Got alienation?
This spring, plant a garden
By Nathan Johnson
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
You are what you eat – do you want to be a commodity?
The alienation in our society stems from alienated labor. Workers have little to no control over what they produce or why they produce it. They also don’t own the products of their labor. Commodities are sold on the market, which escapes human control, as the business cycle demonstrates, even though it is a human creation.
As Marx wrote, “Social action takes the form of the action of objects, which rule the producers instead of being ruled by them.”
Most people don’t go around thinking “I feel alienated because of capitalist relations of production.” The idea is very abstract, but it expresses itself in a million different ways.
For example, lack of public funding (i.e., lack of business taxing) forces public transit to accept private advertising and install the dreaded Transit TV, inciting people to tune it out with headphones, thus distancing themselves from their neighbors.
A family member might join the military under economic compulsion and come back from a politically-motivated war a totally different person, perhaps with post-traumatic stress disorder or combat flashbacks, making it difficult or impossible to assimilate into society.
Americans might find it hard to understand, empathize, and connect with foreigners given the sorry state of our public education system, which deliberately leaves out crucial details in the neo-imperialist chapter of American history.
As the Communist Manifesto states, “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” It’s no wonder the capitalist state leaves out atrocities it carried out, such as the CIA’s collaboration in Operation Condor, which destabilized democracy in South America, made widespread use of terrorism and supported such dictators as Augusto Pinochet.
As Einstein wrote, “This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism.”
One easy way to reduce alienation in your life and community is to plant a garden. Growing your own food reduces dependence on the market, saves money and cuts capitalist profit margins thinner.
Seeds are cheap (or free if you can scavenge) and only need to be bought once. A compost pile will eliminate the need to buy soil and reduce waste.
Gardening isn’t just about abstaining from commoditized food treated with pesticides and fertilizers; it’s about getting back to the earth and your humanity. Garden-grown food is much healthier and tastes ridiculously better.
You are what you eat – do you want to be a commodity?
Flower gardens have aesthetic value, and will help reduce pollution as well. Any gardening will contribute spillover benefits to the entire community.
There are several organizations that are working to fight hunger and advocate gardening, including Growing Power, Milwaukee Urban Agricultural Network, and Milwaukee Urban Gardens, which maintains community gardens.
Don’t have time to garden? At the rate things are going, neither will you after graduation, unless the working class fights to restore the 40-hour work week.
Some two-thirds of the workforce works longer than 40 hours a week, in spite of the Fair Labor Standards Act. By working extra hours for the capitalist class, workers have less time to rest, develop their individualities, and participate in the labor movement, besides being further alienated from their loved ones.
While fighting for raises can be important, especially for impoverished sections of the working class, after a certain point it becomes more beneficial to fight for a shorter workweek.
Marxist economist Ernest Mandel explains: “As militant consumers of commodities, workers can be integrated into bourgeois society,” but by reducing the work week “workers do not help to reproduce capitalism: they challenge it objectively and – more and more – consciously … They undermine its very foundations.”
Socialism takes the shortened workweek several steps further. In order to empower the workers and prevent bureaucracy, a weekly 20 hours of work and 20 hours of self-management, only possible in a planned economy, would greatly raise morale and productivity.
Socialism cannot totally do away with the technical division of labor, that is, eliminate the need for different people to work different jobs, in spite of greater job mobility, career training and education. However, “socialism certainly does imply … the withering away of the social division of labor between those who fix and those who accomplish the goals of production, between administrators and producers, between bosses and the bossed-over.”
The routine capitalist argument that people work harder when they are working with their own property becomes justification for socialism. Workers will work more efficiently and humanely when the means of production are held in common and workers themselves are the masters of the workplace.
> Comments
Johanan Raatz on Apr 07, 2008 at 12:11 PM:
"A family member might join the military under economic compulsion and come back from a politically-motivated war a totally different person,"
From talking with you I understand that you do not exactly fit into the New Left(cultural Marxism aka critical theory), and I deeply appreciate that, but one thing I've noticed about Marxism in general is that it seems to reduce all motivation to economic motivation. Now I do not want to generalize and place you into this directly, but I would like to point out that people do things for a lot of different motivations that have nothing to do with economics. My brothers joined the Air Force because they wanted to. They like it there. They weren't pushed into it. One of them even wants to join Blackwater once he leaves because he likes the occupation.
"As the Communist Manifesto states, “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” It’s no wonder the capitalist state leaves out atrocities it carried out, such as the CIA’s collaboration in Operation Condor, which destabilized democracy in South America, made widespread use of terrorism and supported such dictators as Augusto Pinochet.
People like Pinochet are often the lesser of two evils. Authoritarian regimes like his are preferable to totalitarian ones. In theory if people behave properly deaths in such regimes can be avoided. The same can not be said about totalitarian regimes. Totalitarian regimes overthrow the existing system (necessitating conflict) and in doing so need to control everything, not just some things the way authoritarian regimes do.
The communist regimes tried throughout the 20th century out of necessity become totalitarian. (now this does not include your Trotskyist ideas but that's a special case and I will get to that in a minute) The reason for this is that if property exists it is inherently private (someone owns it no matter what). As such whenever Marxism is institutionalized in any way by the government (even a democracy) it inherently needs to grab up property, and when it does that it is even worse than predatorial capitalism. (think Animal Farm here) The communist pigs just become the new capitalist pigs. It's unavoidable.
"Workers will work more efficiently and humanely when the means of production are held in common and workers themselves are the masters of the workplace."
I've studied your ideas of syndicalism and this is perhaps true technically speaking but it will out of necessity converge on something approaching state capitalism. Say you have a doctor who is scarcer than a day laborer. The doctors will not be paid the same as the day laborer for long. At some point the doctors will strike from the trade union you advocate. Needing doctors the trade union will out of necessity have to reincorporate the doctors but for higher pay. This is an aspect that Marxist theory can not account for. Ultimately no matter it is done heirarchy in pay will reemerge out of structural necessity. It can not be done away with even in theory.
To sum up I am not opposed to you promoting a syndicalist trade union so long as it operates in a fashion that respects private property and the law of value. I even consider it a part of the free market system. But don't take Marxism into the political sphere. When you do that it undermines private property and the law of value which at a fundamental level is Stalinist and not Trotskyist. The proletariat should be free to negotiate with the capitalists, and vice-versa. However, in the conventional mode of operation the state should officiate such transactions and not take sides.
Unless we are dealing with something exotic like national syndicalism or state capitalism which beat the system in a way, any interference on the part of the state undermines the fundamental basis of any just transaction.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 07, 2008 at 04:30 PM:
BTW I like that your article advocates for this on a personal level rather than political level others often push it on.
David on Apr 07, 2008 at 09:48 PM:
When Pinochet was installed in 1973 by a CIA coup which killed 5,000 people, he was overthrowing the longest standing democracy in South America. Pinochet went on to kill 30,000 Chileans in his 2 decades in power, as well as torture 50,000.
just another RED on Apr 08, 2008 at 12:51 AM:
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
That's right Johanan- even doctor should be able to strike for higher wages. Once that happens people will realize they need each other and we can't go on living as individualists. Division of labor? Yes. But one must think outside of nationalist boundaries.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 08, 2008 at 10:14 AM:
"That's right Johanan- even doctor should be able to strike for higher wages. Once that happens people will realize they need each other and we can't go on living as individualists. Division of labor? Yes. But one must think outside of nationalist boundaries."
Well I partially agree with you here. I think their should be limits to individualism that's coming from a conservative direction. I know libertarians are going to dislike this but individualism most sometimes give way to civic virtue.
I may not be a communist but it looks like we are both communitarians.
As for nationalism that is not always an individualistic virtue even sometimes in an international sense. Patriotism is always appropriate as it is the ultimate manifestation of civic duty (it's not an individualistic at all). Nationalism is also appropriate though. Sometimes even for international reasons. Irving Kristol defines the difference between patriotism and nationalism as:
“Patriotism springs from love of the nation’s past; nationalism arises out of the hope for the nation’s future,"
As such nationalism is appropriate and actually progressive in so far as it is directed towards a better future for your country.
Internationally it can be progressive as well if what you nation stands for the promotion of universal principles in societies that do not reflect them. Unlike other societies we are a propositional nation based on universal principles. So long as we adhere to these principles and promote them to those without them American nationalism can be thought of as a light of true cosmopolitanism in the world.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 08, 2008 at 10:18 AM:
"When Pinochet was installed in 1973 by a CIA coup which killed 5,000 people, he was overthrowing the longest standing democracy in South America. Pinochet went on to kill 30,000 Chileans in his 2 decades in power, as well as torture 50,000."
No one is saying he wasn't a bad guy. But the point was to prevent a worse guy from appearing. The Kirkpatrick doctrine which is the basis for our former support of Pinochet advocates the support of authoritarian regimes over totalitarian. Pinochet was the authoritarian option. The totalitarian option would have likely led to a much higher death toll.
Nathan Johnson on Apr 09, 2008 at 03:46 PM:
Allende was elected democratically, and refused to give in to the pressure from the USSR to become authoritarian- Allende was not the greater of two evils, he was good and Pinochet as we have seen was not.
The US supported terrorism in Operation Condor, that makes us a terrorist state- stop the double standards and blind nationalism.
The working class has no country- it is international.
Critical theory is necessary because the point is not to just interpret the world but to change it.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 06:41 PM:
"Allende was elected democratically, and refused to give in to the pressure from the USSR to become authoritarian- Allende was not the greater of two evils, he was good and Pinochet as we have seen was not."
Not yet he hadn't. You have to remember the context. It was the height of the Cold War and the West had been watching every single regime that started out like this end up totalitarian. Besides that he would very likely have allied with his ideological friends who were human rights abusers. In retrospect it may not have been the best thing to do but it makes sense that the CIA did what it did at the time.
"The US supported terrorism in Operation Condor, that makes us a terrorist state-"
"stop the double standards"
Well I make freind/enemy distinctions if that's what you mean. But that's just sound political philosophy. Read Thucydides on the Peloponnesian war.
"and blind nationalism."
"Patriotism springs from love of the nation's past; nationalism arises out of the hope for the nation's future." ~Irving Kristol
Unlike the nationalism of other societies it does not have to be blind either. Judging from the fact that our's is a propositional nation one can see that the US is based on universal ideals that were a result of enlightenment thinking. Holding to enlightenment principles is not blind.
Hoping for your nation's future is always progressive.
"The working class has no country- it is international."
"Critical theory is necessary because the point is not to just interpret the world but to change it."
Yes but it changes it in the wrong way. Critical theory is anti-Platonic as it treats ideals as not ideals. As such it is anti-progressive as it tries to shun any ideal conception of what is good. You can't pursue the Good if you are constantly criticising it. It's does not produce progress but rather the direct opposite.
True progress comes through a mix of subordinating realism or pragmatism to idealism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvNoKmORYMM
Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 06:47 PM:
Oops forgot to respond to this.
"The working class has no country- it is international."
Yes but first of all that is not always the greatest moral concern. Sometimes class interests must be subordinated to national interests or civic responsibilities:
"Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns." ~http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp?pg=2
You see class conflict is based on material concerns. Sometimes though ideological interests transcend merely material concerns.
Nathan Johnson on Apr 10, 2008 at 04:10 PM:
Johanan,
Here's what your argument amounts to- terrorism is good in the hands of Americans because they are Americans. I am actually quite furious right now as I write this- to think that anyone could so easily disregard the deaths of so many innocent people.
You call yourself a Christian- would Jesus promote terrorism of any kind? Obviously not.
Without trying to offend you, my opinion is that you are ethnocentric to the point that you can't see that you're ethnocentric. I won't blame you, but rather the corporate media, the capitalist culture of materialism, etc.
If you see me in person, don't try talking to me anymore because I don't want to talk to you until you understand that imperialism, terrorism, and class society are wrong.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 10, 2008 at 05:05 PM:
"Here's what your argument amounts to- terrorism is good in the hands of Americans because they are Americans."
That oversimplifies my argument at places where my argument is critical.
"I am actually quite furious right now as I write this- to think that anyone could so easily disregard the deaths of so many innocent people."
Whoa Nathan, you completely have the wrong impression here. I'm not saying I like what the CIA did. All I'm saying is that it's understandable. Nobody wanted the deaths Pinochet caused, but at the time the US government was dealing with many dangerous movements in South America. You had mass murderers like Che running loose and plenty of attempted coups and movements that ended in totalitarian regimes where a lot more people got killed than under people like Pinochet. They saw Allende moving in the same direction and they wanted to prevent future deaths by preempting the situation.
They had good cause for this view too.
Opponents' View:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticismsof_SalvadorAllende#Opponents.27_View
"You call yourself a Christian- would Jesus promote terrorism of any kind? Obviously not."
Nathan first of all the government acted to SAVE more lives in the long run. I know they often act in a dirty fashion but that's how foreign policy is some times. It can get mighty dirty but somebodies got to do it.
Secondly don't try to claim the moral high ground here. The other day you said you were a moral relativist based that on Nietzsche's idea that their was no absolute truth. Logically speaking you need to have a claim on absolute truth to claim the moral high ground. Otherwise one just ends up using ideals for material ends. (Just for reference I'm irritated with "capitalist pigs" for this same reason as well)
"Without trying to offend you, my opinion is that you are ethnocentric to the point that you can't see that you're ethnocentric."
No offense taken. You see I'm very critical of the idea of "ethnocentrism" in the first place. Unless there is a "legitimate ethnocentrism" of some kind then all societies regardless of content are at the same time equal and equally invalid. Do you see what my problem with this is? How can conceptions of civility and patriotism exist if one views society itself as in some sense invalid?
I have liked the fact that you seem to be far less affected by critical theory than most I have met on the modern left, but I have encountered critical theory before and despite having theoretical problems with it I also have a visceral allergic reaction to it.
I mean if we are going to have a debate on capitalism vs. communism I'm all fine with that, but just don't drag everything from patriotism to notions of civility to "ethnocentrism" in with it. You do yourself and your cause a great disservice like that. Patriotism, civility,etc. are values many hold very dearly. You attack them as part of your critique of capitalism and instead of making Marxism more acceptable you will just drive people away.
"I won't blame you, but rather the corporate media, the capitalist culture of materialism, etc."
Well thank you, but can you see my point that not all conceptions of civic virtue, morality culture etc. just boil down to capitalism. I like the fact that you seemed to be far less affected by critical theory than most I have met on the modern left, but I have encountered critical theory before and I have a visceral allergic response to it. It tries to pass off any virtue other than class conflict as "false consciousness" produced by capitalism.
"If you see me in person, don't try talking to me anymore because I don't want to talk to you until you understand that imperialism, terrorism, and class society are wrong."
Well we still have pretty good conversations about other non-political topics. Now as for imperialism and class society are concerned you seem to be following the path of Herbert Marcuse here:
"Marcuse defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s." ~http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
In "Liberating Tolerance" Herbert Marcuse himself admits that this approach is a "petitio principii" fallacy. You can't validly assume the conclusion and then just shut down debate on it. It is illogical