A Better Stimulus for A Better Society
Today, billions of people work hard for disappointing pay at the command of bosses and markets, so many yearn for change. After thousands of years of monarchy/feudalism and hundreds of years of capitalism, socio-economic transformation into an absolutely just society would take quite some time. Much like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, this metamorphosis requires multiple phases. We cannot largely easily leap to a moneyless — let alone stateless — society because too many people lack trust in the work ethic and respect held by others around them. Our first step must make sense to most people where they are. We might need to transition from where we are today by utilizing the institutions we already have. Our first step in this radical journey is electoral syndicalism.
Syndicalism, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy and the government by direct means (such as a general strike). The problem is that a general strike, including sit-down strikes and workers allowing shoplifting, is effectively illegal or at least career-threatening unless participation is broad enough to elicit a mass pardon. A failure to reach critical mass would mean demonization of the movement by the mainstream news media. However, there is one legal way for workers and unemployed people to seize the means of production: a Congressional stimulus package.
The United States of America is a monetarily sovereign nation. The reason it has gone over $30 trillion in debt is because it, through its Treasury Department, creates its own money. No matter how many dollars Congress demands in a budget, the Treasury can eventually place money in accounts to pay for the shortfall in case taxes and other revenues are insufficient. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress, “There’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.” Therefore, Congress has issued stimulus packages of hundreds of billions and recently trillions of dollars. This indirectly creates inflation, an issue that a syndical approach can render mostly harmless.
Consider a temporary $1,000 advance child tax credit, for example. Parents who receive this will spend the money on products such as food, clothes, and daycare. Under the capitalist economy we currently struggle with, sellers of these products will view this as an opportunity to raise prices, due to the increased demand. They might eventually spend the money on increasing the efficiency at which they produce, but that only comes after fleecing the consumers. Worse yet, the temporary nature of the credit will leave some parents unable to buy the same amount they could even before the credit, as other consumers will still buy enough at inflated prices to keep sellers’ profits high. This economic trainwreck can be bypassed if residents get dollars as investments.
If all residents in a monetarily sovereign nation like the United States get, say, $500,000 worth of stocks or bases in businesses, those profits would actually trickle down to ordinary people. Capitalism usually leaves workers’ wages as a middle line: an expense that is limited as much as possible while keeping profits high. These profits generally result from the money made in sales minus the money spent on expenses. Those fortunate to have stocks or bases get these “bottom line” profits either as dividend or distribution cash payments or as increases to their ownership value. A “Syndical Stimulus” would bring inflationary profits into the pockets of all residents, not just the rich. Inflation could be 30% per month, but at the end of each season, all residents would profit from it.
A drastic increase in the assets businesses receive from this investment would get rid of other problems, too. Employment would increase, as people would be needed to build the means of production to new heights and efficiency. These fixed assets would better provide for the population, including immigrants. Such a great deal of investment would create a high-tech country and world.
Now, what makes this “syndicalist” is that workers can get ownership stakes in the businesses they work at through this grand stimulus. This grants them control over who can be Directors and Chief Officers of their corporations or partnerships and sometimes decision-making over the workplace itself. Their shareholding would guarantee adequate wages and safe conditions while the shareholding of non-working people such as retirees would guarantee efficiency and limited waste. This cooperative leadership might even create a Green New Deal and degrowth, after some consulting from experts, of course. Furthermore, workers and non-workers would rightfully discuss the very nature of for-profit business, leading to a moneyless society.
You see, consumers always seek lower prices on products, and business owners always seek lower prices on their inputs, and so on. The combination of their interests would bring local areas across the country into agreement that money itself is counterproductive. Collaboration and needs would replace competition and greed in each municipality. Corporations at large, subject to the whims of the workers and non-workers, would be obliged to comply. These country-wide businesses would melt away, making democratically confederated branches out of what were once agonizing workplaces dominated by rich investors. Perhaps, to ensure sufficient production, a system like mutual credit would be in place to make sure that everyone who can contribute to their community does so. After several years, efficiency will make even that pointless and eventually render states pointless.
The origin of the state is in the divide between the haves and the have-nots. Civilizations sprung up along rich rivers, while poor nomads and peasants struggled to pay dues to the civilization owners. Some landless people attacked others as a shortcut to survival and wealth. States have been the answer to such aggression since the dawn of history. But with the advent of a moneyless society, no one will be a have-not. Desperation will be a thing of the past, as will the greed of militant business. The broad satisfaction of the mass of Americans, for example, would make the federal government behave far more responsibly.
As of the years 2023 and 2024, the United States federal government is the dominant empire. It bullies other nations into submission to capitalism by destroying them and cutting them off from most of the global economy. The politicians behind this follow the demands of the apathetic rich people who only care about profit for their international corporations. If workers and previously poor non-workers gained control of the American economy, politicians would be subject to these ordinary residents’ demands instead. These demands would continually reduce federal domination until the other countries metamorphose into moneyless societies in their own ways. With democracy achieved, with greed gone, and with peace attained, nation-states and cities will truly fade away, leaving no monopoly on violence behind.
All this would have to start with two kinds of institutions that exist today in the United States (and European countries which together have monetary sovereignty in the European Union): unions and legislatures. Workers of all industries and activists of all banners would have to band together, demanding a Syndical Stimulus (or similar legislation). A Political Action Committee might be necessary as well. After all, Congress buying $500,000 or so worth of ownership for all residents (or citizens, if such limitation is deemed necessary) would benefit at least 90% of the population, leaving only the rich to lose the relative value of their wealth. That is the path I see: classless, then moneyless, and finally stateless.
