[urlhttp://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/seOIH9UMh6UZY-PCQH7Xo1A/view.m?id=15&gid=world%2F2012%2Fjul%2F04%2Fthe-return-of-marxism&cat=most-read[/url

What comes around goes around???

Nothing to see here.

Quote ="Ovavoo"[urlhttp://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/seOIH9UMh6UZY-PCQH7Xo1A/view.m?id=15&gid=world%2F2012%2Fjul%2F04%2Fthe-return-of-marxism&cat=most-read[/url What comes around goes around???'" Good read, having visited Vietnam i've read a bit about it it's not the easiest of subjects to understand but I found this which explains a bit. rationalrevolution.net/war/marxism.htm

Quote ="Ovavoo"[urlhttp://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/seOIH9UMh6UZY-PCQH7Xo1A/view.m?id=15&gid=world%2F2012%2Fjul%2F04%2Fthe-return-of-marxism&cat=most-read[/url What comes around goes around???'" Good read, having visited Vietnam i've read a bit about it it's not the easiest of subjects to understand but I found this which explains a bit. rationalrevolution.net/war/marxism.htm

As Marx himself says...

"Last night I shot an elephant in my pyjamas..."

How did he get in your pyjamas?

I was attending a conference last week on economics – one of the speakers was Lord Skidelsky (economy historian and biographer of Keynes), who commented at one point that everyone should read Marx, not least because he had a pretty good idea of what would happen when the bulk of the wealth was concentrated in the hands of so few.

But there have been suggestions like this for a few years, in pretty much the same vein.

Skidelsky is a great writer, his book "Keynes: Return of the Master" is a superb read for summarising the different strands of economists and their alternative explanations of depressions and financial crises.

You think by now though that at least one of the economic genius's, whether from the right, left or centre would have come up with a foolproof way to avoid continual crises. I realise that economics are a bit like the weather, hard to predict but surely there's got to be a system waiting to be discovered.

Keynes gave us a solid framework that helped get us out of the Great Depression and understand economic cycles and the problems of depressions. However the establishment view is anti Keynesian because most of those with power have wealth and it suits those with the most wealth to follow a more neoclassical approach of keeping taxes down for top earners and letting markets adjust over the long term through real wages adjusting downwards until the market clears.

The mods on here will be pleased - as long as they eat at the top table!!

You'll know that Marxism is back when the middle classes of the UK paay alot more in tax to fund social and health care, rather than relying on the wealthy to pay for those things for them and moaning.

What do you mean by that, or is it yet another statement you couldn't hope to back up with any facts?

it is back then, because VAT has gone up, middle England pays more taxes these days than it did under Blair, in fact for most people it was that Blair era when taxes were at their lowest

How did you get on when you reported your drug-dealing, benefit-thieving relative to the relevant authorities, Sal?

I'll look that up. Ta.

The problem in this country and the US is that the very wealthy and business pay a hugely dispportionate part of total tax (arguably due to paricularly unequal income distributions in those countries). This causes problems as because politicians are beholden to the wealthy to pay the bills they are easily influenced by them and need to promote their interests. A key issue arises in times like these in that the incomes of the wealthy, self-employed and businesses are liklely to fuctuate wildly and generally go down and so tax take significantly falls (and with it deficit increases). If a higher proportion of tax was paid by the middle (who decide elections!) then tax take would fluctuate less with the economy - as alot of said people are on fixed salaries.

Or ...

Companies could just pay the tax they're supposed to.




Ooooo look – I've just had a rocket-science moment.

How are we as a society going to deal with the care and health needs of an ageing population?

To add what should be howlingly logical: you employ the number of people you need to. You train them properly. You don't expect them to do a visit in 15 minutes. You don't give them zero-hours contracts. You pay them a proper, living wage. Which means they'll be in work – and they won't need in-work benefits to survive. They'll be paying tax themselves – and they'll be contributing to their local economy, helping that to thrive.

Yet another rocket-science moment.

If they're not then HMRC should be chasing them with typical public sector efficiency.

The fact is they are paying what the law and HMRC say they should. So, again it comes back to political decision making.

So your comment about public service inefficiency was just your usual whinging claptrap.

I was bowing to your superior knowledge of these matters by saying that HMRC, that great bastion of public service, will doubtless be pursuing these companies of which you speak with great alacrity and purpose.

No. You were having your usual pathetic little whinge about public services – which you instantly contradicted by pointing out the matter of political will.

No. I was sarcastically pointing out that if they are not paying what's due it is down to the inefficiency or incompetence of certain of your beloved public sector workers.


As to the thread, yes Marxism is back and has never gone away. It has been rampant these last 20 years in the banks - where the directors have acted as though they were running workers co-operatives by paying out disproportionate levels of remuneration to their colleagues rather than to shareholders and / or leaving working capital in the businesses (which could have prevented nationalistation, the formalised acknlowledgement of their socialism).

What was it the bloke who introduced welfare system said?? something like, from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs. Think this might still work if it's applied properly.