Primum non nocere (first, do no harm).

What does the first rule of the medical practitioners  tell us about how we should conduct a revolution? Well, first of all, through any revolution not to make things worse for the most worse off. How? The pace of revolutionary change should not be so disruptive that the capitalist economy, as it’s undergoing transformation, cannot be kept functional until new economic mechanisms are in place and can be proven to work, or at least proven to work adequately. By doing this, it would now seem to me, we can prevent the kind of disruption and shortages that may hurt the least well off and the working class. This will take a long time. Not only is this the humane course, but it is also politically sound. A democratic and socialist revolution requires the support of the people, or at least a majority of the people. Nothing would cause us to lose support for a revolution faster than further and sustained immiseration of the poor, working, and middle classes. I don’t care about the social standing, wealth, and income of the rich; they will indeed be made worse off. Not only would it be economic disruption to suddenly yank the system out by its roots, it is the system the people themselves are culturally used to and they need time to adapt. A fully developed and dynamic (enough anyway, and sustainable) socialist democratically planned economy will take generations to realize, in my opinion. It is simply a very big ship carrying many passengers to turn around quickly.  is left of their (our) existing economy, price allocation and commodity production must be kept working. Ownership structures and “social structures of accumulation” (Michael Harrington), however, can begin to take effect, put in place, relatively quickly. The health care system, including the pharmaceutical industry, can be turned around right away, for example. So can housing and education. Wages must be raised for low-wage workers immediately and it must be made easy for them to organize and support organizations such as unions. But I do not see how all wage work can be ended in one fell swoop. Nor can I see how all capitalism, especially the smallest firms can be eradicated in one fell swoop. While the ownership of the largest sectors of the economy, such as food processing, can be changed relatively quickly, they did not evolve or were not designed with socialism in mind and cannot easily be changed into democratic allocation over a short time. It is not that they do not have the capacity to produce for all.

Regarding education, many more adults should be able to find employment in primary, secondary, and post-secondary education as mentors and class aides, or other roles teaching students; if not, all teens, for example have to look to for guidance is their peers, who are often wrong. This is an entire industry waiting to be born. More adults in the classrooms, at the schools.

It should be noted that “first, do no harm” in medical practice can mean to do nothing at all; it is better not to do heart surgery at all, for example, if their were a risk of doing more harm to the patient in the course of surgery. This is not what I mean. Medical care and pharmaceutical drugs in the United States, incidentally, are extortionary and this must end. Wealth and income inequality are the root of all social ills. The patient, our socioeconomic system, needs radical surgery.

You might remember the scene in the film version of Dr. Zhivago in which he tells his Bolshevik brother (played by Alec Guinness) that a revolution is like a surgery in which the patient has to be kept alive when, say, ‘tumors of injustice’ are cut away. I believe this is very true. The patient in our case is humankind and the natural world and the cancer of social injustice and destruction of the environment and the planet must be cut away. Well, the poetry of good, liberal doctor may have been “petite bourgeoisie” and “counterrevolutionary” according to his radical brother (in a separate hilarious scene from the film) but he had a point and a good way to make at least a partial revolutionary analogy. Where the analogy comes off the track, then, is that the “patient” of humankind will not be anesthetized but will be an active participant in the surgery and will need to support the surgery.

I cannot foresee every way in which all aspects of the economy could be reallocated to serve human need and how quickly and what pace that it can be done. It may very well prove possible that the level of technological development would allow for a faster change to a new socioeconomic system. But what is clear and good principal to follow as things manifest themselves and as we manifest them that the rule of “first, do no harm” to those we are trying to help is a good one it would do us good to remember.

The first work, before, during, and after the revolution might be more political and cultural transformation with economics second.