Originally Posted by Rohirrim
How many there are is meaningless. It's the amount of assets that so few control. Unsustainable. Period. In fact, it is madness. We protect ourselves from the insanity of it all by pretending to have everything well labeled and under our rational control (ergo your desperate grasp onto the labels of "Marxist" and "liberal"), when in fact the absurdity of the situation makes a mockery of our pretense to rational thought. The economy of the world is teetering on the edge while the mega rich hide more than twice the resources of the GDP of the United States. But we should be worried about the Marxists.
I was referring to gaf's citations and their circle of associations.
What does X percentage of assets have to do with that, let alone with this sustainability you refer to?
If you understood that Marxism is applied to all human relations and understand further the implications of disrupting human relations by imposing Marxist class conflict theory, perhaps you'd see the problem. I'm not grasping, let alone desperately. I'm explaining. I've stated before that as a former Marxist, I see this crap all too often. Any time, anywhere, you see the oppressor/oppressed paradigm, you see Marxism. It is Marxist class conflict theory. Bourgeoisie oppressors vs the proletariat victims. Not only are no other explanations given for why the have-nots dont have, alternative explanations aren't even sought out or explored.
Does it mean those saying and doing this are Marxists themselves? Of course not. It does mean they've internalized the garbage and need to be more critical of what they're picking up from others.
What we call modern liberalism is heavily influenced by Marxist thought. These beliefs didn't just pop out of a vacuum.