It's A "0.6%" World: Who Owns What Of The $223 Trillion In Global Wealth

Tyler Durden's picture

Back in 2010 we started an annual series looking at the (re)distribution in the wealth of nations and social classes. What we found then (and what the media keeps rediscovering year after year to its great surprise) is that as a result of global central bank policy, the rich got richer, and the poor kept on getting poorer, even though as we predicted the global political powers would, at least superficially, seek to enforce policies that aimed to reverse this wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich (a doomed policy as the world's legislative powers are largely in the lobby pocket of the world's wealthiest who needless to say are less then willing to enact laws that reduce their wealth and leverage). Now that the topic of wealth distribution (or rather concentration) is once again in vogue, below we present the latest such update looking at a global portrait of household wealth. The bottom line: 29 million, or 0.6% of those with any actual assets under their name, own $87.4 trillion, or 39.3% of all global assets.

Here are the key highlights via Credit Suisse:

  • Global household wealth in mid-2012 totaled $223 trillion, equivalent to USD 49,000 per adult in the world.  This is a decline of $12.3 trillion mostly due to a $10.9 trillion decline in European wealth, however it is double the $113 trillion in total wealth at the start of the millennium
    • Losses in Africa, India and the Latin American countries were offset by modest gains in North America (USD 880 billion) and China (USD 560 billion),
  • CS expects total household wealth to rise by almost 50% in the next five years from $223 trillion in 2012 to $330 trillion in 2017. What CS does not say is that the bulk of this increase is courtesy of Federal Reserve-facilitated wealth redistribution from the lower and middle classes to the upper class.
  • The number of millionaires worldwide is expected to increase by about 18 million, reaching 46 million in 2017.
  • China is expected to surpass Japan as the second wealthiest country in the world. However, the USA should remain on top of the wealth league, with $89 trillion by 2017.

Drilling down the distribution of global wealth, in charts:

By the middle of 2011, global wealth had recovered from the 2007 financial crisis; at that time, total wealth matched or exceeded the pre-crisis levels in all regions except Africa.

Global wealth by country: The figure for average global wealth masks the considerable variation across countries and regions (see Figure 3). The richest nations, with wealth per adult over USD 100,000, are found in North America, Western Europe, and among the rich Asia- Pacific and Middle Eastern countries. They are headed by Switzerland, which in 2011 became the first country in which average wealth exceeded USD 500,000. Exchange rate fluctuations have reduced its wealth per adult from USD 540,000 in 2011 to USD 470,000 in 2012; but this still remains considerably higher than the level in Australia (USD 350,000) and Norway (USD 330,000), which retain second and third places despite falls of about 10%. Close behind are a group of nations with average wealth above USD 200,000, many of which have experienced double-digit depreciations against the US dollar, such as France, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark and Italy. Countries in the group which have not been adversely affected have moved up the rankings – most notably Japan to fourth place with wealth of USD 270,000 per adult and the USA to seventh place with USD 260,000 per adult.

Interestingly, the ranking by median wealth is slightly different, favoring countries with lower levels of wealth inequality. As was the case last year, Australia (USD 195,000) tops the table by a considerable margin, with Japan, Italy, Belgium, and the UK in the band from USD 110,000 to 140,000, and Singapore and Switzerland with values around USD 90,000. The USA lags far behind with median wealth of just USD 55,000.


Trends in wealth per adult and its components: As Figure 5 shows, average household net worth trended upwards from 2000 until the crisis in 2007, then fell by approximately 10% before recovering in 2011 to slightly above the pre-crisis level. Further setbacks this year have pushed wealth per adult back below the previous peak. However, exchange rate movements account for much of the year-onyear variation. Using constant USD exchange rates yields a smoother time trend and a single significant downturn in 2008, after which point the recovery has continued more or less unabated.

At the start of the millennium, financial assets accounted for well over half of the household portfolio, but the share declined until 2008, at which point the global wealth portfolio was equally split between financial and nonfinancial assets (mostly property). In the period since 2008, the balance has again tipped slightly towards financial assets.

On the liabilities side of the household balance sheet, average debt rose by 80% between 2000 and 2007, and subsequently leveled out. It now amounts to USD 8,600 per adult, about 7% lower than it was the same time a year ago. Expressed as a proportion of household assets, average debt has moved in a narrow range, rising over the period, but never exploding.

The composition of household portfolios varies widely and systematically across countries. The most persistent feature is the rise in the relative importance of both financial assets and liabilities with the level of development. For instance, financial assets account for 43.1% of gross assets in Europe and 67.1% in North America, but just 15.9% of gross assets in India. Household debt as a percentage of gross assets is 16% in Europe and 18.1% in North America, but only 3.7% in India and 8.7% in Africa. There is also variation in portfolios unrelated to the level of development. Some developed countries, like Italy, have unusually low liabilities (10.0% of gross assets), while others have surprisingly high debt, like Denmark (33.7% of gross assets). In addition, the mix of financial assets varies greatly, reflecting national differences in financial structure. The share of equities in total financial assets, for example, ranges from 43.4% in the USA, down to just 20.1% and 6.5% in Germany and Japan respectively.


Changes to household wealth from mid-2011 to mid-2012; The adverse global economic climate and the USD appreciation that occurred during the year until mid-2012 meant that household wealth rose by more than USD 100 billion in only four countries: the USA (USD 1.3 trillion), China (USD 560 billion), Japan (USD 370 billion) and Colombia (USD 100 billion). Figure 6 shows that Eurozone members suffered the largest losses, led by France (USD 2.2 trillion), Italy (USD 2.1 trillion), Germany (USD 1.9 trillion) and Spain (USD 870 billion). These losses were exacerbated by the unfavorable euro-dollar exchange rate movement, but even in euro terms, wealth declined by EUR 50 billion in Germany, EUR 148 billion in France, EUR 177 billion in Spain and EUR 286 billion in Italy. Sizeable USD wealth reductions were also recorded in the UK (USD 720 billion), India (USD 700 billion), Australia (USD 600 billion), Brazil (USD 530 billion), Canada (USD 440 billion) and Switzerland (USD 410 billion).

The largest percentage gains and losses generate a slightly different list. A steady USD exchange rate, combined with an 11% improvement in market capitalization, helped Colombia to top the country rankings with a 16% rise in household wealth. Algeria, Hong Kong, Peru and Uruguay also recorded gains of more than 5%. The downside is more evident, especially in Eurozone countries, where double-digit losses were recorded everywhere (see Figure 7). Other sizeable declines were recorded for Russia (–13%), Mexico (–14%), South Africa (–15%) and India (–18%), while Eastern Europe had a very poor year, led by the Czech Republic and Poland (both with –18%), Hungary (–25%) and Romania (–36%).

* * *

But in a globalized world with virtually unlimited capital flows (for now: see Cyprus) physical borders mean little. Which is why next we look at the global wealth pyramid which breaks down wealth as percentage of the world population: i.e., who owns how much without geographic prejudice. It is here that is becomes most obvious how global policies since the Great Financial Crisis have benefitted the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else.

Presenting the global wealth pyramid:

Here are the stunning facts:

  • In 2012, 3.2 billion individuals – more than two-thirds of the global adult population – have wealth below USD 10,000, and a further one billion (23% of the adult population) are placed in the USD 10,000–100,000 range.
    • The average wealth holding is modest in the base and middle segments of the pyramid, total wealth amounts to USD 39 trillion, underlining the potential for new consumer trends products and for the development of financial services targeted at this often neglected segment.
  • The remaining 373 million adults (8% of the world) have assets exceeding USD 100,000.
  • And then the top of the pyramid: 29 million US dollar millionaires, a group which contains less than 1% of the world’s adult population, collectively owns nearly 40% of global household wealth.
  • Some 84,500 individuals are worth more than USD 50 million, and 29,000 are worth over USD 100 million.
    • The composition of the wealth pyramid in 2012 is broadly similar to that of the previous year, except for the fact that the overall reduction in total wealth increases the percentage of adults in the base level from 67.6% to 69.3% and reduces the relevant population share higher up the pyramid by a corresponding amount. The respective wealth shares are virtually unchanged.

Breaking it down by class.

Lower Class (base level of pyramid):

The various strata of the wealth pyramid have distinctive characteristics. Although members of the base level are spread widely across all regions, representation in India and Africa is disproportionately high, while Europe and North America are correspondingly underrepresented (see Figure 2). The base tier has the most even distribution across regions and countries, but it is also the most heterogeneous, spanning a wide range of family circumstances. In developed countries, only about 30% of the population fall into this category, and for most of these individuals, membership is a transient or life cycle phenomenon associated with youth, old age, or periods of unemployment. In contrast, more than 90% of the adult population in India and Africa are located within this band. In many low-income African countries, the percentage of the population is close to 100%. Thus, for many residents of low-income countries, lifetime membership of the base tier is the norm rather than the exception. However, lower living costs mean that the upper limit of USD 10,000 is often sufficient to assure a reasonable standard of living.

While bottom-of-the-pyramid countries have limited wealth, it often grows at a fast pace. In India, for example, wealth is skewed towards the bottom of the wealth pyramid, yet it has tripled since 2000. Indonesia has also seen dramatic growth, and aggregate wealth in Latin America is now USD 8.7 trillion, compared to USD 3.4 trillion in 2000. In contrast, while North Americans dominate the top of the wealth pyramid, wealth in the USA has grown more modestly, from USD 39.5 trillion in 2000 to USD 62 trillion today.


Middle Class (middle level of pyramid):

The one billion adults located in the USD 10,000–100,000 range are the middle class in the global distribution of wealth. The average wealth holding is close to the global average for all wealth levels, and the total wealth of USD 32 trillion gives this segment considerable economic weight. The regional composition of this tier most closely corresponds to the global pattern, although India and Africa are underrepresented. The comparison of China and India is particularly interesting.  India is host to just 3% of the global middle class, and the share has been relatively stagnant in recent years. In contrast, China’s share has been growing fast and now accounts for over one-third of members, ten times higher than India’s. 


Upper Class (upper level of pyramid):

High wealth segment of the pyramid The regional composition changes significantly when it comes to the 373 million adults worldwide who make up the “high” segment of the wealth pyramid – those with a net worth above USD 100,000. North America, Europe and the Asia- Pacific region together account for 89% of the global membership of this group, with Europe alone home to 141 million members (38% of the total).  This compares with about 2.4 million adult members in India (0.6% of the global total) and a similar number in Africa.

The number of people in a given country with wealth above USD 100,000 depends on three factors: population size, the average wealth level, and wealth inequality within the country concerned. In 2012, only 15 countries have more than 1% of the global membership. The USA leads with 21% of the total. In this instance, the three factors reinforce each other: a large population, combined with high mean wealth and an unequal wealth distribution. Japan is a strong second and is currently the only country that challenges the hegemony of the USA in the top wealth-holder rankings. Although its relative position has declined over the past couple of decades due to the lackluster performance of its equity and housing markets, Japan has 18% of individuals with wealth above USD 100,000, a couple of points more than a year ago.

The most populous EU countries – Italy, the UK, Germany, and France – each contribute 6%–8% to the high wealth segment, and each country has experienced a small decline in its membership share during the year. For many years, these countries have occupied positions three to six in the global rankings, but this year China edged France out of sixth place, a dramatic improvement from the situation in 2000, when China’s representation in the top wealth groups was too small to register. Brazil, Korea and Taiwan are other emerging market economies with at least four million residents with a net worth above USD 100,000. Mexico accounted for more than 1% of the group in 2011, but has dropped below this benchmark this year. 


The Ultra-High Class (the very Top of the pyramid):

A different pattern of membership is again evident among the world’s millionaires at the top of the pyramid (see Figure 3). Compared to individuals with wealth  above USD 100,000, the proportion of members from the United States almost doubles to 39%, and the shares of most of the other countries move downwards. There are exceptions, however. France moves up to third place in the rankings, and Sweden and Switzerland both join the group of countries with more than 1% of global millionaires. Thank you Federal Reserve. 


Welcome to (say goodbye to) the Millionaire's Club:

Changing membership of the “millionaire group”; Changes to wealth levels since mid-2011 have affected the pattern of wealth distribution. The overall decline in average wealth has raised the proportion of adults with wealth below USD 10,000 from 67.6% in mid-2011 to 69.3% in mid-2012 (as the poor get poorer), and reduced the number of millionaires by slightly more than one million (see Table 1). There were 962,000 new millionaires in the United States and 460,000 in Japan, but no significant increase in numbers elsewhere. However, Europe shed almost 1.8 million US dollar millionaires, most notably in Italy (–374,000), France (–322,000),Germany (–290,000), Denmark (–179,000), Sweden (–142,000) and Spain (–87,000). Australia, Canada, Brazil and Taiwan are the other countries in  the group of the top ten losers. The losses were sufficient to drop Brazil, Denmark and Taiwan (along with Belgium) from the list of countries with more than 1% of the total number of millionaires worldwide.


High net worth individuals; To estimate the pattern of wealth holdings above USD 1 million requires a high degree of ingenuity because at high wealth levels, the usual sources of wealth data – official statistics and sample surveys – become increasingly incomplete and unreliable. We overcome this deficiency by  exploiting wellknown statistical regularities in the upper parts of the wealth distribution to ensure that the top wealth tail is consistent with the annual Forbes tally of global billionaires and similar “rich list” data published elsewhere. This produces plausible estimates of the global pattern of asset holdings in the high net worth (HNW) category from USD 1 million to USD 50 million, and in the ultra high net worth (UHNW) range from USD 50 million upwards. While the base of the wealth pyramid is occupied by people from all countries of the world at various stages of their life cycles, HNW and UHNW individuals are heavily concentrated in particular regions and countries, and tend to share a similar lifestyle, participating in the same global markets for high coupon consumption items, even when they reside on different continents. The wealth portfolios of individuals are also likely to be similar, dominated by financial assets and, in particular, equity holdings in public  companies traded in international markets. For these reasons, using official exchange rates to value assets is more appropriate than using local price levels.

There are about 28.5 million HNW individuals with wealth between USD 1 million and USD 50 million in mid-2012, of whom the vast majority (25.6 million) fall in the USD 1–5 million range (see Figure 4). One year ago, Europe overtook North America as the region with the greatest number of HNW individuals, but tradition has been  restored this year, with 11.8 million residents (42% of the total) in North America and 9.2 million (32%) in Europe. Asia-Pacific countries excluding China and India have 5.7 million members (20%), and we estimate that there are currently a fraction under one million HNW individuals in China (3.4% of the global total). The remaining 753,000 HNW individuals (2.6% of the total) reside in India, Africa or Latin America.

Ultra high net worth individuals

There is an estimated are 84,500 UHNW individuals in the world, defined here as those with net assets exceeding USD 50 million. Of these, 29,300 are worth at least USD 100 million and 2,700 have assets above USD 500 million. North America dominates the regional rankings, with 40,000 UHNW residents (47%), while Europe has 22,000 individuals (26%), and 12,800 (15%) reside in Asia-Pacific countries, excluding China and India. In terms of individual countries, the USA leads by a huge margin with 37,950 UHNW individuals, equivalent to 45% of the group (see Figure 5). The recent fortunes created in China have propelled it into second place with 4,700 representatives (5.6% of the global total), followed by Germany (4,000), Japan (3,400), the United Kingdom (3,200) and Switzerland (3,050). Numbers in other BRIC countries are also rising fast, with 1,950 members in Russia, 1,550 in India and 1,500 in Brazil, and strong showings are evident in Taiwan (1,200), Hong Kong (1,100) and Turkey (1,000). Although there is very little comparable data on the past, it is almost certain that the number of UHNW individuals is considerably greater than it was a decade ago. The overall growth in asset values accounts for part of the increase, together with the appreciation of currencies against the US dollar over much of the period. However, it also appears that, notwithstanding the credit crisis and the more recent setbacks, the past decade has been especially conducive to the establishment of large fortunes.


Hail Bernanke (and Kuroda, and Draghi, and Carney, and Jordan, and so on), the ultra high net worth individuals on the chart below salute you.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Future Tense's picture

It's incredible to think about what would happen if just a small percentage of this enormous paper wealth were to move into the precious metals market, specifically silver. The following article discusses an updated look at the tiny amount of physical silver that exists above ground and what would happen should some paper currency find it:

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

A whole article about (sociopathic) billionaires owning the world without the name: Rothschild.

What gives.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Let me just repeat myself and say, its not about money for the wealthiest 0.6%.  They didn't become wealthiest because they were greedier and harder working, that is a fallacy.  They are powermongers, of the Machiavellian school, and thus their wealth has been acquired by any means necessary.

Debt slavery, usury, fractional reserve banking, the (actual) slave trade, the Opium Wars, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, financing both sides in a conflict,  theft by inflation, insider trading...

Thats how fortunes like these were amassed.  But because of lust of power, not greed.  There is a difference, and the corollaries that are derived therefrom are also different.

The world is badly in need of justice and the rule of law.

fourchan's picture

as measured in joobux, which are worthless. 


keep stacking, the reevaluation of values will come sooner rather than later.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

They are very diversified (real estate, banking, Military Industrial, Big Pharma, transport, utilities, basic goods, consumer goods, etc.) and debt free at this point.  But their counterparties (us) are heavily indebted and unlikely to be able to pay.

And their lackeys, the top 2-4%, are the most in debt of all, because that is the road to riches their overlords have promised them.  Leverage + manipulation = fortunes for the underlings 

AldousHuxley's picture

Adjust wealth for localized purchasing power, social benefits (you need $200k to send your kid to good college, but not in China), age, and risk assets.


50yo American ex-pro athlete with $1M in bank but working as $60k/y security personnel in Manhattan is not as rich as 20yo son of a Chinese communist elite with no money to his name living in a place where you can hire personal security personnel for $6k/year.



Son of Loki's picture

A Pew Charitable Trust study, titled "Retirement Security Across Generations," examined the savings behavior of five age groups before the Great Recession hit and found that Gen Xers - the group of Americans following the baby boomers and range in age from 38 to 47 - fared especially poorly during the recent economic down swing. As a result, their retirement years will likely be more tarnished than golden.

Members of Generation X, the so-called slackers weaned on Saturday morning cartoons, divorce and cynicism, are now in their late 30s to late 40s.


dark pools of soros's picture

GenX has small numbers and will be easily supported by the taxes of the GenY zombies


tmosley's picture

With what, their food stamp benefits?

StandardDeviant's picture

"fourchan", how can you post a very pertinent quote about currency debasement from Ayn Rand in another thread, and then come out with a moronic expression like "joobux" in this one?  Did you just find her quote on another site -- have you not actually read her work for yourself?

Though she was an atheist, and had no time for religions of any sort, she'd have shredded anyone who viewed other people simply as members of a particular ethnic group.  It's primitive, savage tribalism, and is beneath you.

dark pools of soros's picture

Right, now as an experiment go count how many Jewish/Palestinian inter marriages go without any friction

Stop protecting a race that is one of the most racists there ever was (but of course they get away with it by labeling it 'safety issues')

Didn't the south hang niggers on the same reasoning?

Meremortal's picture

Thanks, I always wondered how Bill Gates got so rich.

LooseLee's picture

We all know most of them did not get wealthy through hard work. However, I do not think you can separate greed from power at that level...

WarPony's picture

Here, here, give it up for the trillionaire Roths, i never see Forbes post that list.

machineh's picture

The UHNWs didn't get that way by 'stacking' bars of metal in their basements.

giggler123's picture

That's very true.  They just stacked it in their banks.


Ofcourse those pyramids looks nice but they are missing their eye - you know, the eye of thundera...

AldousHuxley's picture

they just stand outside the bank and change account ownership to themselves when the time is right.


See Russian oligarchs.

Whatta's picture

UHNW usual keep up to a third of their wealth in PM's. They keep enough free cash to run their lives, then PM's, real estate, and "other" investments round their wealth matrix out

SRSrocco's picture

Warren Buffet is part of that 1%.  It's quite interesting that Warren's father, Howard Buffet was a gold bug, but Warren is not.  There is a reason why Warren doesn't believe in gold or the gold standard.. and it has to do with his views of INFINITE GROWTH forever.  Of course Warren will turn out to be completely wrong in his views on gold.

You can read about this in the post below"

Warren Buffett and the Investment Value of Gold

disabledvet's picture

Warren's father was "just a Senator." Obviously Warren is the second richest...and perhaps soon to be THE richest man in both the world and history. listen...the Fed is one thing (and i agree that's too much power in one body) but at the same time you have Wall Street and the modern media complex. these things are no Tower of Babel folks...all "working" so to speak...for the aggregation of wealth "no matter the name." (although there is a point where the name does matter.) France, Sweden, the USA...all had/have one thing in common: the ability to finance empires without resort to gold. (yes, Sweden had an empire. it was a LONG time ago...but it darn near took down the Hapsburgs!) i do agree with the ZH thesis that these things must collapse without resort to debasement is just that...debasement. eventually "you get the call" and you have to deliver on something you never really had to begin with. but between that phone call and what comes in between is a "whole lotta a weirdness" too. "if enough people believe...

duo's picture

Remember that a millionaire in 1900 had 50K ounces of gold, that's like having $70,000,000 today.

AldousHuxley's picture

Buffet's point is that allowing rich to hold gold instead of risk taking is useless for society only for the rich to preserve their wealth ranking ego.


America at 1900 had life expectancy of 46, barely any electricity and appliance like light bulbs, half of your babies end up dying for lacking $10 pill available today, smart people were toiling in farms all their life instead of contributing to society, etc.


Wealthy have responsibility to take risk, invest and progress humanity. Otherwise why do we allow them?


It is one thing to question misallocation of capital, but to not allocate capital at all except into wealth preservation, you are looking at no progress for humanity.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

So did you buy the Facebook IPO?  Or buy P&G lately?

In a crooked economy, if the choice is between not investing (i.e. saving your wealth in precious metals, lead, farm land, etc)or investing in broken financial markets, which one would you choose?

aint no fortunate son's picture

Jamie fucking Dimon has a lot more of it than you - He's fucking RICH, and he's a fucking douchebag too

AldousHuxley's picture

and he got there through nepotism.


Look up who his father was. 

LooseLee's picture

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a "rich" man to enter the Kingdom of God. Dimon and his cronies do not realize what they have awaiting them...

robochess's picture

yea, so what's your point?

Kayman's picture

Here's the point. It is a lesson in Geography. The closer you are to a Central Banker, the more likely you will be awash in paper assets; the more likely you will belong to the club.

ar01's picture

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free*"

*So that we can make a healthy profit from them

AldousHuxley's picture

so that we can continue the population ponzi scheme and so that we can cram more illegal alien families in houses in the ghetto.

Mandel Bot's picture

The DHS has more than enough bullets to shoot the whole 29 million.

Pity their guns are pointed in the wrong direction.

Yen Cross's picture

     Here's an interesting read from the MSM, for the muppets. Nothing Most ZHers didn't already know.

   Wealth of most Americans down 55% since recession - CBS News


Nue's picture

Those figures only hold true if you believe have a 350k debt on a house somehow makes you 350k dollars richer.

RichardP's picture

The bottom line: 29 million, or 0.6% of those with any actual assets under their name, own $87.4 trillion, or 39.3% of all global assets.

From the end of the first paragraph above.  The discussion is about who owns/constrols the assets.  Control of assets may loosely correspond to control of power.  Without subtracting liabilities, assets do not correspond to wealth at all.

F. Bastiat's picture

I knew a guy from Jersey who actually believed that. 

F. Bastiat's picture

Who? Whom?

As Lenin asked.

Marxism has been tried. It doesn't work.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

If you're wanting to conflate Leninism - Stalinism with Marxism, then we get to play too:

Capitalism has been tried. It doesn't work.

See the trick? The 20th Century was the battle of the "isms" (ideological war for total dominance - largely perversions of each; Fascism, Communism, Capitalism), but guess what? Capitalism won. But... It ain't the 20th Century no more.



p.s. Each was perverted by design. You can blame the usual bugbears, but let's just say: not who you're thinking of. LOOK! <SQUIRRELS!>

F. Bastiat's picture

Where, in that simple statement, did I conflate Marxism with communism?

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Communism =! Marxism, this is obvious by any close reading of his work. For one, he thought it was a process that would arise as an emergent property of Capitalism, not through revolution, which is a central tennet of Leninism - Stalinism.

Unlike many here, I've actually read Marx, and understood it. He simply doesn't assume that a "vanguard" leadership is required to bring the proletariat to power.



p.s. I'm not a Marxist nor am I a Communist. I just happen to engage with the reality of their works, not the strawmen you love, and are attempting to use to steer the debate. (O.O.Y.P.L. now shoo!)

F. Bastiat's picture

My point is simply that marxism is professional revolutionary-ism; it says nothing of substance about what's to fill the void after the overthrow of the classical liberal (what marx and the germans calls capitalist) order.

Lenin-ism would simply be applied marxism; communism - in the marxist sense of it - would the naturally resulting dicatatorship.

Of course, in the West we generally use the word "communist" to describe anyone who attacks Western civilization through the three marxist attack vectors:

1. Attacking private property
2. Attacking the family
3. Attacking Christianity

falak pema's picture

nope; the enlightenment attacked christianity and aristocracy the two pillars of feudal order : hang the last king with the entrails of the last cleric (diderot). 

Private property yes.

Family not so much but capital/land inheritence yes. 

Communism was about social order, aka top-down structural friction, not social links within same class. 

Marx never attacked the family structure but recognised that "religion" was a tool as it was second estate, selling God to ensure rule of king and its successors; capitalism. 

F. Bastiat's picture

Abolition of the family is one of the core tenets of the marxist religion.

As Shafarevich noted in "Socialism in Our Past and Future": The Communist Manifesto devotes extensive space to the destruction of the family, to the rearing of children away from their parents in state schools, and to wife-sharing.

Regarding the scientific method, it was practically invented in a quadrilateral of Christendom with vertices at Berlin, London, Vienna, and Paris.  Newton, for example, was also a Christian theologian.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Newton also believed in alchemy. And not in the Christian sense.


You're a fucking wizard, Harry. Do you believe the shit you spout, or do you get paid?


I'm really hoping it's the latter.

F. Bastiat's picture

Certainly, alchemy was the precursor to chemistry.  There's no question about that.

akak's picture

But alchemy lacks virtue and is therefore the playground of Satan.

Following the logic, Isaac Newton lacked virtue and was therefore also a Satanist.