Socialism? wtf is that?

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.

Is Utopia Possible?

Recently, a Twitter acquaintance posted a link to a blog post with a rather nihilistic take on responses to climate change.  It essentially claimed that solutions from capitalists, socialists, communists, liberals, individualists, radicals, and Malthusians were all useless; implying we have to throw away all preexisting ideologies and start from scratch.

For such a pessimistic view on the world, the reference to Malthus was particularly ironic.  Of course, Thomas Malthus was the British economist who, in the period 1798-1830, proposed that expanding populations would quickly exhaust food supply.  Malthus wasn't wrong, exactly, he just couldn't predict technological changes that would increase food supply or reduced population growth as the middle class emerged and children stopped being economic assets.  No one can predict the future and the lesson we should take from Malthus is that no matter how bad things look now, they can turn around.  There is nothing to be gained from panicking in a fit of apocalyptic despair.

All of the different world views in the first paragraph have strengths as well as weaknesses.  It would be much more practical to accentuate the positive than to throw away everything.

Capitalism certainly has many sins to answer for but you can't deny the efficacy of small groups of independent entrepreneurs when it comes to generating ideas and launching concepts.

Socialism provides economic justice and ensures that all receive an opportunity to develop and grow as people wish.

Liberals bring a pragmatism and a passion for social justice.

Individuals can't change the world by themselves but nor will global solutions work unless individuals participate and make the necessary sacrifices.

Radicals are needed for their fresh thinking and fearlessness when it comes to challenging established norms.

As for Malthusians, Malthus was right.  Population can't grow forever.  The good news is that history shows most people choose to have smaller families; assuming children aren't economic assets and they have access to birth control.

Humans have evolved to the point where we are our own enemy.  Most of the pressing problems we face, from climate change to wars, were created by us.  As Einstein once said, "the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them". If we are going to survive as a species (at least while we have only one planet), we're going to need to change the relationships with our world and with each other.

We need to stop viewing the planet as simply a resource, vast and relatively impervious to our actions.  We need to instead view it as a fragile web of interconnected systems.  There needs to be a system of global caps on the resources we consume, the emissions we give off and the damage we inflict.  An evidence-based scientific consensus should be developed and enforced.  Increases in average standard of living are only provided through technological advances that reduce the impact of goods and activities.  And the population needs to be stabilized.  GDP becomes a quaint, obsolete concept.

At the same time, we have to stop seeing each other as enemies, competitors, and rivals.  Instead, we are fellow travelers with a shared interest in peaceful coexistence.  Resources are shared equitably among the world's people and the products of research are freely available to all.  Quality healthcare and education are freely available to all.

How do we get there?  Honestly, I don't know.  I only know that we must find a way.  Or today's Malthus might be proven right.