Make big companies pay tax? A joke.

[Cormac]

I think that people are being disingenuous in their interaction with Seth on his core point - which is that the concept of taking money from wealthier people and "transferring" it to poorer people iris a Marxist concept.

This seems to be a reasonable assertion to me, unless it can be pointed out that there are other societal roots for this concept.

It certainly seems to me to be a Marxist concept.

Which doesn't necessarily mean to say that this implies an inexorable momentum to full blown communism, (which is a different assertion that Seth makes).

[JimC]

I think that people are being disingenuous in their interaction with Seth on his core point - which is that the concept of taking money from wealthier people and "transferring" it to poorer people iris a Marxist concept.

This seems to be a reasonable assertion to me, unless it can be pointed out that there are other societal roots for this concept.

It certainly seems to me to be a Marxist concept.

Which doesn't necessarily mean to say that this implies an inexorable momentum to full blown communism, (which is a different assertion that Seth makes).

It may perhaps be a socialist concept, but to call it Marxist is stretching the normal definition of Marxism well beyond its breaking point. Marxism goes well beyond the re-distribution of wealth via tax, and heads towards the nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property. If Seth was attacking Marxism, properly defined, I would agree with him; it is an iniquitous, pernicious and dangerous model for society.

But Seth can relax; it was tried a few times, failed in the long run, and any real Marxists who remain are deluded fantasists...

[Cormac]

I think that people are being disingenuous in their interaction with Seth on his core point - which is that the concept of taking money from wealthier people and "transferring" it to poorer people iris a Marxist concept.

This seems to be a reasonable assertion to me, unless it can be pointed out that there are other societal roots for this concept.

It certainly seems to me to be a Marxist concept.

Which doesn't necessarily mean to say that this implies an inexorable momentum to full blown communism, (which is a different assertion that Seth makes).

It may perhaps be a socialist concept, but to call it Marxist is stretching the normal definition of Marxism well beyond its breaking point. Marxism goes well beyond the re-distribution of wealth via tax, and heads towards the nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property. If Seth was attacking Marxism, properly defined, I would agree with him; it is an iniquitous, pernicious and dangerous model for society.

I don't think that these are mutually exclusive.

But Seth can relax; it was tried a few times, failed in the long run, and any real Marxists who remain are deluded fantasists...

[JimC]

Maybe they are not mutually exclusive in theory, but in practice, they certainly are. The vast majority of modern democratic states do a certain amount of income re-distribution via tax scales and a variety of social policies and benefits. The degree to which that is done is one of the major debating points between various political parties; personally, I tend to hover around the midpoint...

However, the vast majority of western political parties avoid Marxism sensu strictu like the plague, if for no other reason than avoiding electoral suicide. Find me an example of any western political party that could gain more than 5% of the vote that advocates complete central planning, the abolition of personal property, and state control of the means of production.

[ronmcd]

I think that people are being disingenuous in their interaction with Seth on his core point - which is that the concept of taking money from wealthier people and "transferring" it to poorer people iris a Marxist concept.

This seems to be a reasonable assertion to me, unless it can be pointed out that there are other societal roots for this concept.

It certainly seems to me to be a Marxist concept.

Which doesn't necessarily mean to say that this implies an inexorable momentum to full blown communism, (which is a different assertion that Seth makes).

No, Seth's proposition appears to be that all - all - western democracies uncluding the US which have economies merging some socialism with capitalism are Marxist. He is NOT claiming that there are elements of socialism in economies which, you know, merge socialism and capitalism. Thats what YOU are describing Cormac.

Seth is expressly claiming all political systems to the left of his preferred (and non-existant) libertarian capitalist extreme ARE Marxism.


edit - here is what Seth said earlier in response to my comments:

You're a Marxist.

You see Cormac? He isnt claiming I agree with "concepts" of Marxism. He is saying I AM a Marxist. Any elements of socialism = actual Marxism. This is patently wrong.

[pErvinalia]

American Exceptionalism is a lie.

That's what Marxists want us to believe. It's a lie however, and America is exceptional among all the nations of the earth. And it's better than every socialist nation on earth as well.

But it's a socialist nation too, by your definition. According to you it has a Marxist president, who was democratically elected in an healthy majority by your people.

Here's a direct question for you: Why should I labor and be taxed to pay for YOUR social welfare needs?

Because it benefits you, as it does everyone in a stable society. If you don't, then you'll have the poor turning to crime to survive. Now, of course, you'll bleat some nonsense about how that's fine by you as you have a shitload of guns. But even if I did believe that for a second, it's irrelevant as most people in society don't want to live with that sort of chaos. You are an outlier Seth. You aren't an outlier from Marxism. You are an outlier from normal well adjusted human beings. You should recognise that fact and fuck off to somewhere were you feel safe from the Marxist boogeyman. Try Somalia. I'm pretty sure there ain't any marxists there. But the point is, reasonably sane and well adjusted society isn't required to pander to your paranoid delusions. It's YOU that has the problem, and as such it's YOU that needs to take responsibility for that problem.

[Cormac]

Nope. He is first and foremost saying that the concept of taking from one person and "distributing" it to others on the basis that one is wealthier is a Marxist principle. (And this is true).

He also says that it is always and only a Marxist principle. (This is debatable).

He also says that ALL people who support any variant of that principle are Marxists. (This suffers from the Black Swan fallacy).

[JimC]

Nope. He is first and foremost saying that the concept of taking from one person and "distributing" it to others on the basis that one is wealthier is a Marxist principle. (And this is true).

He also says that it is always and only a Marxist principle. (This is debatable).

He also says that ALL people who support any variant of that principle are Marxists. (This suffers from the Black Swan fallacy).

Re your first point: Marxist principles are not monolithic, but a set of economic and social principles, some rather bland and generalised, some more specific and extreme. This set overlaps with the economic and social agenda of most modern democracies in several places (with complete state control of the means of production being uniquely Marxist). Any form of progressive taxation, and in fact any form of social spending on the disabled and destitute, is an example of such an overlap. However, your phrasing, "concept of taking from one person and "distributing" it to others on the basis that one is wealthier" is somewhat misleading; it suggests a certain punitive attack on wealth which is not necessarily present (although it may be in some cases). Therefore, calling this rather bog-standard form of governmental economic policy "Marxist" is utterly misleading. Logically, it leads to applying the Marxist label to most activities by most western governments. Seth most probably feels that such a conclusion is proof positive that his broad-scale take on Marxism is correct.

Your second point is covered by the set-based position I alluded to.

Your third point is not simply a Black Swan fallacy, but an example of Seth's high level of paranoia...

[pErvinalia]

Nope. He is first and foremost saying that the concept of taking from one person and "distributing" it to others on the basis that one is wealthier is a Marxist principle. (And this is true).

He also says that it is always and only a Marxist principle. (This is debatable).

He also says that ALL people who support any variant of that principle are Marxists. (This suffers from the Black Swan fallacy).

The concept of redistribution of wealth is a species of the "freeloader" problem. That is, someone is paying taxes for a service they may or may not use; while others are receiving that service without paying any taxes for it. When you put aside all the class rhetoric, you realise that the freeloader problem applies to pretty much everything the government does. Particularly things like the Police and Fire services. Depending on the species of libertarian we are talking about, determines what their particular views of those services are. From memory, Seth advocates a Police and Fire service. I can't remember off hand how he justifies this. But it's likely to be specious.

[aspire1670]

Nope. He is first and foremost saying that the concept of taking from one person and "distributing" it to others on the basis that one is wealthier is a Marxist principle. (And this is true).

No, no it isn't. Seth knows nothing of Marxism beyond that which he cribs from others who know nothing. Seth is a googler par excellence with a particular penchant for conservapedia troll fail. You and he are conflating the socialist principle of redistribution according to the quality and quantity of work that people perform in a society where money is the medium of exchange with Marx's communist principle of distribution according to people’s needs in a society where money has been abolished. Do try to keep up.

[Svartalf]

To think that in ancient times, the rich would strive for the honour of funding projects for the city, and most got little more than a plaque to remind passers by of it... only those who took up stuff of religious importance might get a little fane in honor of it, and it took the most exceptionally remarkable acts of public generosity to warrant a bust or full statue with plaque in the agora/forum or other public place where people would see it.

Evergetism needs to make a comeback.

[ronmcd]

Nope. He is first and foremost saying that the concept of taking from one person and "distributing" it to others on the basis that one is wealthier is a Marxist principle. (And this is true).

He also says that it is always and only a Marxist principle. (This is debatable).

He also says that ALL people who support any variant of that principle are Marxists. (This suffers from the Black Swan fallacy).

The concept of redistribution of wealth is a species of the "freeloader" problem. That is, someone is paying taxes for a service they may or may not use; while others are receiving that service without paying any taxes for it. When you put aside all the class rhetoric, you realise that the freeloader problem applies to pretty much everything the government does. Particularly things like the Police and Fire services. Depending on the species of libertarian we are talking about, determines what their particular views of those services are. From memory, Seth advocates a Police and Fire service. I can't remember off hand how he justifies this. But it's likely to be specious.

Yes. This.

[Cormac]

To think that in ancient times, the rich would strive for the honour of funding projects for the city, and most got little more than a plaque to remind passers by of it... only those who took up stuff of religious importance might get a little fane in honor of it, and it took the most exceptionally remarkable acts of public generosity to warrant a bust or full statue with plaque in the agora/forum or other public place where people would see it.

Evergetism needs to make a comeback.

I am not convinced that they got nothing for it.

[Svartalf]

They got regard, possibly a lot of friends, and their 15 minutes.
But no material or financial counterpart for their financial outlay and possible personal effort.

Heck, there is no record of evergete metics even getting city citizenship... Not in Greek places at least, the Romans were a lot more prone to grant citizenship for service, but had less of a culture around evergetism.

[Cormac]

Nope. He is first and foremost saying that the concept of taking from one person and "distributing" it to others on the basis that one is wealthier is a Marxist principle. (And this is true).

No, no it isn't. Seth knows nothing of Marxism beyond that which he cribs from others who know nothing. Seth is a googler par excellence with a particular penchant for conservapedia troll fail. You and he are conflating the socialist principle of redistribution according to the quality and quantity of work that people perform in a society where money is the medium of exchange with Marx's communist principle of distribution according to people’s needs in a society where money has been abolished. Do try to keep up.

IIRC Marx posited an inevitable process in society in which there are phases of "revolution". You don't start with a society in which money is abolished, but proceed towards it.

"Redistribution" is a phase.

Of course, it is impossible to have a modern society without some fungible token, such as money, to store value. So that is a nonsense.

The idea of from each according to ability and to each according to his needs is ridiculous because it is a complete denial of human nature.