Utilitarianism.

[Schumpeter]

Utilitarianism holds that what is right is that which produces and outcome resulting in the greatest good for the greatest number, Marxism merely represents the proletariat and Marxist policy therefore should attempt to act in their favour regardless of their being a net welfare loss or gain to society as a whole.

For example,hypothetically, say we set the taxation rate of 'high income' individuals to 90% and in doing so we move down the right side of the laffer curve, so taxation revenue decreases. This would lead to reductions in the public purse and spending cuts on areas such public services, resulting in a net welfare loss.

How can Marxist policy be justified if as theoretically proposed above, does not adhere to the greatest good for the greatest number. What argument would a Marxist use to justify the above policy?

(Perhaps this could be moved to OI learning)

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

From my perspective the amount to which the wealthy are taxed is a problem that primarily concerns political groups who wish to administer capitalism i.e not communists. Whilst I imagine that most people here nontheless wouldn't mind a bit of redistribution of wealth and better public services it is ultimately not on what you might broadly call our agenda. Exceptions could be made for whatever reformists there are who still believe they can reform their way out of capitalism or, I suppose, some (but not all) proponents of a "transitional period" of state-capitalism.

In other words - you might need to think of another example :P

[IBleedRed]

We're not interested in taxing the rich. That's what social democrats do. We're interested in abolishing capitalism.

Simple answer.

[tallguy]

Utilitarianism holds that what is right is that which produces and outcome resulting in the greatest good for the greatest number, Marxism merely represents the proletariat and Marxist policy therefore should attempt to act in their favour regardless of their being a net welfare loss or gain to society as a whole.

For example,hypothetically, say we set the taxation rate of 'high income' individuals to 90% and in doing so we move down the right side of the laffer curve, so taxation revenue decreases. This would lead to reductions in the public purse and spending cuts on areas such public services, resulting in a net welfare loss.

How can Marxist policy be justified if as theoretically proposed above, does not adhere to the greatest good for the greatest number. What argument would a Marxist use to justify the above policy?

(Perhaps this could be moved to OI learning)The proletariat represent, by far, the greatest number of people and, the terrible fate that, under Marxism, will befall those who are not the proletariat ( i.e. the elite) is that they become materially no better off than the rest of the proletariat. Oh dear, oh dear, how sad, what a shame. Excuse me while my heart bleeds.

The whole point of Marxism/socialism is that it represents the interest of the greatest number of people and seeks to treat everyone equally according to their needs.

Each gives according to his ability and each receives according to his needs.

That's the bleeding point of it.

As for tax revenue and laffer curves; This only applies to capitalist states where it is a case of every man for himself. In other words, you are erroneously comparing apples with oranges and then wondering why the oranges don't taste like apples.

[tallguy]

We're not interested in taxing the rich. That's what social democrats do. We're interested in abolishing capitalism.

Simple answer.
Exactly

[Sabot Cat]

A 2010 study conducted by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School entitled “High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being” states that “Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000.” However, the same study showed that “low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone” and “is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being”. In the developing world, it often means starvation and death from diseases that could have been cured if they had the proper financing. Therefore, the wealth disparity that exists today cannot be justified with Utilitarianism as one's ethical system.

John Stuart Mill himself supported what he called “industrial co-operatives" as the best way for organizing the economy; these are better known as worker cooperatives today.

[Revenant]

Utilitarianism holds that what is right is that which produces and outcome resulting in the greatest good for the greatest number, Marxism merely represents the proletariat and Marxist policy therefore should attempt to act in their favour regardless of their being a net welfare loss or gain to society as a whole.

For example,hypothetically, say we set the taxation rate of 'high income' individuals to 90% and in doing so we move down the right side of the laffer curve, so taxation revenue decreases. This would lead to reductions in the public purse and spending cuts on areas such public services, resulting in a net welfare loss.

How can Marxist policy be justified if as theoretically proposed above, does not adhere to the greatest good for the greatest number. What argument would a Marxist use to justify the above policy?

(Perhaps this could be moved to OI learning)

There would have to be a program set upon actually determining what is "the greatest good", currently what appears to you is what you call "the greatest good".

That would involve analysis of land ownership and distribution.

How can a system of land ownership like that in the UK be for "the greater good"?