Green Field Urban Consultancy
See also www.angelronen.blogspot.com.
Capitalism, Marxism, Marxism, capitalism.... the only difference is the simple notion that says a particular vision of political economy must create "have nots". Economies do not have to create "have nots" for economic activity to exist. Economic activity exists much like the birds, bees and frogs will procreate. There will always be haves and have nots. But, you do not have to create them. Every human being will not be able to own a Bugatti. There has to be a minimum economic existence that is maintained for every citizen. There is no fear of over crowding as no one lives forever. Some commit suicide. But, you do need consumers and enabling a minimum level of consumption for every citizen that leaves high school successfully will only assist the economy to avoid unnecessary booms and busts. There will always be economic differentiation and social differentiation related to wealth and consumption. Intending to own a Bugatti is one thing but owning a Volkswagen as an employee is quite alright. Social policies are social policies and can exist and operate in any chosen format of political economy. You could say the word "economy" with a humane and non-ideological accent that does not demand that there will be "haves" and "have nots" but that will also acknowledge the reality of difference in attainment and opportunity or you could say the word "capitalism" with its various ideological notions or fictions. Marxism simply asks for the appropriate balance between man and machine. This is the definitive subtext or question behind the Matrix and the Terminator movie series. When we think about it, capitalism is equally mindful but took a while to settle on the issue. You can't kill off your market for your those marvelous robots. Cola does not have to cause bad teeth. It depends on the formula. In the same sense, economic models do not have to create 'have nots" and nor should it be thought of as an ideology to create any such category in spite of the reality of free schooling. This is because economies, regardless of ideological definition, need workers and consumers and they require a certain degree of education to operate smart phones, washing machines and vehicles at home and at work.Workers are workers. Basketball teams are basketball teams. Every nationality or race under the sun is represented in the NBA and other global sports. But, there is a crazy notion taking place in the world; that to get a job, you will have to have sufficient association to have a certain degree of maneuverability, safety and stability in the world of "survivor" and "the apprentice". Being a GED may be enough or it may be enough to be an alumni member of 2+ post-secondary schools. You may have to follow the growing popularity of orphan culture that says you better have sex for cash and contract some horrible disease since being a God fearing Christian may attract a lot of attack as the orphan culture/gay culture grows increasingly popular for the purposes of economic survival. Hopefully it's enough to mention your church membership and that you are a part of the Hill Songs International Fan Club. But, hopefully someone will let some oxygen back into the hallowed halls, cul de sacs, suburbs and bayous of Western Judeo Christian society. Clearly, all economies will have groups or individuals realizing different attainment and also groups and individuals with different economic opportunity based on race, color, religious affiliation, education and the various other categories of human differentiation. In light of this, governments need to ensure a safe and equanimous professional regulation and market environment for all citizens regardless of race and affiliations; sexual or otherwise. Society should not uh stonewall on these uh issues. But, we can be confident that there will always be difference in attainment and also possibly performance in status of birth that may provide some with more immediate social or economic status.
Marxism is just balanced economic foresight that says the machines will aid the bottom line but will kill the whole entire economic enterprise if you don't hire sufficient workers and pay them sufficiently to have a vibrant economy that can benefit from unlimited industrial output. Machines do not eat. As they do not eat, supermarkets sell less food and soap. This is not good for the ideological paradigm referred to as capitalism or the more pragmatic and balanced paradigm referred to as Marxism. Machines do not buy vehicles. If you don't want workers, then you will have to give the human beings in a society an artificial income so that the company utilizing only machines can have consumers to buy the output. Marxism says in foresight that you have to have a balance. It is the essentially the same conversation as capitalism but with a more definitive and sustaining approach to the same socio-economic problem or equation.
Marxism does not demand artificial incomes but it does say the human being is the truest bottom line in any economy and that the worker/consumer has to be sustained to maintain financial productivity and the most important ingredient in the enterprise: profit. There is no sustained profit without workers/consumers. Any capitalist would agree to that.
Warren Lyon
No comments:
Post a Comment