Wrong. It may be the ultimate conclusion of Marxism, but it isn't 95% of Marxism. There are all kinds of theories, premises and wild ass guesses used to prop up this conclusion, and you buy into all of them. For instance, there is the labor theory of value, which is easily proven wrong. There's also your belief that higher marginal tax rates lead to greater economic growth. Marx himself endorsed the progressive income tax. That policy is inseparable from Marxism.
Wrong on several points.
First, I don't agree with Marx about the labor theory of value. I have my own theory of value, which I may explain one of these days; it differs sharply from Marx. Second, while Marx did endorse a progressive income tax, so have many others, including for example Adam Smith, who predates Marx by a century or two. So if you want to argue on the basis that the person who first advocated an idea owns it (a fallacious concept to start with), then we must say that the progressive income tax is Smithian, not Marxist, and that Marx merely borrowed it.
Third, to say that the policy is "inseparable" from Marxism is demonstrably false, as it has been pursued by every advanced government in the modern world, none of which are Marxist. So clearly, it is quite separable from Marxism.
And fourth, I never said that high marginal tax rates by themselves lead to higher economic growth, nor do I think that's true. I said, and believe, that narrow income gaps lead to higher economic growth, and high top marginal tax rates can contribute to narrow income gaps, but cannot on their own create them. More would be required than that.
You really have no good reason to call me a Marxist anyway. I'm not taking it as an insult, and I already said the views I do hold are just as far to the left as his were. I have a mild objection to being called a Marxist more or less for the same reason I object to being called an Irishman. It's not that there's anything
wrong with being an Irishman, it's just not true about me. Nor is it true that I'm a Marxist.
There is very little new in the way of economic theory to support socialism since Karl Marx.
Depending on what exactly you mean by that word, I may or may not be an advocate of socialism. If you mean state ownership of the means of production and a planned economy, I am not an advocate of that. On the other hand, if you mean a worker-friendly, egalitarian approach to government economic policies that shape the parameters of market operation, then your statement is incorrect -- that has support in a broad range of economic theory and actually very little support from Marx, who considered any such action short of revolution futile.
It's hardly surprising that you consider anyone who points out the flaws in your theories as "not fact based."
That isn't the case. I believe that anyone who believes things that a very little bit of digging into the evidence disproves is not fact based. For example, your own belief that democracies levy higher taxes than monarchies. I already pointed out to you that a comparison of Germany (a monarchy), Britain (a pseudo-monarchy), and France and the U.S. (democratic republics) at the time of World War I would show this to be untrue, yet you continue to believe in it. Continuing to believe in something your philosophy or theory claims SHOULD be true, without regard to what observation shows IS true, is the very definition of not being fact-based.
Similarly, a belief that high taxes on the rich is devastating to the economy is not fact-based. A little examination of U.S. economic history, and of prosperity compared to tax rates on the rich around the world, shows that there is no evidence in support of this idea whatsoever. Yet for economic conservatives, it is essentially holy writ. Again, something is believed because theory or ideology says it SHOULD be true, without regard to what observation shows IS true.
In fact, in another discussion you acknowledged that, on matters of economics, your own belief ISN'T fact-based. You said that it is impossible to relate economic ideas to empirical verification, and that means that you reject all empirical data in regard to economics. Rejection of empirical data is another way of saying: not fact-based.
The fact is that over 40% of the public calls themselves "conservative" and only 20% call themselves "liberal."
That is ONE fact. That on all current issues, polls show those holding liberal positions to number between 40 and 60 percent of the population (higher on a few isolated issues) is ANOTHER fact. That Obama was elected in 2008 with 53% of the popular vote after running a strongly progressive campaign is still ANOTHER fact.
Twenty-one percent of the people CALLING themselves "liberal" is consistent with both of those other facts, but only 21% of the people actually BEING liberal is not. The only conclusion consistent with all three sets of facts is that many people actually are liberal who, for whatever reason, don't call themselves liberal. Or as I like to put it, liberals outnumber self-professed liberals in this country by more than two to one.
Being fact-based doesn't mean you cherry-pick one fact that seems to support what you want to believe and run with it, ignoring everything else. It means you spend a little more time digging and make sure you actually have it right.
