On page 94 of "The Communist Manifesto", Karl Marx states that the "abolition of private property" is an inherent trait of an ideal communist society. Subsequently, once the bourgeoisie are forced to relinquish their private property, a classless society is formed. According to Marx, in a capitalist society there are two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. People in a capitalist society are placed in a class based on their relation to the society's means of production (57). Marx argues that the bourgeois own the means of production, meaning that they receive income from the 'produce', and they also pay the laborers. The laborers are named the proletarians, and because the laborers do not own any means of production, they must work for the bourgeois owners in order to create income and survive (68). Essentially, Marx defines social classes by capital. The bourgeois class receives most of the capital (because they own the means of production), and thus owns more private property, while the proletariat class works for the bourgeoisie, yet receives little capital and thus owns little private property.
According to Marx, a communist society will eliminate classes by eliminating 'private' capital. This means that all capital in a communist society will be owned by the government; the government will then ensure that ALL citizens receive a proportionate share of the capital. (Incidentally, the meaning of "proportionate" refers to the fact that each person will receive income that will satisfy, strictly, their needs, and nothing more.) In addition to making shared capital, all private property will be owned by the state. Together, these two ideals will cause all people to receive income proportional to "what they need".Also, no single person will be able to own more land, thus the material wealth of all people is equal. Ultimately, Marx defines social classes as categories of income, and if communism eliminates the discrepancies of income, then classes will cease to exist.
I would like to pose a question that refers to an idea set forth by Marx, in the Communist Manifesto; he says, "It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us" (86). Is Marx accurate in his declaration that a primary concern of a communist society is the resulting 'laziness' of the people? Yes, I believe that the concern is valid. This is because people will receive enough income to survive, no matter how hard they labor. In an ideal communist society, a doctor or a lawyer would make as much income as a sewage cleaner. Then, naturally one asks, what is the incentive to study rigorously at medical school or law school, when one can simply drop out after middle school? Marx seems to indicate that there is a natural desire in humans to forgo work in favor of being lazy. In the end, the equal income allows all people to survive (no matter what kind of occupation they have), and no one person can become richer, or poorer.
Even though the concern of laziness is certainly valid, the possibility of the problem, (I think) is not as likely. In an IDEAL communist society, everyone will have enough money in order to survive. Yes, people could then stop doing things that cause aggravation or work; however, this will also allow people to do whatever they want. Communism would allow people to no longer worry about money, and instead, people could actually pursue their passions. Artists could do what they love (create art) without fear of not making enough money. An avid fisherman could pursue his passion, even if in a capitalist society, his passion would yield no income. A communist society eliminates the concern of money, and allows people to do whatever they want. In fact, people would not be lazy, but instead, would be much more inclined to pursue activities. A normal human, who possesses inherent passions, would pursue his or her passions in a perfect communist society, and in fact would be much less stressed, lazt, and would not be conscious of money.
Basically, I would like to conclude with the point that an IDEAL communist society would eliminate any worries about money and would probably not cause laziness (but instead promote the pursuit of things that cause interest). However, there is no such thing as an ideal communist society, because people naturally do not want to change in order to conform.
No comments:
Post a Comment