Has Capitalism Met the Marxist Utopia?

Generali

Jonbvn wrote: »

It is the point when a large section of the population become so disillusioned with this game that they take things into their own hands....

No signs of revolution in the UK thus far.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

....I would argue that through a C19th lens we have entered a period of abundance for all, in the UK at least.

As an individual, I have no doubt that Marx's view of human needs was based on having enough food to eat and enough coal for the fire, and not much else. He therefore very likely thought that the revolution was imminent, and that the full 100% socialism was achievable within his lifetime.

But yes, one could indeed say that, in terms of Marx's mid nineteenth century conception of what is that people needed, we have indeed largely managed to satisfy those needs.

Which is, of course, a great disappointment to many pseudo-lefties who therefore blame all those evil marketing people who have managed to persuade people that they actually need an iphone and Sky TV.

seven-day-weekend

I would say that in this country, we have even surpassed Marx's vision of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. We have many people who DON'T give according to their ability. Their needs are met anyway.

And so what if 5% have more wealth than the rest of us put together, as long as the rest of us have our needs met? That's where the Capital in Capitalism comes from. Money does, indeed make the world go round.

onlyroz

The problem with capitalism is that everything eventually becomes a commodity that can be bought and sold. Should education, health, transport and utilities really be up for tender? Or should we perhaps be aiming to ensure that everybody has a right to a decent education, healthcare, and an affordable and efficient transport network? Everybody, no matter what their background, should have the means to access whatever career path they want and achieve the highest level - in theory this is possible in the UK but how can somebody raised on a council estate realistically compete with an Etonian when the playing field is so uneven?

antrobus

onlyroz wrote: »

The problem with capitalism is that everything eventually becomes a commodity that can be bought and sold.....

Why would that be a problem.

onlyroz wrote: »

... Should education, health, transport and utilities really be up for tender? Or should we perhaps be aiming to ensure that everybody has a right to a decent education, healthcare, and an affordable and efficient transport network? ....

Those two things are not incompatible. How you decide to produce a service has no impact on how you to decide to make it available.

onlyroz wrote: »

...Everybody, no matter what their background, should have the means to access whatever career path they want and achieve the highest level - in theory this is possible in the UK but how can somebody raised on a council estate realistically compete with an Etonian when the playing field is so uneven?

Are you arguing for increased social mobility?

seven-day-weekend

I was saying to someone the other day, how did it damage the NHS if someone was treated in a private hospital or clinic, as long as it was not based on ability to pay?

This was brought about in a discussion of my husband's recent operation on his hand, and ongoing treatment, at a private hospital to which he was referred by our GP. As long as this option is open to all and you don't have to pay, what is the problem?

It's to me the same as Eton sharing their playing fields with the nearby State School (which they indeed do). More choices for everybody.

Generali

onlyroz wrote: »

The problem with capitalism is that everything eventually becomes a commodity that can be bought and sold. Should education, health, transport and utilities really be up for tender?

Why not? If the best outcome is from a private supplier, I'd like to buy that. My child's education is far too important to be subjected to ideologues. Similarly when I got cancer I got the best treatment I could, not the best public or private treatment.

vivatifosi

As I've read this thread I've had one country in mind... Russia. There are few other countries with its mineral wealth and low population density, so why don't the people there have similar incomes and life expectancy to say Canadians?

For that matter, for all the complaints of income inequality in capitalist Britain, I'm sure that this is much worse in the failed socialist state that is Russia.

onlyroz

Generali wrote: »

Why not? If the best outcome is from a private supplier, I'd like to buy that. My child's education is far too important to be subjected to ideologues. Similarly when I got cancer I got the best treatment I could, not the best public or private treatment.

Fine if it is the best. But there are plenty of examples of utter fiascos when private suppliers have been used to implement public services (e.g. Universal Credit, or the scandals with Serco and G4S etc).

onlyroz

antrobus wrote: »

Why would that be a problem.



Those two things are not incompatible. How you decide to produce a service has no impact on how you to decide to make it available.



Are you arguing for increased social mobility?

I am arguing that there are certain core functions that should not be run at a profit, and we should ensure that people are not limited in their ambitions by their backgrounds.