Capitalism is very poor at the just distribution of
necessities. The end of capitalism is at
hand, but there is much to do to save the economy and assure the long-term
survival of the population. If survival as a human species is our primary
long-term goal, then deep changes are necessary to the way we organise
ourselves socially. It is artificial scarcity which threatens future survival
by siphoning wealth to an infinitesimally small percentage of people thereby
depriving the majority of people a sustainable living standard. Artificial
scarcity is the engine of wealth concentration under capitalism and its logical
antecedent: poverty. With austerity measures increasing and economic growth
decreasing across the West, poverty is on the rise. It is the goal of this
essay to outline a plan to eliminate poverty by instantiating socialism through
a number of pragmatic measures.
Eliminating poverty by ending artificial scarcity is what is
called socialism. Real socialism (or just socialism from this point forward)
seeks the end to artificial scarcity of all essential commodities irrespective
of social class such as the free distribution of food which are designed to end
poverty and upholding the common good. It is the only way to create a
sustainable future that ends deprivation of the poor and the profit-seeking of
the ruling-classes. Socialism, as Karl Marx argues in his famous work The
Communist Manifesto, replaces failed capitalism.
Capitalism has failed to provide the basic needs of
society. Even the “social welfare” state
as only manages to mitigate deprivation. Capitalism fosters tautology; the rich
are seen as successful by virtue of being rich and the poor are seen as
unsuccessful by virtue of their poverty. This is a “Social Darwinist” view of
human achievement which makes implicit that having money (with little regard to
how the money is made) correlates with a greater right to survive and therefore
entitles one to greater receipt of community benefits. Socialism begins with
the assumption that monetary status is inadequate determinate of entitlement.
Universal essential commodity entitlement provides an
opportunity for equality by eliminating desperation. Taken to its full
potential, socialism not only eliminates desperation, but also encourages
increasing levels of satisfaction, gratification and enlightenment. Through the
arts and sciences (and all the sub-disciplines of the humanities paradigm),
humans seek greater and greater fulfilment, but such striving for more has
been, at least in the West, driven by the vehicle of capitalism, a system which
promotes the capabilities of those belonging to legacy wealth whilst ignoring
the potential contribution of those belonging to legacy poverty. Hence, terms
such as “starving artist” define those individuals who must sacrifice security
of food to pursue their talent. Conversely, terms such as “fat cat” describe
those people who, through a system which rewards unethical and unsustainable
business practices, exploit the labour of a desperate workforce and profit off
the irrational decision-making of the easily-duped consumer. Unlike capitalism,
socialism supports the individual – no matter his or her background – in the
pursuit of a better life and therefore exploitation of labour and unethical
consumerism cannot be used for wealth generation. And so, there are no longer
any starving artists, nor are there any fat cats. -
Automation should
both require fewer people to work AND enable people to work less. In a world
where a minority, historically known as the capitalists own the physical means
of production like factories, robots and patents this will result in greater
inequality as labour becomes less and less important as an economic factor. The
owners of capital will be able to produce to satisfy market demand with little
labour input. This will result in more former labourers leaving that field and
becoming dependent on welfare.
In theory, physical labour may become totally obsolete. If
every house has a decentralised energy source like solar panels and reliable
energy storage, as well as an advanced 3-D printer or molecular assembler that
can produce almost physical object imaginable from a few basic recyclable
chemicals then human poverty will essentially have been abolished. We can just
spend the vast majority of our time doing things that we enjoy, while spending
only a few minutes or at most hours a day programming our machines to fulfil
our material desires. As we proceed through the 21st Century and as the
technologies of superabundance — solar energy, nuclear energy, wind energy,
cybernetics, genomics, the internet, 3-D printing, molecular manufacturing,
desalination, etc — create more and more wealth.
That is the more optimistic vision. In a less optimistic
vision, only a small minority of people will have access to such technologies
as while the technology may exist, the costs of mass distribution remain too
high (at least for a time). The vast masses, will be stuck in impoverished
material conditions — dependent on welfare, and charity — without any real
prospect being able to climb the ladder through selling their labour. Only a
lucky few — who have an inimitably good idea, or a creative skill that cannot
be replicated by a robot — will have a prospect of joining the capital-owning
upper class. And for the others who are left out in the cold, political action
may look attractive. Simply have the government take a larger chunk of the
capital-owning class’s income or wealth, and redistribute it to the poor.
Ideally, this would be done with the intent of abolishing poverty through
making cheap electricity, internet access and molecular assemblers available to
all. Less ideally, rather than giving the poor the means to fish (so to speak),
it might instead take the shape of a giant welfare net, keeping the means of
production in limited hands and simply confiscating and redistributing some
wealth. These issues unresolved could create a lot of tension between the two
classes. In a worst-case scenario, that could lead to social breakdown or even
revolution.
The most cited objection to socialism is incentive.
Capitalism argues that without money to motivate, there is no reason to go to
work, let alone innovate. However, that people will become ever more sedentary
if their basic needs are fulfilled is a dogmatic supposition perpetuated by
profiteering propaganda. There is no genetic basis that determines the
superiority of money – or rather the threat to withhold money – over social
incentive. In fact, cash is only a means to an end – a symbol of one’s
contribution – and as such this symbol can change. Under capitalism, it is
insecurity that motivates people to go to work. Eliminate insecurity and the
result is that incentive for work upgrades to what this essay calls “additive
benefits”. Additive benefits are those benefits in life that exist on top of
the essentials.
The benefits of work itself – social interaction, credit for
one’s work output and access to luxuries – provide incentive to go to work. Although
everyone is entitled to essential commodities, a job provides greater diversity
for the palette. Thus, choose to stay at home and thus eat a basic
nutritionally-balanced food handed out freely to citizens; no one starves, but
unless one goes to work, then luxuries are, for the most part, out of reach.
And so, work is no longer equated with access to survival, with the alternative
being starvation and homelessness, but rather access to luxuries.
In short, the incentive for turning up to work under socialism
is the means for getting something more than the basics, and thus, no one need
suffer the indignity of being identified as poor even if relying purely on the
basics. It is uniform society, as it were, with the option of not wearing the
uniform. Would most people decide not to go to work and sit idly in front of a
television if all their basic needs were provided for? Socialists argue that
the human compulsion for activity and striving for more motivates one to
contribute to society in one’s best capacity if only one is provided dignity
and the means to pursue one’s full potential.
Hence, the incentive for productivity is the benefit
attached to working to one’s full potential. One might say that people lose
their “free time” when going to work, and should therefore not have the full
burden of supporting those who choose not work, but the human compulsion to
fill the hours with more than idle tasks – the boredom that comes of doing
nothing – motivates one to do work if only there is more to it than a means to
mere survival. The compensation need not be cash, as such, but rather the
knowledge that one’s contribution is valued for the work itself and all the
social benefits that come from the recognition of one’s contribution. There is
bound to be a small population of people who seem comfortable with doing
nothing, but these people should be treated as having a psychological problem
and referred to a doctor or psychologist, not threatened with a withholding of
livelihood.
More specifically, the incentive for turning up to work is
to receive social advantages, such as meeting potential partners for
dating/marriage, friends with whom to go out for meals/drinks and the
gratification of social advancement for having performed to a high standard and
being recognised formally as having done so. Everyone has the opportunity to
perform to their highest potential and formal acknowledgment of one’s work
contribution – as opposed to cash in the bank – satisfies the craving for
professional accomplishment. The Marxist phrase “from each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs” is not merely an ideological
argument, as if truly exercised, life satisfaction is a standard, as opposed to
merely an ideal. The only way to achieve this ideal is converting the incentive
to go to work from the fear of starvation to the positive reinforcement of
additive benefits when work is completed to standard. Socialism requires first
and foremost a change in thinking from the idea that some people must always
lose to the idea that everyone can win if given all of the basic necessities
for survival and allowed to pursue their best potential unfettered by
desperation.
No comments:
Post a Comment