Regarding Karl Marx this particular
writer has not even read any of his books, only some quotes used
positively and with praise in books that have been written by admired
authors. Karl Marx appears to have been a city person so to speak, a man
caught up in the industrial age way of thinking involving clocks and
factories and in which the social foundation is the family.
In contrast to Karl Marx's way of
thinking this present proposal is agrarian or rural-based and with the
dominant socioeconomic foundation being not of the family, but rather the tribe, the clan or
more specifically, a concept of community that involves perhaps several
hundred.
This proposal, or theory and hypotheses
does not agree (strictly speaking, or necessarily) with Karl
Marx's assertion that ALL means of "production" must rest in the hands of
the "community" regarding "factories", shops, cottage industries or even
individually maintained agricultural enterprises.
However, what is being theorized is
that the possession of fields, forests, housing and basic infrastructure
and utilities regarding basic survival
should rest in hands of
the community. It is well known how the mind of a commercial organic
farmer/businessman thinks, and how the argument goes for (1) the
"investment" a farmer/businessman can make in the " land/business" (2)
and of the disinterest "people" can have in agriculture in general, and
distaste for agricultural work in particular.
However, it is at this point it is
believed where Karl Marx failed (as well as the strict
capitalist), as nearly all others also do who have tried to envision
the "perfect society" or social and economic utopia. Separation of the
basic necessities of life from the rest of life is paramount. In
other words, together, the community as a whole should ensure that
everyone in the community has a place to sleep, and can get primary
needs met such as cleanliness and primary food needs;
but other than this, let the
individual be free. And this point is critical: make this freedom
be of paramount importance and occupy the bulk of one's time
in the ratio somewhere in the
area are of two parts community or survival work and five parts of a
life revolving around free choice.
In an agrarian-based society or
community, where fuel, food and housing was abundant and provided for in
a self-sufficient, efficient and cooperative way, most of one's time
would be comprised of free will and free association; not only regarding
time, but also regarding the various Ways and Means of production; it is
thought these could actually be owned privately, either by individuals
or small collectives or cooperatives within the larger community. It is
within this sphere where there could also be a place for individual
commercial farmers, or cooperative farmer businesses of freely
associated individuals as well as any other sort of business-service or
production orientated, cottage industry or any particular art or craft
practiced by an individual.
In summary, just as the world now sings
its praise for free enterprise, it is agreed, freedom and free
enterprise must be paramount in any sound economic design. However, when
people cannot easily provide for their basic needs in an agrarian and
ecologically healthy and sustainable way, freedom and notions or wishes
for a quality life for all will just be a hollow phrase. And when it is
said "easily provide for their basic needs" it is implied this be
available to all through simple, efficient and cooperative labor,
for young and old alike, and again in ratio something like two days of
community work to take care of one's basic needs to five days of freedom
to produce as one chooses. Surely, within a large compassionate and
caring community, some sort of work that suits the individual, would be
able to be found for everyone.
