Look, I don't believe in Utopia. My ambition is firmly rooted In reality. All I want is a decent, secure job that pays enough to guarantee a reasonable standard of living, sees the mortgage paid, runs the car, gets us a bit of a holiday every year . . . Well, you know what I mean . . . I suppose I would like the kids to get better opportunities than me . . .
That's not a lot to ask . . .
No, It's not, I suppose, but hold on, there are a few other things . . . Peace. I'd like to know that there'd never be war again and that all the violence that is now so much a part of our lives was ended. Mind you, I know that for me and my family to be happy other problems, like world hunger, would have to be ended. Not Just because it's obscene, which, of course, it is, but because it creates a dangerous situation, if you know what I mean. I suppose, when you think about it, the only way the prosperity and security of the individual can be secured is by having prosperity and security for everybody.
Do you think present society can guarantee the reasonably decent life you want?
Not guarantee. No, not when you think about It. I've seen too many people doing OK and then, through no fault of their own, some outside factor . . . recession, competition, bankruptcy — even, as we saw last year In the Gulf, war — and, whoosh! you're on the dole and the house is being repossessed!
That's a good point to start from. So you agree that our present way of organising society, the capitalist way, just cannot guarantee you — apart from everybody else — the material basis of a full and happy life?
I have agreed that, I suppose. It's a Jungle. We're all fighting to survive. And yet capitalism has improved things in many respects. Sometimes I marvel at the way the system has developed. We can turn out all sorts of complicated machinery . . . cars by the millions, washing machines, fridges, TV's videos. Even the agricultural techniques have been revolutionized to the point where we have to destroy foodstuffs and restrict food production. We can send people to the moon . . .
But we have not solved the simple problem of saving the life of a starving or sick child, whose parents have not got the money to buy the food or medicines which you, quite rightly, say capitalism can now vastly overproduce.
It's incredible, but it's true. But that still does not take from the fact that capitalism has developed the means for producing enough for everybody. I hadn't thought of it before in those terms but it is surely the means we employ to distrlbute the things that capitalism produces . . . If there were some other way . . .
You're right, of course. Capitalism has solved the question of production. It has created the potential to produce in abundance the things everybody needs but its method of distribution, the money system, denies the great majority of people throughout the world the opportunity to avail of the fantastic wealth which can now be produced.
But, if we solved this problem of distribution . . . You say it's the money system. Well, Just suppose we find another method that would allow everybody to benefit from the present techniques of production. There must be some process we could devise.
We could have free access. Everybody being free to take what they need.
As I was speaking I thought of something like that but It wouldn't work. There're a lot of reasons but the main one would be that you would need some method of restricting people. A form of rationing of some sort, and look at the problems that would bring.
Why? Haven’t we agreed that the productive techniques exist now to produce abundance?
Yes we have, but how would you prevent people taking more than they need?
Well, in the first . . .
No! Hold on — I think I've got It! No money means that people wouldn't want to take more than they need because . . . well, when they wanted more, they could get it! Yes, I see that, at least. We'd take only what we need because we would know that when we needed more it would be there for the taking. So everybody would be on the same social level.
Correct. No classes. It simply means that we would co-operate in producing the goods and services we need. Everybody who was fit to do so would have to be afforded the right to contribute in some way. I appreciate that this may create problems for some people when we remember that at present all real wealth is produced by a minority of workers.
A minority of workers? Surely workers are the majority of the population?
Yes, of course, workers form the overwhelming majority of people but only a minority are involved in producing socially useful goods and providing useful services. The majority of work performed today by workers is only necessary because of the way society is run. The buying-and-selling way: shops, banks, insurance, financial services, arms production, armed forces, crime . . .
I think we're on to something. This is a bloody great idea. There'd be no poverty or unemployment and all the waste that would be cut out, destruction of foodstuffs and all the fantastic wealth that goes into armaments and war, and cutting out all those useless tasks — everybody could be well fed, well housed and secure with less effort than it takes now. But there must be a snag! Why don't some of these experts, businessmen, economists, why don't they suggest this?
Because their training and their interests are concerned only with capitalism.
I think we're really on to something. I really do. The whole bloody thing is so logical! The implications are tremendous. Everybody would have a direct stake in society. The world would belong to us all; things like vandalism would disappear. A world without money! Without money and without class — and without wages, too, because there’d be no need . . .
And, of course, we are only scratching the surface.
A world-wide society where everything would be owned in common by everybody. Obviously we'd have to divide out the work as best as possible to give everybody a chance to contribute to production — but, of course, people would develop in other ways . . . education, travel, art . . . The interesting thing about this idea is that in such a world there'd be no incentive to corruption. Of course, it would have to be voluntary . . .
Democratic.
Yes, democratic. You just couldn't force this idea on people. To bring about a change to this way of living, to make it work, I mean, people would have to understand it and . . . opt for it politically. There'd have to be a political Movement, wouldn't there? Yes, and we'd need a name for the idea . . .
1 comment:
Mmm, I don't think I've ever had this type of conversation with anybody.
Post a Comment