Banned goods
- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
From a 2007 Socialist Standard article:
"First, majorities may vote against producing certain goods on the grounds that they endanger the consumer and/or other people. Examples might include guns for hunting, explosives for demolition, porn, and highly addictive substances (which might be made available only through treatment programmes). Conceivably, majorities might go too far and refuse to authorise some goods and services on vague and inadequate grounds such as being “inconsistent with socialist values.”
Am I the only one who has a problem with this? It doesn't seem consistent with the idea of socialism as freedom for humans, giving them the opportunity to live a happy, fulfilling life. I understand collective ownership requires democratic decision making, and I understand the need to choose what to do with scarce resources. But I still see something wrong here. It is not hard to imagine (to give one example) a majority seeing alcoholic beverages as "inconsistent with socialist values," but if I was working in a brewery under socialism I would encourage my fellow brewers to carry on and say to hell with the majority (small scale revolution). While it may possibly be necessary in principle for the world majority to rule, it seems hardly desirable for them to exercise their rule in such an arbitrary manner. Once people's basic needs are met, it seems that if some people want a product, and other people are happy to produce it, that should be enough. Where is there space for individual and small group autonomy? It seems to me that banning goods seen as "inconsistent with socialist values" is itself inonsistent with socialist values.
With social production and consumption, it is not just the immediate producers who are involved in the supply chain. Won't they all have their own input on what they wish to be associated with. Taking your example of alcohol, i don't think society will be prohibitionist and try to shut down the moon-shiners and their stills, or close the microbreweries that have sprung up everywhere. But will transport logistic workers want to divert their resources to distributing it widely or glass-workers to making the bottles. They can use re-cycled bottles as part of the ecologically minded world. I think for many products there will become cottage industries once more, full of local variety and diversity. I foresee the end of MacDonalds and KFC but not the end of local cafes and take-outs, or special restaurants with their own cuisines..People like showing off their cooking skills. Will the tobacco industry exist and be supported by society despite its social costs? i don't think so, but you can home-grow your own tobacco plants, as many now do for cannabis, and i'm sure there will be some online website like e-bay to exchange different cheroots.Will workers still toil under extreme conditions to pick tea-leaves? Again, it may well transform into local rather than global. After all we are going to be freed from the imposition of long hours of employment and commute journey with a socialist revolution of work where we have increased free time to turn to such hobbies…much like today's people crave their allotments and gardens and DIY…They will share their pleasure…very few strive to keep the good things in life private, they want to show off their expertise and imagination and innovation. If i create a good home-brew ale, i am sure their will be plenty of opportunities to let others enjoy it and another person's enjoyment is appreciation and respect is enough to continue.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.