Plan D – The Case for a Left That Can Spark Progressive Innovation

The first in this new series looks at how a new left, based on progressive values, capable of achieving true egalitarianism can be built moving forward.

In the first of this multi-part series, I will be outlining the reasons why we need to rebuild the left. Further articles will explore how postmodernism came to dominate the left, what a more useful philosophical mindset might look like, how we might reset our understanding of what equality and liberty look like, what that could mean for our models of structural inequality, how ideology can be turned into a tool of inequality in itself and finally, how we could go about rebuilding the left on truly progressive principles. This first article sees my explanation for why we must have a “new left”. Building from existing leftist philosophy, we must however move it forward, so that it is relevant for tackling the issues thrown at us by a new, globalised and technologically advanced world.

It is hypothesised that no civilisation in the universe can proceed past a certain technological level without wiping itself out. Humanity managed to just barely  survive the 20th century without a global nuclear war. The 21st century and the centuries following will continue to test us, and the tests will get harder.

It should become increasingly apparent that we cannot face the coming crises by  holding on to status quo in terms of economic and political structures. We now have a global economy, beyond the reach of any single country to control. Global economic policy is becoming a race to the bottom, whereby corporations and the rich are enabled to move their assets into tax havens, but increasing restrictions on freedom of movement force the poor to endure the local conditions. Meanwhile, climate change will require a global effort to halt, and many countries have the power to scupper that for short-term economic benefit. Some of them already do.

Automation and artificial intelligence threaten to make humanity obsolete, first with the working class by replacing manual labour, and then the rest of us. In the past, machines have always required humans to operate. Soon they will run themselves, build themselves and repair themselves. When an individual’s worth is based on their value to an employer, we risk making the human being worthless. In this global economy, effective regulations will have to be implemented worldwide.

The more our technology advances, the more we will have to proceed with caution, and the more any rogue country can threaten the rest of the world with dangerous experiments.

The development of technology threatens democracy itself, as the power differential between the police, the army and the ordinary citizen continues to grow.

The internet may seem like a paradise for freedom of expression now, but governments and corporations are implementing tools to monitor and restrict its use. Violent revolution must always be a last resort, but it must always be a possible last resort. Each step away from democracy makes the next step easier, so the threat of revolution is the last and final guarantee that our rights will be respected. In the last decade, we have seen governments (rich as well as poor ones) increasingly turn away from democracy.

One of the excuses posited for this increasing authoritarianism in the West is the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. There is no force or coherent strategy in the current geo-political climate which is capable of dealing with the problem. ISIS can and will be defeated militarily, but as long as there remains a belief in a global caliphate and the will to carry out attacks in its name, the world will remain under threat. Islamism is a global ideology which requires a global strategy. The whole world must unite in shutting down the social and economic situations which feed this ideology of hate. While addressing those issues, any sympathy for their cause must be replaced by a philosophy which vehemently refutes everything the Islamists value.

Nation states cannot adequately address global issues because their entire structure revolves around concerns on the national level. At best, an organisation can only represent the interests of its members, and since this is the purpose of the government in most people’s eyes, truly progressive solutions are impossible. As long as the general public demands that foreign policy focuses on delivering ‘the best deal’ for their own country, international cooperation remains incredibly difficult. Humanity must move beyond seeing ourselves as a group of competing tribes and start seeing ourselves more as a family.

left, progressive
Humanity must move beyond seeing ourselves as a group of competing tribes and start seeing ourselves more as a family.

 

Even if we scrape through the 21st century as we did with the 20th, our problems will continue to worsen in scope unless we get to the root of the issues within our social organisation. What would be the point in ending the threat of radical Islam if we still end up under the thumb of authoritarian dictatorships? If we halt climate change but wipe ourselves out through war and hunger brought on by competition with machines, did we really succeed? What we must aim for is to save the world by changing it, and build something worth saving in the process, ensuring the progressive momentum. 

In order to achieve this, we need to establish an international progressive alliance. It is no longer merely desirable but fundamentally necessary. In order to act on a global scale, we must win the support of people across the world. As long as they stay focused on short-term, local concerns, they will be either no help or, even worse, a direct hindrance.

“an international progressive alliance… is no longer merely desirable but fundamentally necessary”

This means, first of all, addressing economic issues and lifting millions out of poverty. Secondly, it means developing a political consciousness that extends beyond borders. This will keep us driven to solve the threats to humanity as a whole rather than trying to gain an advantage over each other. Thirdly, it means giving people hope for a better future, grounded in progressive ideals. Perhaps the largest problem facing us, in the western world at least, is apathy and a sense of powerlessness. Being part of a massive organisation dedicated to accomplishing tangible goals can keep people engaged in making positive steps forward.

That makes the political left the ideal starting point from which to begin this project. Left wing philosophy already encompasses those three elements – inspiration, internationalism and egalitarianism.

It is regrettable, therefore, that just as we begin to need it most, there is no international progressive alliance for Earth and humanity. Why is it that the left has been so incapable of organising on a global scale? Instead, small organisations fight amongst themselves for dominance.

Every hitherto existing egalitarian movement has failed because it has not come close enough to understanding the nature of inequality. Understanding how the state and corporations wield power is necessary to challenging them. Understanding how power can be abused is necessary to prevent the perversion of the cause to nefarious ends. This has been the fate of every movement throughout history which has tried to address social inequality – either defeat or initial success followed by degeneration.

If we wish to try again, and we have to try again or watch humanity fall, we must resolve to do better this time. What I will propose in this upcoming series of articles is not intended to be a new doctrine to follow, but another step forwards along the path towards our goals. Even if I am wrong on all counts, I hope the approach I offer – clear and precise understanding, recognising the limits of our reasoning abilities, and dedication to further experimentation and deliberation – will in some small way inspire others to further the reorientation of the left in a more progressive direction. 

left, progressive
Understanding how the state and corporations wield power is necessary to challenging them.

 

I call this set of ideas and strategies ‘Plan D’. Plan A is for austerity, the current establishment philosophy which is beginning to fail worldwide. Plan B is for barbarism, the rise of populists and authoritarians, brutal police states, wars and chaos, which is where we are now headed. Plan C is for communism and the old ideologies which are out of date, ineffectual and dangerously inaccurate.

Plan D is for the determination to forge a new path, and the discussion we so desperately need.

About Dan Fisher

Check Also

misogyny, sexism, sexual harassment, feminism, islamism

Between Fear and Freedom: How Sexual Harassment is Forcing Us to Choose Sides

From Hitchens' niqab scenario to Murray's bleak predictions for a sexless future, has sexual harassment forced us to choose between freedom and fear?

2 comments

  1. ‘Every hitherto existing egalitarian movement has failed because it has not come close enough to understanding the nature of equality’ …. on this I would agree.
    But your article betrays a common blind spot … that of the question of women. When you talk of ‘getting to the root of the issue’, yet fail to recognise that what we are currently living under is a male-led patriarchal system, I fear that you are missing (possibly the most important) Plan XX.
    For us the internet does not seem like a ‘paradise for freedom of speech’, but is instead a global and freely available form of anti-female propaganda. Yes, ISIS must be dealt with, but patriarchy is a many-headed hydra, and male posturing against one aspect of that is not enough. Getting to the root of the problem means dismantling patriarchy.
    May I respectfully suggest that egalitarian movements have failed, and will continue to fail, because they refuse to acknowledge the need to address their own vested interest and dominant position when it came to the other half of the global population.

    LMT

    • Thank you for the informed response – it’s true that I haven’t yet addressed the issue of male domination. However, I do actually agree with you. This introductory article is intended mainly for an audience which does not currently believe we have a pressing need for change. That’s why I have largely relied on the most widely understood disaster scenarios here. Sadly, I believe explaining how modern society poses unique threats to women requires a more in-depth explanation. I have written about what one might call a potential ‘femocide’ on my blog, for example.

      One of the reasons egalitarian movements have failed is that, even when they profess to believe in equality of men and women, they have lacked an understanding of how that inequality is constructed and can be deconstructed. Rather than tacking on the exploitation of female bodies as an afterthought, I sought to include it in the fundamentals of my philosophy from the beginning of its conception.

      Along with addressing what I believe to be the singular mechanism running through all forms of oppression, I will additionally be covering structures of sexual, economic and racial inequality directly, both in terms of how they are similar and how they differ. I may or may not have understood the issues correctly, but I hope that at least by the end of this series I will have given male supremacy the attention it deserves.

Leave a Comment