I will be honest: I treat with caution (if not suspicion) anyone who introduces himself as a leftist, without giving a more specific definition: communist, environmentalist, democratic socialist, anarchist, social democrat, and so on. I also treat with caution anyone who describes to me what he is not with various "anti" and "against": anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberal, against globalization, stalinism, etc.
Why such reticence? In the first case my (yet dear) interlocutor suffers from the "disease" of ideological vagueness, intentional or not. He wants to be leftist in general, to be in good terms with everyone and above all with his conscience, which would not stand him being called a centrist (not to say liberal), even if in fact he is not. This ideological vagueness also causes political castration: without ideological direction, the proposed reforms, even if they sound "generally left-wing" can easily prove contradictory, conflicting and therefore ineffective. In the second case, the various by-contrast determinations, in addition to being incomplete, they may also become a little dangerous: an orthodox neo-Nazi would rather embrace all "anti" and "against" ideas mentioned above.
The Democratic Left, from its cradle about a year ago, attempted to clear its ideological profile, putting up democratic socialism (i.e. the promotion of socialism through successive reforms, using democratic means and with a broad acceptance by society) as its fundamental principle. It is worth to note that the main founder of this ideological current in Greece was Leonidas Kirkos who was with us until a few days ago. All well so far, the only thing left is to agree on what is socialism without having to wade in Marx or Kautsky.
In my view, socialism is the pursuit of the Good Society through social equality. Social equality is to ensure equal conditions of living (income, environment, services, etc.) for everyone. With a little more modern (and unfortunately more complicated) terms, social equality is to ensure equal conditions of happiness for every citizen. Consequently, a socialist party is basically a movement for social equality. Most of the other concepts that one encounters in the various socialist programs, such as the socialization of the means of production or the dictatorship of the working class are actually methods, democratic or not, of realizing this central objective. The commitment to social equality is the main difference with other political currents (modern social democracy, social liberalism) whose ideological framework based on mere legal equality and the use of the welfare state to mitigate inequalities or, to be more suspicious, to ensure the necessary discipline of the lower working classes. Therefore, instead of protecting the weak, a socialist should struggle so that they do not exist.
Economic Equality
Naturally, a key component of social equality is economic equality. It is not fair that we all have the same income regardless of how much we work or how much we offer, but it is fair to be rewarded based on the value of what we produce through our work. Does this not happen today? Unfortunately not, and not just because employers are not willing to share profits with employees (in our country have a large percentage of self-employed anyway), but because of the way the market is shaped like today, possessed of all kinds of privileges. A privilege is anything that produces wealth without being related to a productive process (e.g. exploiting real estate property or capital), monopolies of any kind (exclusive provision of products and services) and generally any distortion that benefits certain interest groups. Economic equality demands the removal of such privileges.
Let me not be misunderstood, I do not propose abolishing the right of property and its exploitation. What could be done by a socialist government is for example the additional taxation of activities not directly related to production processes in order to discourage them and remove any exclusive provision of services or products. Therefore, to address a topical issue, the opening of closed professions not related to critical areas is primarily a matter of equality. The positive impact this may have on an industry is of secondary importance. More generally, the principle of economic equality could stimulate a series of radical reforms to the operation of the market, making it less prone to instabilities and crises.
Is it realistic to struggle for equality under these circumstances? I would say that the crisis makes the need for equality even more urgent: in good times, when there is enough cake so that everyone can get at least one piece (no matter if some get second and third), there is no big a problem and everyone is more or less happy. In difficult times like those we are experiencing, the need for a careful and fair deal is much more important.
No comments:
Post a Comment