Wow, a brilliant thread, I really need to start paying more attention here. I bet Marx is rolling in his grave for all the times his name has been connected to politics on this thread. Over all, Marx wasn't a politician as much as a philosopher (or modernly said, societal scientist). After all, the famous communist manifest was a work paid for Marx and Engels to do by certain European political parties. In the 21st century, it'd be called PR or campaigning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nodrog
If capitalism has got us to the stage where the difference between you and the richest man in the world in buying terms is nowhere near as great as it was in the past, and if this gap should close further in the future as technology advances, then what exactly is the problem that requires revolution to solve (other than excessive statism and legislation, which could presumably be changed via a gradual process provided you had support of the majority of the population)?
|
Really? The difference between the poorest and the richest has done nothing but polarisized lately. The difference between Bill Gates and an African poor is definately multiple times to what the difference between a medieval Pope and a serf was. Ceteris paribus, capitalism has actually brought us to a state where we can say that there are by absolute rich countries and poor countries, and the rich countries (with the help of transnational firms) have the ability to dictate what the poor countries are allowed and whatnot. Technological advancement and the spillover and such phenomena seem to work occasionally (in world history, the "major cases" are, in the past, for example Finland, and today, perhaps India or China), but it's difficult to say why certain areas manage to catch up and certain never do (Africa, South-America here). Some claim it is because the liberal capitalist countries are so hugely capitalistic and liberal (more like mercantilistic and medieval) with their import policies. To give some figures, the World Bank made a calculation according to which, if the rich countries abolished subsidies and tariffs on agricultural products starting 2007, the poor countries would be
500,000,000,000 USD
richer in twenty years time. This would mean ability to advance infrastructure and, by the ideology of free trade the prosperous capitalistic countries so uphold, the poor countries to take trade in the products they have comparative advantage in. Instead, the nice "Western" capitalists are pinning them down with subsidies and tariffs. Yeah, a 150 million people less on the poverty traps in twenty years.
Yeah, capitalism definately isn't they key into solving global income differences. On some local levels, it has worked, but requires extensive state interference. Good examples here are Finland (broad public sector, high social transfers; the income differences are fairly narrow, yet the country is among the top competitive countries of the world), and Saudi Arabia (inexisting public sector, "capitalism", a plethora of rich people who, as the capitalists, own the property, and then a proletariate with uhm, little money). By gross domestic product, Saudi Arabia probably beats Finland. By educational levels, child deaths, income differences (assuming smaller is better), or "competitiveness" they're behind.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demiGOD
would possibly make communism work in a perfect world
|
I doubt communism would ever make a perfect world, to be honest. Socialism might, but I don't want to start a debate on the definitions any more than has already been done so I'll leave it.