Has Capitalism Met the Marxist Utopia?

Generali

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf

Karl Marx's most famous quote was probably, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". For many people that sums up Marxism at a stroke: you do an honest day's work and you receive in return what is required to keep body and soul together: housing, food, medicine etc.. I understand why people think that is a good thing. People shouldn't starve or live in the street (unless they want to).

But what did he mean by that? The idea was that by employing the scientific Socialist means of production through the use of workers' co-operatives, everyone's needs could be satisfied. Not their wants or desires as those are for the petty bourgoisie, needs are to be satisfied.

So I would claim that capitalism has taken the UK and many other countries waaaay past the Marxist ideal. Basically everyone in Britain has all their needs met. There are exceptions but those are generally people who have very severe problems of other kinds: being in an abusive family perhaps or suffering with addiction. The sort of thing that no state can ever truly solve.

Marxist states from the USSR to Cuba never claim close to resolving these problems but the UK did. All it took was 100 years of growth in GDP at c3% a year and the poorest became well fed, housed and even have some money to spend on things that would have been beyond the dreams of the average working man in the mid c19th.

The best thing we can do for poor people is be richer. The best way to get rich is via capitalism.

shortchanged_2

I don't think many people dispute that Gen. But there are varying degrees of capitalism and there should always be the aim of a happy medium.

I was watching a party political broadcast by the trade union party and was gobsmacked at a statement they made stating that the 5 richest familes in the UK have more wealth than the bottom 20%. Seriously, what a ridiculous situation. That is the unpleasantness of capitalism. While I have no problem with people being wealthy if they've earnt it, extreme wealth for me just leaves a bad taste.

Generali

shortchanged wrote: »

I don't think many people dispute that Gen. But there are varying degrees of capitalism and there should always be the aim of a happy medium.

I was watching a party political broadcast by the trade union party and was gobsmacked at a statement they made stating that the 5 richest familes in the UK have more wealth than the bottom 20%. Seriously, what a ridiculous situation. That is the unpleasantness of capitalism. While I have no problem with people being wealthy if they've earnt it, extreme wealth for me just leaves a bad taste.

Better for everyone to be poor?

shortchanged_2

Generali wrote: »

Better for everyone to be poor?

Can't everyone be better off with better distribution of wealth?

However we also have to remember that a large proportion of the poorest 20% will be workers, not just scroungers.

Generali

shortchanged wrote: »

Can't everyone be better off with better distribution of wealth.

No they can't because of dead weight loss. Every pound, dollar or yen in tax reduces economic efficiency which reduces the size of the pie.

Some reduction is necessary, some reductions are worthwhile because we don't want to see people suffering. 'Better' distribution of wealth is not worthwhile as an aim. Redistribution of income is necessary to some extent or another.

Nobody needs wealth. People need income to provide for needs and wants.

CLAPTON

shortchanged wrote: »

I don't think many people dispute that Gen. But there are varying degrees of capitalism and there should always be the aim of a happy medium.

I was watching a party political broadcast by the trade union party and was gobsmacked at a statement they made stating that the 5 richest familes in the UK have more wealth than the bottom 20%. Seriously, what a ridiculous situation. That is the unpleasantness of capitalism. While I have no problem with people being wealthy if they've earnt it, extreme wealth for me just leaves a bad taste.

There is a big difference between 'income' and 'wealth'.
A great deal of wealth doesn't generate income and if broken up and distributed would become worthless.

I see that part of the lake district national park are being sold: angle tarn I think but some-one may know better: but it has no income value, there are right to roam .. purely a status acquisition

What value does a painting have if there are no rich people to buy it?.. nothing.

Cyberman60

shortchanged wrote: »

I don't think many people dispute that Gen. But there are varying degrees of capitalism and there should always be the aim of a happy medium.

I was watching a party political broadcast by the trade union party and was gobsmacked at a statement they made stating that the 5 richest familes in the UK have more wealth than the bottom 20%. Seriously, what a ridiculous situation. That is the unpleasantness of capitalism. While I have no problem with people being wealthy if they've earnt it, extreme wealth for me just leaves a bad taste.

There are many that are wealthy on benefits that have done very little to nothing in the way of contribution. Who is worse ?

At least the wealth that the wealthy have, has in the main been honestly earned and taxed, and they have made a financial contribution to society an the poor. Benefit-breeders are a drain on us all. :mad:

purch

Worrying about how much wealth other people have is pointless. To me it seems that whenever redistribution of wealth has been seriously attempted, the outcome is usually a reduction of overall wealth.

Rather than worrying about the amount of wealth a few people may have amassed, concentrating on ensuring everyone becomes wealthier should be the aim.

Setting the bar high has clearly worked better for everyone than setting the bar low.

paddyrg

Those with lots of readies spend them - the bulk of the cash re-enters the system in one form or another. Who buys cheap Chinese goods? The lower earners. Who buys quality British and European goods? The rich. That's jobs. It's not as simple as jealousy suggests.

padington

Too much inequality creates unhappy people. Take two siblings, give one a big fun toy for Christmas and give the other a tiny little slightly
rubbish one.

What's the fall out ?

They both 'gained' from Christmas but do you think it will be a happy Christmas ?

Possibly if they learn to Share ...

Southend1

Cyberman60 wrote: »

There are many that are wealthy on benefits that have done very little to nothing in the way of contribution. Who is worse ?

At least the wealth that the wealthy have, has in the main been honestly earned and taxed, and they have made a financial contribution to society an the poor. Benefit-breeders are a drain on us all. :mad:

Are you able to provide any meaningful evidence to support your view or is it purely based on prejudice and ignorance?