Taken at face value, the expression that something needs to be redistributed implies an initial distribution. For redistribution of wealth to obtain there must have been an initial distribution of wealth. Now, how to understand the redistribution of wealth when wealth and income are mostly earned? Earning implies just deserts and a putative understanding that prevents others from taking my property and giving it to others. In fact, the distribution would begin with the confiscation of earned wealth. Those who call for redistribution are the ones wanting to substitute earned success with distribution.
The concept of redistribution can only be understood within Marxist economic thought. As all wealth is created by the labor of workers, those who did not work in the production of commodities or services have confiscated or stolen wealth from their rightful owners. The economic process starts with earning through labor, but the fruit of that labor is immediately stolen or distributed to non-earners. Redistribution now can be justified, as there was an initial distribution away from the hands of the proletariat and into the hands of the capitalists.
Moreover, as that economic structure brings about a superstructure, there exists an institutional arrangement that perpetuates the system of continuous theft. The capitalists own the means of production and have created a number of oppressive institutions such as religion, the banks, corporations, laws, justice systems, police systems, and cultural assumptions, which serve to perpetuate over time the hegemony of the capitalist class. These also need redistribution in the form of replacing them with institutions that serve the purposes of the working class. The Leninist tactic of “united front” reflects the reality that the forces of capital produce a series of epiphenomena, a sea of variegated oppressions which at first seem unrelated to economics or capital but in reality, are integral to the entire economic structure.
Of course, that entire system of thought ignores what really happens in the economy: how value arises, the importance of the entrepreneurial vocation, and the primacy of the individual person who stands de jure as unique and unrepeatable. It begins with a false understanding of the nature and value of capital. From there, the chain of reasoning moves forward as an illusion.
Moreover, redistribution as understood by Marxism transfers decisions to the state, away from the individual. The state must serve as proxy for the working class, as individual transfers imply the expectation that the receiver of benefits will surrender them voluntarily. Centralization is inevitable, even though Marxists often insist that it is not necessary. The state must take ever increasing responsibilities over activities that cease to exist under an ethic of redistribution. The entrepreneurial spirit suffers, the motivation to risk wanes, the loss of capital ensues, and society is torn among competing interests. The more the fate of a group depends on confiscating the wealth of another, the more the receiving group demands and the less it engages in productive activity. After all, the receiving group has been convinced that their labor is always being extracted by “them.” This system, in short, creates disincentives for production at both ends of the chain of productivity.
These transfers, however, often target the middle class, as transfers exclusively from the ever-shrinking upper classes will not be enough. It ought to be obvious that redistribution, of necessity, implies stealing from some proletarians to benefit others—the very process that Marxist ideology aims to eliminate. This is why the logic of redistribution necessitates, sooner rather than later, a revolution to attempt to abolish the private ownership of the means of production and the eventual erasure of the concept of class with the concomitant creation of a “new man.” As long as there are classes, there are competing interests and oppression.
There is no doubt that we have already stepped onto such a slippery slope. The demands of radicals are filled with anger because they see themselves as abused and they perceive that their plight can be alleviated only collectively, as a class. Redistribution is only the beginning of the revolution.
