I don't really know that much about it yet, abstract academic theory least of all. I've been browsing Noam Chomsky and contemporary socialist (or quasi-) sources like Current Affairs and Jacobin for the past year, and linked sources through them. People aren't kidding when they say that socialist ideology is probably the most highly elaborated ideology in extent. The best course of action to advance my knowledge might be to find and talk to local socialists face to face. Conveniently for the sake of my local political involvement, many of them likely double as community activists.
My impression now is that if the far left had to agree on one thing, it would be: radical subsidiary democracy, everything, everywhere. Government, civics, industry, family...
This civilization would involve a comprehensive cultural reeducation of humanity, and probably a dismantling of nations and private markets and even (fixed or involuntary) hierarchy. It would have to do this while increasing its capacity to tackle global issues relating to climate, resource management, and space exploitation (use a different term). I'm not sure what it could take to reach this point, or what steps would be absolutely necessary or testamentary. I'm sure thinkers have ventured answers here and there, ones that I'm unaware of to assess. It is possible to argue contrarily from human nature. It is also a fair point that appeals to "human nature" fail to account for our ignorance of the bounds of human nature(s). On the other hand, I suspect that whatever human nature is, it will become obsolete soon.
The modern left's vision is probably brand-new territory for the species. We really have tried everything else. We haven't tried the cyberdystopian libertarian/fascist syndicrat vision, but it is what we're aiming for by inertia today. I feel like all the other conservative or libertarian worlds just look like modernized variants of historical societies. The average Democrat's ideal of welfare state capitalism is unstable, since capitalism and its oligarchy are more resilient than any particular configuration of state. The New Deal was the high tide, and reproducing it woudln't resolve the world's ills; to try would be a waste of initiative.
The bottom line: I do not believe that socialists can attain their ends - how far short they fall, I can't say. I partially agree that these ends are good or worthwhile. I am convinced that most right-wing values and projects are ruinous, depraved, and worth opposing.
It would be a real coup to engineer some kind of Big Tent Marxism, coöpting morally-aligned conservatives to work beside them and help refine the ideology. Another challenge is absorbing the broader left ("liberals") and the minimally political. Count this pessimistic statist in. March to the edge of the 100 Acre Woods.
Re: What economic approach would actually work?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks