Looking
Forward. By Michael
Albert and Robin Hahnel 4.
Participatory Consumption
|
|
I would like to believe that people have an instinct for freedom, that
they really want to control their own affairs. They don't want to be pushed around,
ordered, oppressed, etc., and they want a chance to do things that make
sense, like constructive work in a way that they control, or maybe control
together with others. I don't know any way to prove this. It's really a hope
about what human beings are like -a hope that if social structures change
sufficiently, those aspects of human nature will be realized. -Noam Chomsky Language and Politics We want a socialist revolution with human nature as it is now, with human
nature that cannot dispense with subordination, control, and managers. -Lenin I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn That those
to whom evil is don, Do evil in return. -W. H. Auden September 1, 1939
|
CAP: Why put
obstacles in the way of people fulfilling themselves however they see fit?
Your normative, busybody, socially responsible consuming sounds like torture. PE: I'm
just saying that we should consider our fellow citizens... CAP:
But you say people should judge one another's requests... PE: I say
consumption has private and public
effects and that we ought to pay attention to both. I'm also saying that if
some people have budgets thousands of times smaller than others, the fact
that the poor can buy whatever they want within their budgets doesn't achieve
much. MARK: But
once we eliminate capitalist ownership we eliminate gross inequality. And the
market harmonizes private interests so they coincide with social interests.
It is unnecessary as well as counter-productive to intrude on personal
choice. PE: The
market doesn't deal efficiently with nonrenewable resources or account for
how what happens in one plant affects others or even for the way the things I
do affect you... MARK: But
what about privacy? Cap's right. Why should anyone know what I'm consuming? PE: You
aren't listening. Each person's list of consumption requests is accessible to
others, but with no name attached. The total value you request is public and
if you want to over-consume or borrow, that's public with people assessing
the reasons you give. But why do you care if others comment if they feel your
choices may be harmful? Your identity is secret. Your privacy is preserved.
Only the requests, with no name attached, are public. And your neighbors
cannot stop you from ordering what you want as long as your total request is
commensurate with your work effort. Besides, aren't you impinging on my
interests when you consume scotch and gin till you are nothing but a social
parasite? What harm can come from others confronting what they believe is
counter-productive behavior in hopes that doing so would help set the
anonymous person associated with the behavior straight? We're not
talking about a state censor. There is no big brother, just harmless
neighbors. In fact, there is no state at all, at least in the traditional
sense of that word. People wouldn't want to waste their time assessing
anonymous requests for food and books. But if some disturbed zealot does
intrude, is it such a big deal? It will be annoying, but social pressure will
certainly limit it. Occasional prying is a small price to pay for a system
promoting solidarity.
CENT: But you
think everyone should consume the same. PE: The value
of what every citizen consumes would be roughly equal. But what's in the
equal bundle we each get will vary greatly from person to person... CAP: What
incentive is there to work? PE: Yes, you
can't get rich, though you can work harder to get more. But you are right,
material incentives play a minimal role in our system. The incentive to work
well is to fulfill your responsibilities and earn social esteem. |
|