Its a good opportunity to explain what socialism is about and to explain in practical terms the principle of 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.

"From each according to ....etc etc"

Yes of course that quotation from Marx (1875 -Critique of the Gotha program ) is often misunderstood as being too idealistic. But it does address the issue that you raise as well. There is a problem with a social underclass in most countries who don't 'give according to their abilities'. Its not a problem that any liberal capitalist countries have solved very effectively, partly, I must admit,  because the left are unwilling to co-operate. We see the main problem as being on the other side of the coin.

It may never be possible to reach the theoretical ideal of "to each according to their needs". However we can surely do a bit better than we are at the moment. The 'top people' in the capitalist establishment are paid at such a rate that you wonder why somone would even want so much. There is no way that it could make any real difference to their lifestyle because they just can't spend it that quickly. Allan Moss at the Macquarrie Bank was paid $33million  last year. Ten of his fellow executives clocked up a further $175 million between them. Maybe, in your book,  I'm just another pseudo-leftie but I'd say we really should be making a lot more noise than we are about this sort of obscenity.

I'm with you on property profiteering  as well. Its one thing to rent out your own house temporarily if you go abroad for a few years. Its quite another to accumulate  large numbers of houses, paid for by the taxpayer by means of the negative gearing rules, to make profits. I think your use of the word 'income' is too kind. Of course, I'm sure that the capitalist system can survive perfectly well if salaries were capped at, say, 10 times the average. It might even benefit if the tax laws were changed to help people buy their first home rather than their second or third  or even their hundredth, as is the case now.  I'm sure that the word "reformist" will be springing to many people's minds! But, as I've said in a previous post we, the left, need to have a coherant political program. We can't just airily say that this will all be sorted out after the revolution. We need to get into the detail right now.

 Of course, I'm sure that the capitalist system can survive perfectly well if salaries were capped at, say, 10 times the average.

Comrade Youngmarxist,

One possible way to tackle the problem would be "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. " In the 60s the Beatles famously sang the line "there's one for you , nineteen for me -'cos I'm the taxman , yeah the taxman!" . I'm not exactly sure at what level Supertax kicked in at,  but I don't think that John Lennon was exaggerating the 95% level. I'd be quite happy to tax Mr Moss at 95% of his entire $33 million. I'm sure he could get by on the remaining $1.65 million. He would still be able to afford RR cars and as many bottles of Dom Perignon champagne as he could swallow. On second thoughts,  maybe we could make that 99%

Now before you start getting too upset about this sort of reformist talk let me just give you the following ten points and draw your attention to #2:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

These are ten points recommended by Marx to be included in the political program of  working class political parties , under capitalism. He suggested that it would be generally applicable to all countries. So, whilst we don't use the terms "holy writ", we do take note of them. If its OK for Marx to talk about levels of income tax, under capitalism, then its Ok for us too!

PS I've written an answer to your comments on the term "pseudo left" on the thread about pseudo-leftism.

These are ten points recommended by Marx to be included in the political program of  working class political parties , under capitalism. He suggested that it would be generally applicable to all countries. So, whilst we don't use the terms "holy writ", we do take note of them. If its OK for Marx to talk about levels of income tax, under capitalism, then its Ok for us too!

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

As you've correctly quoted Marx says the "first steps in the revolution". You've misinterpreted this to mean the first steps of a revolutionary government. There are many steps in between the two. In fact the words "Long March" spring to mind! The workers party will need a transitional program to be in place before they reach the stage of being able to form a revolutionary government.

To quote Marx again " The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property"

The ten points are designed to achieve just that. Not just to make capitalism more 'equitable and bearable' as you put it.   

Its is worth noting that Marx makes the distinction between private and public property. He does not use the general slogan "property is theft" which was coined by the French anarchist Proudhon in 1840.  

It strikes me that some of the sentiments of some LS comrades are more in this tradition than the orthodox Marxist tradition,   and they might want to read up on the topic.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Incidentally, I remember hearing Tony Blair give a speech to the British Labour party conference a few years ago on the subject of Marxism. He thought it was outdated too! But you are right the conditions have changed. Any repeat of the Paris Commune, is quite unlikely. 

Its still seems odd to be that you guys shy away from writing any sort of political program. You just don't seem to be suggesting any possible method at all for this revolution of yours to come about. 

Well you and David Mc can't have it both ways. Marxism is either 100 years past its sell-by date or it is not outdated. You decide. For a Marxist group you seem remarkarbly vague on what bits you like and what bits you don't. I know that you are very fond of the passages in Marx where he tells us all how wonderful and revolutionary capitalism has been. So, you're going to sell the idea of the revolution along the lines of "well if you think Capitalism is good , just wait until you see what the next model off the production line looks like! You'd better get your orders in quick, lads, because working classes the world over are just going to love this one!"

I don't think so.  

Well you and David Mc can't have it both ways. Marxism is either 100 years past its sell-by date or it is not outdated.

if its OK for Marx to talk about levels of income tax, under capitalism, then its Ok for us too!i

Marxism is not outdated. Wage labour still exists, and should be abolished. It will only be abolished by a revolution.

So your answer to the question "what to do about high incomes" (such as $33 million per year) is absotutely nothing???

Well I must say that is a real inspiration to all the young people, who might be working for minimum wages in a burger bar,  who may be reading this website.

If I were I rich capitalist and had a wish list for policies of 'revolutionary left',   I might write down something like, that they should:

1) Oppose  any form of nationalisation

2) Oppose any form of SuperTax for the rich

3) Support  US imperialism

4) Show a hostility towards the Trade Unions

5) Show a hostility towards those greeny type nuisances

6) Try to muddy up the waters by declaring the real left to be the pseudo left

7) Like the bits in Marx where he's complimentary about the revolutionary role of the capitalist class and dismiss the rest as old fashioned.

Support Globalisation and show hostility to anyone who asks awkward questions about it.

9) Have absolutely no idea of how to achieve anything like a socialist revolution, except some vague idea that it might happen at some future date.

10) Get one of their leading members to write a book about how marvellous the future is going to be with ever increasing production leading to an super abundance of wealth.

But,  where on earth is our rich capitalist going to find a 'revolutionary left' with anything like those policies? 

You've misinterpreted this to mean the first steps of a revolutionary government.

Its is worth noting that Marx makes the distinction between private and public property. He does not use the general slogan "property is theft" which was coined by the French anarchist Proudhon in 1840.  It strikes me that some of the sentiments of some LS comrades are more in this tradition than the orthodox Marxist tradition, ...

Can you refer to cases where we have expressed this sentiment?

So your answer to the question "what to do about high incomes" (such as $33 million per year) is absotutely nothing???

However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.)

“the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

Well of course the ten point plan would be different if it were re-written today.

I'd include  as section on the right to free health care. Another section on the right to affordable housing. To go beyond the economic issues: equal rights for sexual and racial minorities etc. I'd still keep most of it including the progressive rates of income tax. The top rate of tax in Australia now is 45%. In the UK, in the 50s the top rate was 97.5% for those on very high incomes. Its a topic worthy of discussion. Even if we don't manage to change anything its still a good platform for recruitment.

Maybe you'd like to have a try at bringing it all up to date with your own version?

The title of this thread is "what to do about high incomes?" A better title would perhaps be "what to do about increasing inequality?" .  In the sixties the ratio of  executive salaries to average wages was about 40:1 its now about 150:1 and rising. In the USA the ratio is close to 500:1  Of course salary ratios don't tell the whole story. Western capitalism has moved, in the last 25 years or so,  from what used to be know as 'the mixed economy" to a purer, more "laissez -faire". This change has been accompanied by increased social inequality.

This goes to the heart of what socilaism is all about. So what are you going to say and do about it? Are you just going to shrug your shoulders and say that nothing is possible under capitalism? Its all very well to say that you can't just seize the levers of power. I think we are aware of that . You also  say  :

 " Expropriate the bourgeoisie and collectivize the ownership of the means of production. That is the only way to get rid of the rich".

And how are you going to do that? You and whose army?

That sort of thing did seem possible 40 years ago. We seem light years away now. There's no short cut. It will take years to rebuild the working class movement to be able to get into that position again.

Comrade David Mc asked me recently

'Why this desperate desire to make Capitalism more equitable and bearable?"

I didn't answer the question properly at the time. I don't know about being desperate, as you put it, but why wouldn't we?

If we were living in a feudal society,  we'd try to make the best of that, too.  Even if the citizens of France, in the mid eigteenth century,  had known that their revolution was only 40 years or so away, they wouldn't have just sat back and said " well there's no point trying to fix up this old decrepit regime, we'll just hang on for the revolution and all our problems will be solved." For years, there were tensions in pre-revolutionary France which were in the end resolved by revolution. Most of that tension was caused by demands for reform, which the old feudal system was unable, or unwilling, to accommodate.

Comrade Arthur says that it is distressing that you have no coherant political program for a socialist revolution. And, even if you had one, as some other groups would claim to have, who knows how long it would all take?  It could be hundreds of years away. We just don't know.

In the meantime, there is no sensible alternative to making the best of what we have.