I hope this isn't too repetitive. I didn't have the time to read all
of the replies to David completely or carefully.
David B. Shemano wrote:
> 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.<
One thing forgotten here is that part of the "end game" (a.k.a.
communism) is the abolition of the distinction between work and play.
That is, individuals would want to work (because it's pleasurable) to
produce the essentials.
Also, in this end game, there would be no state, because the "state"
represents an artificial (historically-created) division between the
centralized organization that monopolizes the generally-accepted use
of force and the people outside of the state ("civil society"). It
would be abolished, as the state and civil society are merged.
To get a concrete idea of what these mean, look at William Morris'
book NEWS FROM NOWHERE. It's still very abstract and utopian, but it
does give us an idea of how it would work.
> 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.<
That's the technological-determinist interpretation that has inflicted
a lot of Marxists over the years (social democracy, the Third
International, etc.) Though Marx was clearly hoping that technological
improvements would occur that would help the leap from necessity to
freedom, he actually put his marbles in the growing organization and
class consciousness of the proletariat (that he saw happening in his
time).
(IMHO, the popularity of the tech-determinist vision arose from both
the decline of the proletarian movements and the dislike that leaders
have for grass-roots movements.)
> 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.<
By the way, it's only one branch of economics that uses that
definition for itself, i.e., the neoclassical school. Since we see
situations that lack the kind of scarcity that this school points to
(e.g., serious depressions), other schools such as the Keynesians do
not follow this definition. For Keynesians, scarcity may always exist
from an individual point of view, but need not always exist at the
macro level. There can be mass unemployment, not only of labor-power
but capital goods.
The end of scarcity only applies to the end game. In the meantime, I'd
explain the "middle game" (sometimes called "socialism" in contrast to
"communism") as a situation where the liberal vision of politics,
economics, and society actually applies.
In actually-existing capitalist society, the liberal vision sees
society as a matter of competition among a large number of roughly
equal individuals, marred only by conflicts between what's good for
the "public interest" and what's good for individuals (free-riders,
opportunists, particularistic interests, etc.) and the interpretation
of that conflict (money libertarians vs. New Deal liberals, etc.) The
key problem with this vision is that in the real world, we see a
serious divide between classes, between the capitalists at the top and
the working class at the bottom, which biases the actual results
(including interpretations of the "public interest") to serve the
former. With socialism, this divide would be going away.
In this "socialism," people are not _totally_ free. Instead, they have
to live under natural and technological constraints. They also have to
live according to the democratically-determined agreements with the
rest of society. They can't be totally-free individuals who do
whatever they want, ignoring the impact on others.
The actual end of scarcity with "communism" gets us back to NEWS FROM
NOWHERE. In this, work is pleasurable (mixed with play) because it
involves craft or professional-type skill of because it is done as
part of groups of friends and neighbors. Only the work that no-one
wants to do is done by machines. All of this increases the supply of
goods and services. On the other hand, picking up a point that Morris
didn't emphasize, the inherently enjoyable nature of work would
decrease the demand for goods and services. Adding some more, the
abolition of transactions costs (the costs of transferring property
rights between people) would drive the price of most things to zero.
To my mind, given all this, it's easier just to have the price equal
zero for everything, using democracy rather than markets to ration any
products that are scarce (i.e., would have a positive price if markets
existed).
In this system, we still wouldn't be _totally_ free. Instead, the
motivation to dictate to others would be sapped, so fewer collective
agreements would be required.
> 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.<
Taking turns is a good idea. It would end the hierarchy of professors
and students over the menials, while broadening the former groups'
experience with the real world (it would be part of their education).
However, the solution would have to be generalized to other sectors:
if it were only done locally it would throw the janitors out of work,
which has real consequences in a capitalist society.
Back when I used to go to "commie camp" (which was called the Western
Socialist Social Science Conference or something like that), one
slogan was "there are no servants under socialism." That's right. (It
meant we had to clean up after ourselves, etc. We did so.)
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
