well-being of the
others, and this simply by virtue of the way the place is set up. I do not have
to have tender thoughts about my fellow workers, or whip myself into an
altruistic frenzy every two hours. My own self-realisation helps to enhance theirs
simply because of the cooperative, profit-sharing, egalitarian, commonly
governed nature of the unit. It is a structural affair, not a question of
personal virtue. It does not demand a race of Cordelias.
For some socialist
purposes, then, it does not matter if I am the vilest worm in the West. In a
similar way, it does not matter if I regard my work as a biochemist employed by
a private pharmaceutical company as a glorious contribution to the advance of
science and the progress of humanity. The fact remains that the main point of
my work is to create profit for a bunch of unscrupulous sharks who would
probably charge their own toddlers ten dollars for an aspirin. What I feel is
neither here nor there. The meaning of my work is determined by the institution.
One would expect any
socialist institution to have its fair share of chancers, toadies, bullies,
cheats, loafers, scroungers, freeloaders, free riders and occasional
psychopaths. Nothing in Marx's writing suggests that this would not be so.
Besides, if communism is about everyone participating as fully as possible in
social life, then one would expect there to be more conflicts rather than
fewer, as more individuals get in on the act. Communism would not spell the end
of human strife. Only the literal end of history would do that. Envy,
aggression, domination, possessiveness and competition would still exist. It is
just that they could not take the forms they assume under capitalism—not
because of some superior human virtue, but because of a change of institutions.
These vices would no
longer be bound up with the exploitation of child labour, colonial violence,
grotesque social inequalities and cutthroat economic competition. Instead, they
would have to assume some other form. Tribal societies have their fair share of
violence, rivalry and hunger for power, but these things cannot take the form
of imperial warfare, free-market competition or mass unemployment, because such
institutions do not exist among the Nuer or the Dinka. There are villains
everywhere you look, but only some of these moral ruffians are so placed as to
be able to steal pension funds or pump the media full of lying political
propaganda. Most gangsters are not in a position to do so. Instead, they have
to content themselves with hanging people from meat hooks. In a socialist
society, nobody would be in a position to do so. This is not because they would
be too saintly, but because there would be no private pension funds or
privately owned media. Shakespeare's villains had to find outlets for their
wickedness other than firing missiles at Palestinian refugees. You cannot be a
bullying industrial magnate if there isn't any industry around. You just have
to settle for bullying slaves, courtiers or your Neolithic workmates instead.
Or consider the practice
of democracy. It is true that there are always monstrous egoists who try to
browbeat others, as well as people who seek to bribe or smooth-talk their way
to power. Democracy, however, is a set of built-in safeguards against such
behavior. By devices such as one-person-one-vote, chairpersons, amendments,
accountability, due procedure, the sovereignty of the majority and so on, you
do your best to ensure that the bullies cannot win. From time to time they will
succeed in doing just that. They might even manage to suborn the whole process.
But having an established process means that most of the time they will be
forced to submit to the democratic consensus. Virtue, so to speak, is built
into the proceedings, not left to the vagaries of individual character. You do
not need to make people physically incapable of violence in order to end a war.
You just need negotiations, disarmament, peace treaties,
others, and this simply by virtue of the way the place is set up. I do not have
to have tender thoughts about my fellow workers, or whip myself into an
altruistic frenzy every two hours. My own self-realisation helps to enhance theirs
simply because of the cooperative, profit-sharing, egalitarian, commonly
governed nature of the unit. It is a structural affair, not a question of
personal virtue. It does not demand a race of Cordelias.
For some socialist
purposes, then, it does not matter if I am the vilest worm in the West. In a
similar way, it does not matter if I regard my work as a biochemist employed by
a private pharmaceutical company as a glorious contribution to the advance of
science and the progress of humanity. The fact remains that the main point of
my work is to create profit for a bunch of unscrupulous sharks who would
probably charge their own toddlers ten dollars for an aspirin. What I feel is
neither here nor there. The meaning of my work is determined by the institution.
One would expect any
socialist institution to have its fair share of chancers, toadies, bullies,
cheats, loafers, scroungers, freeloaders, free riders and occasional
psychopaths. Nothing in Marx's writing suggests that this would not be so.
Besides, if communism is about everyone participating as fully as possible in
social life, then one would expect there to be more conflicts rather than
fewer, as more individuals get in on the act. Communism would not spell the end
of human strife. Only the literal end of history would do that. Envy,
aggression, domination, possessiveness and competition would still exist. It is
just that they could not take the forms they assume under capitalism—not
because of some superior human virtue, but because of a change of institutions.
These vices would no
longer be bound up with the exploitation of child labour, colonial violence,
grotesque social inequalities and cutthroat economic competition. Instead, they
would have to assume some other form. Tribal societies have their fair share of
violence, rivalry and hunger for power, but these things cannot take the form
of imperial warfare, free-market competition or mass unemployment, because such
institutions do not exist among the Nuer or the Dinka. There are villains
everywhere you look, but only some of these moral ruffians are so placed as to
be able to steal pension funds or pump the media full of lying political
propaganda. Most gangsters are not in a position to do so. Instead, they have
to content themselves with hanging people from meat hooks. In a socialist
society, nobody would be in a position to do so. This is not because they would
be too saintly, but because there would be no private pension funds or
privately owned media. Shakespeare's villains had to find outlets for their
wickedness other than firing missiles at Palestinian refugees. You cannot be a
bullying industrial magnate if there isn't any industry around. You just have
to settle for bullying slaves, courtiers or your Neolithic workmates instead.
Or consider the practice
of democracy. It is true that there are always monstrous egoists who try to
browbeat others, as well as people who seek to bribe or smooth-talk their way
to power. Democracy, however, is a set of built-in safeguards against such
behavior. By devices such as one-person-one-vote, chairpersons, amendments,
accountability, due procedure, the sovereignty of the majority and so on, you
do your best to ensure that the bullies cannot win. From time to time they will
succeed in doing just that. They might even manage to suborn the whole process.
But having an established process means that most of the time they will be
forced to submit to the democratic consensus. Virtue, so to speak, is built
into the proceedings, not left to the vagaries of individual character. You do
not need to make people physically incapable of violence in order to end a war.
You just need negotiations, disarmament, peace treaties,
Similar Books
