Inertia is as much a problem in human activities as it is in the world of physics. Without the application of some motivating force, human beings at rest tend to stay at rest. But we must also remember what American Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey observed in a speech in Durham, North Carolina, on April 2, 1966, "History teaches us that the great revolutions aren't started by people who are utterly down and out, without hope and vision. They take place when people begin to live a little better--and when they see how much yet remains to be achieved." Marx's "productive forces" may well have not achieved their highest potential when the population is ready to overthrow the current political, economic, and social order. Alternately, a wise political leadership may, by its own policies and exertions, make the overthrow of the current political, economic, and social order unnecessary. By bringing into existence a new system superior to the one conceived by Karl Marx, one which has either removed or diluted the power of a nation's wealthiest citizens (10% or so of the population), created a large middle class (constituting 80% or more of the population) with a high degree of upward mobility (so that there is no continuing aristocracy of a small percentage of the population), and the poor have been reduced to a small percentage (10% or less) of the nation's populace.
I have revised my definition of the poor, middle, and wealthy economic classes since my publication of " Parabolic Thinking " in OpEdNews on June 10, 2012. I had defined the middle class as having an income between fifty and two-hundred and fifty percent of the Median (50% of the population is above that number, 50% is below) income in the United States, which in 2007 (just before the Great Recession) was just under $44,000 per year. I would change that number from the Median income to the average income (the total income divided by the number of money earners). In 2007, this was slightly over $70,000 per year. This would mean that you are poor if your household income (for a family of four) is less than $35,000 per year, not $22,000. It would also mean that you are wealthy if your household income (for a family of four) is more than $175,000 per year, not $110,000. I have concluded that these are much more realistic numbers to use after studying pre-Reagan American family income, taxes, and spending over the last few months.
We are not going to arrive at an ethical solution to the problems we face in the World today either by happenstance or adherence to some "automatic" triggering event. We can only arrive at such a solution by our own active, moral decision making process, one that takes into account the ethical questions that lie within those decisions. We cannot simply hope for the best outcome: we must work for the best outcome.
"Everyone should contribute to society according to their abilities, and everyone should have the ability to acquire those things that they need; and not at some artificially low, subsistence level, nor to an exorbitant or grandiose degree." This amplification of one of Karl Marx's most famous dictums is a starting point for a less materialistic society. Our contributions must go beyond our employment to our schools, our governments, political parties and other related activities, to our neighborhood theater groups, our churches and other charities, and any one of a thousand different activities away from work that we participate in as a teacher, student, mentor, team member, activist, audience member, event participant, or in some other role.
You should define your work, not be defined by your work. The emphasis of the modern corporation on "living to work," is an unhealthy one that leads to too much stress, and too many decisions that have no basis in morality. Money may be the root of all evil, but the dehumanization of our fellow human beings is what defines that evil. Marx thought that he could wait for certain conditions to be met in terms of "productive forces" before humanity was emancipated from the oppression of work and the state. I don't believe that we can wait that long. Only in a system of relative potential political and social equality, where economics are not a consideration because we have adopted the "economics of enough," can humans attain their highest goal, the fullest development of their humanity.
If only we aren't too late.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
