Start everyone with the same resources and opportunities, hold things completely equal for everyone, and there will be inequality in the end. That is capitalism.
Start with different resources and opportunities, hold things different for everyone, and there will be equality. That is socialism.
With daybreak comes light, since we're stating the obvious. No one has suggested that inequality should not exist, or is not natural. However in my humble opinion, the severity of it is far from justifiable.
I don't want to delve too deeply into this, but in practice people do not start with the same resources or opportunities, and according to socialist theory, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are the same thing.
Wow...thorough and well informed.
I'm glad you think so. WEPR has taught me many things, and the way I write OPs has changed because of it.
Money should be earned, not given.
I agree. No one has implied social justice involves hand outs.
This is a bit interesting.
Wow, try not to be too enthusiastic!
It also shows that wealth disparities vary often and greatly.
You are correct if you are talking strictly in terms of the top graph, however the bottom 3 all have more recent statistics. To your point regarding fluctuations, there are medium term trends. For example since 1979 and the birth of Thatcherism and when neo liberalism came into its own, levels of inequality have been steadily increasing.
Firefly, I was surprised to see you make this thread.
I'll be the first to admit I'm no communist, despite my dabblings with anarcho individualism, specificaly nihilism, however even the most die hard capitalist must be able to acknowledge the failings of the free market. Anyone who doesn't is just displaying a juvenile refusal to think critically. Really my main gripe is that people never think to challenge the status quo. Yes capitalism is entrenched in the psyche of most of the Western world, but that doesn't mean there are no other alternatives, which I'll get onto later.
Is capitalism significantly different from the historical economic models such as that of feudalism? Or is the development of capitalism only a minor evolution in economic development?
On a philosophical basis, the ideas that underpin capitalism are fundmanetally classically liberal - rationalism, freedom and individualism. However, in economic terms, the outcome of the free market is not so different from Feudalism with regards to hierachy. Knights, noblemen and churchmen have just been replaced with the upper middle classes and above. Essentially, socially, the change has been drastic. Economically, not so much.
That is what it exactly looks like right now.
I'm not sure if you've ever heard of Noam Chomsky's theory on this. I don't agree with all his ideas, butthere's definitely some very good stuff in
here.Essentially, he purports that the media is used as a tool to gain the consent of the masses by allowing absolutely zero debate outside given parameters, but tons of debate within those given parameters. I guess it's how Gramsci's theory is acted out in practice.
Its hard not to mention communism here. Though I'll propose this question instead.
I do apologise if I wasn't clear. Feel free to mention communism, just after you have mentioned your proposed solutions to capitalism. For example, for orthodox Marxists, capitalism is inherently flawed and therefore must be destroyed. That doesn't however mean that given the chance to reform capitalism, an orthodox Marxist wouldn't have any ideas to harness the power of capitalism for the good of the masses.
After you have answered that aspect of the OP, do feel free to bring in non capitalist proposals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I begin to explain solutions, I think it's important for me to highlight what I think is wrong about the current system:
The way I was taught capitalism (especially from those who benefitted from the markets) was that it was the greatest form of meritocracy: if you try hard you will succeed, if you're lazy you will fail and will not deserve any help. Now this kind of retribution hard wired into my moral system to the point where I thought 'Capitalism is great and fair!' That was before I realised that capitalism over time tends to erode a meritocratic system. Ironically it often becomes the opposite (not talking about the mostly hard working middle class, but the upper class who live off dividends, play golf all day and buy up small islands. The problem is that the middle class shrink under capitalism.) Now I very much like the idea of a meritocracy, but frankly, when I realised that capitalism =/= to a meritcratic economic system, I started to question its moral value.
The principle moral problem of capitalism is inheritance: one inherits the hard work or lack thereof of his/her, ancestors and thus does not necessarily deserve the cards he/she is dealt; also if a monopoly arises, the quality of a product may decline since the inherited market share provides no incentive to work. That is why
true capitalism results in a rather irrational aristocracy, hardly the meritocratic utopia.
Apart from the moral problem of capitalism, there is a grave practical problem. I was struck recently by the amazing similarities between Smith's theory of capitalism and
genetic algorithms in computer science. To summarise genetic algorithms (and please correct me you programmers), it is a method to solve problems that may not have a(n) (easily) deducable optimal solution, so a random solution is generated. Thwn, the random soltuion produces
n mutated offspring, the most efficient 'child' is preserved to the next generation, and the process is preserved to the next generation until a (local) equilibrium is met (basically, genetic algorithms are the theory of evolution applied to computational problems.) This method is extremely useful and usually arrives at a relatively good solution very rapidly (on a side not this strongly supports Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium if anyone gets that reference.) However the catch is that it does not gaurantee that the solution found is most optimal. In fact, it is quite easy to get stuck in a non optimal equilibrium; this is easily illustrated by observing that 99% of all the species that have existed are now extinct. This fact is my main pratical qualm with pure capitalism (as well as one of my arguments for Keynesian economics.) It is quite possible, therefore, that an economy gets stuck in an economic stagnation. John Maynard Keynes'(legend!) great idea was to use third party stimulus to create a dynamic economy again, and thus help to find beter solutions (although not in these exact terms.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed solution:
The ideal society would be a fundamentally meritocratic one, with enough of a socialistic structure to ensure equality of opportunity for all. In practical terms, this means starting with one standard school, and over time splitting children into tiers depending on their performance. The necessities of life would be provided for all, this means minimum wage, UHC, and a revamping of welfare to encourage employment. Incentives will be offered to harder and more demanding jobs, thus providing the incentive to earn merit.
This borrows greatly from Plato's Republic, however I stand by it: a world in which power is not arbitrarily inherited or won by luck, but is the product of talent and effort. I also acknowledge this system would have flaws as they are mainly with regards to corruption, but since corruption is a common factor in all governments operating under capitalist systems it can essentially be cancelled out in order to assess the rightness of the system.
This is only viable to nations in the third world who are suffering from wage slavery and ridiculous privatisation schemes propagated by TNCs for their own benefit. As a good starting point, I think the implementation of a universal minimum wage, this means accross the globe. Then specific issues can be dealt with as they arise or in order of severity. I just think that would be a good starting point, and would solve many of the problems associated with global capitalism.
Also, wall of text. I know. Please read it though. It's not all the ramblings of a disgruntled teen.
