Seven trashes collected by the senses. Well, bonus holiday edition of 20 trashes.
Defined as “nationalisation of the means of production and central planning of production”, socialism has failed conclusively and has no political future anywhere. If the 20th century economic history didn’t make that clear, the failure of such a platform to gather pace even after the ongoing global recession should do so. However, defined as “redistribution of wealth or economic power”, socialism could have a political future in Bangladesh.
Redistributive politics usually needs a homogenous population. A diverse population means anti-redistributive factions can play off the poor against each other. If not sure what that means, look at the voting records of poor, redneck Americans, and then look at the relatively homogenous Scandinavian countries. Bangladesh is, of course, one of the most homogenous countries in the world.
In addition to homogeneity, for their to be redistribution, there has to be sufficient inequality to begin with. The rich has to be sufficiently wealthy for the state to tax. Bangladesh isn’t particularly unequal. Is there a constituency for soaking the rich?
|fugstar on Making a stand, taking a …|
|clown ball python on On Tabligh Jamaat|
|lru-krl.com on A monsoon fantasy|
|fugstar on Blogging on hold…|
|Rumi on Blogging on hold…|