In the last two classes, we had the opportunity to learn a lot about Marx‘ critique of capitalism and his theory of alienated labor. Also, we already discussed a lot of our objections and misunderstandings in class, but I still have some issues, which I would like to share with you.
The main thought I would like to share with you deals with Marx‘ theories about private property. According to Marx, this basic idea of capitalism is the source of all evil and at the same time the reason for the downfall of capitalism. I appreciate his critique in terms of what the idea of private property can cause in a bad way. But personally, I do believe that he forgets about very important merits of this idea. we tend to say that it is human nature to gather property, although it has not always been that way. But, humankind developed in a different way so that we now consider it as a part of human beings, to collect private property. So, how can this be wrong, if wrong means failure of humanity? I would even dare to say, humans need something what the can call their own, in order to feel secure about the fact that they can use it. Surely, Marx would say, if all your needs are satisfied, you don‘t need to worry about certain goods that might not be available for you. But I ask you guys, is every MacBook or iPhone the same? Do we not care in which Mercedes C-Class we sit, for they are all the same? I don‘t think so, because we built up special connections to our property. This connection is very important in order to take care of it. If we worked for it, or even if we got it as a present, and we consider this thing as our own, we make sure that it is not broken, clean and that it operates well. We can see the reverse effect in things that do not belong to us, such as public places and property like parks or playgrounds but also things that do belong to us in an indirect way, e.g. as property of a larger group, such as the chairs and tables in a classroom of a college, we pay for. All these things usually are not treated in the same way as they would be if they were private property. This is the first thing that comes to my mind, when I try to imagine a communist society as Marx wanted it to be. All the things I use would not belong to me. Surely, it is an interesting thought, but somehow it scares me. Probably, it is just because I am totally infected by the logic of capitalism and therefore not able to make proper judgments.
How would you feel if the computer, you are sitting on at the moment, would not belong to you. How would you treat it?
I agree with you that private property is necessary. It's fundamental to our economic system but also our understanding of society.
ReplyDeleteSo, given that fact, Marx is demanding a radical departure from that fact. He expects virtually all of society (i.e. the proletariat masses) to reject the economic and social structure they have known for their entire lives so, instead, they can pursue some a vague, utopian state that contradicts everything they've ever known. That's definitely a radical suggestion.
An interesting post...
Nice post. I would like to suggest that the relationship between people and objects of production under Marx's ideal system is much stronger and fulfilling than is our relationship with our private property.
ReplyDeleteWe are only able to identify with things as "ours" because they are first detached/alienated from the people who physically made them. We see items in stores as "unclaimed" until they are paid for. And the very real connection we feel with "our own" property surely cannot be as strong as property we would make with our own hands. Although Dr. J wouldn't OWN the bench she makes front he tree in the same way a person who buys a bench does, she can indeed see HERSELF and no one else in the bench which does not apply to a buyer. Much like art, Dr. J does not have a special connection to the bench because she is the only human being with the capability to make one. Instead, the bench is hers in the sense that no one else's mind or body went into the production of that very specific product.
I can see ways this idea juxtaposes our idea of bought goods. At the wealthy private school where I went to high school, one of the hardest parts for me was listening to how people treated their private property. Some people would break their phones on purpose so their parents would buy them new ones, and our library had constant problems with students abusing the furniture. So basically I am suggesting that the sense of security THROUGH money that everyone in a capitalist system pursues--the sense that any product is not unique or special in any way but can be easily replaced--is actually a big reason people are completely estranged from their belongings.
I think the human need for ownership of private property you describe stems from our uniquely human desire to personalize our environments. When we own our Macbook or our Mercedes, we are able to adjust them to be just the way we like them--organizing the files on the desktop or wallpaper on the macbook, adjusting the seats and programming the radio presets in the Mercedes. Were these items not our own, we would feel less able to personalize them. I know that even though the computers in the library can do just about everything (if not more) than my laptop can, I would much rather work on my own computer, because everything is structured to my liking.
ReplyDeleteWhenever we are given a space, even if only temporarily, we try to make it distinctly ours. We hang posters and photos in our dorms and our offices, we pick out furniture for our apartments, we decide to paint our kitchen red instead of blue. And our capitalist society, complete with private property, allows us to do this, as we are not given things we need (such as posters for our walls), but instead must work for them and decide for ourselves what we choose to surround ourselves with.
The abolition of private property, whether right or wrong, in a communist society, I believe would lead to a very confused people. First and foremost, what would one consider a home, if you do not own it? Also, if there is no private property, who is control of it or makes the decisions about what to do with the property? the decision-maker implies ownership, and every single person involved cannot be asked about every pertinent issue. I just don't see how a society without property, or even the idea of (temporarily or arbitrarily) private property would work.
ReplyDelete