Skip to main content

Production, centralization, and the relevance of 19th century labels to 21st century society

By

Changing ownership of the means of production and ensuring that the representatives of the people do not suffer a bourgeois bureaucratic hangover regarding their pre-eminence does not do away with the fundamental quality of the production that is performed by individuals and small groups. I argue that we need to question the relevance of continual production. We need to question the need to produce enough. For there will never be enough. Production that aims at satisfying the needs of a population will only contribute to the growth of the population and its needs and wants. Emphasizing continual production leads us to aggregate disparate groups and individuals and our fuels need to serve/fight these aggregations. Our daily routine does not comprise mainly of acts that help us (or others) identify ourselves with such large organizational structures. In other words, the macrodiscourses of suppression, change, revolution do not directly engage with the lived experiences of individuals engaged in production. Marx visualized a national centralization of the people’s efforts from the bottom-up, something I find very difficult to relate to. Not in the least because it is not possible but because any attempts to aggregate the struggles of men, women, and children must acknowledge the individualized context of such action. To cut a long story short, I am a federalist and have a problem with the notion of a centralization that occurs from below because such centralization is induced through persuasion that seems inorganic. An induced process of social change assumes a hierarchy of knowledge in society.

Who constitutes the proletariat today? Given that the proletariat and the peasant classes are called to join hands in revolution, one would expect some similarity between these classes with respect to their conditions, lifestyles and suchlike. To what extent are the proletariat and the peasantry similar (or, dissimilar) today? Imagine a circumstance wherein all members of society actually become a part of the bourgeoisie and come to possess private capital. Is such a circumstance possible? If it is possible then is it probable? What role will/does technology play in the absorption of the proletariat into the bourgeois classes?

Comments

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