Consume less? Travel less? It won't happen.

The blackout has brought us face to face with the fragility of everything we have and take for granted. The standard of living achieved in the West (the East is getting its act together) is, in historical terms, spectacular. Of course, this doesn't negate the evidence of the inequalities and vulnerability of so many people, nor the fact that this wealth has been the fruit of brutal processes of colonization or exploitation. That said, and lest I be misunderstood, a poor person today in a democratic Western country is not the same as a poor person a century ago. Just look at general life expectancy or public health, education, and social welfare services, even if they remain limited.

In the 1920s in Catalonia, there were still many homes without electricity or running water, and charity was provided, but not consistently equitable public policies. Technological and economic progress and the strengthening of the public sector have resulted in exceptional well-being. The distribution of this improvement has reached many social sectors. It remains to be seen whether the way of life we've earned is environmentally sustainable. But, overall, we're light years away (pun intended) from a century ago.

A simple, almost day-long blackout has shaken our comfort zone. What would happen if we had to live without electricity for a long time? That is, without refrigerators, heating, or hot water, without air conditioning, internet, cell phones, or... We're not prepared for it. Previous generations had personal or family memories of spartan life in the countryside or the hardships of war. Today's generations have grown accustomed to having everything; we don't consider any kind of frugality or compromise. Something similar happened with the pandemic: it was said that once it was over, people would travel less, something that hasn't happened. When you get used to good things (and leisure travel is one of them), it's hard to let go.

It's unrealistic to think we're going to reduce our consumption of energy and goods and services. Progress can be made toward more responsible attitudes, but not a significant decline in living standards. This will hardly happen unless it's forced upon us by technological failures, wars, or natural disasters. As we're seeing, none of these three factors can be ruled out. To avoid them, political action is necessary.

The leap in well-being occurred primarily in the 20th century, when techno-industrial advances within the capitalist framework were accompanied by genuine democratization and, since the Cold War, by a strengthening of the European social-democratic welfare state to avoid the danger of communism. The working and middle classes benefited, especially with access to education and healthcare, decent housing, paid vacations, cars, etc. In recent decades, the neoliberal wave has once again weakened the mechanisms of wealth redistribution, leading to the current ultra-populist surge led by Donald Trump in the United States, the richest country in the world, but with growing internal inequalities.

Capitalism, on its own, generates as much wealth as inequality. The 19th century is its paradigm. With taxes, market control, and public policies within a framework of freedoms, it's a different story. Now Trump and his imitators want lower taxes, less regulation, and a smaller public sector. They want to return to the 19th century. Economists like Thomas Piketty and Daniel Waldenström, concerned with the balance between wealth and equality, advocate a new-fangled Keynesianism. The issue is what taxes we impose to finance it? Piketty opts for a progressive global tax on assets and increasing pressure on the highest incomes and inheritances. Waldenström is skeptical of wealth taxes due to the danger of evasion and capital flight, and proposes taxing capital, but through capital income and not wealth and inheritance.

Whatever the path, a narrative in favor of taxes, regulation, and public services within a framework of individual and collective freedoms is necessary. Neither Trump's anticlimactic, pro-super-rich authoritarianism nor China's dictatorial growth are alternatives. Both are democratically ineffective.