Hi Kirk,

Generally a very good article, distilling some of Marx, though missing some important points such as surplus value. Marx was certainly not the first to recognize class struggle. He just put it into terms of labor value vs surplus value. A model with dwindling relevance today.

Also, the "anti-semitic anti-cultureal-marxism" is a fairly fringe conspiracy theory from the 90s/early 2000s, now replaced more with the more overt self-entitlism of Trumpers and Qanon conspiracies,

I do agree that "Marxism" along with socialism is commonly derided in conservative rhetoric. But THIS is nothing new, those terms have been utter poison in American political discourse since the 1950s.

Later though, some other assertions I want to mention. You said: "America claims to be a democracy, but the average citizen has no impact on public policy"

First, this is not a democracy, it is a representational republic with a democratically elected legilative body. Second, true the average citizen has no impact on policy, only because they do not care. I'm an activist, and I know other activists, and can demonstrate postive policy change. The average citizen IS capable of policy change, IF SO INCLINED. Many are not.

---

Then, you state: "Americans claim to be free but can’t get medical care."

First, that's a weird comparison, what does "free" have to do with health care? They are separated issues. What is true is we claim to be free, yet have the highest prison population in the world, and a crime and punishment system that is biased against minorites, and operated with a profit incentive as opposed to a reform perspective.

Secondly, on healthcare generally not true. The poor have free access to medical through Medicaid. The retired and disabled via Medicare. Though to be sure, some with money and assists available are stuck in a bad situation.

---

You final bashing "America claims to be a force for moral good, but it’s widely seen as the greatest threat to life on this planet."

First, no the suvery was specifically "greatest threat to peace in the world." And it was a small 7 year old survey of just 65 nations, and only a 1000 people in each. 24% said US was "greatest threat" followed by Pakastan and CHINA.

But moreover, who cares? What does this have to do with Marxism? The fact that China is listed in teh top three with the US is refutation of the Marxist position of your article.

That same survey also listed the US as the number one nation people wanted to move TO.

To be sure, that 24% think hte US is the greatest threat to world peace indicates failings in foreign policy. But this is not relevant to Marxism.

---

My final comment: like many, you pit socialism direct against capitalism. Yet in the pure forms they both fail and for oddly similar reasons. Both exhibit a myopic self-entitlement and both convieniently ignore key fundamental problems in our modern world.

In your conclusions you state: "Instead of being withheld in order to force our labor and docility, imagine all the wealth we’ve created over these last long centuries held in common,.... "

Yet in socialist systems, your labor is still forced through threat of prison. You are still not provided with the "surplus value" for your labor, instead, the macro economics rebalance into a zero sum game.

There is no such thing as free lunch.

I'm working on some articles that address this disconnect, but 18th and 19th century economic models have very little direct application today.

-Andy

Color-Obsessed Researcher, Investigative Journalist & Columnist, Hollywood Actor, Filmmaker, & 3x Emmy® Winner, and Itinerant Technology Evangelist

Color-Obsessed Researcher, Investigative Journalist & Columnist, Hollywood Actor, Filmmaker, & 3x Emmy® Winner, and Itinerant Technology Evangelist