Anti-capitalism is one of the present-day issues that can polarize specific groups. Specifically, anti-capitalism is an ideology that can polarize those who know economic systems. Anti-capitalists are opposed to what is championed by capitalists. While capitalism advocates control of a nation’s trade and profits by private entities instead of by persons who invest their labor and time in corporations, anti-capitalism champions the exact opposite. In America, for instance, more than 50% of persons aged between 21 and 32 have been skeptical about retirement savings since they think that that capitalism will have collapsed by the time they retire. Thus, the younger generations are most likely to be polarized by the ideology of anti-capitalism, which is a divisive issue, since they are opposed to the idea of a few individuals in society controlling trade and wealth (Eden, 2016).
Relatively young generations are the risk populations, and they could be radicalized to believe that capitalism is unfair; thus, it should be abolished. In other words, they are radicalized to hold the view that the majority in society remain impoverished because the outcomes of their hard work are enjoyed by a few wealthy companies and people. Eden (2016) and Heywood (2017) argue that one of the most popular strategies the risk populations utilize to elevate their position is violence, which they view can be the best approach to making those in leadership listen to their protests and change what they think is unfair. However, if they use violence, they may harm people and destroy infrastructure. Some human injuries might lead to death or permanent disabilities. In this context, violence can be viewed as an unacceptable way to protest.
From a policymaker’s perspective, I would propose legislation to handle the economic conditions that are likely to polarize risk populations. It is critical to state that the bill would intend to provide solutions to end the perennial loss of economic strength of the majority in society; thus, solving the issue of inequality. I would propose four key solutions in the legislation. First, corporations should distribute their wealth to the people because they are the ones devoting their time and energy to enable business establishments to realize huge profits. Second, there should be reductions in taxation because the majority of people in society feel that they are overburdened by the amounts of tax they pay to the state. Third, companies that do not equally share their incomes with the people should face heavy fines or even closure if they are found to disobey the law perpetually. Fourth, the state should save for the retirement of its citizens because many think that their funds are misused by the government and might not help them during their sunset days.
The proposed solutions would improve the economic conditions of the risk populations in several ways. First, they would feel that they belong to a just society that institutes fair strategies of sharing its wealth. Second, they would be empowered to work hard for corporations since they would equally benefit from their annual incomes. Third, since the majority would be too busy working for corporations, they would hardly have time to engage in protests to claim economic equality (Miller, 2015).
References
- Eden, D. (2016). Autonomy: Capitalism, class and politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Heywood, A. (2017). Political ideologies: An introduction. New York, NY: Macmillan International Higher Education. York, NY: Routledge.
- Miller, E. (2015). Anticapitalism or Postcapitalism? Both!. Rethinking Marxism, 27(3), 364-367.