Common People Abandoned by God and Free Market

Doing an action unconsciously has produced a challenge for mankind: What do we do with those who are “after” progress? And this superdisposition has widespread implications for society.

A sudden theme has emerged from folk tales in recent decades, from lower scrawls (Tim la Haye and its travelers) for television series, such as remnants where it is subject to those of “backlogs”.

Typically, in this scenario, Armageddon is approaching, and God has brought the privileged to escape from future horrors. But what if we read this subject from an economist's point of view?

As is often the case, it seems that God himself has heard the voice of capital so that the subject of waste can be linked to our economic situation in this global capitalism. Is it not the case that only those who were unable to join the refugee flow, and should remain trapped in their places in confusion, are our <x0-> non-progressors”?

We have to avoid any mere refugee romance. Some European leftists claim that refugees are a proletariat of the nomad type, which can act as the core of a new revolutionary subject in Europe a demand that is deeply problematic.

The proletarate for Marx was made up of exploited and disciplined labor-making and wealth-making workers, while today not the permanent can be counted as a new form of proletariat, while the paradox of refugees is that they are mainly looking for how to become the proletariat. They are “nothing”, without a place within the social building of the country where they took refuge, but from this picture it is a long step for the proletarate in a strict Marxist sense.

So, instead of celebrating refugees as nomad proleaits, would it not be more appropriate to say that they are the most dynamic part of their country's population, the people willing to climb, and that real proleagues are the ones who stayed there and remained behind as strangers in their country (with all religious conotations of “patur <1x>). So the tendency of global capitalism is to make that 80% of us are “back then”.

Past Visits

A century ago, Wilfredo Pareto was the first to describe the so-called 80/20 rule of (and not just) social life: 80% of the land is owned by 20% of people, 80% of the profits produced by 20%, 80% of the decisions are made by 20%, 80% of the internet connections show less than 20% of the websites, 80% of the peas are produced by 20% of people and so on.

As some analysts and social economists suggested, today's economic productivity explosion characterizes us with the final example of this rule: the developing global economy is struggling towards a state in which only 20% of the workforce can do all the necessary jobs, so 80 %s of people are largely insignificant and potentially useless.

When that logic reaches its edge, wouldn't it be reasonable to lead to its self-esteem? Isn't that the system that makes 80% of people irrelevant and useless? The problem is not, therefore, that a new global proletary is emerging, but something more radical is happening: billions of people are simply not needed and all industries have no room for them.

Tony Negri once gave an interview, strolling along a suburb road in Venice-Medstra, Italy, and the journalist's camera caught him crossing a line of employees who were jumping in front of a planned textile factory to shut down; he pointed out the workers and saying: “Look at them! They don't know they're already dead!

For Negrin, these workers stood for everything that is wrong with regard to traditional union socialism, which focuses on corporate labour security. A ruthless socialism was abolished by the dynamics of capitalism “postmoderne” with its intellectual hegemony.

Alternative options

Instead of reacting to this new “capitalism”, the way traditional Socialocracy views it as a threat, it must fully accept it, distinguishing in its intellectual work dynamics, and its non- hierarchic and non- centralized interaction, which are the seed of communism. If we follow this logic to the end, we cannot agree with the neoliberal cynicism that today's main union task should be to re-educate workers so that they can adapt to the new digitized economy.

What, though, about the opposite vision? While the dynamics of new capitalism leave a greater and greater percentage of overworkers (according to some estimates, in the long term, present capitalism would be ideal only if 20% of the workforce had access to it). What, then, about the prospect of accurately reuniting all the living “deaths of global capitalism, all those who were left behind “progrress”, all those who were outdated and all those who were unable to adapt to new conditions? The bet is, of course, that we can establish a direct link between these remains of history and the most progressive aspect of history.

So the real choice is this: Should we continue to play a humanitarian game to care for those who lag behind, or should we deal with the much more difficult task of changing the global system that leaves them behind? Without such a change, our situation will be irrational forever.

For example, take the prospect of automation of production that people fear greatly reduce the need for workers and thus cause unemployment to explode. But why are we afraid of that prospect? Does it not open the prospect of a new society in which everyone will have to work much less? What kind of society do we live in where the good news automatically turns into bad news?/Periscopi/

It says: Slavoj '%ek, translate and adapt Periscope