Shoulda seen that coming.

Good for you ToxicTom

Ideologue?! Me? Last time someone called me that is >20 years ago...

I have to admit they way "Left" and "Right" are used today (and often in the way of name-calling), the terms have become almost useless. So what I'm trying to do is strip of all the historical and cultural garbage that is sticking to these terms and try to find the "bare-bone" core meaning. And to me that is Left -> inclusive, Right -> exclusive.
For instance:

Left - internationalism
Right - nationalism

Left - integration of different cultures
Right - separation

Left - Focus universal human rights
Right - Focus on individual rights

Both when driven to the extreme they turn pathologic and will become nightmares.
The extreme left leads to enforced uniformity, killing diversity and indiviualism. The ant state, so to speak.
The extreme right leads to perpetual competition, cold or hot war and Social Darwinism. Nation vs nation, cultural group vs cultural, always I, or we against the others.

Granted, today's western societies have drifted so far to the right, that based on these terms like I defined them above, I would consider myself "left". In Germany that would probably be "left-liberal".

First and foremost I consider myself Humanist.

Um, no? So you haven't read my post, you haven't read Marx and you haven't read the article you just linked... Or you're just utterly confused.
Back to start:
You have attacked Marx (also ad hominem, but who cares, the guy's dead anyway). All of his personal shortcomings aside, Marx was a brilliant analyst of the capitalistic system, and it's his analysis which is taught in every major economic school.

"Marxist economics" is a container term for a whole bunch of economic theories that use Marx' analysis as a foundation and go from there. Claiming any of those are "(c) by Marx" is like claiming Einstein invented Star Trek's warp drive or Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church...


That's always a bad assumption to make. You don't know what I know and the other way around.
And yes, I have evidence, even proof. It's called "reality" and it's really out there. Go take a look sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

So you are saying that those top 10% actually produce 85% of the world's goods themselves, so it's totally fair they own 85% of the world's riches?

Can you somehow prove that "ownership carries responsibility" is applied anywhere on a larger scale? In my view it's the other way around. The more you own, the more you are impervious to any form of persecution and the more you are able to recklessly accumulate more riches by even more questionable methods.

Do you really want to say those people who earned billions with subprime deals or speculating on food deserve the money? And the billions of taxpayer's money to "save" their wrecked banks?

Do you really believe "anybody can start a company with good product and be successful"? I don't know if that has been true in this easiness any time in history. That "dishwasher to millionaire" thinking is kind of a religious mantra. If you really believe this, you are severely brainwashed.

Have you ever tried to start your own business? Have you ever talked to someone who started their own business? Well I have, both, and all those "who made it" and somehow didn't become heartless assholes have affirmed, that to be successful you need 5% good ideas, 10% hard work and the rest is luck.

Really, I don't want to insult you, but from what you posted you sound like 20somthing yo who has never left their hometown, never endured hardship for themselves and their family and got their education through mainstream media and nothing else. And never even tried to pay attention to other ideas and world views, because they must be *yikes*.

I think its an assumption that the wealthier are more powerful. There is a higher chance of that, but I don't find any link between being richer than someone and being impervious to laws. In a place where there is no state and no judicial body, this may be true, but in a modern welfare state, the power granted by riches can only amount to certain things, due to regulations and restrictions imposed by principles like worker's rights, human rights, equality etc.

Bailing out banks is poorly conceived interventionism as far as I've read. Pure capitalism means complete freedom from non market forces. Not saying it should be implemented, but IMO its not very correct blaming the vague ''capitalism'' for what is state intervention.

What exactly is wrong with trying? And what exactly is not so religious about trusting an invisible force being present to curb people's success instead? And does it mean anyone who isn't starving is in that state solely because of factors outside his control?

I think it's pretty plain obvious that with money comes power.
If you are rich you for instance can hire an army of top lawyers to defend yourself from juridical problems. Or you can use those to harass competitors (sometimes to the point of suicide, and yes, this has happened...).
You can have private security (in the East even private armies...).
You can hire private eyes to gather compromising material about officials or competitors.
You can entertain local officials or politicians and make friends with them.
And then there is of course the option of outright corruption.

When you are rich, you simply have a lot more options, and of course you can use them for "good or evil". It's just that people who choose "good" usually don't get rich in the first place.

And who was behind this intervention? "The state did it" is a little short-sighted ;-)

To be honest, I don't really get that last part. Could you clarify what you're meaning?

You can get more luxuries, but how far does that take you? The little power you get from it is far from infinite, and armies of corporate lawyers can't serve time for you or be hung on your behalf. Most of the other benefits that the rich would've have had are also restricted by the government. When trying to measure power of a class, it is very important to take into account the restrictions imposed by a modern state.

At the time of writing of the the book in 1867, most states weren't welfare states and all the stuff might have happened due to much laxer law enforcement and the primary priority of the state not being the securing of rights and justice for / of its citizens. But today, most states are welfare states, and most others are trying to get there. Such a state imposes a ceiling on power and prevents the use of that power the rich may have for undue influence.

Options are still paths to the same destination. As I said before, no one can hang in anther's place.

I'm not very well versed in it, but I believe the bankers asked for a bailout? It may represent an instance where the rich were able to unduly influence the government (which varies from state to state but does happen) if that is what indeed happened. I still question how many people in the government wanted it as well though.

The state imposes a regulation on power and the rich have to abide by that. If the state enforces those safeguards properly, then it would be impossible (?) for the rich to do all of what you said. So the injustices you describe come from poor enforcement of laws as much as having some dishonest person to do it.

In the last part I was saying that its probably equally religious to assume you will never succeed and some invisible force will stop you from making a good product, sell it honestly and make yourself rich. In the other part I asked that if the forces oppressing you from getting the fruit of your labor are so strong, then whether it means anyone who's even a bit successful is only so because of some factor other than his skill.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you're a little naive when it comes to what money can do and the powers of law enforcement when it comes to the prosecution of rich and influential (that's what it boils down to) people. I kind of envy you for that.

Just one case out of many: a German tax enforcer by the name of Gustl Mollath. Note that the Wikipedia article is very carefully written. Out you might look up ax-CEO Joseph Ackermann who simply paid a few million and stopped a court verdict that should legally have sent him to jail for a long time.
In Germany there is a saying "The small ones are hanged, the big ones left to go.". And it's simply true.
Or another saying: "Steal a dollar, get hanged, steal a million, they'll negotiate". Which is equally true. First of all, as I wrote above, all people who I know they were successful admit that it mostly boiled down to luck. Yes you have to have a good idea and vision, and yes you have to work hard, no way around this. But without luck, meeting the right people at the right time, having the right idea at the right time that just hits that small window where it clicks with people - it's mainly luck.
For every one successful, a lot of people fail, it's just like that. And failing often means ruining your own life and your family.

And if you are successful at first, chances are your tour de force is just about to begin. I don't talk about "invisible forces" here. These forces trying to stop you can be very concrete.
I know people who have been sued to oblivion by larger competitors (we buy you, and if you don't sell, we kill you). They just draw you to court, time after time, and don't care if they lose every single trial. They have to resources to easily pay for that - and you don't. Lawyer costs are mounting, but you don't make any money being tied up in the lawsuits all the time. And that's one after another, sometimes multiple at once. Tiny stuff but with complicated backgrounds to keep you busy, like copyright or patent infringement.
I know a guy who held up two years of that, then he was a wreck, broke, lost his family. He closed down his ruined company and sold that single patent they wanted to have (but to another competitor). He's a wreck of a man to this day and lives on welfare and needs therapy still. And was one who by all means was successful with a great idea and hard work by all means.

Also I have worked for pharma... and you wouldn't believe what an abyss of corruption and cynicism and outright crime gapes behind those gleaming facades of steel and glass... "The Dark Side of the Force" really... And nobody ever gets punished there...

I understand what you say and I'd like to say that I do see how the big guys can sabotage or wreck someone. I don't agree that every big corporation will always be able to do it, but I agree with in that it is possible even today.

Where I think I differ in opinion is that I see the state as the theoretical solution to this undue influence while you doubt its power or capacity to do it.

What I think is that if a state is run and laws are enforced properly, this wouldn't be a problem. Because the laws are made with the intent to bring justice to the citizens. The problem in this is as clear as you pointed out in that the proper enforcement of laws itself is no easy task and while in principle if the laws of the land were applied as intended, everything would be fine, the imperfection of implementation of those laws allows the said injustices to take place anyway.

Ie; I think out main disagreement here is about the solution we trust in. I trust in the government to run absolutely perfectly (which will not happen outside of hypothetical scenarios) and you trust more regulation of companies to do it, is this correct?

I don't know about India. But I can tell you that (proven fact) the German law that should regulate the banks and stock markets in 2009 was written by a London law company (Linklaters) that mainly works for... banks and investment companies. And there are countless examples for obvious corruption like that. Like politicians landing softly in the arms of the industries they protege'd (see Schröder and GazProm...).
At least in this country I trust the government as far as I can throw them. Too much of openly corrupt politics, too many obvious lies...

And on the grand scale? In a fair world the USA would have to pay reparations for all the destruction they've ie. in Iraq. They have even admitted that the "evidence" of WMD in this country was forged. They started an illegal war (no matter how bad Saddam was - and he was even installed by the west there...), killing about half a million people there (losing only about 5000!), all for the sake of Haliburton and the arms industry. Who will actually take the responsibility for that?

No I don't trust any government. It has all become too intertwined with big money and the likes and democracy has become a road show where you can vote for some puppets, but it's always the same hands playing them. And it's really astounding how obvious this has become, they don't even care somebody noticing any more.

And no, I don't have a solution. I feel Western societies are racing towards an abyss of civil unrest and fascistic police state very quickly, because society is splitting up into more fragments with the "elites" floating further and further away losing that little contact with the ground that they had - and the underbelly of society is already growling. A bit like the situation and the end of the Eastern block, just that this time I fear there will be no peaceful resolution.
My greatest fear is that the Western elites will try to provoke a conflict with Russia (signs point that way) because a new big war with a fearsome enemy might unite the people and make them endure the suffering - taking their eyes from outrageous affairs in their own country.

India is corrupt in (many) different ways and on a much wider scale. I too don't trust the government a lot but a benefit of doubt is worth giving, IMO, and I believe in the principle that a well functioning modern state has sufficient legal safeguards in place to prevent undue influence from the ultra rich or powerful. If it doesn't, it should make its objective to do so. I trust the judiciary system at least to eventually get to and decide the cases as per the fairly reasonable laws, but the time up until that happens is the big problem.

Reparations are a complex issue, and I don't think the answer is so black and white.

More civil participation is always a long term solution. Its easy to say, but it doesn't need to be that grim if the next generation can keep their principles out of companies' wallets.

As I explained, the safeguards are failing when the politics are too closely intertwined with the money. Which is happening at frightening speed. You can read up on the Gustl Mollath case I linked above... it was the judiciary system that failed here big time. And that's just the most prominent and well known case. I've heard of others.

My point was "If you're big enough, nobody will come after you.". Who would take on the US of A?

More civil participation would be good, but a) those in power don't want it, and b) the mainstream media are also owned by those in power and are very efficient giving the news the desired spin so that if they allow the people to "participate" the desired outcome is assured.
In Germany the media have overdone it with their propaganda, and now many people distrust the media (and rightly so...) but many turn to the usual rat catchers for simple answers...

I guess India is a "rising country" where there are still people with visions and in integrity. I think the West however is well past its zenith. Like the late Roman empire we're clinging to the shreds of former glory, afraid of change because change is inherently a risk. And most of us are still too well off to take a risk.
I've lived in one of the bigger cities of Germany for 20 years and it was frightening to see the increase of really broken and piss-poor people in the streets (all the while the economy is officially striving!), and to see how the police capitulates more and more before everyday crime (theft, drug dealing, even robbery). All the while the facades of the buildings became even more shiny and elegant and the cars of the wealthy even bigger.

As someone still living in one of the majors, I can confirm this and it's getting worse every year for a long time now.

Related:
http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/upload/bilder/130222_hdt2.gif

Not to bug you, could you please translate that for those of us that haven't appropriated* another culture by learning a second language?

*=appreciated

Stop that! We don't have any poverty here.

Thank you kindly for the translation