So, I mentioned in a previous article that I've been agonizing over leftist infighting issues for - well - a few years now. Despite the sharp tone of my previous posts and some others, it should be noted that I don't hate modern communists - in fact, I generally agree with a lot of their aims (with the exception of the small number of dictator apologists). I am, however, significantly more comfortable around people who talk about democratic socialism and who generally aren't demanding a one-party state, because of my previously stated vehement opposition to totalitarianism.
But today, I want to take a stab at a greatly revered dead old white male theorist's basic ideas. This is another article I've been considering for some time, but I'm going to endeavour to make it less lengthy and meandering than my last release. (Especially because I'm not entirely sure most of my readers are here for extended musings on political theory from an admitted non-expert.)
In a nutshell, then, Marxism doesn't work and is incomplete, and we on the left need to stop making everything try to fit its exact circumscriptions.
There are two relatively simple reasons why I would put this relatively obvious theory forward, and they both come down to the scientific fact that we are social animals.
Money represents attention; both represent power
In other social species, such as chickens, chimpanzees, bonobos, or dolphins, hierarchies naturally develop. Before I learned about more of the basic concepts of anarchism, I thought it was devoted to resisting hierarchies under all circumstances, which struck me as innately ridiculous. How could one organize and get anything done without some kind of chain of command? Then I found out that the point was destroying unjust and entrenched hierarchies, which made more sense - but is still a tricky proposition.
The thing is, as anyone who's spent five minutes on the leftist internet will tell you, those hierarchies will recapitulate themselves, even without monetary incentives. Memes and art are shared freely, as is fanfiction, and that certainly supports the idea that resources are being artificially restricted from the public by the actions of the wealthy and their corporations - but the people who produce these things and the algorithms that promote and share them are not created equal. Unjust hierarchies are not only bone-deep, but are inevitably recycled, even when they're reversed. Attention is a form of currency and exchange because it represents power; money also represents power. But trying to remove power from human society and interactions is like trying to run a battery without electricity.
The most we can do is try to redistribute power as equitably as possible, while working intentionally to compensate for historical and present-day injustices. I don't believe there will ever be an end point, because new injustices will happen as the world progresses - but trying to compensate for them brings improvements, and a better world. The alternative is to just try and embrace the inequality, which is pretty much the thesis of fascism - and if you haven't gotten the idea from my other articles, fascism is bad. Not only that, it's fundamentally unsustainable and precarious. Even if it didn't lead to suffering and injustice, it wouldn't work. But communism as depicted in Marx's writings doesn't exactly work either, because of this whole power and imbalance thing I keep talking about.
The fight for justice will never end
It is vitally important, even required, resist and break down unjust hierarchies, even the most entrenched. As stated previously, I don't support attempting this with violence, but resisting and protesting fascists is also a form of societal self-defense. Being present at white supremacist rallies discourages them, because fascism is fundamentally a belief requiring cowardice.
Unfortunately, despite their many flaws, democracies are the best system we've come up with for self-determination thus far. It seems like fascism is, rather than a one-time event, cyclical. One thing that Star Wars (I know, shut up, hear me out) represents well is that democracies are always going to be susceptible to fascism and predatory conservatism. But the alternative is totalitarianism, and that, we must fight. As Benjamin Franklin put it, "A republic, gentlemen - if you can keep it."
There is no "one last person to take resources from and then we can yeet into the beautiful future" stage. There is no socialist paradise. It's like the stuff in the New Testament about building the Kingdom of God on earth, and which leftist christians understand as being "hey not being a dick is a continuous process." There will be no messianic Revolution where All the Bad People Die and the Rest of Us get to live in Egalitarian Heaven.
(I'm not Christian, but I do really like ex-Christian and leftist Christian media; it's been good for my spiritual health.)
Can we have a beautiful future? I don't know, but we can certainly try to make now better. The healthier our democracies and systems become, the more resilient they'll be to the next wave of fascist or conservative backlashes.
Humanity will never be able to stop trying to balance altruism and self-interest. Even if we damage the planet to the point that we struggle to inhabit it, I very much doubt that we'll actually go extinct. However, if we refuse the temptation to discard the tools at hand, and use our cracked, damaged systems to their fullest extent, we stand more than a snowball's chance in hell of conquering our worst instincts and remedying historical and present atrocities.
 |
| Source. And yes, I know she's called "Tank Girl," and that modern-day dictator apologists are known as "tankies," but the point still stands. |
