Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
When I say 'unheard of inequality' I am, strictly speaking, wrong, the industrial proletariat was probably richer (in money terms) than the peasantry that preceded them. But the proletariat were more exposed to the wealth of others and the opportunities they might have if they were just a bit better off. and so they lived much unhealthier, unfulfilling lives (please see Marx) - and that's another parallel with the present.
by lemonwilmot (lemonwilmot at gmail.com) on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 09:30:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the industrial proletariat was probably richer (in money terms) than the peasantry that preceded them.

Wealthier in what terms? Unhealthier, unfulfilling lives look like being poorer to me.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 10:17:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The materialistic conception of history is the cornerstone of Marx' ideas. He considered the economic inequality to be prevailing component in the differences between the classes. His arguments, that political equality does not mean much when such economic disparities are present, are still valid today. But under communism it was reverse-economic equality but lack of liberties. So may be the answer lies somewhere in between...
A social welfare state with certain strong responsiblities in the public sector.(Like the Swedish Model)

I'm not ugly,but my beauty is a total creation.Hegel
by Chris on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 10:44:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series