1. [email protected] : amadopatteson40 :
  2. [email protected] : ashleigha69 :
  3. [email protected] : carloneumayer7 :
  4. [email protected] : clydemckenny173 :
  5. [email protected] : dalton88g689 :
  6. [email protected] : damianlamson74 :
  7. [email protected] : debbiebrobst1 :
  8. [email protected] : elishahepler5 :
  9. [email protected] : Farjana Rafiq : Farjana Rafiq
  10. [email protected] : francescumpston :
  11. [email protected] : laurenelivingsto :
  12. [email protected] : lenorelun9 :
  13. [email protected] : Masum Mahmud : Chowdhury Masum Mahmud
  14. [email protected] : michele54q :
  15. [email protected] : mvxalexis498546 :
  16. [email protected] : Nazim Uddin : Nazim Uddin
  17. [email protected] : orvilleboxer :
  18. [email protected] : porterxxi516525 :
  19. [email protected] : richspiro711629 :
  20. [email protected] : Online Desk :
  21. [email protected] : roseannemcquay :
  22. [email protected] : sabinaschauer :
  23. [email protected] : Sanjid Rahman : Sanjid Rahman
  24. [email protected] : Towfique Tuhin : Towfique Tuhin
  25. [email protected] : tyreebarba51361 :

The system that pushes the way for Gates, Zuckerberg to become the richest.

  • Update Time : Wednesday, December 25, 2019
  • 106 Time View

The western genre of capitalism is described as liberal-centric. This trend has been ferrying to Western countries, including the United States, in the last forty years. To understand this, one can look at the comparison between the two previous classes of capitalism, classical capitalism and social-democratic capitalism. Based on the second clause, post-World War II, some countries in Europe and North America headed for the establishment of welfare states, some of which are still very well protected. Needless to say, the proposal that a section of British and US politicians are now presenting in terms of socialism is just an extension of this trend.

In classical capitalism of the nineteenth century, the capitalist meant him who invested or owned, and who would not work at all. The result of a worker’s work will be the reason for his prosperity. But the structure of the present does not alleviate this dilemma of the capitalist. This arrangement states that the capitalist must be rich in both labor and money. As a result, capitalists now earn both investment and work. As in the previous section, marriage or family formation is still effective as a strategy to achieve and expand economic prosperity. It is, however, a tradition long practiced in any society. For that reason, it is customary for a princess to marry a prince. However, the approach to sustaining or expanding the elite of society has remained the same, but the path to achieving it has changed. In the past, the financier meant the economic elite, now the place is no longer confined to it. This place has been occupied by corporate managers, web designers, doctors, investment bankers, and various professionals. This change is achieved by opening the market and making everything a product.

In the current western capitalist structure, only workers or production people are suffering. Because, even though individualism is insistent, no production is under the control of the individual. On the other hand, it has been transformed voluntarily by giving the business organization unusual freedom. As a result, the strong labor unions that were seen in the classical capitalist society can now be said to have joined the air. The trade union has either been wiped out, or it has been corrupted. And it was unacceptable that neither the centurion’s union was spoken. As a result, the last weapon to reduce economic inequalities is lost.

The ploy that Western capitalism has given to the elimination of labor unions is that the system is giving wealth to those who do not own the wealth in succession. It is able to cover the seeds of its inherent inequality by bringing forth such issues as the development of talent and the equality of opportunity. The rich now like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Marr can easily say that they are the top rich in their own merit. But the truth is, the existing system of capital has also paved the way for the loss of income and wealth. As a result, the system has essentially acted as their primary capital, transforming everything from education to rights to opportunity. And this is the way Gates, Ma, Zuckerberg’s way of becoming the top rich.

These corporate capitalists and their holders undoubtedly strive to be a major influence in policymaking for the state and the world at large. Apart from this, he has no other motive. This is because the capital structure is such that without political power it is impossible to sustain its economic position in the long run. Therefore, all of these rich people, from some research institutes, state institutions, international charities, created and expanded their power by investing large sums of money in various fields. The impact of the National Rifles Association on US politics is well known. Many such companies play a regulatory role in each country. As a result, the policies affected by them do not adopt a policy that is generally favorable to the 90 percent, unless their system is suspected to be broken. The principle of low taxation on high income, tax concession in the corporate sector bears this out.

This is not too different from the Chinese-controlled model of capitalism. There is also a clash between economic and political elites. While all the policies of the country depend on the politicians, the connection of the top rich with it is no longer invisible. As a result, a similar pattern of liberal capital structure has been created. Therefore, the socialist revolution of 1949, the opportunity of people of different classes of China to rise up and reach the high level of the current capital structure through the course of the Cultural Revolution in the 1960 decade, does not seem to be intact in the future.

The growing two systems have also brought about a major change in the existing class of society. In both cases, this change is most noticeable among the many middle class. With the increase of the economic gap between the lowest and highest classes, these two systems have given rise to a number of classes that can no longer be confined to the upper, middle and lower-middle class. This has had a far-reaching impact on the unification of the resistance forces in various national and international crises. Examples of the past few years cannot be traced to any unified movement which has long been able to assert its claim for unity. The principle of this division of capitalism in the two systems is ultimately the winner.

The thing is, what will happen to the growing inequality worldwide? The answer is likely to be the result of the ongoing dilemma of these two structures, and how socialists prepare themselves as proponents of alternative economic structures on the way to that. In this case, the main challenge of the socialists is to read out the class structure of the changing world and determine its character by going beyond the definition of a pre-class society.

Please Share This Post in Your Social Media

More News Of This Category