The Post - Industrial Age ...

Communism was Marx's idea of a post - industrial age.  At the time he was writing, society was transforming in every way;  it was the Industrial Revolution, a time of capitalism, innovation, and industry, but also one in which the working classes were exploited by the elites, in which art and intellectual pursuits were pushed to the side, and in which the very structure of western society was changing in every way and on every level.  At this point in time, Hegel's dialectic was a very popular structure in philosophy, and one which influenced nearly every thinker of Marx's generation (Jakob Burckhardt opposed it.).                                              

Wait!  Don't stop reading!  I actually have something original to say!  I just have to describe the dialectic really quickly first ...         

So, in a nutshell, Hegel's dialectic says that everything can be broken down into a basic series of events or situations, the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  The thesis is the first stage, and has its strengths and weaknesses, the antithesis is the second stage, and has an opposing set of strengths and weaknesses, and synthesis manages to bring the two together.  Sometimes, the synthesis can act as a new thesis, and the process starts over.                     

It kind of makes sense that Hegel's idea of radically opposing situations ultimately merging to create one with all the benefits of both situations would be popular during the Industrial Revolution, when society was changing so drastically.  Different people looked to different situations for the thesis and antithesis, but, ultimately, everyone was looking for the synthesis.  The synthesis would be a post industrial age, which would combine both the benefits of the first two stages to create a much more ideal society.                                     

I don't believe in the Hegelian dialectic, personally.  That said, Marx did, so, just for the sake of argument, I will adopt it here;  it's kind of romantic, anyway.               

Going by the Hegelian dialectic, and I am not going to sit here and explain Marx's multiple step process to achieve Communism, but going by the Hegelian dialectic, it is fair to say that the final stage in society will be caused, at least in part, by the removal of the problems which face society in its other two stages.  Marx focused a lot on class differences, exploitation, alienation, and envisioned a society in which that wasn't the case.  His idea of a utopic society was one in which there was no government, and no private property.  Everyone would work for the good of the society, in total equality.                               

I want no part of such a society.  Marx confronts the problem of class inequality by proposing that the classes be forcibly equalized without ever really addressing any other societal problem.  Marx's idea of equality is purely an idea of material equality.  In Marx's system, individuals have no significance, except as parts of the whole.  This is the biggest problem.                                                                                    

In my opinion, the biggest problem with a purely capitalistic society is that some people become dependent on others.  This is not the case now, but, in the Industrial Revolution, when people had nothing and earned just enough to live on, they really became dependent on the jobs they had, and had to go no matter how badly they were treated.  Those problems have been largely fixed now, even to the point of being overcompensated for.  The dependence, however, was not purely monetary, but intellectual.  The vast majority of people who worked in the factories of the Industrial Revolution were people whose parents did not receive an education, whose families historically worked on farms, but who had sold their land and moved to the city a couple of generations earlier.  They were being exploited, but they didn't know what to do to stop it, and they looked to leaders to stop it for them.  Jakob Burckhardt would tell you that that is why the twentieth century was filled with dictators and tyrants.  That, that is the problem which needed to be addressed in the Industrial phase of society.                                                         

These people needed power, but true power does not come from forced monetary equalization, or societies in which everyone is merely a part of the whole, and, thus, equally powerless.  True power comes from understanding and taking initiative.  If every individual can control his or her own life, if every individual is an end in and of his or herself, then, and only then, can a truly equal society be achieved.  Power cannot be given, but it can be taken away.  Likewise, equality cannot be given, but it can be taken away.                                       

What is my idea of the post - industrial society?  It is a society in which every individual takes the time to truly understand what he or she wants from life, and goes out to achieve it, without hurting anyone else in the process.  Every individual would make his or her own choices, independently of others, and no one would tell anyone what they could or could not do.  Society would not put pressure on the individual to behave in a certain way, because society would be molded by the individuals who lived in it, and not the other way around.                                         

It is a simple vision, in some ways even simpler than Marx's idea of everyone simply contributing to the greater good and taking his equal portion of it.  It is better, though, because it gives life meaning, and freedom, true freedom, both of which are lacking in Marx's utopia.  It is exciting, millions and millions of individual people each doing different things for different reasons, and interacting on that level, rather than Marx's homogenization in the name of equality.  Can it be achieved?  I don't know.  We all talk about how communism is good on paper, but it can never really be achieved, well, I don't think communism is good on paper, but I think it is more likely to be achieved than this.  Education does not create understanding;  it only gives people the information to understand as much or as little as they want to.  Did you ever hear the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."?  Well, you can lead a person to ideas, but you can't make him/her think.