Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
|
BMaker11 said:
To compare right now to the past is meaningless, in the little social experiment the OP has brought up. Sure, relative to 20 or 100 years ago, we have more wealth, goods, etc. A lot more people can eat, have shelter, etc. than 100 years ago. But relative to right now, it's still finite. There are "only so many goods" and "only so many resources" right now. Resources will never exceed our wants and needs (scarcity). And because of that, we have to compete for them. And since those resources are limited, at some point, the fact that I was able to obtain said resource results in someone else not being able to obtain it. If I have something (1) and another person doesn't (0), well, 1 does not equal 0. If we aren't equal then we are unequal.
edit: and please don't take this as me wanting there to be perfect economic equality. I don't think we should. It's good to have income inequality. If you work hard, become skilled, and work a difficult job, you should be compensated more than someone mopping floors. Is the income gap in the US large? Yes, and I would like it to shrink because it's ridiculous, but at the same time, we shouldn't all make the same amount of money either. I'm just defending my point that economic equality doesn't exist in capitalism.
|
Well sure it does. First off if that is true... it wouldn't make sense to vote down future economic gains for a slight equaling out now.
It's really just a matter if you believe marx's perspective on people or not.
He thought "Most people don't care about how big or small their houses are, only how big or small their neighbors houses are."
Me... I don't feel like that, and i'd like to think most other people don't too...
given the choice between living the same or similar life as someone else, or an uneven life where i'm worse off then them... but still have more stuff....
I take the second scenario any day of the week.
|
One must recall that Marx believed that the old middle class (the Petite Bourgouesie, small shop owners and tradesmen) would be completely eliminated by the capitalist class and that the new middle class as we know them would never emerge. His thought was that capitalist society would be almost entirely the super-rich or the squalid laboring masses, eventually.
|
Yeah, but I don't think that really changed his perspective on base human mindset.
It would be fascinating to see his thoughts on the new middle class. (or what's left of it.)
Would it change his entire thesis... or would he turn his back on them, and essentially claim that it was a trick by the rich to give the poor something to aspire too that almost nobody could fufill...
and chide the union middleclass for the tactics it takes to exclude and keep others out. (A lot of union shops essentially require a union members sponsorship to even be considered for example.)
I had previously thought the former. However the more i read about Marx the man, i believe it would be the latter. Marx was a true beleiver, giving away pretty much all the money he made, and his wife inhereted to the cause in various countries.
Often having to live off others to survive, including his more pragmatic partner in crime, Engles.
He deplored socialist and "marxist" parties within governments that ran for elections, saying that those parties coud be nothing more but puppets for the elite.
He was a great observer and dreamer. Unfortunitly, the latter i think often got in the way of the former.
