One thing I have noted in my various articles from the POV of the Classical Left is that the fundamental change the workers of the world need is one that takes full advantage of our current level of industrial development.
That means providing everyone on this planet with the full fruit of their labor, thereby eliminating poverty, economic insecurity, and material want. Along with…
… ending our reliance on money and the artificial scarcity & complicated fiscal concerns it creates in a post-industrial era…
… greatly decrease required labor time and its more unpleasant aspects by utilizing automation and A.I. to perform most of the drudge work…
… providing meaningful jobs to everyone that compliments their talents and conforms to their individual needs & personality traits…
… eliminates competition between workers and replaces it with system-wide cooperation, thus undercutting problems borne of a competitive system with unequal distribution of the resources such as racism, sexism, ageism, and all the other “-isms”; along with war between competing segments of the global ruling class…
… thereby changing the ethical framework of our society so that all of the above are universally considered to be human rights rather than privileges based on one’s individual finances or economic class; and this means…
… ending class divisions and class rule altogether, which would take the American experiment to its next logical step and ultimate culmination.
But Here is the Major Problem
As I’ve often noted, too many people from all across the political spectrum are unable to divest themselves with the familiar.
Too many of them are entrenched with the belief that things which served a purpose during an earlier level of technological development, with the limits on production inherent to those bygone eras, are somehow either things that should be retained for eternity; or, they’re unable to see a world that moves past them.
These once-but-no-longer-necessary relics from the pre-industrial era include money; a system based on market forces, e.g., bartering & profit; top-to-bottom decision-making by a ruling class; use of a military and police forces as we know them today and throughout history to enforce order; and material inequality in general.
So, what these individuals will do is adopt descriptors like post-duopoly, post-capitalism, progressive, socialist, Marxist, etc., while formulating ideologies and plans to replace the current system… with just another variation of the current system.
And they will do this while insisting that it’s no longer capitalism despite retaining all or at least most of its signature features (listed above). What they are actually presenting you with, however, is just a different way of running capitalism, i.e., trying to operate it “better” than we do now; to put a new, shinier coat of paint on a piece of machinery past its time of useful function; a mere reform measure.
It’s true that Marx and Engels did not include a specific blueprint for what a post-capitalist, Economic Democracy would look like. That is because both knew the working class would have to set up the specific architectural details when the time came. They realized that such a time would be at least many decades to well over a century in the future, when all conditions would be unpredictable from their historical vantage point.
But they were clear as to what such a system would look like in a general sense. And what features it would have and, more importantly, not have. That is the essence of Classical Marxism. For one thing, it is not this, or this, or this,
And I explain why in those respective articles.
What follows is a list of statements you will hear from advocates of fundamental change, and socialism, and post-capitalism et al. that are major red flags to consider… along with an explanation/reminder as to why that is.
Here’s the List!
“We obviously can’t move everyone out of poverty, but…”
Wrong from an objectively material sense.
We currently possess sufficient technology to do precisely that, for everyone on the planet. This is because we can now mass produce items, something we were unable to do prior to the Industrial Revolution. There is no longer any material, and hence no ethical, reason to maintain disparate levels of access to the collectively produced material wealth among workers.
“People will be able to move up the economic ladder in greater numbers than before…”
There should be no need to “move up” in terms of access to material wealth and the social store. All contributions should be materially rewarding, and this should be a human right from the get-go.
As time goes on, your diligent work and contributions to the system should earn you increasing amounts of respect from your fellow workers, not constitute a requirement for greater access to the material wealth.
Freedom from want should be a human right at our current level of technology.
But what about motivating people to actually do the remaining necessary work? The motivation for good work should be three things only:
1- The level of respect you earn, as noted above.
2- The degree of satisfaction and sense of accomplishment you take in not only doing a good job, but doing something you enjoy doing because you only have to do it for a reasonable amount of time, not break your back 60 hours a week almost non-stop throughout the year.
3- Knowing that all society, including yourself, is enjoying this level of material bounty in part because of your contribution. And that your contribution is providing this for both you and the greater good, without the two being perceived as in conflict with each other.
You should not have poverty or extreme want held over your head as the motivator to work, especially when 9 times out of 10 you end up there despite the hard work and effort. That is both cruel and a crass example of using someone’s labor for the benefit of the few, not the good of everyone in society.
“Merit will be the main determining factor in how much wealth one can acquire.”
No. Merit should be the main determining factor in whether or not you get to do the specific job that you want to do, i.e., a combination of natural talent, a willingness to put the work into mastering those skills, and a desire to do that specific type of work.
“Merit” should not be defined as what your talents are and what type of contribution you make, as long as you use whatever talents, skills, and acquired knowledge you do have to contribute to society the best you can. How much of an intellect — or perhaps more accurately, what type of intellect — that it takes to do your vocation is irrelevant compared to its importance.
For instance, doctors and engineers are very important and require a specific type of intellect, and a certain measure of work put into it to fully develop and master those skills.
But writers and artists of various stripes also requires a certain type of intellect and make important contributions to the world, albeit of a very different sort. As do computer software designers. And clothing designers, and interior decorators. And the same can be said for various influencers in the modern Internet age (*waves to the hard working activists from independent media*).
The same also goes for maintenance people; construction workers; and sanitation workers. Society would be in serious trouble if these people weren’t doing their jobs.
And they all take specific types of personalities and work ethics to perform competently and responsibly, and none of them are something that literally “anyone” can do.
Performing your chosen vocation to the best of your ability is merit, and should qualify you for the full fruit of your labor. The specific type of intellect to which you are born is a roll of the genetic dice that is a form of luck, not merit. As is your ability to afford the type of training necessary to fully develop it under capitalism, an issue that would not exist in an Economic Democracy where education would be a right to all workers, not something based on ability to pay or necessitate going into massive debt to acquire.
“We will ensure that money will be public funds that are spent on needed resources for all people.”
Money is not necessary in a post-industrial world. And it therefore makes less than no sense to require it to move resources in a world with our current level of productive technology that can mass produce enough of virtually everything for everyone.
And the few things we still cannot currently mass produce can be fairly rationed with a preference based on one’s level of individual need, not individual ability to pay.
The fact remains that what we actually need is stuff, not money. If we can produce the former in abundance, there is no longer a need for the latter to “pay” for it.
“I don’t hate capitalism…”
Uh oh. When you hear that, you know the changes they are suggesting will be quite superficial. That statement means they cannot move past their fetishism for what they are familiar with, and their ideology or plan will very much reflect that.
In short, it will mean leaving the capitalist class, the now-artificial need for money, and various levels of inequality intact — even if the latter is “reduced.”
“Businesses will now be run by workers democratically.”
When you hear the word “business,” it means the general framework of a market-driven economy, including production for profit; competition between workers; a few winners and a lot of losers in a material sense; and artificial scarcity will remain — despite all of that now being wrapped up in more elegant democratic trappings. Much like Social Democracy (see above links).
In short, it means another example of tinkering with the system as it is, not any truly fundamental change.
When we dedicate ourselves to fighting for much-needed fundamental change, we need to mean exactly that.
We need to envision a world that is truly better and different from the way the system operates today, not basically the same world with a prettier set of clothing.
Now that this has become technologically possible after so many thousands of years where it wasn’t, we owe it to ourselves and future generations (especially them) to make full use of it, not take a half-assed measure instead to keep us in the zone of familiarity.
To put it another way, we need to go for the gold and not be comfortable with, or willing to accept, another load of copper with a somewhat more lustrous shine.
Let me guess how to get there (since you left that part out): A vote for Jill Stein is the pathway to the fabulous new world that you envision.
Did I get it right, Christofer?