Oh, so you don't actually mean it when you whine about the "pay gap"?

Lol. 

Of course you do, because you don't know what they are doing and you suck the dicks of the rich as long as they say things you like.

I don't think that "we" should do anything at all. Prove where I have ever suggested that we force anyone to do anything. I only have a few thousand pages of text on this site outlining my political positions and you still create strawmen. 

As I pointed out to you a year ago, and iwbiek again yesterday, Marie Antoinette said nothing of the sort. Your dumb ass continues to push myths that are easily identifiable as myths with a simple google search, while constantly whining about the myths of religion. 

It is a myth that business owners create jobs, only demand does that. And that demand depends on the buying power of society, wich is comprised of a majority of workers not business owners. No business owner is going to hire one more person than they absolutely have to. The only thing that forces them to hire more people is when more people come through their doors and purchase their goods. The bulk of the people doing that are not the 1%, but the middle class and working poor.

You suffer from the same all or nothing/either or propositions of most humans about marxism as others do about religion.

In evolutionary reality humans are complex and diverse. I do agree economically that the buying power and demand come from workers, not business owners, so the healther the worker is and the more economically stable they are the better off that society is.

My problem with you is you fail to see how Marx got used and twisted and why it ended up with Stalin. Same stupid crap Beyond suffers from thinking that only people with weath know what is best for workers.

You cannot simply write an idea on a page and expect that idea to work 100% of the time for everyone all the time. Mixed economies protected by oversight are going to allow for diversity and are going to be less likely to be gamed.

ANYTHING ANYTHING ANYTHING, done by humans can be subject to a monopoly, any idea that might have good intent, his or yours, is still subject to flawed humans and greedy humans using those ideas to gain an advantage of power over others. That happens in all aspects of life, religion, political party and even business.

I am NOT for the ending of the private sector. And I am also not for outlawing religion. Am also for a politically diverse society.

What causes abuse of power is the same thing in any aspect of society.

Beyond's economic views simply give rise to a plutocracy. Your views can lead to the end of the private sector or more likely a fascsist state like China monpolizing the private sector but still maintaining one party rule.

I am not for either.

ALL FORMS OF POWER require the same thing, gaining money to keep or expand that power, be it through taxes, or investment in the global economy. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies and globally invests in banks and weapons.  China has a adapted to the private sector in what you could call "authoritarian capitalism". None of those governments of which I would want to live under.

Beyond stupidly thinks I hate wealth and anyone who owns a private business. I hate monopolies of power and abuse of power, and I do not care what sector of a society arises as the abuser. Marx suffered from the same utopian thought Beyond does, "Just do it my way and one size fits all".

The only thing I can agree with Marx on is leaning to valuing the power of the worker since those are the ones who create the most demand that keep an economy running. But I think it is a bit neive of any human to think that a diverse species can be subject to script thinking.

Well yeah, the more profit a CEO brings, generally the higher the stock value and thus a willingness on the part of major stockholders to agree to seperating from more money. The only thing I would disagree with here is the idea that lowering wages "near guarantees" more profits. It really depends on the industry, specific location, and what quality of worker is needed. It lowers expenses, but if revenue decreases that doesn't hurt the bottom line. There are countless examples of companies that have thrived because they paid wages above average market rates. But the point is, the customers are paying into the profit, which is there and will be there. The CEO getting stock options is simply determining how the profit is split up among the literally tens of thousands of entities that own Walmart. If it didn't go to the CEO, it would go to whoever else had purchased stock. 

Neither I, nor Marx, has ever said anything of the sort. 

Then you either need to read more Marx, or you are a complete idiot. There is plenty that Marx said that any intelligent person should agree with. 

The only person here with a script is you. I doubt you could pass the Turing test. 

brian, i've explained to you a thousand times, yet OF COURSE you ignore it because it doesn't fit YOUR FUCKING SCRIPT. marx also "ended up with" the modern european social state, the british labour party, and lots of other things modern liberals salivate over. why do you think only "communist" countries applied marxism? because they said so? did it ever occur to you that marxism can be applied in numberless ways? of course not, because you're a dishonest piece of shit who only absorbs what fits his worldview and refuses to even acknowledge anything that doesn't fit with it. you fit every criteria of being a fanatic. you rant about black-and-white worldviews, yet your worldview is as black-and-white as any fucking theist i've ever met, and more than most.

Wealth disparity is an inevitable consequence of the intense competiton for resourses. You stick a bunch of animals in a cage or limited space, a few top-dogs or alpha males will emerge to dominate the majority that are forced to live on the edge of survival. So it is also with the human animal in the 'cage' of planet earth.

Competition means winners and losers. If you think communism or socialism is the answer, the communist party bosses are then just the new top dogs instead of the capitalist CEOs.

The only rational answer is a world and societies not based on competition. That would require cooperation on eliminating population pressures.

I remember there was a wave of outrage when the details of Jack Welch's retirement package were publicized, leading to a scaling back of its benefits.  Even while most of us might find the package nauseatingly lavish -- to the point of envy (even with the baseball tickets and company jet access taken out), I never understood why anyone cared; it was G.E.'s money to spend, and Welch as chairman increased G.E.'s stock value by billions.

This is brilliant. Agree with you 100%. Humans are animals and non regulated capitalism just lets loose the human animal out there. As Betrand Russell I am also looking for proof that humans are rational, but I cannot find it.

"Competition means winners and loosers" Always! Even eliminating population pressures you would still have loosers. Because people can be extremely bad and egocentric to each other, showing no empathy. I believe that.

We think that "loosers" deserve to be loosers. By loosers we mean they deserve to eat poorly or not eat at all, live in stress and poor conditions with no access to education or healthcare (this is where the political right is moving). This is idiologically unethical for me and the main reason why I'm a socialist. People of power tend to be ruthless, so history tells us... Thus power (massive ammount of wealth) should be stopped.

This is quite a change from 100 years ago. Dangerous change. Unlucky people suddenly became loosers...

Interesting discussion though... 

I'm always fearful of ending up on an endless discussion with BeyondSaving... which always forces me to do a lot of research... but they are quite enjoyable... I'll have more time soon for that

I still have a tiny bit of hope that someday in the future we will trade competition for cooperation... I hope. I need to read Marx though because I know little about his theory... However I have a feeling that Oscar Wilde or Bertrand Russell were more in touch with reality than Marx... but cannot be sure until I'm confident about each others toughts

Holly shit Beyond you really don't know what bubble you live in. You have a nice little spreadshit and script you selfishly project on the rest of the world.

"How to pay for it"

YEP and guess what, you don't personally get to decide for everyone else how WE as a nation do it. We have had 30 years of "trickle down" bullshit and all it has done is kept wages low, shipped jobs overseas, and allowed big business corporate welfare at the cost of economic stability for the rest of us. All less regulation will do at this point is throw more gas on the fire.

WE get to decide how WE pay for things. That is what voting is for.

We need higher wages, and we need to tax the fuck out of the uber rich. And only crybabies like you cry robbery when you don't get what you want.  Too fucking bad.

Vote the way you wish, but when you lose at the voting booth, don't bitch because that is how a civil society settles differences.

And again, when I point out rich people and decent businesses who ARE trying to do the right thing, you have no case.

It most certainly is not. Voting is for electing a group of dumb assholes to run a country. It is not for deciding how you'll pay for something.

That isn't even intelligent. Stomping on inflation would be a greater start than either of those options. Spending taxpayer money more efficiently and responsibly would also have greater impact.
Taxes won't solve shit, people will just invest elsewhere or leave entirely. The only way to prevent such would be a mass seizure of assets, which could never be planned so quietly that the uber rich wouldn't see it coming and get out before it was too late.
Raising wages alone will just increase prices simultaneously, and put the hammer on small business' which can't hope to compete with massive corporations. Business owners in this day and age can't afford to wait for the increased wages to result in more sales of product and services. It would certainly happen, but it'd take years to balance out. While they were waiting, tens of thousands of people would go bankrupt and millions would lose their jobs.
Your strategy would bring the US to its knees much faster than will happen under current policies. In fact, your strategy is basically just a description of the last 50 odd years writ large.
The only way to actually fix things is to deal with the inherent, unsolvable problems with the way economies work in the first place. Public enemy number one is inflation, which most economists are convinced shows a healthy economy; but actually is a way to predict how unstable an economy is and how long a society can last before it collapses.
Wages are an issue, but in the great scheme of things wages are not a huge problem. If a wage increase is to have any real effect, inflation must be dealt with first. And business owners must be protected from the massive shortfalls that many would inevitably incur, else the problems will be exasperated.

Still not getting it. You can make ANYTHING sound good on paper, but the problem with taking an idea in the real world and applying it is that you are still dealing with a diverse species in a complex world.

You wont even listen to me when I agree in theory that some of the things you advocate also sound nice. Your probem is you think life is stagnant and what works for you will work for everyone. Whatever Marx said that is a good idea was gamed and monpolized precisely becuase you cannot get rid of humans who can  and will take  an idea and create their own monopoly with that idea.

Ecosystems outside of humans are diverse as well. Humans are not above our own ecosystems and economies cannot be treated as all or nothing or either or propositions. RIGHT NOW at this point in history workers are getting screwed, not just in America but globally and our global economy is about exploitation of resources.

I cannot take you seriously when you cry robbery and advocate more deregulation which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Marx in a general sense was right about an economy being only as strong as the workers ability to make a living. But Stalin used that idea and twisted it to create his own centralized wealth which simply shifted a class monopoly to a party monopoly.

ANYTHING can be abused in life becuase humans run every aspect of life. So it is not simply a matter of saying "this works", that is a flaw in humans seeking patterns. Yes, it can work sometimes but that does not mean it works all the time, nor does it mean it works for everyone all the time.

The only thing humans really can do to give everyone space and means, is to take into account the diversity and be willing to adapt while seeking balance. Which is why you cannot understand I am NOT jealous at all of you having more as implied by the title of the thread. I do not hate the private sector, but I do hate it's abuse. All forms of power be it religious, nationalistic one party rule, and or business all require the same thing to keep power MONEY.

All workers rights or all big business rights, either way without consent or oversight creates a lopsided economic ecosystem. Right now though, the big boys are doing the greatest damage to the world. I do not want business to go way, not that I could even if I wanted to, I just want it to STOP being abusive.

I simply do not see the solutions you advocate as even being pragmatic or viable at this point in history. I do think you do act like a sore loser when others want to do things differently.

Marks missis the same point the Koch brothers did, nothing is ever either/or. But an issue of monopolies.

Now again I am going to offer you solutions.

1. Reduce the pay gap.

2. Tax the fuck out of the rich.

3. Stop shipping jobs overseas.

4. Invest here at home.

Problem with you is that you call that robbery, where as I know that by doing that it will generate MORE business. Nick Hanoure who should be your hero considering he is a BILLIONAIRE says HE is NOT the job creator. "No business owner hires one more person than they have to" He is right. And the only thing that forces a a business owner to hire more people is DEMAND, and the bulk of demand comes from workers, not business owners. So the more economically stable a worker is and the more money they make the more demand they create.

What is NOT going to happen anymore is the same economic policies Reagan set in motion in the 80s. That has been our downfall.

Nowhere in that am I negating the value of the private sector, and also nowhere in that am I negating the Marx's idea of the value of the worker. I am saying RIGHT NOW big business has become too abusive.

LISTEN DIPSHIT, for someone who wont read Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins or Victor Stenger, as to why I call religion poison, you have some fucking nerve lecturing me. The only difference between your dogmatism and religious dogmatism is that yours is economic dogmatism.

Now once again and for the ADD aflicted,

You cannot take a simplistic econmic theory and apply it to a diverse species. Saying Marx got some things right does not mean the overall impementation works all the time. No different than saying that Newton got physics right but alchemy wrong.

Any political or economic idea that does not allow for diversity is only going to set up a power vacuum to allow one abuse to be replaced by another abuse.

Marx still lead to Stalin, just like crying "free market, no regulation" lead to our great depression. ANYTHING left to it's own divices without checks and balances on it WILL go off the rails.

No matter what idea someone comes up with, that idea can be dangled like a utopia in front of others, and used to abuse those same people who buy into it.

Every time you post you look dumber and dumber. Rofl.

    Brian37 doesn't waste his time researching facts, because has has something even better   ...opinions, STRONG OPINIONS !!!

Iwbiek,

Do you think there is a campaign to missinform people about Marx? I mean, Brian is far from being the only one thinking like this about Marx. Furthermore as you point out, Marx is missquoted on wikipedia.

Who do you think is behind this missinformation and what's the objective? Do you think this is still a remnant of the cold war, like others, who stubbornly don't go away?

 Ok...

I have done some digging... I found this:

"that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat"

in a letter from Marx to Weydemeyer.

I also found saying that Marx thought that any form of governemnt is a dictatorship and he wanted a classeless society.

A dictatorship according to definition: "is a form of goverment where political authority is often monopolized by a single person or a political party, and exercised through various oppressive mechanisms"

On a classless society a "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't make sense since it assumes the existence of a single class. If the only class that exists is the "proletariat" obviously this is a dictatorship... like we have a dictatorship of humans since monkeys have no saying in our affairs...

But I think I understand what Marx wanted to say when I read the whole thing. I believe he was aware of this.

that said... a classeless society may be impossible, depending how you define "class". Or it may be what we already have in many European countries, a classless society, if your definition of class differs... this is an interesting discussion though...