In the past few years, I have seen a noticeable uptick in anti-capitalist sentiment on social media. In a remarkable turnaround from the 90s when being called a "liberal" in the US could end your political ambitions, many people are openly labeling themselves as socialists. I always wonder what they mean by that.
While socialism actually means one of a variety of forms of collective or public ownership of the economy, the word socialist is still widely used by people on the economic right to mean almost any policy they don't like. Even on the political left, many call social programs like welfare or socialized medicine as socialism. Nordic countries are often described as socialism when they clearly social democracies with capitalist economies. Bernie Sanders has, at times, called himself a socialist; something he is definitely not.
I find that much of conventional socialist thought is still modeled after Marxist thought - exploited workers and cooperative ownership of organizations. I find this curious in 2019 as we move towards a future where a manufacturing facility might consist of a building full of robots. Although I support unionization of workers who truly are exploited, I also see the limitations of this from three perspectives. First, unionization raises wages which causes companies to invest more in labour saving technology, which in turn reduces employment. This isn't inherently a bad thing, providing we have societies that look after unemployed people (which we currently don't). Second, technology acts as a multiplier that allows individuals to become wealthy to an extent that wouldn't have been possible in Marx's time. Finally, I regularly see unions on the wrong side of environmental issues as they support expansion of dirty industries for the benefit of their workers.
I think socialist thought requires an update.
First, instead of focused on workers, it needs to be people-centric. Over the next few decades, we may find ourselves increasingly in a position where workers aren't needed for production of necessary goods and services. People still need to be free, cared for and provided opportunities to challenge themselves and grow.
Second, the resources of the world need to be equitably distributed to the people of the world. Also, consumption needs to be capped to within and amount that is sustainable across the planet. This means that sooner or later, there needs to be some form of democratic world government. No, not the UN.
Third, there needs to be limits on the amount of wealth inequality allowed. I don't care how good of a singer you are or how talented at curating cat videos, you are not entitled to enormous wealth because that wealth allows you to consume disproportionate resources. Inequality is corrosive to social cohesion.
Finally, we need to abandon nationalism in favor of localism. Nation-states should be weakened, with more control given to local governments, under an overall global administration.
I know this all sounds so utopian but it's all possible. The key element is for people to wake up and understand that giant corporations and the billionaires that own them are pan-national. When trade deals are negotiated and pundits claim that this or that country won the negotiations, what isn't mentioned is that the corporations win no matter what. They operate in both countries and simply adjust their operations to maximize their profits. While ordinary people are played into acting against their own interests in pursuit of the "national interest", billionaires win either way. When people understand that their interests are more aligned with people in other countries than the billionaires in their own country, then things become much clearer.
Good luck to us all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment