My point is this: Capitalism doesn't naturally distribute resources to the wealthy, or the poor, or the middle-class, or whatever. The market is not some living being that loves and hates people of different means.
Exactly and that is the problem. The market alone is inadequate in a society. What is needed is a strong state to limited the excesses of the market and provides social security, minimum wages and prohibition of slave/child labour just to mention a few things. I have a greater trust in the solutions provided by the people, the state, rather than the emotions and sympathies of one or a couple of rich individuals, regarding welfare distribution. Still, rich people have an advantage in a pure market economy because they can invest while the poor can not participate. The fact is that 10 per cent of 10 million dollar gives a greater amount of wealth than 10 per cent of 10 thousand dollars, so in fact rich people have more power in the market than poor people.
The Marxian view of the worker being stuck in a state of near-starvation if he acts alone is false, and demonstrates how truly shallow the view has always been.
I would say that Marx's perspective on history, at least in my view, is relevant and applicable. By that I mean that throughout history the many have always produced values that are disproportionately distributed. In the feudal age the system was built upon the principal that the few owned most of the property and valuables, they even owned the life and the well being of their subordinates. That is why it is not false and the poor did starve to death in the thousands all over Europe. Look at the huge emigration statistics from Norway and Ireland to the US in the nineteenth century. The Marxist historical perspective is not only about the industrial age but has a general perspective on how history evolves. The Labour movements in Europe (the Unions included) were the driving force behind higher wages, safer working environments, pension rights and the welfare state as we know it. Still, I agree with your assessment of Marxism not being the accurate in prescribing the right "medicine" for curing the unjust wealth distribution, and that is why I am a social democrat, believing in reform through democratic means and a regulated market economy.
After all, the middle-class jobs we want our children to have are not typically unionized, unless there is a United Computer Programmers union that I'm unaware of. Not a lot of unions for MBAs to join. (Lawyers and doctors have what really amount to guilds, which, I suppose, we could call "unions" in some way.)
Well, a huge part of the middle-class of to day are the children of the poor and economically deprived of yesterday and in my country, Norway, there are a lot of Unions for the academically educated middle-class, both for computer programmers and MBAs. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
...and the elimination of unjust wealth distribution only within a country? :-) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Every nation has their own history and identity and thus has to find their own solutions to their social and economic problems. Still, the belief in a strong state that secures basic rights is one of the key factors in the ideology.
By the way to all of you ET posters and visitors have a happy New Year! Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
First of all I think it is a question of perceived independence. Many Norwegians have the perception that by joining the EU Norway will loose its independence. In comparison to other European states Norway got its independence rather late, in 1905. Before that we were a "junior nation" under Swedish dominance starting from 1814 and before that, under Danish rule for about 400 years. That is why national independence has become such an important part of the nation's identity and thus can be directly linked to the sovereignty and administration of the natural resources, i.e. Oil, gas and fish.
What is worth noting is that the nation's natural resources are directly linked to the socio-economic welfare of the nation, because most of Norway's industry is directly linked to the harvesting of these resources. Any insecurity or discourse over the sovereignty and administration of these resources, make Norwegians sceptical, because it could have a direct bearing on the welfare of the Norwegian people.
Concerning the relation between EU sceptics and their political views the picture are a bit more complicated, but if we were to categorize their views according to their party affiliation you could say that the majority in the Conservative party (Høyre) are supporters of a Norwegian membership and emphasizes that it would be good for the Norwegian industry. The Norwegian Labour party are split in two on the EU membership question. The majority are supporting a membership on the grounds that it would be both good for Norwegian industry and that it would give Norway access to the political decisions within the Union instead of just passively accepting the EU directives. The minority on the other hand emphasizes the economical aspects of the Union and more or less looks upon it as a club for the rich countries.
Both the Agrarian party (Senterpartiet) and the Socialist Left (Sosialistisk Venstre Parti) are opposed to a Norwegian EU membership, but for different reasons. The Agrarian Party emphasizes the loss of national sovereignty and the de-population of the Norwegian periphery as two important factors why we should not join the EU. The Socialist Left Party on the other hand has the perspective that the EU is an institution that is mainly promoting economic issues and libertarian ideas. The far right party, the progress party (FrP), are a bit harder to analyze because they haven't made up their mind yet although I suspect that the majority is against Norway joining the EU on nationalist grounds. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
To be honest I don't think it would be a major issue on joining the EU. Norway is not hunting whales for commercial purposes only for scientific reasons and it was not a major issue in 1994 and I doubt it will be in the future. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
Otherwise agreed, including with your analysis upthread. The world's northernmost desert wind.
In comparison to other European states Norway got its independence rather late, in 1905.
A number of new EU member states, most notably Slovakia and the Baltic countries, have even more recent independence.
Any insecurity or discourse over the sovereignty and administration of these resources, make Norwegians sceptical, because it could have a direct bearing on the welfare of the Norwegian people... ...Labour... The minority on the other hand emphasizes the economical aspects of the Union and more or less looks upon it as a club for the rich countries.
Well, I guess even Romania is rich relative to say Uganda, but not relative to Norway - Norway would be a netto payer in the EU, in effect the financier of lifting the welfare of us Central-Eastern Europeans. I hammer on about this because this is what circles in my mind lately, especially since Marxism was brought up - I am thinking of Social Democracy as an offspring of Marxism that limits redistribution to members of a nation, as opposed to redistribution on higher levels.
I quoted two different relevant parts of your post above because I perceive an apparent contradiction. Do you mean that losing money to the EU is not discussed in the eurosceptic wing of the Norwegian Labour party, but it is in the population? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I am thinking of Social Democracy as an offspring of Marxism that limits redistribution to members of a nation, as opposed to redistribution on higher levels.
I might also point out that Norway is world leading on development aid with about 1 percent of GDP, and the other Scandinavian social democracies aren't far behind. The world's northernmost desert wind.
That seems like a strange point of view? Sounds like a story topic to me.
(1) I may want to do research,
(2) currently there is too much other discussion going on, and not the right time to be provocative to a wider audience. (I was already straddling the limit with our Norwegian friends here :-) but they shot me down finely.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
