People are motivated by connection.

In order to formulate a strategy for advancing society toward socialism, or even to accurately predict how such an advance might take place and what the end result might look like, we need to evaluate the function and progression of historical economic systems and extrapolate forward.

I propose to split our economic development into the following stages:

hunter-gatherer basic agricultural slave feudal capitalist socialist

Hunter-Gatherer

Society is limited to the immediate family and small tribes. Property does not exist. The vast majority of labor is directed to gathering food.

-> Tension: Agriculture is discovered. People now find themselves with free time, without the need to constantly source food. A new way to organize time and labor is required.

Basic Agricultural

Society is limited to small towns, organized around family ties. Property is communal. The vast majority of labor is still directed toward food, but specialization emerges. Early slave labor is a result of accepting outsiders into the fold. For the first time, people have free and leisure time, with a degree of food security.

-> Tension: Settlements and abundance lead to an increase in confrontation (and conflict) with outsiders. A new way to organize relationships and tasks is required.

Slave

Society can now tolerate city-states. Outsiders are permitted to share in communal property, but with limitations, and in exchange for their labor. Larger projects can now be completed using this labor. A slave class emerges. The corvée system also develops to allow government taxation, in the form of mandatory labor hours, to emerge. For the first time, an upper class emerges, with guaranteed free time. This allows it to devote itself entirely to intellectual pursuits — an early form of free will.

-> Tension: Social strata begin to emerge. A new way to organize power and security is required.

Feudal

Society can now expand to kingdoms and empires. Social strata are reified and power and property are distributed according to one’s position in these strata. Multi-generational projects and developments are now possible. The corvée system becomes standard, with vassals devoting their labor-hours to feudal lords. In addition, paying taxes in the form of goods (a degree of abstraction removed from labor) develops. For the first time, free will is guaranteed, allowing people to spend their time and make decisions as they wish in proportion to their position on the social ladder.

-> Tension: Trade allows power and property to be exchanged outside of traditional boundaries. A new way to organize the movement of power and resources is required.

Capitalist

Society has extended to the concept of the nation-state. Power and property are dynamic, exchanged as further abstractions of labor-hours. Wages and taxation become the standard form of participation in the economy. For the first time, free will is automated and collectivized, allowing society as a whole to have input on its projects and developments.

> Tension: Power and property accumulate at the top, leading to economic and productive stagnation. A new way to organize collective will is required.

Socialist

If we extrapolate forward, what patterns emerge? The first is that with each advancing mode of production, the conception of the political entity enlarges. We can thus speculate that a socialist economy will involve a collection larger than a nation-state: perhaps a federation, or even a global collective.

Second, each development in economic system has increased social stratification. Thus we might assume that more classes or groups of people will emerge, not fewer as many suppose.

Third, the relationship between labor and survival/security/production continues to get more abstract. We now have money as a representation of labor-hours, which might represent services or even money handling in itself rather than the production of goods. How can this be abstracted further? I believe we’ve already seen signs of this. I’ll return to this in a moment.

Fourth, in each stage, freedom grows recursively. As we now have the possibility for collectivized will, I suggest that the next stage might be the guarantee of collectivized will: the guarantee that the will of the people as a whole is implemented. Note that this is not a wish or a legal framework; it’s a fundamental, automated component of the next economic development.

So what kind of system inherently responds to the will of the people, rejecting individual interference and naturally circumventing artificial barriers?

Simple: social media.

Attempts to manufacture virality fail. Advertising is ignored and often blocked. Although still within the constraints of our current system and not entirely free, the influencers and concepts that rise to the top can come from anywhere, can be shared freely, and “cost” consumers nothing but their attention: put simply, free time itself has become a commodity.

Early attempts to “futurize” such a system are usually dystopian: c.f. Black Mirror’s “Nosedive”. But visualizing a social currency that operates similarly to a capitalist system is inherently contradictory. It would be like trying to model capitalism on a feudal society, imagining the boss and the senator and the landlord as all being the same person, imagining a farmer trying to barter his grains for the latest PS4.

Still, I don’t pretend to be clever enough to accurately imagine what a society looks like. I would love to see some ideas, though, at least transitional ones.

One consideration is to imagine how free time could be “bought” and “sold” if the reward is no longer direct influence on public projects (since this process is completed more or less autonomously). A consequence of this new system is that pro-social behavior will be rewarded, and anti-social behavior devalued and marginalized.

Fortunately, pro-social behavior already has an inherent reward: a sense of belonging, mental satisfaction, and material well-being (friend & family support, etc.) Modern social media seeks to imitate and gamify this reward with likes and shares, although its distribution is often misaligned with what’s actually in people’s best interests, both producers and consumers. Executioners and other “untouchables” during feudal times, too, were bestowed with the unsatisfying reward of a hefty purse, although they were still excluded from society at large, and there was a limit to how far money could go back then if not also tied with formal status. If decoupled from the current burden of financial markets, if viewed as a source of power and freedom in its own right, what would it mean to get people’s approval and attention? What if these things were not exclusively awarded for entertainment, but for all forms of public endeavors?

Of course, imagining the future is a fun but relatively fruitless endeavor. There are just too many unknowns. But speeding its progression, that’s something we can really talk about, because we can determine the conditions that led to previous transitions and seek to heighten the tension in our own times.

As socialists, do not forget the “social”. The constant calls to push, to spread, to convince are backward. The goal is to make people happy. The goal is to get what we, the people, like and want. The goal is to feel connected, to receive positive attention, to act pro-socially and reward others who do as well. We must find a way to provide people with the things they want and need. Not only what they say they want, but what they actually seek and encourage and reward. What actually makes them happy. What actually encourages and motivates them. Observe and find meaningful data. Follow the people.

The final takeaway from this analysis is this:

In each previous economic system, the new one was brought about because of a lack of organization of an emergent phenomenon. In capitalism, the emergent phenomenon is collective will.

The larger this tension between what the people want and what capitalism can provide, the greater the impetus will be for a new economic system.