Marxism
and Futurism
Sam Ghandchi
Persian Text
متن فارسی
Almost 30 years has passed since a
major contrast of Marxism and Futurism was published by Alvin Toffler entitled "Previews
and Premises"(1). And Alvin Toffler just like most futurists
(2) dropped any
pursuit of grand plans for social/political/economic engineering which was the zenith of Marxism in its ultimate goal of abolishing private
property of the means of production and the related market economy, to replace it
with public ownership and a totally planned economy. Tofflers, in the
absence of any grand scheme for the society of the future, continued their work
on topics like reinventing the corporation.
Also with the fall of the Soviet
Union and Eastern Bloc countries, Marxism essentially disappeared as a major
political
ideology of the modern times. But the question still remains whether having a
grand social scheme for the world is totally a wrong pursuit and
whether such
comprehensive visions inhibit
the
growth of open society? Or, one can learn from the experiences of old religions
and modern political ideologies to understand the limitations of global visions and more
importantly use that examination to avoid the catastrophes such as the totalitarian states of the 20th
Century (3).
One of the most knowledgeable
analysts of Marxism, Leszek Kolakowski, believed that such grand schemes were
the reason for the cataclysm that Marxist ideology brought to the world.
Kolakowski, in
the last years of his life, said that capitalism with its focus
on human greed for motivation had proved
itself successful due to being a natural
development rather than being something made by design. But
in response to Kolakowski, it should be said that most of the capitalist countries actually developed thanks to a
social scheme called comprehensive liberalism with its major proponents
being thinkers like
Locke and Kant in Europe; even the American experience was more in tune with
the Leibnizian (4) version of liberalism advocated by Jefferson. Thus it is not true that
Western capitalism has not been based on any social engineering. Moreover, other
industrial countries like Russia, basically used a communist model to build the
industrial society, although they are now more in tune with the capitalist model. In other
words, just human greed by itself never built capitalism. Even Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" is more about the description of how the market economy works and is not about how such economy was built in different countries
(5).
The question I am trying to address
is not about the past, of how capitalism was built, which is something historians
continue to work on and Kolakowski's notes are surely very valuable. What I am
trying to address is whether attempting to come up with a vision of a new society, or
even having a utopia, necessarily means giving in to a dictatorship for the future? My
response is negative. In other words, I believe the ideals of liberalism were as
much utopian as the ideals of communism, and actually the former is not seen as a recipe
for dictatorship although it has been utopian in its ideals
of human rights, separation of power and open society. Furthermore, I should add that
not all versions of Marxism ended up in dictatorship. For example, the
European social democratic countries were not dictatorial thanks to distancing themselves from Marx's
"Critique of Gotha Program" by ignoring it from start,
although accepting almost all other tenets of Marxism (6).
It is true that both liberalism
and socialism became "imperialist" in 20th Century, and
it was not only social democrats
of Europe but also Leninists after coming to power in Russia,
were imperialist towards the developing countries. Nonetheless
becoming imperialists definitely was not part of the
plan of liberals or socialists. The imperialist stage was
in reality what I like to call the mid
life of industrial society and had nothing to do with the grand scheme
of communism or liberalism for that matter. So one can say imperialism, perhaps, was a
higher stage of industrialism, borrowing the term from Hilferding and Lenin who
used it for capitalism. And fundamentally
the imperialist developments of industrial society were
more related to the inherent "greed" which is admired
in capitalism by Kolakowski, if taken as development of
production and markets beyond the boundaries of nation-state. Moreover, the same economic
developments have now led to globalization which incidentally
is more to the advantage of
developing countries. However, some political forces in the advanced
countries that oppose globalization, in reality are
more in tune with high paid professionals who
are losing lucrative jobs they had, e.g. in computer industry in the Western countries, to their counterparts in developing countries (7).
Both liberalism with its
property owning schemes for social justice, such as the model proposed by John
Rawls (8), and socialism with plans like welfare state in Europe, have not been able
to resolve the issue of social justice in the advanced countries.
Many companies of advanced countries moving operations abroad have created
a semi-aristocracy in the mother country drawing owner's profits from such
firms.
And with the
intense competition of the developing countries in the world market, the issue of
social justice in advanced countries is intensifying (9). The conflicts in the US
between the Tea Party (10) and Democratic Party regarding the heath care issue
exemplify the intensification of the disparities and social justice in the Western
countries. Cutting social benefits in European countries like Greece, Spain and
even Sweden is another example of the scope of the problem (11).
Many retrogressive movements in the
world are capitalizing on the above two issues of advanced countries, namely
the attitude of the West towards developing countries and
issues of social justice within the
developed countries (12). Of course, returning to the medieval or ancient past will
not be a solution for these dilemma but these complications
point to the depth of crisis of the industrial
society.
Is it time to propose new visions for
the future? Are new visions necessarily a recipe for another dictatorship
like the way Marxism ended up in Communism? As noted, visions such as
comprehensive liberalism not only were not a recipe for dictatorship but they
even helped to curtail many despotic options in Europe, and in Americas. There is
no need to be afraid to think of visions for the future although one should be
careful of monistic outlooks that disallow other ways of thinking (13), and also
avoiding schemes
that leave power to a state or private sector with very little checks and
balances is critical. Nonetheless, anarchism is as dangerous and can end up to
be a recipe for dictatorship just like its counterpart of
Communism advocating total planning and government ownership.
Visions for creating economic
abundance and ending scarcity are more significant than ever in the 21st century
(14).
Also being open to scientific thinking as well as other philosophical
speculations like what Willis Harman proposed in his "Global Mind Change" should
be examined. We really do not know what is beyond time and space and ready-made
answers of the dawn of science rejecting anything beyond the material world is
as irrational as the beliefs of Abrahamic religions were
regarded as final truth
before the age of science.
We are seeing that predictions of Ray Kurzweil about accelerated
change are showing more and more to be true (15). And
that should make us more aware
about the new retrogressive environmentalist movements
in the West that demonize developments
such as GMO's,
achievements that can be
instrumental in feeding the 7 billion world population which is our present
reality (16).
Hoping for a democratic and
secular futurist
republic in Iran,
Sam Ghandchi,
Editor/Publisher
IRANSCOPE
October 18,
2013
Footnotes:
1. Modern Futurism
http://www.ghandchi.com/347-FuturismEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/347-FuturismEng.htm
2. Futurism, Sandbox, and Political
Potency
http://www.ghandchi.com/403-FuturismSandboxEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/403-FuturismSandboxEng.htm
3. Pluralism in the Western Thought
http://www.ghandchi.com/301-PluralismEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/301-PluralismEng.htm
4. Leibniz's Monads and Javadi's CPH
http://www.ghandchi.com/394-MonadsCPHEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/394-MonadsCPHEng.htm
5. Wealth and Justice in Future Iran
http://www.ghandchi.com/334-WealthEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/334-WealthEng.htm
6. Marxist Thought & Monism
http://www.ghandchi.com/299-MarxismEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/299-MarxismEng.htm
7. Change: Revolution, Reform, or
...?
http://www.ghandchi.com/104-New.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/104-New.htm
8. Is Socialism More Just?
http://www.ghandchi.com/303-SocialismEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/303-SocialismEng.htm
9. Social Justice and the Computer
Revolution
http://www.ghandchi.com/238-SocialJustice.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/238-SocialJustice.htm
10. Tea Party
Illusion and Economic Reality
http://www.ghandchi.com/642-JoeThePlumberEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/642-JoeThePlumberEng.htm
11. Alternative Income-Social Justice
in Post-Industrial Society
http://www.ghandchi.com/427-AlternativeIncomeEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/427-AlternativeIncomeEng.htm
16. Accelerated returns in food
production
http://www.kurzweilai.net/accelerated-returns-in-food-production
http://www.kurzweilai.net/accelerated-returns-in-food-production
ایران#
#iran
iranscope@
پستها
