I've started to see a similarity between Marxists and Republicans.

Republicans right now have pushed for a huge tax cut and now want to erase the Estate Tax. And I keep hearing this reason as "the gov't should not be taking money away from someone that earned it and giving it to someone else".

Isn't that the same idea Karl Marx had? That exploitation of the workforce resulted in money being taken away from those that earned it?

Are these groups simpatico?

My question:

Should the Republicans start to espouse Marxist ideas next in order to be consistent?

Can the Republicans use such arguments without being hypocritical?

I guess my understanding of Marxism does not reveal any real connection Marxism. Marx predicted the collapse of classes and a society ultimately controlled by industrial workers (see below). Being against increased government “taxation” does nor equate to a system where individuals would not be allowed to own anything and would therefore not have an “estate”.

Tenets of Marxism
Dialectical Materialism
The Marxist philosophical method is dialectical materialism, a reversal of the dialectical idealism of Hegel. Dialectical materialism presumes the primacy of economic determinants in history. Through dialectical materialism was developed the fundamental Marxist premise that the history of society is the inexorable “history of class struggle.” According to this premise, a specific class could rule only so long as it best represented the economically productive forces of society; when it became outmoded it would be destroyed and replaced. From this continuing dynamic process a classless society would eventually emerge. In modern capitalist society, the bourgeois (capitalist) class had destroyed and replaced the unproductive feudal nobility and had performed the economically creative task of establishing the new industrial order. The stage was thus set for the final struggle between the bourgeoisie, which had completed its historic role, and the proletariat, composed of the industrial workers, or makers of goods, which had become the true productive class.





Republicans have nothing to do with Marxist philosophy.

Where we can attack a reduction in estate taxes is from very foundation of capitalism as expounded by Adam Smith and others.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/..._tax/index.html

That's a good article. Surprised you posted it.

Here's my point, the Republicans admit that part of the game of capitalism is to extract money from those that work, i.e. make money off of other people's labor. Do you really think Bill Gates wrote all that software and packaged all those CDs?

So that's the concept that Marx put forth, that the proletariat would be exploited and not properly compensated while others, the capitalists, would make money on their efforts.

So you could argue that Marx was whining about money being taken from the poor to the rich that the poor had rightfully "earned".

So where is the distinction between that and Republicans whining about how their money that they rightfully "earned" is being taken from them?

It seems comical that they would use such language.

You are really reaching trying to link these together.

Marx stand - Idle Rich taking money from working poor
Estate tax complaints by Republicans - Government taking money excessively from people

How do you tie these together again?

I suppose if you look at apples and graph paper long enough you'll find a similarity.

These two particular things really are not related.

How about:

Marx stand - Idle Rich taking money from working poor

Estate tax complaints by Republicans - Idle Government (i.e. idle American public) taking money from working rich


It sounds like the same complaint to me. The complaint I am hearing from those against the "Death tax" or the push for the recent wealthy tax cuts is that "THEY EARNED THAT MONEY, IT'S THEIR MONEY". I'm not talking about "excessive", etc. But god knows that the paychecks for the very wealthy can be very EXCESSIVE, i.e. see $400 Million to exec at Exxon or just about any top CEO in the country.

Again, maybe the Republicans would be agreeable to some distribution of wealth for these EXCESSIVE incomes? After all, they seem to be making an argument for it!?! Fairness, right? Don't tax them excessively, then don't leverage THEIR position excessively?

Again, if Republicans can say "suck it up" to the working poor or the people they make profits OFF OF. What right and what UNMITIGATING GAUL do they have to say they EARNED those tax dollars that are being taken away?

They act as if it's an even playing field when they're taxed, but then have no problem hiring 3rd world labor or selling junk from China, or not paying health care, and building a billion dollar mansion, etc. etc. when they have the capital leverage to do so. I.e. when THEY are the ones being the aggressors.

First, you do realize there are wealthy Democrats who became recently wealthy (see also the Kennedys, Kerry....)

Second, you're forced to make stretches in your theory. The Idle Gov't becomes the Idle Americans. No such stretch is need in the Marxist theory.

Third, you're not really connecting these two ideas. You're sort of saying here's something repellent to the Right and here's something repellent to the Left - now see how similar they are? However, they really aren't similar at all. This isn't even 2 sides of the same coin. This a coin and directions to the train station in two different pairs of pants both of which happen to have two legs.

But they're not whining about having their "earned income" being taxed.




Not really. I'm saying there are rules to the game. If the country thinks people are making excessive amounts of money at the loss of others, they either raise taxes on wealthy (progressively) or they change how you can make income.

If you are complaining that "you've earned it", well that's just a cop out because "earning" is really a subjective term. Putting a million in the stock market and making $10 million, in some eyes, may not really be "earning it" versus an average joe who makes an income by working 60 hours a week at $5/hr. Some may say that Joe REALLY earned his money.

So if you make the argument that your taxes are excessive well then fine. At least you understand the rules of the game. The same goes for people who clamor for increased taxes on the people making 100s of millions of dollars.

But when you start in with "I've earned that money" then you're stepping into the same realm as Marxism. And then all must be re-evaluated. Let's start out then at whether you REALLY earned that money or NOT. And at that point, you would have to have some compassion for a Marxist's POV? No?

It's not different pants, it's the same change purse. And the Repubicans put the coins together, although I don't think they intended to.

You've made a very compelling argument for a flat tax on everyone!

I used to work at Price Club (now Costco). I was a cashier, stacked boxes neatly and quit before they made me a manager. Do you know why I quit? Being a manager was way too hard of a job for the pay increase. I wouldn't be "working" physically as hard as I was when I was on forklift or whatever but I would be working very hard none-the-less.

Now as a Director I find my work infinitely more taxing than I did as a Sys Admin. I go home exhausted and I don't have any of the satisfaction of "seeing" what I'd done. I am making about 6 times what I was making when I left Price Club. I physically worked MUCH harder there than I do now. With the pay increase I am paying WAY more in taxes so in a way your theory of "earning" works. When I made less I paid less.

Flat tax.

*Now seriously I have to Direct things.

So do you think an exec who is making 1,000 times what the average worker in his comany is making is earning it? Is he doing 1000 times the work? I think when you step into the "earning it" realm, you're talking like a Marxist. As a capitalist, you have to swallow certain facts and one is that fairness is directly proportional to the money you have.

A progressive tax and an estate tax are the counter balance to a system that rewards people for simply having CAPITAL (and nothing else).

Should the Republicans start to espouse Marxist ideas next in order to be consistent?

This is perhaps the worst comparison in the history of America's Debate. Let's examine why.

The Marxist view is one of who should own capital. Marx believed that the collection of all workers (the proletariat) should own the means of production because only labor creates wealth. His theory says that capitalists (the "bourgeoisie") make money off of the labor of others and thus exploit the workers. So Marx believed that the workers should own the means of production and reap all the benefits of their labor.

Of course, it quickly becomes clear that the workers need some sort of organization to oversee what should be produced and in what quantities. This is known as the command economy and is directly by the Party (of workers ).

So Communism advocates taking the means of production from capitalists (who formerly determined what and how much to produce) and puts it in control of a central control authority (the government).

Now, let's look at what conservatives are advocating (conservatives is not always synonymous with Republicans).

Tax cuts: Conservatives advocate allowing tax payers (be they laborers, managers, inventors, whomever) to keep more of their own earnings. The theory is that the individual can then decide where they want to spend the money (new clothes, new haircut, night on the town, whatever).

This is capitalistic, not communistic. Decentralizing the decision making process (in the capitalist model) means that society will be producing goods and services that people actually want, not what the government thinks they want or need.

This decentralization is the very opposite of the centralized control economy advocated by Marx.

So the resounding answer is "NO!!".

Now, let's take a look at some of your viewpoints:


What you have done is to minimize the value that the exec (the manager) has on the company's overall performance. Is the price of the exec's salary worth it? Only the purchaser (in this case, the owners of the company--the shareholders are represented by the Board of Directors) can make that value based decision. Economic theory does not answer questions such as whether or not a certain price is fair. It is fair if both the buyer and seller agree on a price.

What the capitalist system says is that the market will determine prices. An exec will earn a certain dollar figure if the purchaser (the owner) perceives value in granting that price. The exec will only accept a salary if they feel that it represents the best alternative. It's a free exchange of goods (money for labor in this case).

Again, I cannot see how a Marxist would ever advocate that one laborer (the exec) make 1,000 times what another laborer (the janitor) makes. Can you point me to a Marxist that would defend this position? But a capitalist will defend this position, if the value that the labor of one individual brings has a higher value (in this case 1,000 times more) than the labor of another. Marxists deny that what an owner or executive does is "work" and thus define what they do as not creating wealth. The definition that a capitalist uses is much different.

I have never seen anyone take an argument and turn it in the exact opposite direction in the fashion of this last quote. It has no basis in reality.

Can the Republicans use such arguments without being hypocritical?

Capitalists believe in allowing the market to decide what and how much is produced. Communists believe that a centralized decision making process is necessary. As I explained earlier, giving more money back to the individual (actually, not taking it by force to begin with) decentralizes the decision making process, which is a capitalist point of view. Going the other way would be more of a communist decision.

Ok. I'm going to make this very simple in reference to the estate tax and why it has nothing to do with Marxism....

The estate tax issue in reference to anyone's stance, specifically the Republican party, moreover has to do with the notion that taxes have been paid on that income or property already.

Basically stated, if I earn $80,000 for ten years, I'll be paying my ridiculous taxes every single year to the IRS. This doesn't even account for the idea that my home has had taxes paid to the state and local governments for this whole time. If I died, and left say $40,000 to my kids and my home, as it stood they'd have to pay taxes again. Why should the gov't taxes these assets multiple times?

Your argument about Marxism and economic inequality in the US has no real foundation, in that economic inequality in the US has nothing to do with a state run system or any other school of communist thinking. You might be able to make an argument for a theory such as the Kuznets curve, but Marxism and the Republican party?



It's not about who earned the money, but moreover the government's right to tax the same "bucket" of money more than once.

Consider the idea that if I live to be 80, and have massed say $500,000 in assets via insurance, investments, and property over the course of my life. These assets would've most likely been subject to income tax, property tax, capital gains tax, and sales taxes. Why on earth should a child have to pay the government again for said property?

What you're really advocating is that the vast majority of Americans who's parents attempted to leave their children something, by no means the "uber rich", will be taxed on whatever happens to be left after burial costs, etc.

You're negating the notion that estate taxes affect everyone in the US. Just because the 1% of America that is absurdly wealthy is staying wealthy, doesn't mean that any taxation will change the distribution of income. There is not a theory on the planet that negates the notion that economic inequality will exist, except for in the least developed cultures. Also, there are and have been far more drastic disparities in Western Culture in reference to this scenario.

Marxist coorelations can be drawn maybe to Chinese economics in the past 50 years, but in the US I can't possibly see how you can make the connection.

I'd reply to what you said, if it actually responded to what I posted. I'm addressing the Republicans that are saying "we earned it", "it's our money, we worked hard for it, the gov't shouldn't take it away".

Am I not being perfectly clear? It seems like I stated my debate as clearly as possible.

These Republicans that seem to run from any type of morality when they are making their money sure cling to it when it gets taken away from them.

And this is where Marxists come in. They talk in the same thought patterns. I.e. "what people DESERVE".

But like you stated already, capitalists don't make value judgements they let the market do it for them. So if the market says "you must give up 40% because we need to pay for roads and education" shouldn't the Republicans acquiesce?

I'm not talking about the deep aspects of any idealogy, I'm just talking demeanor and attitude.

IMHO, when a Republican starts whining about what "he has earned and has a RIGHT to", he starts to sound like a Marxist to me.

I suggest you reread Amlord's post because it answers a number of your questions about the ideological differences between Marxism and Capitalism (one and the same? I don't think so).

Here is the difference between capitalism and marxism in regard to your final comment about the "right to your earnings." In capitalism, your earnings are decided by two consenting individuals, an employer and an employee. The employer and employee reach an agreement about the job and form a contract in which if the employee follows the obligations, he/she will be paid according to the agreed terms. In Marxism, it is obviously much different. The two individuals cannot come to a contractual agreement. But instead of the employee going to a competitor and making a contract that works for him/her, the employee gets a THIRD PARTY to enforce what the employee thinks should be payed. This 3rd party is usually the state. So instead of a consenual agreement between two individuals, we have a situation where the employer is coerced by the state to pay the employee a certain salary...there is no consent.

The true difference between capitalism and marxism? Marxism believes in freedom from want/hunger and in equal conditions. Capitalism believes in freedom from coercion and equality of opportunity.

Ok, fine. BTW, I never, ever, said Marxists and Capitialists were one and the same. Is it me that is not making my point clear? Please help me if you don't understand.



Ahhh yes. And this is my point. Taxes are an agreement among society as is the contract between worker and employer, no?

So the same "fairness" doctrine of Marxism is mirrored in the same talk from "we earned it, we deserve it, you can't take it away".

Taxes should not be looked on by a capitalist as being fair or not fair, but simply as a cost of doing business.

And this is the point I'm making. A Republican has no justification in demanding that he "earns" anything. His income is simply a result "of the market forces". NO? NO?

His income is simply a result of his position in society and the amount of capital he wields, not to mention the environment in which he makes his money i.e. cheap labor, infrastructure, security, etc..

He should realize that he really can NEVER say that he "earns" anything. That's what Marxists do.

I'm going to repost your entire original opening post:



Sympatico: To share a mental connection or bond with someone, or to have a lot in common with someone.

Sympatico isn't a real word, so this is the best definiton I can offer.

Do Republicans start to espouse Marxist ideas...

Marxism is based upon a social dichotomy: workers versus capitalists. The underlying assumption is that capitalists steal the labor for their own enrichment. Labor is the only wealth creating resource. That's Marxist in a nutshell. [Of course, Marxism also posits a solution to this exploitation: laborers should control the means of production (capital) directly.]

Is it Marxist to say that the commons (the government) should take less from the individual? I've tried to explain the essential difference (economically) between Marxism and capitalism: should economic decisions be made collectively (Marxism) or individually (capitalism).

Clearly cutting tax rates puts more money in the hands of individuals and less money in the hands of the commons (the government). That is capitalist, not Marxist.

It is a capitalist idea that wealth belongs in the hands of individuals. It is Marxist to say that wealth belongs to society as a whole. Which philosophy do tax cuts more closely align?


This statement is not the theory underlying Marxism, it is the largest criticism of capitalism by Marxism. Marxists hold that wealth should not be generated simply by owning the means of production (capital): it should be (in fact, it can only be) earned through labor. Marxism holds that capital ownership is an exploitation of workers because labor is the real generator of wealth.

I defy you to come up with one comment from a Marxist that will say that "under Marxism, income is simply a result of his position in society and the amount of capital he wields"

You won't find it because that statement is the very antithesis of Marxism.

The basic tenets of Marxism include the abolition of private property and ownership of the means of production by the community, rather than by one individual. This flies right in the face of capitalism. Where capitalism holds dear the concept of private property and believes that the benefits that someone receives should be commensurate with the amount of work that that person does.

The United States is not pure capitalism. It is actually a mixture of both capitalism and marxism. In that the marxist side would be income taxes which go towards welfare. Redistribution is a key element to marxism.

Ahhhh! I see where the confusion is. You're ASSUMING the term "Republican" and "Capitalist" are interchangeable. And that is not the point I'm making.

And actually I'm saying just the opposite, that Republicans aren't acting "very capitalist-like" when they whine about "money owed to them".



I didn't say it was. I'm saying the opposite that Marxism says income should NOT be a result of "market forces" or position in society. In other words, the republicans that are complaining are doing what the Marxists do, make a value judgement on WHAT THEY ARE OWED.

As if there is a determined rate of income that some wealthy person deserves and not what they get due to the outcome of societies choices. That sounds more like Marxism than capitalism.

You might have a point but remember Republicans are still capitalists and Marx for example was against private property and the ownership of the “means of production” (capital) by anyone but the “proletariat” or “state”. This has nothing to do with Republican (or Democrat) positions.