Universal Nation 99 Push
Look For Universal Nation 99 Push @ Amazon.com
|
Structuralism seeks to critique and modify the inequality and exploitation of the working class that capitalist and liberal viewpoints produce. Karl Marx tried to perceive the nature of this inequality. He believed the bourgeoisie, who owned all the capital and means of production, sought to exploit the proletariat, or the working class. “Critical for Marx is the rudimentary imbalance of power among the classes” (74). While a liberal believes the bourgeoisie and proletariat are capable of forming a in exchange beneficial relationship, Marx believed “the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are trapped in a decidedly one-sided relationship, with an ‘unemployed army’ of workers discouraging and hindering the capacity of the labor strength to coordinate itself…giving the capitalists the upper hand in all negotiations” (74). Even altho “Marx believes that capitalism is basically flawed” (75), he still believed that it was a necessary stage toward socialism because it builds wealth, technology, and raises living standards. To comprehend why the capitalist and liberal viewpoints invent exploitation of the laboring class, we ought to make an analyzation of “the market economy as a system, rather than piece by piece” (76). Structuralists focus “on the production structure inherent in capitalism” (77). This structure leads to classes, leading to class struggles that invent crises. These crises lead to revolution. Lliberals “have a tendency to view person activenesses as cooperative and constructive, not competitory and destructive” (49). According to the liberal perspective, the state seeks to be abusive of the liberties of the individual. This leads to tension amidst the state and the market. Thus, to solve this problem, the liberals believe the government will have to only “perform the fixed number of tasks that humans can not carry out by themselves, such as establish a basic legal system, see to it national defense, and coin money” (50). This was genuinely one of Adam Smith’s central ideas; the government will have to do the work that private interests won’t. Because classic liberals see the state as detrimental to the market, they seek no governmental interference in the market outside of the tasks that humans can not do themselves. This is a piece-by-piece viewpoint of the market economy. Structuralists seek to view the market economy in it is entirety. Because they believe that the economic structure is the firmest influence on society, the free market system anticipated by liberals will manufacture class conflicts amidst the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. While liberals believe that the state is a dangerous force, structuralists see that “the state and the bourgeoisie are intertwined to such an extent that the two cannot be separated” (77). This basically means that liberals see the state as an opposing strength while from the structuralist view point, only the proletariat sees the state as a dangerous strength because of the joint operation amidst the bourgeoisie and the state. Viewing the economy in it is whole, it is easy to comprehend that the government supports and defends the elite class of bourgeois basically because they are the capital owners. This is exceedingly apparent in the current state of affairs in the United States. For example, rich oligopolies, such as the banking companies, have an exceedingly tight connection to the government. Many companies bestow to a great extent to the campaigns of politicians who, if elected, pass regulation that helps the oligopolies. The government not long back passed a bill that makes it harder to file for bankruptcy. The bill was lobbied to a considerable degree by the banking industry, which holds much of the capital of the nation. It only gains the banking industry. It will make it exceedingly hard for persons to file for bankruptcy, and also makes them have to recompense back the money. This legislation hurts the working class tremendously while benefiting the banking industry. Thus, it is apparent that the government does without doubt help and defend the interests of the elite class. This tight bond amongst the government and bourgeois leads to the exploitation of the workers and one of the pitfalls of liberalism. What leads to class conflict? There are galore remarkable conclusions when looking at this problem from a global point of view. According to Leninists’, the profit-seeking capitalists would not use surplus capital to raise the general of living of the proletariat. “Therefore, capitalists societies would stay unevenly produced ones, with numerous classes prospering as others were mired in poverty” (81). In reality, the standard of living has risen for the majority of persons global because of the effects of modernization. V.I. Lenin was defective when it came to the standard of living for the proletariat, but he was rectify in his analysis that capitalists societies would be unevenly formulated and that the proletariat would still get the short end of the stick. Lenin’s imperialist theory of capitalism seeks to “explain how it was that capitalism shifted from internal to global exploitation, and how the inequality amongst the classes had as it is parallel the law of uneven development amidst nations” (81). Lenin believed that the imperial phase of capitalism exported exploitation to poor peripheral countries as wealth and poverty were put onto the world stage. Looking at the world’s economy, this made a new class of proletariats that was not bound within nations. For Lenin, imperialism was a tool that rich capitalist nations sought to use to increase revenue by making poor nations dependent on them for fictitious goods, jobs, and financial resources. It likewise made these poor nations to a considerable degree in debt, thence making them more dependent on the rich capitalism nations. This leads to a cycle of dependency. The bourgeois (by owning the means of production) and the government gain from this ‘tool’ while the proletariats suffer tremendously. Why do the proletariats suffer? Imperialism to a considerable degree exploited the working class, peculiarly of the colonized countries, by denying them basic laborers rights and keeping them impoverished through a cycle of debt. Basically, structuralists see the bond amid the rich and the government as damaging to the working class. When it comes to competition, liberals believe that it “constrains self-interest and prevents it from getting damaging to the interests of others” (50). Producers must push prices down because of competition, therefore benefiting the working class by creating low prices. This is countered with Marx’s “law of concentration (or accumulation of capital)” (76). The theory is that the capitalist system gives rise to “inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. As the bourgeoisie carry on to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by stronger, more spectacular ones, wealth and the ownership of capital become progressively concentrated in less and less hands” (76). The law of disproportionality also counters the liberal view that contest gains the working class. According to the law of disproportionality, “capitalism, because of it is anarchic, unplanned nature, is prone to instability” (75). Capitalism may be subject to overproduction or underconsumption. “Capitalists are not competent to trade everything they construct at a net profit and workers cannot afford to buy what they make” (76). This disproportionality amidst supply and demands leads to economic variations and increments the chance of social unrest and revolution. The Keynesian Theory of economics may further prove this disproportionality. John Marynard Keynes invented his theory just as the Great Depression disseminate poverty all over the United States. In his view, “individuals and markets tended to make conclusions that were in particular unwise when faced with situations where the future is unknown” (56). Basically, Keynes believed that humans were concerned when it comes to being unemployed in the future. So, everyone expended less money, saved more, and the result was that less goods were purchased and produced. Thus, “the recession and jobless that everyone feared…[was] caused by the very activenesses that people took to protect themselves from this eventuality” (56). This is called the paradox of thrift. The wealth gap in the country continued to grow and all the capital was concentrated within the hands of the few elite. Competition vanished at this point because the means of production was halted. “Keynes argued that the state ought to spend and invest when persons would not…” (56). Keynes was a liberal at heart, yet even he anticipated the Great Depression and the aftermaths of it. Structuralists seek to end this instable cycle of booms and busts by creating a socialist society where every one is as equivalent in class as possible. No contest will subsist because the state will set the prices. There will be almost no wealth gap because everyone will bestow equality and earn equivalent capital. There will see be an elite group of persons who basically run the country. These people will have a great deal of power because they run the government. Using Keynes views, a checks and balances system would be set up to make sure the people in power will not exploit the population. In my personal point of view, I am persuaded by the Keynesian compromise, which is a scheme of embedded liberalism. The wealth gap in a great deal of third world countries is staggering, yet a market scheme is necessitated to build wealth. Structuralists argue that capitalism is an unavoidable step towards socialism because it produces the wealth. The government will have to regulate this capitalist system so that the working class is not exploited. The Keynesian compromise is a liberal international system that includes free trade and open markets at it is core. However, “individual nations would be competent to undertake the sorts of domestic policies that Keynes advocated for moderating inflation, controlling unemployment, and encouraging economic growth” (58). Basically, free markets dominate relations amidst nations while the state has an “important macroeconomic role within each nation…” (58). This ‘Keynesian Compromise’ is a mixture of John Maynard Keynes’ views and Bretton Woods’ views. Instead of observing the IPE as state versus market, the Keynesian compromise seeks “the right degree and nature of state intervention within an overall system of open markets” (58). A good model is most of Western Europe, including France and the Netherlands. Western Europe has a free market and broad social welfare systems. The European Union advances the free market scheme while each person nation chooses which social programs it plans to have. Switzerland, for example, has universal health care for all it is citizens. Switzerland also has markets and trade. This country has one of the most eminent standards of living in the world, higher than the United States. And this country uses embedded liberalism. Markets, trade, social and welfare programs, and government intervention along with a scheme of checks and balances is the idealisti viewpoint that I advocate. Work Cited Balaam, David N., and Michael Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2005. -Greg A. |
Kindle vs. Nook (updated 6/2/2011)
I Wanted a Dedicated E-Reader, and That’s What I Got