I read more Conquest of Bread, and he goes more in depth on how the ills of society are for the most part because capitalism is incredibly wasteful. After thinking on that, I realized he was right. Problems like homelessness, starving populations, people going uneducated, without internet etc. are really just problems of distribution. It doesn't make money to give away food for free, create communally owned housing blocks, or build high speed internet connections in rural areas, even though it would address the problem. It's more profitable (or less unprofitable) for resources to go unused than for them to be consumed in some circumstances. Which is why we have situations like in NYC, Bay Area, LA, London, D.C., and more cities where there are more vacant occupancies than there are people, or in Puerto Rico, where warehouses of supplies and food go undistributed because the (federal and local) government couldn't sell them profitably.
Additionally, due to the collective nature of the ownership of technology and capital, any wealth hoarded by any single person is exploitation, as it violates that collective ownership. The solution to this exploitation is revolutionary expropriation. Now, what exactly does that mean?
Revolutionary entails sweeping societal changes to government and economy.
Expropriation refers to the redistribution of private property and its use to serve the public good. Basically we house the homeless, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and generally fulfill peoples material necessities. For the most part, this will not affect personal property, as like I mentioned, we have already built up a surplus of most basic necessities. In my view, this would extend to things like internet and cellular access to rural areas, guaranteeing healthcare to all regardless of national origin, guaranteeing transport and freedom of movement for all, quality education etc. (to be clear this is about reshaping society during and after a revolution - the way things ought to be set up, not the way they are)
Regarding food and food production specifically, he states "Cheat the peasant [read: farmer, as in Kropotkin's day most people farmed, and most people doing the labor on the farm were peasants] no longer with scraps of paper - be the sums inscribed upon them ever so large; but offer him in exchange for his produce the very things of which he, the tiller of the soil, stands in need." this can basically be boiled down to the phrase "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" i.e. produce what you can, consume what you need. Additionally for farmers to have their needs met, the ability to communicate with the world is essential. Obviously this applies to everyone, but rural areas are continually underserved by capitalist ISP/Cell data conglomerates with respect to communication networks, which is why I bring this up.
Another interesting point he makes is that, with the exception of harvesting crops (a concern not really shared in modern society) most work can be accomplished by working significantly fewer hours per day, so long as the work is genuine, and productive. Anecdotally, how often do you hear stories of office workers performing the tasks asked of them quickly and spending much of the day browsing the internet, or some other way of slacking off? why then, force them to stay at the office when they could go out and live their life, bettering themself, doing housework, or really anything else? Remember this is in a society where the basic needs of an individual are being met, so concerns like the office worker would be paid less for their labor, are misleading, and invalid.
I plan on watching a documentary (in addition to Manufacturing Consent) called Revolutionary about an american who joined the Chinese Revolution, and became an influential member of the Broadcasting Department
Yorumlar