[charles-salvia]

People talk about Marx as if he wrote some kind of blueprint for a Communist state. But he really didn't. He was basically writing a philosophy of history centering around a problem he observed - he wasn't necessarily writing about ideas for implementing particular solutions beyond vague notions that a Socialist revolution and subsequent Communist society is ultimately inevitable due to built-in flaws of any Capitalist system. The TLDR version of Marx is:

"All of human history is based around class struggles punctuated by revolutions, and in modern times this continues with those who own the means of production (Capitalists) having all the power over the common workers (employees). But don't worry because Capitalism is a self-destructive system, and soon there will be a socialist revolution, which will ultimately evolve into a Communist state, and then everything will be cool."

The only real implementation details he talks about have to do with some kind of transitional "pre-Communist" society, where he talks about nationalization of banks and railroads and other things.

I think Marx is better read as a philosophy of human history rather than as a blueprint for creating a Communist society.

The reality is Marx is right in the sense that the "ownership class" (those who own the means of production) continue to accumulate wealth and project disproportionate power because they own large amounts of corporate stock and by extension have control over the physical (or digital) means to keep making money. However, in the Western World, no revolution was forthcoming due to (I conjecture) rising standards of living and a consumer-oriented society, along with a blurring of the lines between the "ownership" class and everyone else (via things like stock options, entrepreneurship, Unions, employee rights, etc.), which certainly diluted Marx's eternal class-struggle narrative. Still, at the end of the day, we find ourselves in a Capitalist world where the majority of wealth is concentrated in < 0.0001% of the overall population, which seems to be an undesirable situation.

[fratlas]

Has there been studies/hard numbers that would model a world where the top 1% had their wealth more distributed? I'm not talking about pure socialism (equal wealth), I'm suggesting a more bell-curve-like distribution of wealth, and only in western first-world countries. Would the quality of life be (much) higher?

[nickpsecurity]

It was much higher in the U.S. decades ago before the process started where the big companies cut employees and maximize profit for shareholders at the cost of everything else. The layoffs and offshoring alone reduced quality of life for many people. Then there's mega corporations like Walmart that can afford to pay people enough to pay their rent or buy food but intentionally don't. You'd see a bit more competition (and jobs) in mainframes, desktops or mobile if threats to incumbents didn't get hit with their patent or copyright suits. As in, legal monopolies designed to maximize profit of owner at everyone else's expense.

So on and so forth. The centralization of wealth and power into a rich few running a bunch of oligopolies provably harms the many in this country. Directly when there was immediate layoffs, low quality/security, bad services, etc. Then indirectly in long-term and network affects.

[duncan_bayne]

> Still, at the end of the day, we find ourselves in a Capitalist world where the majority of wealth is concentrated in < 0.0001% of the overall population, which seems to be an undesirable situation.

That doesn't necessarily follow, for reasons you allude to. Massive wealth inequality is a lot more tolerable, if the _poor_ people are (by historical standards) incredibly wealthy.

[socmag]

Yes this.

Captitalism as it stands is totally unsustainable. Communism too but that was not Marx's idea that his critique should lead to what it became.

Some form of socialism is important. It should be drummed in to people that societal progress is based on individual choices.

Rand got it backwards, Marx got it forwards.

There is a middle ground, I'm sure of it; at least I hope so.