Marx in his later writing insists that the realm of necessity is the precondition of freedom in any system: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:khcyRUkDTokJ:www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/articles/sayers/freedom.rtf+Marxs+realm+of+freedom&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with the realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite. (Marx 1971, 820) Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html --- On Wed, 10/28/09, David B. Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > From: David B. Shemano <[email protected]> > Subject: [Pen-l] The mechanics of socialism > To: "Progressive Economics" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 1:31 PM > Charles writes: > > >> CB: I don't know that we would be spending a > lot of time trying to > >> define and decide who were winners and > losers. The goal ultimately > >> would be "to each according to need", although > technically this would > >> be after the state had whithered away, and so it > wouldn't be a > >> "democracy". At the stage of democracy, we would > be trying to meet > >> everybody's basic physiological needs and their > "higher" needs. We > >> would fail to the extent that we didn't meet > somebody's needs. > > ..... > > >> CB: I don't think it would be that difficult to > figure out how to meet > >> every last person's basic needs given the material > abundance possible > >> with modern technology, although there are looming > problems with the > >> fossil fuel base of our current technological > regime. > >> > >> The reason an individual voter in a socialist > democratic decision > >> making process would be better equipped and > motivated to "measure the > >> true costs and benefits" , etc. is that they would > be secure in the > >> meeting of their basic needs, food, shelter, > clothing, education, > >> health care, free of the threat of war, and > unalienated from the > >> "system". > >> > > As I understand it, the end game of socialism is "human > emancipation," which is a movement from the realm of > "necessity" to "freedom." I interpret that to mean > that in a socialist state, people do what they want to do > instead of what they have to do. In order for people to do > what they want to do instead of what they have to do, the > basic essentials of life must be existent for all > individuals, because if such essentials are not existent, > that would mean individuals would be required to perform > work to obtain the essentials, which means indiividuals > would be doing what they have to do instead of what they > want to do. > > This notion of freedom as oppositional to necessity is > consistent with what Plato and Aristotle believed, except > that they thought such freedom would only be available for > the few (supported by a slave society), while Marx believed > that such freedom would be available for all. Marx > differed from the ancients in that he put his marbles in > technological progress (as evidenced by what occurs in > capitalist industrial society) to provide a material > cornucopia. > > Now, I am trying to imagine this material cornucopia and > how it would work. The key element is the absence of > scarcity, since any existence of scarcity would require > "have to" work to solve the scarcity problem. By > speaking of scarcity, we run into an immediate problem, > because scarcity is somewhat relative and subjective, but > let's leave that problem aside. > > There are two conceptual ways to think of a society without > scarcity. One ways is the world of Star Trek, where > technological progress reaches the point where there is the > cost free ability to manipulate matter. Or a world > where self-replicating robots do all of the work. In > such a society, economics as "the science which studies > human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce > means which have alternative uses" would have no relevance > or meaning. There are no conceivable winners or > losers, because choices have no real consequences. > > If we reject such a world as fantasy, and assume a world > where the 2nd law of thermodynamics still applies, then we > must conceptualize a world where humans must "work" to > produce the material corncucopia, but somehow the labor > "necessary" to produce and maintain the corncupia is > performed consistent with "freedom." This > is the situation I am trying to better understand. I > remember a debate in my college days between a socialist > sociology professor and a conservative economics professor, > which had a very entertaining discussion concerning who > would perform janitorial services in a socialist > university. To the great amusement of the economics > professor, the socialist professor advocated the professors > and students taking turns. While somewhat trivial, the > anecdote highlights the more serious issue that unless we > reach the Star Trek fantasy, any society, including a > socialist society, is faced with issues of scarcity that > must be addressed, and that leads to a discussion of > institutions and decision-making, and I don't think it is > legitimate for socialists to define the problem away or > reject any discussion as premature. > > David Shemano > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
