The Revolutionary Socialist Network, Workers
Download 2.09 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Inequality is inevitable in capitalism – the system must be reformed
Cap causes inequalitiesCudd, 2015 (Ann, American philosopher. “Is Capitalism Good for Women?” Journal of Business Ethics. https://www-jstor-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stable/24702827?sid=primo&seq=1 ///MF) In a recent book (Cudd and Holmstrom 2011), I argued that capitalism has brought about great changes in the quality and length of human life in the twentieth century: the income takeoff (the vast increase of per capita income of developed nations), the health transition (raising the life expectancy by upwards of 50 years), and the fertility transition (from an average of 6 children per woman to around 2). In this paper, I delve further into the question of whether capitalism is good for women. A major problem with capitalism is that it increases inequality, which is especially harmful to women and other vulnerable groups. Capitalism increases economic inequality in the first instance, but this in turn tends to create political and social inequalities. Inequality, I agree, needs to be controlled if capitalism is to be progressive and defensible. I defend such a controlled capitalism in two ways that are particularly relevant to feminism as a progressive social movement for human freedom. First, capitalism promotes innovation: it promotes technical innovation that tends to improve quality and length of life for everyone, but particularly for women. But more importantly for the feminist defense of capitalism, it promotes social innovation, in particular the destruction of harmful, patriarchal traditions. Thus, the second defense I will make of capitalism is that it opposes tradition fetishism and reduces the oppression of traditional societies that impose hierarchies of gender and case. Inequality is inevitable in capitalism – the system must be reformedManish & Miller 21 (G. P. Manish is an Assistant Professor of Economics in the Sorrell College of Business and a member of the Manuel H. Johnson Center of Political Economy at Troy University, Stephen C. Miller is the Adams Bibby Chair of Free Enterprise and an Associate Professor of Economics in the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University; Capitalism and Inequality: The Role of State and Market, 1 Capitalism, cronyism, and inequality, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020, pg.20//JL) A second view is that inequality in capitalist economies is due to the economic and political elite conspiring to control the political system for their benefit, so the rules under which people interact are biased to favor the wellconnected few at the expense of the general public. Inequality is a product of the political system. This view, which refers to the system as crony capitalism or corporatism among other names, has adherents throughout the political spectrum, from political left to political right, and there is substantial support for this view in the academic literature in economics, political science, and sociology. Both of these views point toward normative policy recommendations, but different ones. If the private ownership of the means of production that characterizes capitalism inherently generates increasing inequality, and if capitalism assigns ownership of the means of production inequitably, then there is an equity argument that the capitalist system should be reformed. If government policy creates inequality because government power is controlled by elites who can design policy for their benefit at the expense of the masses, the political system rather than the economic system should be reformed. The academic literature, discussed in more detail by Holcombe (2015), offers substantial support for this second view – that inequality is generated as a product of the political process – and Nader (2015) notes strong support for this viewpoint throughout the left– right political spectrum. Despite agreement that this is a problem, the political left and right differ on how it should be remedied. The left argues that more government oversight over those with economic power is the solution, whereas the right argues that government interference with the economy is the cause of the problem and the remedy is less government, not more. Inequality is inevitable in a system that compensates people in proportion to the value they create for others, as the marginal productivity theory of income concludes. Even if people are compensated in proportion to the value they create for others, some will normatively conclude that income redistribution is desirable. Rawls (1971) is an example. The two views discussed here fall into a different category, however, because both argue that inequality arises because of inherently unfair procedures. One view argues that the private ownership of the means of production generates increasing inequality, and that ownership of the means of production is not determined fairly. The other view argues that the elite control the political process and design the rules of the game so that the economic system benefits them at the expense of the masses. In either case, the inequality created by capitalism is unjust. Regardless of whether inequality is the result of some people owning land (Ricardo), or institutions that unfairly give some ownership of capital (Marx, Piketty), or that the rules are slanted to favor some over others (Marx and Engels, Stiglitz, Stockman), inequality under capitalism is unjust. What are the policy alternatives? Download 2.09 Mb. Share with your friends:
|