APP - Marxism - What is it really?

[Ross Dolan]

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.

Pew Center writes:
The United States ranks among the most unequal of all major developed nations, typically falling in the top 10 most unequal countries globally (often ranking around 6th, just behind nations like Russia and South Africa). In terms of income inequality, the U.S. has the second-highest level among advanced OECD countries, behind only Chile.

But if you want to rank us against some of those nations you mentioned above so that we look better...we still don't.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Pew Center writes:
The United States ranks among the most unequal of all major developed nations, typically falling in the top 10 most unequal countries globally (often ranking around 6th, just behind nations like Russia and South Africa). In terms of income inequality, the U.S. has the second-highest level among advanced OECD countries, behind only Chile.

But if you want to rank us against some of those nations you mentioned above so that we look better...we still don't.

Well, as I showed, Pew is wrong. What they are doing is cherry picking the data like "OECD countries..." or "major developed nations..." rather than using a straight, fair, comparison based on a common metric like the sources I used did.

 

[Damocles]

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.

Socialism generally creates a two tier system. The populace is terribly poor, then the leaders are all billionaires. In this case they try to walk a line that allows most people to have some part of capitalism but only "socializing" the things they believe are "rights". They list things as rights, or access to the labor of others as a "right".

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Socialism generally creates a two tier system. The populace is terribly poor, then the leaders are all billionaires. In this case they try to walk a line that allows most people to have some part of capitalism but only "socializing" the things they believe are "rights". They list things as rights, or access to the labor of others as a "right".

There's usually a third group of what become oligarchs when the Socialist state collapses. These are corrupt government officials, bureaucrats, and criminals that run the black market and do other 'Capitalist' enterprises to enrich themselves because the populace will pay whatever they can to get scarce goods and services they need.

 

[Ross Dolan]

There's usually a third group of what become oligarchs when the Socialist state collapses. These are corrupt government officials, bureaucrats, and criminals that run the black market and do other 'Capitalist' enterprises to enrich themselves because the populace will pay whatever they can to get scarce goods and services they need.

Well, as I showed, Pew is wrong. What they are doing is cherry picking the data like "OECD countries..." or "major developed nations..." rather than using a straight, fair, comparison based on a common metric like the sources I used did.

Socialism generally creates a two tier system. The populace is terribly poor, then the leaders are all billionaires. In this case they try to walk a line that allows most people to have some part of capitalism but only "socializing" the things they believe are "rights". They list things as rights, or access to the labor of others as a "right".

BOTTOM LINE HERE is that the disparity has steadily gotten worse in America and is not slowing down. At what point will you people finally wake up and realize that we cannot have the top 1% owning as much of the total wealth as they do...nor can the top 10% own as much of the total wealth as they do.

I am of the opinion that it already is too much.

You people apparently think I am wrong.

So tell us all: At what point will you see the disparity as a problem. Just how much of the total wealth of the nation must be own by a relative few before you see the problem as a problem...and not just some wonderful aspect of our system that we ought all to embrace.

MY GUESS IS THAT NONE OF YOU WILL COME UP WITH A REASONABLE RESPONSE. AT BEST ANY OF YOU WILL COME UP WITH A VARIATION OF T. A."S "NEVER."

FOR YOU PEOPLE IF 10 PEOPLE OWNED 00% OF ALL THE WEALTH...YOU WOULD SIT THERE SMUGLY SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS THE ONLY FAIR WAY FOR AN ECONOMY TO WORK.

PATHETIC, IN MY OPINION. BUT YOU ARE WELCOME TO IT.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Well, as I showed, Pew is wrong. What they are doing is cherry picking the data like "OECD countries..." or "major developed nations..." rather than using a straight, fair, comparison based on a common metric like the sources I used did.

The Pew Center, a non-partisan, non-advocacy group doing serious research on social issues is wrong...and you, an advocating individual in an on-line advocacy discussion forum...correct?

And you see nothing wrong with that depiction?

T. A....you are sounding more and more like Trump. That should worry you. It would worry any sane person...any person with any self-respect.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Pew Center, a non-partisan, non-advocacy group doing serious research on social issues is wrong...and you, an advocating individual in an on-line advocacy discussion forum...correct?

Pew is biased, as are all sources. The way you get a reasonably valid picture is to use quantifiable data and multiple sources.

And you see nothing wrong with that depiction?

T. A....you are sounding more and more like Trump. That should worry you. It would worry any sane person...any person with any self-respect.

I see Pew cherry picking data to present a preconceived outcome.

For example, the US poverty line right now is $15,960 for an individual, and $33,000 for a family of four. The average world individual income is $12,235 per year. The average household income globally is $9,733.

That means by world standards the impoverished in America are making more money than the average person does globally.

Average Global Income [2026]: What Is The Median Income Worldwide? - Zippia

www.zippia.com

People in the US, on the whole, are very well off financially when you look at things from a global perspective.

%%title%% %%page%%

This infographic shows the global wealth pyramid for 2025, showing wealth distribution by number of people and their respective wealth tiers.

www.visualcapitalist.com

In terms of total wealth, 24 to 24.5 million Americans are millionaires today. That represents about a third of the global total.

Yet, you want to complain that it is unfair that, seemingly, billionaires and trillionaires exist.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Pew is biased, as are all sources. The way you get a reasonably valid picture is to use quantifiable data and multiple sources.

I see Pew cherry picking data to present a preconceived outcome.

For example, the US poverty line right now is $15,960 for an individual, and $33,000 for a family of four. The average world individual income is $12,235 per year. The average household income globally is $9,733.

That means by world standards the impoverished in America are making more money than the average person does globally.

Average Global Income [2026]: What Is The Median Income Worldwide? - Zippia

www.zippia.com

People in the US, on the whole, are very well off financially when you look at things from a global perspective.

%%title%% %%page%%

This infographic shows the global wealth pyramid for 2025, showing wealth distribution by number of people and their respective wealth tiers.

www.visualcapitalist.com

In terms of total wealth, 24 to 24.5 million Americans are millionaires today. That represents about a third of the global total.

Yet, you want to complain that it is unfair that, seemingly, billionaires and trillionaires exist.

TA...you are assert you will not consider it to be a problem no matter how distorted the distribution of wealth is in America. The top 10% could go from owning two-thirds of all the wealth of America...to owning 90% of it...and it would not be a problem for you.

The bottom 50% of Americans now own only 2.5% of all the wealth of America.

If you think that 50% of Americans only contribute 2.5% of what is needed for America to be great...you are way out of line.

Suppose and be satisfied with what you will. I am happy that most Americans will NOT think like you...and will rise up to do something about what is going on.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

TA...you are assert you will not consider it to be a problem no matter how distorted the distribution of wealth is in America. The top 10% could go from owning two-thirds of all the wealth of America...to owning 90% of it...and it would not be a problem for you.

The bottom 50% of Americans now own only 2.5% of all the wealth of America.

If you think that 50% of Americans only contribute 2.5% of what is needed for America to be great...you are way out of line.

Suppose and be satisfied with what you will. I am happy that most Americans will NOT think like you...and will rise up to do something about what is going on.

That's because history shows if you distort the market too much, you end up destroying it. In your example(s), the 10 wealthy soon find their money is gone simply because there is no one left to generate any for them.

In the days of the Robber Barons, the same thing happened. Take too much and the market corrects in unexpected ways.

Where it can be forced on a society is in a monarchy or dictatorship (same thing really). In these, the force of government is the only thing standing between economic collapse and revolution.

 

[Ross Dolan]

That's because history shows if you distort the market too much, you end up destroying it. In your example(s), the 10 wealthy soon find their money is gone simply because there is no one left to generate any for them.

In the days of the Robber Barons, the same thing happened. Take too much and the market corrects in unexpected ways.

Where it can be forced on a society is in a monarchy or dictatorship (same thing really). In these, the force of government is the only thing standing between economic collapse and revolution.

You offered "NEVER" as an answer to my question...and have doubled down on it.

And you "advised" me about the non-zero sum element you suppose I had not considered.

Thoughts like yours (I hesitated calling them "thoughts" while typing here) are what makes the kind of capitalism we are experiencing so dangerous...they are the thoughts that make the wealth disparity an "existential danger."

Live with your position. You have a right to it. But it is almost guaranteed to do more damage to our Republic than the dangers to it posed by its foreign enemies.

Truly, TA.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You offered "NEVER" as an answer to my question...and have doubled down on it.

And you "advised" me about the non-zero sum element you suppose I had not considered.

Thoughts like yours (I hesitated calling them "thoughts" while typing here) are what makes the kind of capitalism we are experiencing so dangerous...they are the thoughts that make the wealth disparity an "existential danger."

Live with your position. You have a right to it. But it is almost guaranteed to do more damage to our Republic than the dangers to it posed by its foreign enemies.

Truly, TA.

"Never" wasn't meant as an absolute but rather as the general case. Sure, you can come up with some absurd, unrealistic, scenario that would invalidate that, but it isn't happening in a realistic, real world scenario.

An economy is NEVER a zero-sum thing. The amount of wealth in one is not fixed. It can grow or shrink and does so on a daily basis.

What makes Socialism dangerous is that a few are deciding how what existing wealth will be distributed among the many. That first requires altruism on the part of ALL participants. That goes against basic human nature and is not happening outside of a small group of people. It incentivizes laziness and non-participation. Worse, it incentivizes cheating.

Capitalism works because it follows human nature. Yes, cheating can occur, but it is of the "buyer beware" sort rather than going against the system like in Socialism (hording, black markets, sloth, etc.).

So, trying to fix wealth inequity by injecting Socialism inevitably fails. Better we put restraints on Capitalism to minimize cheating than encourage more cheating and less willing participation that occurs under Socialism.

 

[Ross Dolan]

"Never" wasn't meant as an absolute but rather as the general case. Sure, you can come up with some absurd, unrealistic, scenario that would invalidate that, but it isn't happening in a realistic, real world scenario.

"Never" IS an absolute...and you know it. You doubled down on it. And for the record, I can offer plenty of scenarios that are NOT absurd nor unrealistic that makes your "NEVER" seem obscene. Here is a "for instance": RIGHT NOW THE TOP 1% OWN ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF THE COUNTRY AND THE TOP 10% OWN TWO-THIRDS OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF THE COUNTRY...WHILE THE BOTTOM 50% OWN ONLY 2.5% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH.

TA, that already makes your "NEVER" look evil.

Do you honestly think that the bottom 50% of our people have contributed so poorly that that paltry percentage is all they deserve.

An economy is NEVER a zero-sum thing. The amount of wealth in one is not fixed. It can grow or shrink and does so on a daily basis.

I AGREE...AND HAVE AGREED IN CAPITAL LETTERS. It matters not.

I am talking about the percentage of the total wealth whatever it happens to be. The bottom 50% of our people have always gotten stiffed NO MATTER WHAT THE TOTAL WEALTH IS.

What makes Socialism dangerous is that a few are deciding how what existing wealth will be distributed among the many. That first requires altruism on the part of ALL participants. That goes against basic human nature and is not happening outside of a small group of people. It incentivizes laziness and non-participation. Worse, it incentivizes cheating.

Nonsense. And I am not advocating for Socialism...I am advocating for making Capitalism fairer...and stronger, as a result. Can you not release yourself from whatever blindness is causing you to miss that point.

Capitalism works because it follows human nature. Yes, cheating can occur, but it is of the "buyer beware" sort rather than going against the system like in Socialism (hording, black markets, sloth, etc.).

With a disparity such as exists...Capitalism has a solvable defect that OUGHT TO BE SOLVED. That is what I am advocating for.

So, trying to fix wealth inequity by injecting Socialism inevitably fails. Better we put restraints on Capitalism to minimize cheating than encourage more cheating and less willing participation that occurs under Socialism.

Talking to you on the subject is futile. You have decided that you want to live with the defects rather than acknowledge that we can improve things...and make them fairer.

That is your right. I just hope that enough people see that type of thinking as disgusting...and abandon any of it that they possess.

 

[IBDaMann]

BOTTOM LINE HERE is that the disparity has steadily gotten worse

You have not shown that a disparity is somehow bad. Your entire argument is nothing but innuendo and is summarily dismissed.

The best economies have the highest disparities. Where there is very little disparity, everyone is broke and miserable and the economy is in the shitter. Disparities are good things. Larger disparities are better than smaller disparities.

in America and is not slowing down.

Correct. The US economy is the best in the world and is getting better every day.

at what point will you people finally wake up and realize that we cannot have the top 1% owning as much of the total wealth as they do

When will you wake up and realize that we can, and do, have the top 1% owning as much as they do? When will you realize that such is incidental to having the greatest economy on the planet?

I am of the opinion that it already is too much.

... because you are a Marxist who HATES humanity and who HATES the idea that there is still some happiness out there in the world.

You people apparently think I am wrong.

It's more than just "think" that you are wrong. You are a misanthrop who wants to destroy the world economy and stamp out any last iota of human happiness that still remains on earth.

So tell us all: At what point will you see the disparity as a problem.

... when you show that it is somehow a bad thing, instead of simply declaring it to be a bad thing. By all measures, disparities appear to be very good things.

Just how much of the total wealth of the nation must be own by a relative few before you see the problem as a problem.

When were you planning on showing the basis for the world's best economy as somehow being a problem?

..and not just some wonderful aspect of our system that we ought all to embrace.

... when you give a reason that we should not embrace the best economy in the world, and should destroy it so that we can end all human happiness.

MY GUESS IS THAT NONE OF YOU WILL COME UP WITH A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO WHICH I WILL LISTEN!

FTFY.

 

[Jarod]

Socialism generally creates a two tier system. The populace is terribly poor, then the leaders are all billionaires. In this case they try to walk a line that allows most people to have some part of capitalism but only "socializing" the things they believe are "rights". They list things as rights, or access to the labor of others as a "right".

This is the problem with Socialism, and why for a modern nation to be successful we need a balance of Capitalism and Socialism. This is the general friction between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of economics, no Nation in existence is Pure Capitalist or Socialist. Take out the 'social issues' and its almost 100% of the 'Politics' that is discussed.

On social issues, I am a libertarian. On economic issues, I believe we need more socialism in the mix to keep the wealthy from taking to much power and controlling to many people, things, issues with their wealth. I do not like that the classes are so solidified.

 

[Jarod]

As those like Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Occasio Cortez rise in influence over the rapidly collapsing, Marxism has come to define the American democrat party.

So what exactly defines Marxism? Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The definition of Marxism is;

https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf

The opening lines of the Manifesto read;

{The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.}

This statement by Marx is called "Critical Theory." The dialectical contest between oppressed and oppressor. Critical theory and dialectical materialism are the foundation of Marxism and all forms of socialism/collectivism - including the democrat party of 2025.

democrats have put a racist spin and created "Critical Race Theory" which automatically designates white people as oppressors regardless of economic strata, a racist presentation to appeal to American leftists who couldn't relate to the rigid class structures of Europe. American economic classes are in a constant state of flux, generational wealth is rare as is poverty.

The great American middle class has dominated America since the Market Revolution and is the primary impediment to the adoption of Marxism, explaining why the middle class is the primary target of the democrat party to be eradicated.

This debate is directly targeted at @Jake Starkey - but all are welcome to join in. Remember that this is APP and this is actual, scholarly debate.

Lets start with your premise, in what way has the rise of Mamdani and Cortez resulted in defining the Democratic party as Marxist? I am interested in your answer. I see no element of Marxism in their positions, but I have not studied them, maybe you can educate me on it.

How is the "Democratic Party" associated with "Critical Race Theory?"

Define Marxism with something other than the opening line of Marx's manifesto, because the quoted portion dose not really define the ideology, it simply describes a view on historical friction among societal classes. It does not take a side or suggest a solution. This is does not give us a basis for discussion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lets start with your premise, in what way has the rise of Mamdani and Cortez resulted in defining the Democratic party as Marxist?

At the beginning of Obama move to oust Hillary - I along with many others observed that Obama was/is a Marxist, a socialist. The party bristled and demanded that democrats are not socialists.

Currently we have the party acknowledging what all knew long ago, they are indeed a socialist party. The counter is that they are socialist, not Marxist. What I have done in the following series of posts is to prove, using the only valid source on Marxism, that this fiction is deliberately false, just as the denials of socialism were in 2008.

I am interested in your answer. I see no element of Marxism in their positions, but I have not studied them, maybe you can educate me on it.

How is the "Democratic Party" associated with "Critical Race Theory?"

Critical race theory is the creation of radical leftists and was during the early 2000's the darling of the democrat party.

The Democrats and the Rise of Racial Radicalism

In the 1960s, spurred by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights movement, the United States undertook what has been called a “second Reconstruction.” Washington passed the Civil Rights Act...

www.aei.org

In the last few years, the open embracing of CRT has been viewed as detrimental to party goals because of serious public backlash. Nevertheless, CRT concepts continue to dominate democrat party policy.

Define Marxism with something other than the opening line of Marx's manifesto, because the quoted portion dose not really define the ideology, it simply describes a view on historical friction among societal classes. It does not take a side or suggest a solution. This is does not give us a basis for discussion.

No, because the ONLY valid definition of Marxism is the Manifesto and the works of Marx.

I can call Marxism the devil, and you can call it warm kittens; neither have any relevance - ONLY Marx (and Engles) get to define what Marxism is.

 

[Jarod]

At the beginning of Obama move to oust Hillary - I along with many others observed that Obama was/is a Marxist, a socialist. The party bristled and demanded that democrats are not socialists.

Currently we have the party acknowledging what all knew long ago, they are indeed a socialist party. The counter is that they are socialist, not Marxist. What I have done in the following series of posts is to prove, using the only valid source on Marxism, that this fiction is deliberately false, just as the denials of socialism were in 2008.




Critical race theory is the creation of radical leftists and was during the early 2000's the darling of the democrat party.

The Democrats and the Rise of Racial Radicalism

In the 1960s, spurred by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights movement, the United States undertook what has been called a “second Reconstruction.” Washington passed the Civil Rights Act...

www.aei.org

In the last few years, the open embracing of CRT has been viewed as detrimental to party goals because of serious public backlash. Nevertheless, CRT concepts continue to dominate democrat party policy.





No, because the ONLY valid definition of Marxism is the Manifesto and the works of Marx.

I can call Marxism the devil, and you can call it warm kittens; neither have any relevance - ONLY Marx (and Engles) get to define what Marxism is.

You are taking the radical's on the left and ignorantly tying them to "The Left" AKA, anyone who opposes Trump. That is not valid. It would be akin to taking the KKK and tying them to the Retrumplikins. This is not a valid argument and it invalidates your entire claim. There are radicals on both sides of the political spectrum, but they do not represent the National Parties. Its really silly.

"The Party" has not acknowledged any such thing about being a Socialist Party. In fact we have a Socialist Party separate from the Democratic Party.

No single major party anywhere in the modern world has adopted the works of Marx as a platform or singular ideology. Marxism as described by Marx simply does not exist in the modern world.

Your entire opening post is not true or valid discussion, in fact I would argue it does not belong in APP, because it is simply a disguised trolling post. @Damocles

 

[Jarod]

At the beginning of Obama move to oust Hillary - I along with many others observed that Obama was/is a Marxist, a socialist. The party bristled and demanded that democrats are not socialists.

Currently we have the party acknowledging what all knew long ago, they are indeed a socialist party. The counter is that they are socialist, not Marxist. What I have done in the following series of posts is to prove, using the only valid source on Marxism, that this fiction is deliberately false, just as the denials of socialism were in 2008.




Critical race theory is the creation of radical leftists and was during the early 2000's the darling of the democrat party.

The Democrats and the Rise of Racial Radicalism

In the 1960s, spurred by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights movement, the United States undertook what has been called a “second Reconstruction.” Washington passed the Civil Rights Act...

www.aei.org

In the last few years, the open embracing of CRT has been viewed as detrimental to party goals because of serious public backlash. Nevertheless, CRT concepts continue to dominate democrat party policy.





No, because the ONLY valid definition of Marxism is the Manifesto and the works of Marx.

I can call Marxism the devil, and you can call it warm kittens; neither have any relevance - ONLY Marx (and Engles) get to define what Marxism is.

Your citation of Marx's manifesto is simply a description of how he saw the world at the time he wrote it. It does not describe Marxism at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are taking the radical's on the left and ignorantly tying them to "The Left" AKA, anyone who opposes Trump. That is not valid.

Let's see your evidence? Let's see the strong stand the party has taken against the open Marxists who have gained control of the party?

It would be akin to taking the KKK and tying them to the Retrumplikins.

Why would the terrorist wing of the democrat party, that was defeated and destroyed in 1969 have anything to do with Trump?

Again - this is APP, leave the emotional Trump hatred and usual tantrums downstairs.

This is not a valid argument and it invalidates your entire claim. There are radicals on both sides of the political spectrum, but they do not represent the National Parties. Its really silly.

"The Party" has not acknowledged any such thing about being a Socialist Party. In fact we have a Socialist Party separate from the Democratic Party.

Demonstrably false.

{
An early September Gallup poll on Americans’ perception of capitalism and socialism shows the latter is now heavily preferred by Democrats. In 2010, 50 percent of Democrats viewed socialism favorably; today, 66 percent do.


In just 15 years, the percentage of Democrats viewing socialism favorably has gone from half to almost two-thirds. In contrast, over the same period, the percentage of Democrats who at least view capitalism “favorably” has fallen from a bare majority of 51 percent to just 42 percent.

Today’s poll results remove any ambiguity about a May 2019 Gallup poll that found 74 percent of Democrats would support a socialist for president as their party’s nominee.}

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/politics/5529266-democrats-socialism-rise-mainstream/

No single major party anywhere in the modern world has adopted the works of Marx as a platform or singular ideology. Marxism as described by Marx simply does not exist in the modern world.

As already demonstrated in this thread, Marx is the architect of present democrat party. Please review post #4 and post #5

Your entire opening post is not true or valid discussion, in fact I would argue it does not belong in APP, because it is simply a disguised trolling post. @Damocles

So you are not capable of reasoned debate. Ignorance and ad hom are the tools of the left, you lack actual knowledge and cannot debate the subject or the material.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your citation of Marx's manifesto is simply a description of how he saw the world at the time he wrote it. It does not describe Marxism at all.

Oh? Since Marx is not the authority on Marxism, who is?