So I disagree with Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc. etc. primarily because they all treat individuals as faceless members of an organic whole that they call society. Maybe I'll argue more on that point some other time but for now I just want you to know where I stand before I begin. I read a line just now that states that: "...Marx believed that power rested with those who controlled the means of production,..."1 and it is true that this is what he believed. However ...
... while he was technically correct (which is the best form of correct) he came ultimately to the wrong conclusions regarding this truth. Power does rest with those who control the means of production. Marx's error was that he viewed society as an entity unto itself and believed that this amorphous "society" could control the means of production en masse. The problem with that is that society isn't an entity unto itself. Society is the result of individuals living their lives in contact with other individuals. Power can rest with government (a ruling elite when they control the means of production) or it can rest with the individual or it can rest with banks and corporations.
First, let us further address the issue of "society" controlling the means of production. It cannot rest with "society" because under such a situation, an individual or collection of individuals will have to be the ones to make the final decisions about what get's made, by whom and for whom plus all the other logistics of delivery etc. In such a situation, you end up with a group (or groups) of individuals making decisions about production which affect every other person directly. These groups become a ruling elite (which becomes the government) telling everyone else what to do. Thus, any attempt to empower "society" to control the means of production results in the establishment of a government whose job is to control the very thing that must not be controlled if people are to be free.
Now, on to corporations etc. I am not fundamentally opposed to banks and corporations, I think that these can just be individuals trying to make a living providing a product or service. However, there are plenty that are pursuing more (non-benevolent) goals in these roles. However, when the individual is bound and required to obtain his food, his clothing, his entertainment, his protection, etc. from companies which produce these things, and he is unable, both legally and physically/intellectually, to produce these things for himself, then the power rests with corporations.
In the United States we are currently living in this sort of situation. There are so many regulations in place (many because of special interest groups which have pushed through the regulations)† that it is nearly impossible for the individual to produce his own food, clothing, etc. There are other factors at work here as well. Debt, habit, culture, etc. But corporations pay to have studies performed which say X is dangerous (like growing your own food or drinking raw milk) and weasel through government regulations to get government force to keep people from being able to produce and use these things on their own. When corporations are the sole controllers of production, power does indeed rest with them and it is not to the good of The People.
But, you have the same problem when the means of production is controlled solely by government. Only, now, since government can do nothing efficiently, it costs more and you get even less quality and quantity than when corporations controlled the means of production. And the consequences of non-compliance are greater.
However, when individuals control the means of production of their own goods, then you have freedom. If people had the option to make their own clothes, grow their own food, build their own homes, craft their own guns and cars, etc. then the power would rest in the hands of individuals, because they would not be beholden to government or corporation.
You have to recognize, of course, that it is not practical for every person to make every thing they need or want. Not everyone can learn to build a computer chip and if you have to make everything yourself, you would have to fuse the silicone boards, solder the wires and resistors, etc. to make your own computer chip, to then build your own computer. There are plenty of things like this that it just makes more sense to subcontract out to a business to have them do it for you. As long as you retain the right to do it yourself though, then corporations do not gain the level of market control that they have right now, because anybody can become a competitor.
When individuals retain the right to produce and own their own goods, and corporations are prevented from utilizing government force for their own agenda then true freedom and progress can develop. In this scenario some people will have more than others. There will be rich and poor, but wealth will be relative and the poor won't be subsistence living poor unless they choose to utilize their resources in a way that results in them having superfluous things in place of the necessities of life. Not all things are relative, but wealth is.
†These regulations coerced out of politicians effectively create a monopoly for the company/group by keeping private citizens and small businesses from being able to afford to comply due to the cost or complexity of doing so. This is also called Crony Capitalism and is not a true Free Market. True Capitalism, a true Free Market, puts The People (in the form of every individual citizen) in control of the means of production of their own goods in that there are no regulations keeping them from producing their goods or getting them from whom they please. Will there be unsafe products, yes. But that's what lawsuits and liability insurance are for. Between the possibility of a lawsuit and the speed with which information can be shared via social media these days, fear of bad PR will keep the regional managers in line.
No comments:
Post a Comment