redguard2009
6th November 2008, 06:19
The issue with the abolition of private property is one of emancipating the "divine right" of a select few in determining the very existence of a certain machine, design, piece of technology, technique, or other abstract or literal object or idea, and their "divine right" to produce, package, distribute and sell that property for their own benefit.
If/when private property is indeed abolished and what we know as property in the economic sense becomes available to all, how will workers of the future deal with competition?
For instance; you have a town with several thousand people. In this town are two shoe-making companies which have been collectivized and operated by workers. Both are vying for the same market; selling shoes to the people of this town. How is this competition reconciled?
In another example, there is only one shoe-making company in this town, but there is a small group of people who'd like to start their own shoe-making operation, for one reason or another; they like making shoes, they see room for improvement in the availability or quality of shoes, or whatever. The already-established shoe-making company has a veritable monopoly on the local shoe-market; local shops are unwilling to curtail their tried-and-tested shoes for some new shoes that are as yet untested commercially. Of course, workers from the already-established shoe-making company see the development of a competitor as a threat to their livelihoods; if the opposing shoe-makers make better shoes and perform better on the market they may find themselves out of the job. How is this reconciled?
I am more a fan of the semi-planned economy; I understand it better than the all-out quagmire of individualism. A planned economy, one organized and overseen by a higher governing authority (which is of course democratic) is capable of designing productive forces around such issues and declaring what is and isn't needed; it is up to a centralized economic body to determine how many shoe-making operations are needed in this town; it would by necessity avoid situations in which bodies of workers would be forced into competition with one another.
Of course I say semi-planned; I also believe that fully planned economies are borderline fascist in terms of an authoritative body determining who does what work (or rather, passively determines this).
One idea is the "voluntary planned economy"; any up-and-coming entreprenuer can approach their local community or municipal governing body and apply to develop some sort of productive operation, which can be approved or denied depending on the decisions of the democratically-elected "economic development committee". Of course this means that not everyone can partake in the "job of their dreams"; I'm sure everybody would love to be a porn star (well, most men?) but if 95% of the male population spent all day having sex (and 95% of the female population degrading themselves) then society would naturally break down. Of course, it's ridiculous to assume that without boundaries, human productive forces would disintigrate under the strain of everyone's selfish individualistic ambitions, but I still favour semi-arbitrary imposement as opposed to unregulated competetiveness.
So are either of these ideas feasible?
1) Individualism; Every man or woman has the right to partake in whatever productive enterprise they see fit, with winners and losers being decided by base competition and marketeering. Economic development is determined almost arbitrarily by basic supply and demand.
2) The Planned Economy; productive forces are atleast somewhat determined by some body or organization which oversees economic development and applies productive forces based on a centralized, "big picture" approach. Economic development is prioritized to meet the assumed needs of society.
Keep in mind that the planned economy approach is preceeded by a truely democratic, socialist society, and not some closed-door private affair; economic matters are discussed, economic officers and members of economic councils and committees are publically accountable. I am not talking about "state capitalism" (a bourgeois governing body assuming control of economic development and management), but "state communism/socialism".
If/when private property is indeed abolished and what we know as property in the economic sense becomes available to all, how will workers of the future deal with competition?
For instance; you have a town with several thousand people. In this town are two shoe-making companies which have been collectivized and operated by workers. Both are vying for the same market; selling shoes to the people of this town. How is this competition reconciled?
In another example, there is only one shoe-making company in this town, but there is a small group of people who'd like to start their own shoe-making operation, for one reason or another; they like making shoes, they see room for improvement in the availability or quality of shoes, or whatever. The already-established shoe-making company has a veritable monopoly on the local shoe-market; local shops are unwilling to curtail their tried-and-tested shoes for some new shoes that are as yet untested commercially. Of course, workers from the already-established shoe-making company see the development of a competitor as a threat to their livelihoods; if the opposing shoe-makers make better shoes and perform better on the market they may find themselves out of the job. How is this reconciled?
I am more a fan of the semi-planned economy; I understand it better than the all-out quagmire of individualism. A planned economy, one organized and overseen by a higher governing authority (which is of course democratic) is capable of designing productive forces around such issues and declaring what is and isn't needed; it is up to a centralized economic body to determine how many shoe-making operations are needed in this town; it would by necessity avoid situations in which bodies of workers would be forced into competition with one another.
Of course I say semi-planned; I also believe that fully planned economies are borderline fascist in terms of an authoritative body determining who does what work (or rather, passively determines this).
One idea is the "voluntary planned economy"; any up-and-coming entreprenuer can approach their local community or municipal governing body and apply to develop some sort of productive operation, which can be approved or denied depending on the decisions of the democratically-elected "economic development committee". Of course this means that not everyone can partake in the "job of their dreams"; I'm sure everybody would love to be a porn star (well, most men?) but if 95% of the male population spent all day having sex (and 95% of the female population degrading themselves) then society would naturally break down. Of course, it's ridiculous to assume that without boundaries, human productive forces would disintigrate under the strain of everyone's selfish individualistic ambitions, but I still favour semi-arbitrary imposement as opposed to unregulated competetiveness.
So are either of these ideas feasible?
1) Individualism; Every man or woman has the right to partake in whatever productive enterprise they see fit, with winners and losers being decided by base competition and marketeering. Economic development is determined almost arbitrarily by basic supply and demand.
2) The Planned Economy; productive forces are atleast somewhat determined by some body or organization which oversees economic development and applies productive forces based on a centralized, "big picture" approach. Economic development is prioritized to meet the assumed needs of society.
Keep in mind that the planned economy approach is preceeded by a truely democratic, socialist society, and not some closed-door private affair; economic matters are discussed, economic officers and members of economic councils and committees are publically accountable. I am not talking about "state capitalism" (a bourgeois governing body assuming control of economic development and management), but "state communism/socialism".