Oh definitely. I love Gnome Chumsky.
He really is a don.
And as a Marxist, I think capitalism is a hierarchical system that is not too different from previous economic models. The only thing that has changed is the power structure, but it still contains two greatly opposing classes.
Social mobility has increased from Feudalism, but not to the point where I'd consider capitalism, in its current form at least, meritocratic.
I am not sure if I understand your proposed solution. What do you believe is the negative factor of capitalism that causes inequality, and how does your envisioned society change this?
I'd say inheritance and the education system are the primary causes of inequality in first world countries. A complete lack of any respectable workers rights in third world countries is the primary cause of inequality there.
Also, did I not mention 100% inheritance tax would be a key part of my theory? I meant to.
Combining the 100% inheritance tax with a properly meritocratic education system should, in my view, solve most of the problems associated with capitalism in the Western world. The establishment of a universal minimum wage would prevent TNCs exploiting workers in third world countries, and would be a big step towards reducing inequality there.
The only problem with this is that there's nothing that could stop the government from running the system.
A bigger government could take everything they own away, making those people servants to the state if they want to live well at all.
Big government doesn't equal bad. If your view of human nature is that humans are fundmanetally self seeking, my system is just a fairer way of chanelling that egoism. Also, may I point out that the executive in most countries, big government or not, is immensely powerful, and is no less susceptible to corruption than the system I propose, if not more so.
For a third world nation where the people already have a lack of power, I can see this as a possible solution. However, it wouldn't stop the government by any means from being truly corrupt if they wanted to.
The implementation of a universal minimum wage would not cause governments in thrid world countries to become bigger. Giving workers more rights is not an extension of government power. It's taking away responsibility from the government and giving rights to the people. I'd also like to point out that many governments of third world nations are already horribly corrupt, in part due to the massive privatisation which has occured.
How would your education system recognize people who are geniuses in fields that aren't created yet?
Geniuses are geniuses regardless of the education system. In an environment where they are stratified and would be given better standards of education, this would not be a hindrance, but an encouragement.
What about people who can succeed despite a lack of formal schooling, like H.G. Wells or Andrew Jackson?
If they succeed due to a lack of formal schooling under one system, why would it be any different under the proposed education system? That's like saying people without training who are good athletes will be worse athletes if the rules of the athletic club are changed. This is clearly unsound.
The problem with standardized education is that people aren't all the same.
Seeing as the proposed system tailors more to the needs of individuals and stratifies them depending on their skills, I don't really see how you can claim this would be a problem under the new system.
Eh The key in any economy is technology, without it no progress is made,
Essentially you're talking about a watered down version of creative destruction. I agree. The current system with entrenched monopolies is far from conducive to the creation of new technologies. Where everyone starts from scratch and has to attain, the incentive would be much higher, and more innovation would occur.
Scarcity is one of those things you cannot solve in any system, there will always be those with and those without...and simply a few can have more while its usually the cost of the many...
My system is not aiming to remove scarcity, or remove income or wealth differentials, rather create an environment where people actually earn their money fairly, and where everyone has a chance to do so.
What one person does well, another will always try to do better. Einstein's ideas set a new height to mathmatics. Mathmaticians every day are trying to reach even higher.
To this, I say that the primary goal of most scientists are certainly not egocentric. Scientific discoveries are not made because people want to compete with other scientists, they are made to fix problems we experience, and for the betterment of all in society. Geniuses don't pursue their life's work because they want to make sure they, and not the scientist in the lab opposite is remebered in posterity.