Questions for the board's socialist and communist members.....

[Tarheeler]

Many structuralists today seem to accept capitalism (obviously not in a laissez-faire or "wildcat" form) as a viable system to achieve their goal of economic and social equality.
I know that part of that acceptance comes from capitalism being the predominant economic system and that liberal economic policy helps to fuel globalization.

But are there any other factors that would indicate that capitalism (for example on the scale of Japan's state-driven economic scheme) is an effective and efficient way to reverse the north- south divide?

How do you see poor nations (such as those described by the core-periphery theory) competing in a modified capitalistic system?

Also, would you agree with that premise (that a modified capitalist system can be used to achieve equality), and, if so, under what conditions would you like to see it put into place?

 

[nnmartin]

How do you see poor nations (such as those described by the core-periphery theory) competing in a modified capitalistic system?

I didn't think the point of capitalism/globalisation was to help the poor countries anyway?

 

[Tarheeler]

I didn't think the point of capitalism/globalisation was to help the poor countries anyway?

I asked how it could be used, not what it's "point" was.

 

[Sunstone]

Are you saying you can you have capitalism without unsustainable growth?

 

[Tarheeler]

Are you saying you can you have capitalism without unsustainable growth?

I've not made any claim concerning growth. I'm not extremely familiar with structuralist theory and I'm asking for explanations and clarification. We do have some very knowledgeable members here.

If you feel that the premise is incorrect, for any reason, then please explain.

 

[Cassiopia]

Many structuralists today seem to accept capitalism (obviously not in a laissez-faire or "wildcat" form) as a viable system to achieve their goal of economic and social equality.

Do they? Who exactly are you talking about?

But are there any other factors that would indicate that capitalism (for example on the scale of Japan's state-driven economic scheme) is an effective and efficient way to reverse the north- south divide?

Not as far as I know.

How do you see poor nations (such as those described by the core-periphery theory) competing in a modified capitalistic system?

I don't pretend to know what core-periphery theory is. The evidence is that poor countries and rich countries are not functioning very well in any capitalistic system that we have.

Also, would you agree with that premise (that a modified capitalist system can be used to achieve equality), and, if so, under what conditions would you like to see it put into place?

The Scandinavian mix of capitalism moderated by social democracy seem to have been the most successful model in terms of social equality and quality of life.

Personally I think the time for political theorizing and posturing is over. I have nothing against intellectual discussion of politics but when you look at what is happening in the world it is clear that there is a major disconnect between the intellectual theorists, men in suits and political institutions on the one hand and ordinary people on the other hand. And I think the ordinary folk can smell blood.

 

[nnmartin]

Look what happened to Iceland.

Most people there seemed to have a reasonable standard of living till they privatised the banks - now disaster.

 

[Tarheeler]

Do they? Who exactly are you talking about?

Most of the European nations, actually. They combine a capitalist economy with varying degrees of state involvement and extensive social welfare programs funded through taxation to achieve a higher degree of social and economic equality.

As for political theory, look along the lines of Germany's "The Left" party, France's "New Centre" party, and Italy' Democratic Party.

I don't pretend to know what core-periphery theory is. The evidence is that poor countries and rich countries are not functioning very well in any capitalistic system that we have.

Core-periphery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Scandinavian mix of capitalism moderated by social democracy seem to have been the most successful model in terms of social equality and quality of life.

Exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In general terms, my feeling is that market forces aren't going to disappear by ignoring them, so they need to be reflected in any system we come up with. That being said, the state can be used as a mechanism to get market values to be in sync with societal values, and to provide important services directly when the market can't sustain them.

 

[Tarheeler]

In general terms, my feeling is that market forces aren't going to disappear by ignoring them, so they need to be reflected in any system we come up with. That being said, the state can be used as a mechanism to get market values to be in sync with societal values, and to provide important services directly when the market can't sustain them.

Yeah, that's the general theme I've gotten from my readings.

 

[Stevicus]

Many structuralists today seem to accept capitalism (obviously not in a laissez-faire or "wildcat" form) as a viable system to achieve their goal of economic and social equality.
I know that part of that acceptance comes from capitalism being the predominant economic system and that liberal economic policy helps to fuel globalization.

But are there any other factors that would indicate that capitalism (for example on the scale of Japan's state-driven economic scheme) is an effective and efficient way to reverse the north- south divide?

How do you see poor nations (such as those described by the core-periphery theory) competing in a modified capitalistic system?

Also, would you agree with that premise (that a modified capitalist system can be used to achieve equality), and, if so, under what conditions would you like to see it put into place?

The problem is that capitalism doesn't really exist in its purest form (nor can it really exist that way). Just as with communism and anarchism, when people try to apply their pet ideology and implement it into practical reality, something tends to go awry.

To answer your questions, I believe it's possible that a capitalist-oriented system could achieve a goal of social and economic equality, if that was indeed the goal of the political system. I think the conventional wisdom seems to be that, as long as there is political equality, then social and economic equality will work itself out on its own.

The problem with globalization is not just due to the fact that there's a north-south divide or economic inequality. It's also due to political inequality within nations, as well as some degree of political incompatibility between nations. A somewhat ironic example of this is how globalists and capitalists pushed and pushed for stronger trade ties with Communist China, and now, China seems to be winning the global competition. (But globalists might counter that "China isn't really communist, so it doesn't count." )

Communism was originally touted as a globalist ideal of its own. I remember during the Cold War, capitalism and communism almost seemed like two competing religions, with missionaries going around the world and trying to gain adherents. It became even further complicated when devotion to an economic philosophy was also equated as patriotism (or lack thereof) to one's own nation. In America, if you didn't support capitalism, then you would be branded a communist and an "enemy of America."

That attitude has softened considerably since the days of Joe McCarthy, but there still seems to be lingering shades of it even today. It just seems all the more bizarre nowadays, considering capitalists' undying love of China these days. It truly brings to reality the old joke about the difference between capitalism and communism: Under capitalism, man exploits man, but under communism, it's the other way around.

 

[Tarheeler]

The problem is that capitalism doesn't really exist in its purest form (nor can it really exist that way). Just as with communism and anarchism, when people try to apply their pet ideology and implement it into practical reality, something tends to go awry.

To answer your questions, I believe it's possible that a capitalist-oriented system could achieve a goal of social and economic equality, if that was indeed the goal of the political system. I think the conventional wisdom seems to be that, as long as there is political equality, then social and economic equality will work itself out on its own.

The problem with globalization is not just due to the fact that there's a north-south divide or economic inequality. It's also due to political inequality within nations, as well as some degree of political incompatibility between nations. A somewhat ironic example offices this is how globalists and capitalists pushed and pushed for stronger trade ties with Communist China, and now, China seems to be winning the global competition. (But globalists might counter that "China isn't really communist, so it doesn't count." )

Communism was originally touted as a globalist ideal of its own. I remember during the Cold War, capitalism and communism almost seemed like two competing religions, with missionaries going around the world and trying to gain adherents. It became even further complicated when devotion to an economic philosophy was also equated as patriotism (or lack thereof) to one's own nation. In America, if you didn't support capitalism, then you would be branded a communist and an "enemy of America."

That attitude has softened considerably since the days of Joe McCarthy, but there still seems to be lingering shades of it even today. It just seems all the more bizarre nowadays, considering capitalists' undying love of China these days. It truly brings to reality the old joke about the difference between capitalism and communism: Under capitalism, man exploits man, but under communism, it's the other way around.

Thanks for the reply. And I agree with you that capitalism can be adapted to work, but I'm not a structuralist.

What's your opinion on the core-periphery theory, and how do you see periphery states competing in a modified capitalist system?

 

[Stevicus]

Thanks for the reply. And I agree with you that capitalism can be adapted to work, but I'm not a structuralist.

What's your opinion on the core-periphery theory, and how do you see periphery states competing in a modified capitalist system?

From what I'm able to gather about the core-periphery theory, it sounds like satellite states linked to a larger regional power.

I think it can work, if the core Western powers are as genuinely committed to democracy and freedom around the world as they claim to be. That refers to my earlier point about political equality. This would mean that the countries of the world would have to have democratically-elected governments, along with the same constitutional rights and civil liberties we've enjoyed in the West. It would also mean allowing workers to organize, form unions, collectively bargain, and even go on strike for better working conditions. The rules have to be the same for all nations, or else globalism can only be achieved through military force (which has been tried many times in the past).

Other than that, a regional power system might work, although it would have to be more geographically coherent to work properly. If the major powers can reach accord on geopolitical and global economic issues, then the smaller (peripheral) states within their region would fall in line behind their core regional power. Of course, if that was the case, then the U.S. wouldn't have military forces in the Middle East or East Asia anymore. Our entire geopolitical and military strategy would have to be restructured and revamped. But that's difficult to do when so many policy makers seem to think that we're still fighting the Cold War.