Skip to main content

Who has the microphone?

Image
By
Taking a step back away from the discussion of communism and capitalism, I couldn’t help but question why Engel’s argument dichotomizes the two concepts as if no other forms of social order can exist in societies. Granted it would take extensive thinking, planning, trial and error, I suggest that it is not an either or selection. When has anything that involves a large group of people ever been simply black and white? Many of the points that have already been discussed in the blog thus far point to the shortcomings of Engel’s argument. If communism will use all instruments of production and distribute all products “according to the common agreement”, I also question how such a “common agreement” will be reached? Even if every person is allowed an equal voice, only one voice can be acted upon for the public and that can only go over well if everyone agrees to whatever it is that voice calls for. In communism the social order will have to be hierarchical in some nature because their will also be those whose voices and choices are acted upon and those who receive less attention. Again we return to the same question that we have discussed plenty of times, “Who has the microphone?” and what would those without the microphone say if they did have it?

Switching my focus a little, I also want to briefly discuss a concept that Engels merely grazed over in his discussion of the distribution of products in a communist society. He states, “Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society.” He further affirms, “This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of production to satisfy the needs of everyone” Hm…are you sure about this? Sure in doing so society would fill all the needs of the world, but does that really remove one of the core elements of the human condition which is to want and desire things? Also, I’d like to clarify that when I say “things” I am not simply talking about material/tangible products, but also those intangibles such as fame, admiration, popularity, recognition….power. Even in providing everyone the things they NEED, it does not cleanse the world of greed, violence, and other debilitating mannerisms that foster a capitalist society and thrive in the grouping of human beings. All of which many times are the byproducts of human desires for something we believe we do not possess regardless of if it is private property, consumer products, or what ever the case may be. Engels discussion deals with morals and values just as much as it does with economics. If in a communist society everyone is provided with life’s necessities, what rubric is used to determine what is necessary and what is not? After years of building a consumer driven society (specifically in the US) haven’t the lines of needs and wants been blurred? I definitely need that new Gucci Mane CD and I cannot live without that new Lamborgini Coupe, or can I? I know plenty of people in the world have this mentality and a change of economic distribution will not cure it…it is an ideological disease.

Comments

Saqib said…
Regarding your second point, I would agree that Engels seems to show a shortsighted view of human nature. He seems to be assuming that members of society will be content of a supply of needs rather than a pursuit of wants. Ideally, a society should have access to both within a sustainable context. Humans don't necessarily respond to their communal instincts exclusively the way many capitalist assume they respond exclusively to their individualist instincts.
January 17, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...
2 comments
Read more