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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more