A Big Tent is Not a Universal Shelter: The Morality of Abundance

Utopian socialism rests upon an incoherent morality. It assumes that the abundance we have achieved is perpetual, but that the modes of production that generated it are unsustainable. That's a problem

The American Spirit Essays #15

(continued from Utopian Socialism)

Utopia

In a mindset that cuts across much of the utopian literature and reaches its cleanest, most powerful explication in Marx, abundance is an assumption.  It is not, however, a coherent assumption.  Utopian socialists tend to believe that resources, growth, production, and innovation are all finite.  They tend to describe the constant destruction and recreation of the modes of production as “unsustainable.”  They worry deeply about resource depletion, the undesirable by-products of production (i.e., pollution), and “the limits of growth.”  They exert considerable effort searching for ways to curtail that depletion and production before we hit those limits. 

At the same time, they also argue that we do not need unrestrained production and growth because we already have enough of everything to meet reasonable demand.  We have enough food to feed the world—perhaps not as everyone would like to be fed, but more than enough to sustain life.  We have enough water, shelter, energy, communication capacity, transportation bandwidth, material goods, engaging experiences, and leisure time to go around.  The remaining challenge is to get those things to the people who need them—in other words, distribution.  “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is a profound statement of morality.  It is, however, a decidedly nontraditional morality.  It is a morality grounded in abundance rather than in scarcity.

The distinction is not hard to see; it ties directly to our discussion of scarcity and abundance.  In a world of scarcity, morality must emphasize constant improvement, growth, production, and protection.  Without a unified communal striving in those directions, society will necessarily suffer from starvation, deprivation, infighting over resources, disunity of purpose, and ultimately collapse. 

In a world of abundance, morality must emphasize conservation and distribution.  Without conservation, society will deplete its resources and suffocate itself with pollution.  Without distribution, parts of society will fall back into scarcity.  Moreover, having reached the state of sustainable abundance and equitable distribution, the impetus for growth and improvement will evaporate.  The goal will become sustenance.  Societal perfection will have been achieved by definition—a perfect society is one in which no further improvement is possible.  From there, individuals cursed with the ancient ambitions fueling reckless innovation and growth will stand out as antisocial.  Justice and the common good will demand their removal.