Is Marxism Coming Back?

Marxism like practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? No.

There is now and has always been a dynamic tug of war between those who want unfettered capitlism and those that want centralized government control. Success in government as determined by the well being of the citizens is to create a system that provides somewhat a fair opportunity for all to participate in the goods of the whole.

Too much central control, as in the case of North Korea, is bad for citizens. But you can take it to the other extreme. In what country of the world does the central government do virtually nothing to redistribute wealth, where citizens are free to buy whatever arms they wish and aren't troubled to give up some of their capitalist gains to help the empoverished and provide free public education for all. Anybody got a mad desire to move to Somalia?

In some countries the government does more to empower the working man, providing health and even secondary educational for all who participate -- say West Germany and France. In others, the Golden Rule (he who has the gold makes the rules) which is where Mexico is and where most avid capitalists in this country seek to move.Those with money and education gain a greater portion of the rewards, but those who can make too little have little incentive to struggle beyond a desire to live until tomorrow. Mexico has some incredibly rich capitalists, but I'd contend it's a harder environment to get very rich than in the United States, where access to good wages for creative work are greater and buying power of a lot of people with money is good for all.

Are we in a better coountry today than when I was a kid -- when industrial workers, carpenters and bricklayers could make a middle income living -- or where we're moving now where rewards disprportionately go to CEOs, capitalists and those practicing some form or "price discovery" and speculation where the common man and government hold the downside risk but reap little of the reward?
 
We never had a capitalistic economy. Though taxes and regulations at the federal level were minimal early on, some states did tax and regulate, and federal the government imposed substantial tariffs on foreign goods protecting US business interests.

However, we're not moving towards Marxism. We're moving towards fascism. A Marxist economy would mean the government was actually seizing private industries and directly operating them. For example, true "socialized medicine" would mean that all health care facilities (hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices, etc.) were owned by the government and that all doctors and their staffs were government employees. There are no private winners in a Marxist economy.

Instead we're seeing the largest businesses in each industry (basically cartels) jumping into the sack with government. They're accepting regulations and having to put up with unions in exchange for suppressed competition, bailouts, liability protections, tax loopholes, and government contracts. That's more indicative of a fascist economy, and of course, if you're one of the few lucky enough to be in the cartel, you're a huge winner, while everybody else loses.

Our current leaders are more like Hitler (without the concentration and death camps) and Mussolini than Lenin or Mao.
 
You mean socialism whereby the Wall Street types get to keep their profits but share their losses with the masses?

We've already got that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top