Anthony D'Costa wrote: > Speaking about Singapore and East Asian economies, capitalism they follow no > doubt and most bristle at the mention of marxist, socialist yet they do > practice a variety of socialistic policies, meaning regulate the markets to > meet certain social outcomes. <
One of my hobby-horses is that the Left is in a real mess and needs to clean up its theory (and practice, but that's another issue). One way that this should be done is to avoid the the common conflation (especially by conservatives) of "non-market" with "socialistic." Intervention in markets is necessary but not sufficient in the definition of "socialistic." After all, we see non-market or even anti-market policies in the heart of US capitalism: Wall Street has all sorts of regulations that violate the purity of the Market in order to protect stock-owners. The Pentagon has all sorts of non-market protections for its contractors, insulating them from market competition. Franco's Spain was not just capitalist but also had all sorts of non-market or anti-market rules (such as strict bans on pornography and birth control) that protected the system. These did not make Franco's system "socialistic." The late socialist leader Norman Thomas often decried the combination of "socialism for the rich and free-enterprise for the poor," but the "socialism" in this phrase is more rhetorical than real. Capitalism has always involved non-market and even anti-market protections for the very rich and their allies. (Of course, the rich _buy_ these protections, by buying politicians, etc.) >In Singapore roughly about 85% of its residents (excluding expatriate and foreign workers) own their own housing. This in itself has done quite a bit for income distribution... < what is the origin of this program? was it due to class struggle from below, with workers fighting for a better deal? or fear -- among the ruling elite -- of that struggle happening? or was it a nationalist effort to unite classes in a time of trouble? or was it simply that the elite consisted of a bunch of nice guys who wanted to help their social inferiors? > So the question about equality in a capitalist context is and may appear to > be conflicting but states do and can regulate the worst excesses of market > outcomes by tax and other redistributive mechanisms.< what matters is the specific context. It's wrong to see capitalism as _always_ involving increasing inequality (as it does in the current neoliberal era). The working class and other dominated forces can and do fight against inequality. Under the right specific historical circumstances they can win social-democratic compromises and the like, actually decreasing the degree of inequality. Under other historical conditions, they may even abolish capitalism and establish some sort of socialism. -- Jim Devine / "... the Senate seems like the place where smart people go to die." -- John Stewart.
