It’s time for a democratization of the economic system
Political democracy is a recent accomplishment of humanity; now our energy must concentrate on democratizing the economic system in a similar vein.
By Joe Hargrave on Friday, December 19th, 2008 - 1,559 words.
Socialists have always spoken of the historical leap from “necessity to freedom”. But this is not an idle dream: it is based upon the Marxian law of value, which is simply that the value of commodities fall as the productivity of human labor increases. Put differently, that which can be produced in near-total abundance, due to advanced technology, has as little value as the air we breath. With respect to the basic necessities of life – food, water, medicine, clothes, shelter, and even now education, transportation, sanitary work and living conditions, electricity, etc. – we are at a point of abundance. These things may not be as completely abundant as oxygen but they are at least to the point where they can be provided cheaply or possibly free of charge to every person on the planet (provided of course it is done in an ecologically sound manner).
To better illustrate both the objective foundations, as well as the moral justification for socialism, we can look at it in relation to the development of its older brother, democracy. Throughout history, political participation has been the privilege of the few, of the propertied classes. Even Athenian democracy, not to mention American democracy until the previous century, had property qualifications.
Why was this so? Were our ancestors simply unenlightened barbarians? Or did the division of political labor arise from the real conditions under which they lived? Most people had to work exhaustively for very little output; they lived at the subsistence level. They lacked the time to acquire a rudimentary education, let alone participate in politics. Aristotle’s writings on the subject were the norm in the Western world for centuries, whether for medieval societies or the original democracies as they existed prior to the late 19th century. Only the leisured class could participate in politics because only it had the time for educational pursuits. As he writes in Book seven of Politics:
“Now, since we are here speaking of the best form of government, i.e., that under which the state will be most happy (and happiness, as has been already said, cannot exist without virtue), it clearly follows that in the state which is best governed and possesses men who are just absolutely, and not merely relatively to the principle of the constitution, the citizens must not lead the life of mechanics or tradesmen, for such a life is ignoble, and inimical to virtue. Neither must they be husbandmen, since leisure is necessary both for the development of virtue and the performance of political duties.”
***
This of course changed with the growth of trade and commerce, especially towards the end of what we call the “Middle Ages” and the onset of the “Renaissance” — more people than ever before acquired leisure time and demanded to participate, first in the religious and later in the political process. The development of the printing press was both an effect and a cause of this upward development of wealth creation. Heresy was spread and protected by princes and merchants with wealth independent of the feudal system. This was the seed of the revolutions of the past, both against the “spiritual“ monopoly of the Church and then the political monopoly of the monarchy. What was the privilege of the few, became in the hands of the philosophers that represented this enriched and leisured class (such as John Locke), a universal right of at least propertied males; first the right to freedom of religious and intellectual profession (to a limited extent), followed by the right to participate in government and politics.
But the leap from necessity to freedom could not as yet be completed. Political freedom was achieved first for the propertied classes, and only through pitched battles spanning centuries, the whole of the adult citizenry. The political franchise was extended to the lower classes without any further progressive developments in property relations. The propertyless wage-worker could eventually vote, but unlike the propertied bourgeoisie before him, this franchise was not based upon a revolution, and a subsequent establishment of new property forms to replace the old.
Political consciousness raced ahead of economic reality, for the objective, historical foundation for the leisure of the majority – which is in turn the only foundation for genuine democracy – had not yet developed. Not until the middle of the 19th century would the possibility for such leisure time even arise. As Frederich Engels wrote in Anti-Duhring:
“Only the immense increase of the productive forces attained by modern industry has made it possible to distribute labour among all members of society without exception, and thereby to limit the labour-time of each individual member to such an extent that all have enough free time left to take part in the general–both theoretical and practical–affairs of society. It is only now, therefore, that every ruling and exploiting class has become superfluous and indeed a hindrance to social development.”
We now have the technology to supply all of struggling humanity with at least the basic needs of life; the profit system, through its chaos and irrationality, denies many of these basic needs or provides them only at the most inferior quality. They are in many cases the luxury of the relatively privileged few in the imperialist countries that exploit and dominate the rest of the world, i.e. America, Europe, Japan, etc.
But just as political participation, once a privilege of the leisured class, became an inalienable right for all to enjoy, so too will economic stability and security, now a luxury of the upper classes of the imperialist countries (and perhaps the middle in times of prosperity), become an inalienable right for all. In both cases, these “rights” are made possible by the objective development of the productive forces of society. And in both cases it is the struggle between social and economic classes that will force the emergence and universal acceptance of these rights. For in the final instance a set of rights only represents a set of requirements for the further development of human civilization.
If the current worldwide economic crisis does not signify this, nothing will. The recent scandal involving Bernard Madoff is also a sharp indicator that history is “ready”, not for the leap from necessity to freedom – this has already been realized objectively – but for the masses to awaken to the simple fact that they have at their collective disposal the objective means by which to set themselves free of economic crises, violent wars, and material want.
There will always be those who point to a Madoff and declare, “He was one bad apple; you can’t condemn the whole system of modern financial capitalism because of him.” Aside from the fact that Madoff is only the latest in a long line of corporate criminals, this “one bad apple” and his fraudulent practices are going to cost the global economy tens of billions of dollars, perhaps more as the details continue to come in. Countless millions of lives will be affected for the worse, and the damage will take many years to repair. Modern financial capitalism has concentrated such enormous amounts of wealth and power in the hands of so few individuals that it only takes a few frightened investors demanding their money back for the entire system to begin to fall like dominoes.
For humanity to continue on this basis would be absolutely insane and inexorably self-destructive. Regardless of the difficulties that we would face in embarking on a new path, few scenarios can be worse than a global depression and a new world war. The frenzied right-wing attacks on “wealth spreading” can no longer be taken seriously. We must not only demand that the “wealth be spread”, but that the citizens themselves have direct control over whom it is spread to and for what purpose. “The wealth” can no longer be entrusted to a class of parasitic sociopaths and warmongers. “The wealth” is the product of the entire planet — not just Americans, not just Europeans, but the billions of workers around the world. It does not spring fully created from the minds of self-styled geniuses, but from the collective labor of global human civilization.
To deny humanity its continued right to exist on the principle of “property rights” would be as mad as if our own ancestors denied themselves political freedom out of respect for the “divine right of kings”. This is not to say, either, that all property must be abolished; only property in the means of production and the financial institutions of society, i.e. concentrated wealth in the service of society. For certainly, with all that has happened before us in the recent months, those who continue to argue for unlimited, unrestricted property rights over massive amounts of wealth are as irrational, superstitious, and contemptuous of the strivings of the great majority of humanity as the aristocrats and nobles of old were.
We must no longer be held hostage by fear of the unknown, or worse, a false equivocation of the possibilities of the future with some of the failures of the past. For all of their vices and faults, the advanced capitalist countries of our day have what Russia, China, and other “communist” countries never had before their revolutions; a deep commitment on the part of the majority to the principles of democracy. Let this be the foundation of the future economy, which I call “socialism” but which you may call whatever you please.
(0 rating, 2 votes)
Loading ...22 Comments
Leave a Reply
Articles by this author
-
The US minimum wage debate is bogus
All of the tongue-clucking of the economists will never convince voters that granting more power to business will improve their lives. They know from bitter experience that what employers want is more work for less pay, and they will use the means at their disposal to reverse the trend
-
Strong community is the best defense against the Leviathan state
Joe Hargrave on the relationship between the state and the individual
-
There is no morality outside of religion
Religion cannot and should not be usurped by science.
-
The Hidden Hunger: We need to invest in every human and create real foundations for cooperation
The economic crisis was the result of unrestrained financial markets and a haywire capitalism that is anti-human. To get the best out of humanity we need to build up cooperation through rational planning.
-
The potential alliance between the religious and the secular
The attempt to separate the Church and State is a futile one, because many of our moral victories have been achieved because of religious morality.
-
It's time for a democratization of the economic system
Political democracy is a recent accomplishment of humanity; now our energy must concentrate on democratizing the economic system in a similar vein.
Creating freedom from need will only create the need for freedom from government. When those things “given” to the people are no longer able to be “given” because natural shortages make them unaffordable, what then? Then won’t EVERYONE be denied there basic needs? Free lunches are great, but they don’t exist in reality. Communism is for conversation.
Well, I actually agree that freedom from need will create freedom from government – isn't that what you ultimately want as well?
If we create a sustainable, ecologically sound infrastructure, we will not need to obsess over "natural shortages". Weather control is no longer science fiction. Nanotechnology will make the construction of many things, including buildings, instantaneous, eliminating the need for virtually all human labor. Automated factories and restaurants already exist.
A major catastrophe might set everyone back, but we certainly can't live our lives, as individuals or as a society, as catastrophes are inevitable and always around the corner. We would never leave our homes if we did. Barring a major catastrophe, technology will give us the power to render "natural shortages" a thing of the past, along with things like the plague and barbarian invasions.
Weather control is no longer sci-fi? Right, that's why the had those snowplows in Vegas last week, it was a planned event. Funny, thought they would have advertised it, an awful rare occasion. Why are weathermen wrong so much?
If you think technology will eliminate barbarians, then you must be figuring the movie Minority Report is real. Even then, the barbarians aren't eliminated, they are just better controlled…but a good guy becomes a target because somewhere in the system is a…barbarian. Maybe you aren't, but IMO the rest of us are fallen creatures with limits, and some fall very far, or crime would be a matter of history. It clearly isn't, and never will be. Or enlighten me how base human drives will be eliminated.
Who be this "us" that can meet every need, much less divine them in advance and make appropriate preparations? What technnology can go into a room and predict accurately what each of 4 people want for dinner? You can't do it, I sure can't…surely we are smarter than machines?
Harry,
I'm flattered that you're giving me all this attention. Do a Google search on weather control. We're making great strides. No one argued it was perfected yet, but it is being implemented with some results.
Technology will simply eliminate scarcity and material want. Base human drives will always exist, the question is, how much damage to society will they be able to cause?
It is easy to criticize arguments that you make up yourself and attribute to other people.
So glad you are flattered. So many goals met, I guess.
Google searches are now the standard of intellectual achievement? You didn't answer my point about Las Vegas and their snow. This was contrived or not?
As to technology "eliminating scarcity and material want", this depends on the desires of people being tied to what technology produces. Some people excoriate GM for producing trucks and SUV's instead of "sustainable" vehicles. The fact is GM responded to the market. People didn't want your "sustainable vehicles". So how will you get those people to conform to your model?
Again, you intimate I am making up the arguements and attributing them to you. How is it, wizard, that you know me so well? Tell me about myself so that this point has credibility.
Maybe you're too old to appreciate the significance of the information superhighway, I don't know. Yes, a two second Google search can tell you a great deal about almost anything you want to know about. Welcome to the 21st century grandpa.
What about Las Vegas? I didn't say it was perfected and applied on a wide scale. I said it was no longer science fiction, and it isn't.
As for eco friendly vehicles, again, do you ever use a search engine? Read a newspaper? Demand for such vehicles is on the rise, and even the developers are understanding that we have to move away from fossil fuels. Jeez.
How do I know you so well? What does that have to do with assessing the quality of the arguments you make here, for me and others to see? You see buzzwords like "Marx" and "socialism" and you go off on tirades that reflect nothing but your own combination of ignorance and arrogance. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
And what if you are the one being manipulated by your own arrogant thoughts and stereotypes through the use of key words and value-laden terms?
Your dismissal of past utopian failures with the claim technology can solve it all, including control the weather, is an old hoax. The force to solve all the problems changes over time, not the end vision and certainly not the claim you are establishing "democracy".
As in Democratic Republic of the Congo and other such farcial titles.
The concentration of wealth you find ugly will occur whatever you try to do, becasue some people are just smarter, faster, work more or harder, or as in the case of a Kennedy, made a good choice of grandparents. Get used to it
I don't understand your point Harry. Are you saying that any attempt to make a more egalitarian society ends in the Congo or something like it? Have you ever heard of Sweden or Norway?
If we lived in a genuine meritocracy your point about the inequality of humans might be valid, but we don't, so the assumption that the talented, smart etc. rise to the top is just bbaloney.
Matt,
My point is that much evil has been done in the name of "democracy", where the state decides winners and losers. There is an old saying about Socialism creating only an equality of misery.
As to a perfect meritocracy, they don't exist, but the more freedom people hvae to succeed or fail, the more likely "merit" will prevail. Of course, it depends upon how to define "merit". Perhaps you have seen the multiple studies indicatiing American students average more self-esteem than their knowlege should give them.
Further…
Joe appears to figure he is forced into being a drone and can't escape. I don't hear him thinking of a plan to start a business or otherwise change things so he has the job he "deserves", but the subject of the essay and subsequent posts haven't addressed that well, left him a big opening to say how he intends to get out his sad drone state. No, the economy is bad so he can't get a better job. Well, maybe so, maybe not.
The correlation between hard work, intelligence (not how much schooling one has had) and wealth is often clear (though not for Kennedys) , though not everybody makes it and most especially, not everyone with the self-esteem to think they are deserved wealth.
The problem with socialism occurs when you run out of other people's money.
The idea that Marx understood anything well is hard to fathom. The man wrote about conditions in Europe that were disappearing rapidly due to economic competition and capitalism, so that by the time his works were published, they were irrelevant. The conditions they described largely had disappeared. His best idea ever was to die, but unfortunately for tens of millions of people, it came to him late in life. So far in human experience, Marxism has been used very much to the detriment of humanity, shaming Nazism in its inefficiency of dealing with non-believers. Look at the body count.
I will turn around to ask why if this philosphy is so "right", why nobody has got it right on any scale in more than a century of trying? Maybe you think things will be different this time, but I beg to differ. Perhaps if you were king and could control everything and every person (an impossible situation), it might be. And when you die?
And further…
You think your successors will do anything but fight over the privileges of the dead King, long live the King?
You indicate you are an office drone. Can you leave your job when you wish, should conditions become unpleasant, and find alternative employment? That is freedom, that there are places to go, choices to make, when your current situation doesn't feel good anymore.
Let's contrast that with the idea that a person cannot find their highest and best "use" except as determined by the state. That is the practical definition of a human being to practicing Marxists (I don't care about test tube Marxists, they are the first ones shot after every revolution). If you don't like what you are doing you have to check in with the local "people's committee" or gauleiter, whatever, for a change. If it meets THEIR needs, you might move on. Sort of like appointing s relacement senator in IL. And it is a surprise that Russia and China, not to mention Zimbabwe, are very corrupt, pay-to-play economies?
Further….
Zimbabwe deserves special mention, with Mugabe's announcement yesterday that he "owns" Zimbabwe. A good Marxist, our boy Mugabe, land reform, the lot. And lots of apologists, too. Maybe you should emigrate. It certainly is an end scenario picture of a Marxist paradise.
If you own all the guns. Mugabe isn't missing any meals, BTW, while the underlings fight famine and cholera. Oopps, sorry, the cholera is Bush's fault.
Try this: go start a business. Duke it out with government leeches, regulations, permits, the lot. Put your own money, sweat and blood on the line, instead of accepting the hell of being a drone and riding on someone else. You are capable of so much more (you think). I don't think you have the guts or brains to pull it off, but I have been wrong before.
Then come and talk to me about how relevant Marx is.
It sure is the hallmark of a person who has no arguments and no ideas to begin with personal attacks. Why can't people like you ever simply stick with the facts and the arguments at hand? Why do you project your own personal inadequacy onto others? I'm not interested in your professional capabilities, your level of guts or "brains". I'll thank you in the future to stop worrying about mine, and try to remain relevant.
"Can you leave your job when you wish, should conditions become unpleasant, and find alternative employment?"
Yes. I can go find another wonderful job, in this wonderful, booming economy we are all experiencing right now. Why, the jobs hang off trees like ripe fruit for the picking. And the good jobs especially.
Even if I weren't being sarcastic, even our times of prosperity are nothing but the spoils of imperialist domination of the world. The big lie is that something wholly internal to America is responsible for whatever prosperity it has. Wrong. That prosperity comes at the expense of the hundreds of millions of toilers around the world who are paid next to nothing for their labor. And it isn't simply because it is "cheaper to live there" – it is because we make it so, through oppressive economic policies, through support for evil regimes that brutally suppress all democratic and workers rights of the people. That is the history of US foreign policy and the history of our "prosperity" as well.
All of your sarcastic references to other countries, did you even bother reading my article? Or did you see the word "socialism" in the first sentence and skip right to the comment box? None of the countries you mention had democratic traditions when they had their revolutions. They were denied any chance to even develop them because of European and American imperialism, which always supported dictators and monarchs that would better serve imperial interests, rather than democracy.
And you know about my personal inadequacies…how?
And what of your workers' "rights" are you most upset about being denied?
As I recall Jimmah Cahtah hailed Mugabe as a great champion of the rights of "the people". Bro Stalin also was lionized, Pol Pot, Uncle Ho, Mao, Castro…are they or aren't they?
Like I said, go put your money on the line and start a business, stop accusing those you think have been ripping you off. One thing you will find is that some people are office drones because they cannot or will not do more. Nothing personal implied in that. We all have different goals and desires, and some just don't want to work that hard, have hit their level of incompetence or won't learn new stuff, whatever…I have seen all three and more.
If you really do your homework you will find government policies (a soft dollar and race-based home loans) at the core of our current malaise. Doing Marx and increasing government's role is not going to help, just as Smoot-Hawley torpedoed recovery from the 1929 Crash.
I don't know about your personal inadequacies – what I do know is that people who make personal attacks are usually projecting something they don't like about themselves onto others. Maybe you're the exception.
I don't have to answer for any of the names on your list. I believe in economic democracy, and I think Marxism is useful as a theory of history and a critique of capitalism. There is no system of government that logically follows from a theory of historical development or a mere critique of the existing mode of production. Furthermore, I'd like to know just how much of Marx you've actually read, and just how familiar you are with each of those individual's personal understanding of Marx. Marx was not an idealist who believed that ideas can simply be "tried out" regardless of the time, the place, the historical circumstances. The men you speak of lead revolutions in backwards countries oppressed by imperialism. Marx had nothing to say about the prospects for socialism in such countries.
I highly doubt you are qualified to say anything at all about what "doing Marx" entails. A hodge-podge and mish-mash of superficial soundbites doesn't count as a serious analysis. Furthermore, if you really do your historical homework, you'll see that a declining rate of profit is what is really behind the government policies that you despise so much. And it was Marx who understood how and why the rate of profit must inevitably decline, and what the political and social consequences of this decline would be. Blame the state all you like – the massive expansion of credit, the availability of easy money, the financial parasitism of the American ruling class, all of this has been brought on by a crisis in profitability and the dismantling of industry in the US.
And you know about my personal inadequacies…how?
And what of your workers' "rights are you most upset about being denied?
As I recall Jimmah Cahtah hailed Mugabe as a great champion of the tights of "ther people". Bro Stalin also was lionized, Pol Pot, Uncle Ho, Mao, Castro…are they or aren't they?
Like I said, go put your money on the line and start a business, stop accusing those who have of ripping you off. One thing you will find is that some people are office drones because they cannot or will not do more. Nothing personal implied in that. We all have different goals and desires, and some just don't want to work that hard, have hit their level of incompetence or learn new stuff, whatever…I have seen all three and more.
If you really do your homework you will find government policies (a soft dollar and race-based home loans) at the core of our current malaise. Doing a Marx and increasing government's role is not going to help, just as Smoot-Hawley torpedoed recovery from the 1929 Crash.
And you know about my personal inadequacies…how?
And what of your workers' "rights" are you most upset about being denied?
As I recall Jimmah Cahtah hailed Mugabe as a great champion of the tights of "ther people". Bro Stalin also was lionized, Pol Pot, Uncle Ho, Mao, Castro…are they or aren't they?
Like I said, go put your money on the line and start a business, stop accusing those who have of ripping you off. One thing you will find is that some people are office drones because they cannot or will not do more. Nothing personal implied in that. We all have different goals and desires, and some just don't want to work that hard, have hit their level of incompetence or learn new stuff, whatever…I have seen all three and more.
If you really do your homework you will find government policies (a soft dollar and race-based home loans) at the core of our current malaise. Doing a Marx and increasing government's role is not going to help, just as Smoot-Hawley torpedoed recovery from the 1929 Crash.
For some reason or another my original reply to these comments never showed up, so I am going to try and respond to this again.
First of all, Harry, I think its sad that you have to come at me personally. I'm interested in debating actual issues, not personal motives. In spite of your rudeness here, I actually agree with your article on the 2nd amendment.
Secondly, you don't actually address a single thing I wrote. You're just above it all, right? You saw the word "socialism" in the first line and jumped right to the com box, am I right?
Next, because you didn't read what I wrote, you don't know what I believe. I believe in economic democracy, regardless of whether that can be squared with orthodox Marxism or not. And that is hardly what exists in Zimbabwe.
No socialist has ever suggested that socialism can even exist in a backwards place like China, let alone a place like Zimbabwe. What makes socialism possible, as I said in my opening paragraph, is technology that allows the necessities of life and thensome to be produced in such quantities, at such low costs, that they can be made accessible to all. To deny that this is the logical conclusion of technological progress is to bury your head in the sand.
Of course, if I wanted to get personal with you, I could say that this inevitable process will make overpaid corporate executives, like CEOs, a superfluous burden on society. But I'm sure you are more than the sum of the things you do in your business office.
Finally, we have "choices" in America because those same choices are denied to the vast majority of the world's workers, who create the profits that average Americans can access through banks and credit. These are privileges of the imperial citizenry, not the bounty of capitalism. Everything America has, has been sustained by economic domination, political intervention and military violence. This is not the garden of Eden.
To accept all that might mean to accept that you have been a willing accomplice in evil on a global scale, so I'll understand if you reply with nothing but more platitudes about "free enterprise" and bootstraps, and more personal attacks on me. Anything to avoid reality, right?
Harry,
Your arguments are completely false. The conditions Marx wrote about did not disappear – they intensified and lead to two world wars. You want to talk about "body counts"? We are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Between the last one and the current one, dozens of countries rose up in revolution against imperialism. The only mistake Marx made was underestimating the ability and willingness of the state to intervene aggressively to save capitalism from itself. But the state's ability to do so is limited, and we are seeing those limits stretched to the breaking point right now. The tendencies to which Marx pointed in capitalism – the globalization of the economy, the decline of the rate of profit, the expansion of credit and the crisis of overproduction – all of these tendencies have been central features of the 20th century and especially the last quarter, leading into the 21st, where they are now more than mere tendencies but crises before our very eyes.
Secondly, Marx never argued that socialism could be established just anywhere. Marx was a historical materialist, not an idealist who believed that ideas could simply be "tried out" without any regard to the historical situation. Marx didn't even believe that Russia could establish socialism without help from the West; he certainly wouldn't have said China or any other place could establish it on their own.
You would actually have to read Marx and know something about his work to know these things, though, and you can't be bothered with that, right? When it comes to Marx, you can just repeat whatever some second or third-hand scholar told you, and never bother to investigate for yourself. You can speak freely about that which you know little, if anything at all, and demand that you be taken seriously. Only in America.
I have been bankrupt before and dug out of it because of the team effort and some good judgements about products to pursue. We earmed the profit we eked out this year. Having done it, I believe merit can rise. Larry Ellison I am not, couldn't be even if I had his money.
The essential point I don't see in Joe's discussion is who and how will things get leveled. "Technology" is not a reasonable answer, the problem is not that simple.
And then we get into differing views of "egalitarian"…
Yah, I have heard of Sweden and Norway. Nice riots they are having in Malmo about now. Yah, nothing like a good riot to get the blood running, stay warm in the winter. Matt, you can do better if you want to challenge me.
You're still here?
I was not "forced into being an office drone". It's just temporary work, and the title "office drone" is just a joke. Lighten up. I do a day job so I can pay the bills while I pursue the things I want to pursue on my own time. It's no big deal.
Your pathetic attempts at psychoanalysis, like all such attempts, are just ways to avoid talking about things you don't want to talk about. You make it about the person, instead of the argument, because you have no arguments.
Of course you dismiss "schooling" as a sign of intelligence, because its the one thing I have that you probably don't. I have a post-graduate degree in the subject I addressed here – political theory. What do you have? Take some business courses? Guess you know how the world works and the rest of us are just deluded, right?