When it comes to the creation of a communist society, abolition of private property is seen as an unavoidable part of the process. In order to achieve the socially optimal allocation of resources, it's a must to prevent social surplus to accrue to capitalists and create a public economy instead. By doing so, you can put an end to maldistribution of resources and such a model theoretically seems wise and much more productive. Just imagine a shift of resources from unproductive sectors to productive sectors! It's bound to create an abundance in the economy in a reductionist way of thinking. However the production process is not something theoretical at all. The very hands of the producer seems reluctant to work efficiently when he is supposed to have a social motivation. Briefly, the whole matter is not merely a change of ownership, but a change of society. If you choose to interfere in economy in the name of so-called public good (no easy job to define that), that wouldn't make sense at all. Such an approach would be authoritarianism.
Maybe I should take it back from the inception. Whatever we deem "unproductive" is productive indeed in a sense that they reproduce the work force. So we must start with the elimination of the notion that recreational activities are not productive.
...
If production tends to cluster among the profitable sectors in this system, what will become of the disadvantaged people in society then? Shifting of manufacturing bases today is a good example to show how the equilibrium in the free market works.
For instance, to produce shoes may not be profitable anymore, however if an entrepreneur produces shoes in an advantaged place in terms of costs, then he's to keep high profit margins and keep launching those low-profit making products into the market. Therefore an average consumer can not be damaged under such conditions provided there is a free market in the world.
The fact that the system is losing it's competitive nature day-by-day makes no sense for me. This is because, at any rate, there will still remain an extent to which capitalists have to price their products: that is the flexibility of demand.
...
Imagine all units in the economy produce as much as they can rather than on an rationally optimal level. That would be great of course. At this level of machinery and capacity of production, we don't have to work for hours. The example of the USSR has already proved that we could only work for a few hours to live our life. I'm not against this ideal of course- no one would be either. On the other hand we should draw our lessons from history. Both in so-called socialist countries and mixed-economies, public sector had a visible efficieny problem. It was because people were reluctant to produce for the sake of making others happy. They needed what someone calls unproductive sectors' products to increase their efficieny. If you think you're not one of those types, I'd really appreciate you. Coz' I think the same way. A high-efficiency whereby I wanna become relatively rich and share a particular portion of my gains with the socially oppressed ones such as women, children, gays, transexuals etc... You think just the way I do? From now on we may have an instrument to re-distribute what we have in common... Fortunately we have civil society today.
All I want to say is that we have no right to usurp what others have in the name of public good. I know the instant answer for that: but they usurp the surplus-value. Yeah you're damn right! But this is the only way for development as I said before, people are reluctant to do better without an individual reward. I'm not happy to say that but let's face the the fact!
What if I become happy when I see the smile of a destitude man? That's also a kind of individual reward. The motivation behind doing better job is individual anyway! Then we should better place our focus on "what can make people selling their Ferrari's to get changed" or "Why people want more power and credit? Aren't they given credit as a human being?" rather than a proletarian revolution (I don't believe there remains proletariat anymore but it's a long debate itself). My second question may give an answer to the very familiar one: "Why Jewish people are rich?". It's me and you who makes some people outcast! Do not just complain about the system buddy! Coz we create and reproduce it evvvverrry day!! It's the reflection of what people already are. If you're reluctant to turn the unnecessary lights off when in your college or at your home, you should admit that this system has built itself on a right base- that is the complacency of average person.
...
You still believe that proletariat is the only progressive challenge to the capitalist system? I'll just let you remember 1968 then. Who sparked the 68 movement and brought Paris to the brink of revolution was students. We do not have the right to put the burden of a historical breakthrough to the shoulders of some stupid and ignorant sweatshop-men. Not really interested
in the discussion of whether any personnel not having a direct participation in the production process is proletariat or not, coz the new face of capitalism makes such debates senseless as vertical social mobility is just a matter of effort today (of course this is valid for some income groups).
...
You still uphold the so-called "scientific socialism" as the only truth and dismiss any change coming from the change of capitalists as "utopian socialism"? I find the latter as being the scientific one. I just turn the model of Marx upside down -by no means I find his model irrevelant. I think that there is a psychological base and an economical superstructure.
There are two elements in that psychological base:
1-Social instinct
2-Sex drives
I don't wanna write a long and boring article at all. So I don't need to elaborate this model in details as it's not so unique at all. You can clearly find the impact of Frankfurt School on this model. However I would love to share my optimistic feelings for a better tomorrow (Now you'll understand why I don't find Marx's model irrevelant.).
Power (in the meaning that Foucault employs) had imposed restrictions and regulations on sex life till the emergence of social classes. This is because sex amounts to the reproduction of work force and soldiers. In ancient Rome and Greeks, work force was not a big deal as they had the chance to employ slaves. The only matter was the inheritage of possessions to a son having the same blood (it had been determined by father ever since matriarchy was eliminated). When the age of slavery was replaced by a feudal age, reproduction of work force became a more important issue. Power began to impose much more strict rules at this period (Christianity... You think it was a coincidence?). But the most significant milestone in the relationship betweem power and sex was the mass production which industrial capitalism brought about. Repression upon sex drives did not show a sign of decrease with the serial production -associated with the term Fordism. I think this was because
a totaliterian era had taken its course, namely nation-states.
Today, we're living in a new era that is defined with the elimination of nationalism and labor-intensive production. Even if you're one of those who hates labels, you can not escape from the everyday reality of post-modern life. Power wants to establish itself not with the repression of sex, but with the expose of it (that is what Foucault puts describing the 19th century. I think he was a lil bit impatient
)
Seems greed is losing one of his feet (yes, he is surely a man). Do you think he can move forward anymore? He will, by definiton, try to creep forward. Let's pull him upside and give him a hug. He's a human after all. He will, by definiton once more, hug us tight and lose his desire to go forward. Coz he's already reached the stage where he found what he was looking for. He's at the stage of socialism. You still find it utopian?
