Reading 'Capital in The 21st Century' was an informative process. The amount of data is monstrous and should convince even the most doubtful we've seen a massive push in wealth accumulation since the end of the post war boom. The cause can be debated, his r>g formula has some flaws but the end result of free market economic policies are non debatable (or at least should be). Capital has been accumulating at an astonishing rate while labor has, since the 1970's, been almost stagnant (rising productivity with stagnating wages). The focus on rentiers, or inheritance, capital gains, or unproductive capital somewhat ignores the structural mechanisms of capitalism which naturally push massive wealth accumulation, something Marx was more keen to focus on. Another aspect of Pikety's historical analysis is he doesn't give early 20'th century social movements their proper due. And almost ignores the rise of Neoliberalism in the 1970's as having a major role in the wealth divide. His solution's dont involve any sort of agency on the part of the working class but more so dependence on politicians and a global regulatory body to raise taxes:
"To regulate the globalized patrimonial capitalism of the twenty-first century . . . [t]he ideal tool would be a progressive global tax on capital. . . . It is perfectly possible to move toward this ideal solution step by step. . . . The largest fortunes are to be taxed more heavily" (pp. 515-517).
I'm not interested in critiquing Pikket's body of work in this post, more so his plan of action but his plan of action is linked to his r>g formula so in depth discussion or debate concerning the r>g formula should take place within the left at some point. The crux of his main plan against wealth accumulation/inequality/poverty is to tax capital or rentier's while letting entrepreneurs flourish- out with the old money, in with the new. Anyhow, I dont think most on the left need to be convinced of the need to fight massive wealth accumulation, inequality and poverty- I think the divide may be on the plan of action. Many heterodox economists seem to think it's just a matter of tweeking trade policy, raising taxes and voting for politicians open to the idea of tax/labor/trade reform. At the end of the day even most heterodox economists have very pro market ideas centered on a nice happy friendly capitalism that works for everyone (globally).
Socialists, Marxian economists and radicals of all stripes call for more fundamental changes to the market structure itself, or an end to capitalism all together which is political kryptonite in today's world, thanks to the failure of the authoritarian USSR. Some socialists such as Richard D. Wolff, Noam Chomsky and others point to a form of market socialism as the answer, using the Mondragon Corporation in Spain as an example of what's possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Unfortunately the likelihood of Americans embracing market socialism is, well, pretty close to zero at the moment. Just as unlikely as Piketty's global government. What the socialists, Marxians and other radicals have to offer, as far as immediate viability, is praxis. Agency. A better grasp on political economy. Mass mobilization in the form of (ideological) class war. Because there is a class war taking place, and the working class is losing. One of Piketty's main concerns is the erosion of democracy as this new financial aristocracy emerges. Well, I'd argue it's too late. The "1%" already control the political process on economic/foreign policy. Thinking we can simply vote for politician A or politician B in order to reverse course is well meaning but ahistoracle and or naive. Many people on the left aren't even capable, at this point, of recognizing what caused the shift in both Democratic and Republican parties. One word, Neoliberalism.
One thing is certain, Pikkety's solution may perhaps go a long way in providing a more equal capitalism but achieving it is never going to happen with today's current political climate, lacking a massive global movement demanding a sort of global regulatory body, or, government, to mitigate the harsher realities of the market system. We lack the manpower to push that sort of change. The urgency. The broad based sustained effort. Will a sense of urgency ever arise to a boiling point and if not can we really rely on politicians and capital making these choices themselves? The way things are going it seems we're doomed to a worsening situation where billionaires and large firms worth trillions control every aspect of, well, just about everything related to the economy. From climate change to inequality to wars and economic crisis. It's probably going to take a severe economic/ecological crisis that threatens humanity itself in order to form the necessary social movement but by then will it be too late? What do you think average people can do, on a day to day, week to week, month to month basis in order to bring about the needed changes? What can we agree on, what, specifically, are the needed changes and how on gods green earth do we get there? Simply by voting?