones, cars, and their largest food problem is obesity.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Wealth is not a zero sum game. One person becoming wealthy does not damage another. What you see as a "problem" to be solved by taking from others is simply your own jealousy wanting to drag someone down. You want to punish others for being more successful than you. It's weak.

One thing I know, no other economic plan has ever given more people freedom, wealth, and success than capitalism. We live in a nation where a poverty stricken home has fast internet, two televisions, smart phones, cars, and their largest food problem is obesity.

And you still haven't answered the question. No one from the right will. Oh, well...easy to guess why.

And I am a capitalist...probably the only one in this discussion who has actually worked on Wall Street as a broker.

We live in a nation where poverty should not exist in any form...but which has poverty aplenty.

Mock the problem if that makes you feel better, but the problem exists. I really with, however, that you would at least try to answer the question, Damo. Give it a try.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Correct. Wealth, in America, for instance, grows.

I acknowledge that the pie keeps growing...the stats show that. AND the stats show that the top 10% keep owning a larger and larger share of the pie even though the pie is getting larger.

THAT IS MY POINT.

So what percentage of the pie being owned by the top 1% (or the top 10%) would set off the alarm that is already ringing in me with the top 1% owning one-third of the pie and the top 10% owning two-thirds. It is a reasonable question, Damo.

One person becoming wealthy does not damage another.

A significant amount of the total wealth of the nation being owned by a tiny minority of the total population DOES INCALCULABLE DAMAGE. Surely you can see that. At some point it would be an existential problem...surely you can see that.

What you see as a "problem" to be solved by taking from others is simply your own jealousy wanting to drag someone down.

This discussion is not being motivated by any jealousy on my part, Damo. That was beneath you. AND at no point have I suggested "drag(ing) anyone down." I am merely curious about what it would take for some of you right-wingers to see the danger of what is happening in our economy.

I wish one of you would answer the question proposed in my post #14 of this thread.

You want to punish others for being more successful than you. It's weak.

I do not want to punish anyone...and I consider myself to be very successful...in that I am very content with what I have...and always have been. I AM CONTENT...and by many measures that should indicate being successful. I know many people who are relatively wealthy (maybe not in the top 10%, but certainly in the top 50%) who are not satisfied or content at all. They are dogged by wanting what Oliver Twist wanted...MORE!

I am not weak, Damo. Nor are my arguments.

One thing I know, no other economic plan has ever given more people freedom, wealth, and success than capitalism.

We certainly agree there.

We live in a nation where a poverty stricken home has fast internet, two televisions, smart phones, cars, and their largest food problem is obesity.

As I mentioned, there is more to the poverty than you suppose. I know OF people who have to work more than one job in order to make ends meet. I know people who live paycheck to paycheck...and are not excessive spenders. I know people who fear for possible need of medical care.

You probably do, too.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I notice, Damo, that you have still not replied to my question about when you would consider the wealth distribution problem to be great enough to demand remediation.

Never? Is that a good answer for you?

"Remediation" or redistribution, is simply a form of theft. Short of wealth being stolen to begin with, redistributing by government force--theft--doesn't fix the problem. Playing Robin Hood won't fix this problem.

The problem with redistribution schemes is that they all are zero-sum thinking. That is, they assume that the amount of wealth to be had is fixed and it is a problem that it isn't distributed evenly enough for those demanding its redistribution.

Why is that? Why do you suppose does nobody from the right-wing favoring side ever answer that question?

Got me. I could answer it, and did.

We have a trillionaire now...and probably will have more within a relatively short time. Just sayin'!

So? Who cares? What difference does that make? You are pushing the politics of envy.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Never? Is that a good answer for you?

Yup. You are saying if 10 people were to own 99% of all the wealth of our nation...it would not be enough for you to suppose that something had to be corrected.

I accept that...and I have no reason to suppose you are being dishonest.

I am of the opinion that right-wingers actually are so devoted to the system...that they would accept such an extreme condition.

That is why it is my fervent hope that the right-wing mentality here in America is destroyed, before it destroys America.

Thank you for answering, TA.

"Remediation" or redistribution, is simply a form of theft. Short of wealth being stolen to begin with, redistributing by government force--theft--doesn't fix the problem. Playing Robin Hood won't fix this problem.

Okay.

The problem with redistribution schemes is that they all are zero-sum thinking. That is, they assume that the amount of wealth to be had is fixed and it is a problem that it isn't distributed evenly enough for those demanding its redistribution.

"Redistribution schemes" do not assume that at all, but in any case, I have not proposed any redistribution scheme...nor do I think it necessary to end the dangers of a severe wealth distribution.

In fact, I am not worried about severe wealth distribution. I am worried about "severe wealth distribution" only so long as everyone else does not have sufficient. Once everyone in the country is guaranteed sufficient, all the rest of the pie can be owned by la very few...and I would not be concerned as I am now.

Got me. I could answer it, and did.

Yes you did. And you proved my point...which, I suspesct, is why so many others refused to answer it.

So? Who cares?

I care. You should also. But you don't...and that is your right.

What difference does that make?

What difference does it make if a car is white or black? Same thing.

You are pushing the politics of envy.

I am not...not in any way.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yup. You are saying if 10 people were to own 99% of all the wealth of our nation...it would not be enough for you to suppose that something had to be corrected.

I accept that...and I have no reason to suppose you are being dishonest.

I am of the opinion that right-wingers actually are so devoted to the system...that they would accept such an extreme condition.

That is why it is my fervent hope that the right-wing mentality here in America is destroyed, before it destroys America.

Thank you for answering, TA.




Okay.



"Redistribution schemes" do not assume that at all, but in any case, I have not proposed any redistribution scheme...nor do I think it necessary to end the dangers of a severe wealth distribution.

In fact, I am not worried about severe wealth distribution. I am worried about "severe wealth distribution" only so long as everyone else does not have sufficient. Once everyone in the country is guaranteed sufficient, all the rest of the pie can be owned by la very few...and I would not be concerned as I am now.


Yes you did. And you proved my point...which, I suspesct, is why so many others refused to answer it.


I care. You should also. But you don't...and that is your right.




What difference does it make if a car is white or black? Same thing.

I am not...not in any way.

I don't care if there are say, ten trillionaires and everybody else has say, $100,000 a year to live on. The overall standard of living for the vast majority of people in that country would be--by today's dollar value--quite high. So what if there are ten trillionaires?

If you care there are 10 trillionaires in such a scenario, then you are gripped by the Politics of Envy. I am not. I don't care if Elon Musk, or whoever, is filthy rich. It makes no difference to me so long as I can get by comfortably at a decent level of living.

It is interesting to note however, that the greatest wealth disparities usually occur in countries gripped by heavy handed Socialist governments that claim they are champions of "The People" and all for equality of outcomes.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I don't care if there are say, ten trillionaires and everybody else has say, $100,000 a year to live on. The overall standard of living for the vast majority of people in that country would be--by today's dollar value--quite high. So what if there are ten trillionaires?

Ten trillionaires is nothing. But 10 people owning 90% of the total wealth of the country would be devastating.

So why are you asking me about 10 trillionaires?

If you care there are 10 trillionaires in such a scenario, then you are gripped by the Politics of Envy.

Where does this "10 trillionaires" come from. I do not care about 10 trillionaires.

I am not. I don't care if Elon Musk, or whoever, is filthy rich.

Neither do I. But I care if a small minority owns a majority of the wealth...because it is an existential danger to our Republic.

There is a misunderstanding of what I have been saying going on with you, TA. I suggest you read my posts again...and argue about what I actually wrote than about your misunderstanding.

It makes no difference to me so long as I can get by comfortably at a decent level of living.

See above.

It is interesting to note however, that the greatest wealth disparities usually occur in countries gripped by heavy handed Socialist governments that claim they are champions of "The People" and all for equality of outcomes.

The United States is among the top ten in wealth disparity. That is what I care about. That is what you should be concerned with also.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ten trillionaires is nothing. But 10 people owning 90% of the total wealth of the country would be devastating.

So why are you asking me about 10 trillionaires?


Where does this "10 trillionaires" come from. I do not care about 10 trillionaires.


Neither do I. But I care if a small minority owns a majority of the wealth...because it is an existential danger to our Republic.

There is a misunderstanding of what I have been saying going on with you, TA. I suggest you read my posts again...and argue about what I actually wrote than about your misunderstanding.


See above.

The United States is among the top ten in wealth disparity. That is what I care about. That is what you should be concerned with also.

Actually, the US doesn't even break the top 20 for wealth disparity.

The top 10 currently are:

• South Africa – 63.0
• Namibia – 59.1
• Botswana – 54.9
• Eswatini – 54.6
• Colombia – 53.9
• Brazil – 51.6
• Zambia – 51.5
• Angola – 51.3
• Saint Lucia – 51.2
• Zimbabwe – 50.3

Wealth Inequality by Country 2026

Detailed overview of wealth inequality by country, providing insight sights into the distribution of wealth across different countries, highlighting the top ten with the highest wealth inequality as well as the lowest.

worldpopulationreview.com

Interestingly, the Scandinavian countries, often touted as having the "fairest" and "Socialist" systems in Europe also have some of the highest wealth disparities among the EU / European nations. If anything, lots of Socialism creates greater wealth inequality.