Piketty is most probably and utterly wrong in one respect; i.e., in terms of his vague implication of the possibility of a radical change in the system, which, according to him, may come true if the tax reforms he proposes dont come true. Yes, the existing system can be brought to an end by the sufferers of inequality. But, sufferers as such, indeed, the representatives of the sufferers - be they Marxists, leftists or whatever - have conspicuously failed to propose a serious alternative to the existing system for about the last quarter-century. Therefore, even if the supreme ideal of throwing away the existing system somehow succeeds, that success is still doomed to yield a very temporary and provisional regime, which will rapidly be replaced by even an harsher version of capitalism-as-we-know-it. From the late 1980s to our day, if Marxists (and other types of resenters) devoted some serious time to develop really feasible alternatives to the existing system, the previous paragraph could not have been written as of now. One major litmus test in this regard is about the curious case of the late Hugo Chavez, who sat on large reserves of oil at a time when oil prices were never bad, and who at the same time pretended to engage in some type of socialism. Nowadays, any rational human-being is almost sure that Chavez was also utterly wrong. Please, just try to observe what Venezuela is experiencing nowadays in terms of the bitter consequences of ignoring economics-as-we-know-it. Representatives of sufferers, and most notably the Marxists, have failed to deserve to create a rational socialism in the near future, insofar as they used to prefer wishful thinking over rational and thinkful wishing.
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 05:15:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015