The New Appeal Of Communism

[Uncensored2008]

In theory, Communism died when the Berlin Wall fell, after Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. America took a sharp turn to the left in 2008 with the failures of the Bush administration leading many to question the free market as a viable engine of growth and prosperity. Even so, few would openly speak of, much less advocate for Communism as defined by Marx.

The seminal work of Marx is "Capital," which was published in two volumes, with a third cobbled together after his death. "Capital" is far more influential than the "Communist Manifesto" in terms of explaining the "why and how" of Communism.

But Marx published his work in 1867, under the title "Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie." What could this have to do with America, 150 years later? The answer is French Communist Thomas Piketty, who has adopted the same name for a modernized version of the Marxist screed. Piketty is not some fringe, but has occupied the #1 spot of the New York Times best seller list for 5 weeks. Communism is extremely popular.

Given the history of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Kim, et al, how could people become enamored by Marxism? Promotion by the popular media and leftist culture, for one thing. Piketty has over 400 pages of statistics in his manifesto, I assure you that George Clooney and Cindy Crawford are not reading this, BUT it is an expected accoutrement at the elitist parties and events that Hollywood royalty attend.

What does the reemergence of Communism as high fashion mean for the world? We will all find out.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bump

 

[Kimura]

So pointing out the wealth and income inequality in the US and Europe since the 18th century makes one a Communist?

Piketty's book probably won't change the minds of ideologues and members of reactionary groups, but it gave the public an ability to start a dialogue about a topic that was taboo. His work (and his colleagues) already validated what many of us already knew to be pretty concrete data. It's now OK to talk about it.

 

[jasonnfree]

In theory, Communism died when the Berlin Wall fell, after Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. America took a sharp turn to the left in 2008 with the failures of the Bush administration leading many to question the free market as a viable engine of growth and prosperity. Even so, few would openly speak of, much less advocate for Communism as defined by Marx.

The seminal work of Marx is "Capital," which was published in two volumes, with a third cobbled together after his death. "Capital" is far more influential than the "Communist Manifesto" in terms of explaining the "why and how" of Communism.

But Marx published his work in 1867, under the title "Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie." What could this have to do with America, 150 years later? The answer is French Communist Thomas Piketty, who has adopted the same name for a modernized version of the Marxist screed. Piketty is not some fringe, but has occupied the #1 spot of the New York Times best seller list for 5 weeks. Communism is extremely popular.

Given the history of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Kim, et al, how could people become enamored by Marxism? Promotion by the popular media and leftist culture, for one thing. Piketty has over 400 pages of statistics in his manifesto, I assure you that George Clooney and Cindy Crawford are not reading this, BUT it is an expected accoutrement at the elitist parties and events that Hollywood royalty attend.

What does the reemergence of Communism as high fashion mean for the world? We will all find out.

A sharp turn to the left in 2008? Obama's a corporate democrat. A lefty wouldn't appoint the wall streeters and Ceo's that Obama did. Did you find that post you accused me of making yet?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So pointing out the wealth and income inequality in the US and Europe since the 18th century makes one a Communist?

No, why do you ask?

Piketty's book probably won't change the minds of ideologues and members of reactionary groups, but it gave the public an ability to start a dialogue about a topic that was taboo. His work (and his colleagues) already validated what many of us already knew to be pretty concrete data. It's now OK to talk about it.

Piketty is a prop for the leftist elite. The majority of his book is the recitation of statistics. Hollywood starlets are not "reading" this, it is simply a costume prop.

Piketty's solution of creating a global dictatorship to impose 80% taxes on a global basis are traditional Marxist/Engles programs. France has Socialist PM, so I'm not sure what you mean by "taboo." My main point in my OP is that Communism is not only acceptable again, it's très chic.

 

[Kimura]

No, why do you ask?

That was the primary subject matter contained within the pages of Capital in the 21st Century.

Piketty is a prop for the leftist elite. The majority of his book is the recitation of statistics. Hollywood starlets are not "reading" this, it is simply a costume prop.

He's a brilliant economist by any metric, but I doubt anyone in Hollywood reads anything, minus scripts.

Piketty's solution of creating a global dictatorship to impose 80% taxes on a global basis are traditional Marxist/Engles programs. France has Socialist PM, so I'm not sure what you mean by "taboo." My main point in my OP is that Communism is not only acceptable again, it's très chic.

My biggest problem with Piketty are his views on public debt. They're very un-Keynesian and he should know better, unless he's trying to sell his wealth tax, which is completely possible. His entire wealth tax is tenuous at best. I have no problem taxing the 1%, but it's not to generate revenue, it's to maintain a free and functioning society. I reject neoliberalism to its douchey core.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That was the primary subject matter contained within the pages of Capital in the 21st Century.

And also the primary subject matter in the original Capital.

He's a brilliant economist by any metric, but I doubt anyone in Hollywood reads anything, minus scripts.

The Financial Times of London views it rather differently;

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/media/FT23052014c.pdf

But my purpose here is not to debate whether Piketty is right or wrong, rather an examination of the cultural acceptance of Marxism. Once taboo, Marxism is now all the rage.

My biggest problem with Piketty are his views on public debt. They're very un-Keynesian and he should know better, unless he's trying to sell his wealth tax, which is completely possible.

I'm not sure why you would expect a Marxist to promote Keynesian ideas? These are competing views.

His entire wealth tax is tenuous at best. I have no problem taxing the 1%, but it's not to generate revenue, it's to maintain a free and functioning society. I reject feudalism both past and present as do the majority of Americans.

Feudalism is a separate topic, one upon which the examination property taxation takes center stage.

But ANY global tax requires a global ruling body, and the assumption that global mean will be established financially, that sir, is Marxism. Will the American earning $50,000 a year pay an 80% tax to support those in Cameroon who earn $50 a year? Under Piketty, yes - of course - such is the basis of Marxism.

Again though, my purpose here is to discuss the cultural implications of Marxism as an accepted and popular system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only appeal to "communism" is the far right's misuse of the subject in its failed propaganda campaign.

 

[Kimura]

And also the primary subject matter in the original Capital.

Das Kapital and Capital are totally different animals. It's worth pointing out that Piketty doesn't think the problem is simply monopoly profits.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/media/FT23052014c.pdf

I read it and it's a garbage analysis. I can get into detail, but we should start a separate thread.

But my purpose here is not to debate whether Piketty is right or wrong, rather an examination of the cultural acceptance of Marxism. Once taboo, Marxism is now all the rage.

I don't see cultural acceptance of Marxism. I see a US ruling class sacrificing the middle class on the altar of neoliberalism and the confidence fairy.

I'm not sure why you would expect a Marxist to promote Keynesian ideas? These are competing views.

He should know better. David Ruccio has an interest in Marxist analysis, but he understands the difference between public vs private debt.

But ANY global tax requires a global ruling body, and the assumption that global mean will be established financially, that sir, is Marxism. Will the American earning $50,000 a year pay an 80% tax to support those in Cameroon who earn $50 a year? Under Piketty, yes - of course - such is the basis of Marxism.

Your scenario is never going to happen for a litany of reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"But ANY global tax requires a global ruling body, and the assumption that global mean will be established financially, that sir, is Marxism. Will the American earning $50,000 a year pay an 80% tax to support those in Cameroon who earn $50 a year? Under Piketty, yes - of course - such is the basis of Marxism"

Show exactly where Piketty makes this conclusion. Be specific. Because we will come back to this absurd assertion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Das Kapital and Capital are totally different animals. It's worth pointing out that Piketty doesn't think the problem is simply monopoly profits.

Ultimately, Vol. 1 of Capital deals with the concentration of capital in the hands of industrialists, the proletarians are an exploited class who are kept in poverty as the wealth produced concentrates with the owners.

Other than the spreadsheets and graphs, how does this alter from the basic premise of Piketty?

I read it and it's a garbage analysis. I can get into detail, but we should start a separate thread.

I agree it should be a separate thread.

I don't see cultural acceptance of Marxism. I see a US ruling class sacrificing the middle class on the altar of neoliberalism and the confidence fairy.

Without further clarification, I can't say if I agree or disagree. I do see and assault on the American middle class.

I suspect my Rothbardian views will result in different causes and motives, though.

He should know better. David Ruccio has an interest in Marxist analysis, but he understands the difference between public vs private debt.

When I describe Piketty as a Marxist, it is not ad hominem, it is a simple statement of fact. Piketty views all capital as the rightful property of the people - he openly states this - ergo to his perspective, there is no distinction between private and public debt.

In my opinion, and this is only opinion, Piketty seeks to fix the flaws in traditional Marxism, that is his motive.

Your scenario is never going to happen for a litany of reasons.

I agree, yet that is the proposal promoted by Piketty.

 

[Moonglow]

So the US after WWI up to Kennedy was communistic because of the 80%-90% tax rate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"When I describe Piketty as a Marxist, it is not ad hominem, it is a simple statement of fact" is indeed ad hom and not justified as a conclusion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the US after WWI up to Kennedy was communistic because of the 80%-90% tax rate?

You come right out of left field.

First thing, no one in the USA ever paid 80% of their income - ever. The top 1% of income earners paid LESS percentage of actual income under Eisenhower than they do today.

80% of taxable income when 2% of income is taxable is substantially less than 37% of taxable income when 40% of income is taxable.

15% capital gains where 100% of income is taxable is MORE than 37% of taxable income when 40% of income is taxable.

 

[Kimura]

Ultimately, Vol. 1 of Capital deals with the concentration of capital in the hands of industrialists, the proletarians are an exploited class who are kept in poverty as the wealth produced concentrates with the owners.

Other than the spreadsheets and graphs, how does this alter from the basic premise of Piketty?

Piketty's data demonstrates that wealth inequality in the developed world, such as the US and UK, has been getting worse for the better part of three decades. Basically, as capital expands, it does so at a rate far in excess of the economy and wages. Capital expands, outpacing wages and the overall economy, then the gap between earned income and rents increase as does the net worth of the owners of capital.

Without further clarification, I can't say if I agree or disagree. I do see and assault on the American middle class.

Of course. The Austrian view is fundamentally flawed and outdated. Austrians still frame their macro analysis as if we're still on a gold standard. That's just one of many problems, don't even get me started on Rothbard.

When I describe Piketty as a Marxist, it is not ad hominem, it is a simple statement of fact. Piketty views all capital as the rightful property of the people - he openly states this - ergo to his perspective, there is no distinction between private and public debt.

His specialty or niche is wealth inequality, so I really don't understand why you insist he's a Marxist. He's used passages from Vol I of Das Kapital in Capital, but like most European (and some older American economists), he was influenced by some of his theories. Picketty actually criticizes Marx in part of the book, I just double-checked it on my Kindle.

 

[Old Rocks]

In theory, Communism died when the Berlin Wall fell, after Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. America took a sharp turn to the left in 2008 with the failures of the Bush administration leading many to question the free market as a viable engine of growth and prosperity. Even so, few would openly speak of, much less advocate for Communism as defined by Marx.

The seminal work of Marx is "Capital," which was published in two volumes, with a third cobbled together after his death. "Capital" is far more influential than the "Communist Manifesto" in terms of explaining the "why and how" of Communism.

But Marx published his work in 1867, under the title "Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie." What could this have to do with America, 150 years later? The answer is French Communist Thomas Piketty, who has adopted the same name for a modernized version of the Marxist screed. Piketty is not some fringe, but has occupied the #1 spot of the New York Times best seller list for 5 weeks. Communism is extremely popular.

Given the history of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Kim, et al, how could people become enamored by Marxism? Promotion by the popular media and leftist culture, for one thing. Piketty has over 400 pages of statistics in his manifesto, I assure you that George Clooney and Cindy Crawford are not reading this, BUT it is an expected accoutrement at the elitist parties and events that Hollywood royalty attend.

What does the reemergence of Communism as high fashion mean for the world? We will all find out.

Now buddy boy, it is you 'Conservatives' that are having big and little orgasms over Putin with no shirt on. We liberals understand that despotic systems, whether the right or left, are our enemy.

 

[georgephillip]

Possibly any new appeal for socialism stems from the fact that liberty and equality are conflicting values that can only be reconciled when human rights trump property rights?

Monthly Review | Popular Movements Toward Socialism

 

[bripat9643]

Possibly any new appeal for socialism stems from the fact that liberty and equality are conflicting values that can only be reconciled when human rights trump property rights?

Monthly Review | Popular Movements Toward Socialism

Property rights are human rights, numskull.

 

[georgephillip]

Possibly any new appeal for socialism stems from the fact that liberty and equality are conflicting values that can only be reconciled when human rights trump property rights?

Monthly Review | Popular Movements Toward Socialism

Property rights are human rights, numskull.

How did the conflict between property rights and human rights drive the American Revolution against British control of the colonial economy?

 

[shart_attack]

In theory, Communism died when the Berlin Wall fell, after Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. America took a sharp turn to the left in 2008 with the failures of the Bush administration leading many to question the free market as a viable engine of growth and prosperity. Even so, few would openly speak of, much less advocate for Communism as defined by Marx.

The seminal work of Marx is "Capital," which was published in two volumes, with a third cobbled together after his death. "Capital" is far more influential than the "Communist Manifesto" in terms of explaining the "why and how" of Communism.

But Marx published his work in 1867, under the title "Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie." What could this have to do with America, 150 years later? The answer is French Communist Thomas Piketty, who has adopted the same name for a modernized version of the Marxist screed. Piketty is not some fringe, but has occupied the #1 spot of the New York Times best seller list for 5 weeks. Communism is extremely popular.

Given the history of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Kim, et al, how could people become enamored by Marxism? Promotion by the popular media and leftist culture, for one thing. Piketty has over 400 pages of statistics in his manifesto, I assure you that George Clooney and Cindy Crawford are not reading this, BUT it is an expected accoutrement at the elitist parties and events that Hollywood royalty attend.

What does the reemergence of Communism as high fashion mean for the world? We will all find out.

Now buddy boy, it is you 'Conservatives' that are having big and little orgasms over Putin with no shirt on. We liberals understand that despotic systems, whether the right or left, are our enemy.

And you and your fellow liberal ideologues are stupid — point blank, pure and simple.

Conservatives who are welcoming the eminence of Putin are not doing it necessarily because of the reeminence of the economic ideology of the totalitarian Soviet state, but because of what the reeminence of that totalitarian Soviet state will inevitably mean for terrorism in the Eastern hemisphere, and global stability in general.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," moron.