ENGELS UTOPIA ESSAY(half page single space)

Anonymous
timer Asked: Mar 20th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

ENGELS UTOPIA ESSAY


Utopias are envisioned societies where human beings live a best possible life. Utopias are here distinguished from dystopias.
Dystopias are envisioned societies where the structuring of society is tragically wrong, bringing human suffering, misery, and difficult to overcome barriers to a decent life. The movie Hunger Games is an example of a Dystopia, with 2 variant dystopias depicted. We will not be dealing with dystopias in this assignment.


INSTRUCTIONS

In this assignment you are to construct an Engels-Inspired Utopia.
Such a utopia will have 3 main characteristics:
1. A highly developed technologically driven global society
2. Completely devoid of capitalism
3. With minimal if any government


PREPARING FOR THE ASSIGNMENT

-You begin by reading my Socialism Utopian Scientific and the Engels reading. (see attached files)
-Then you can begin considering elements in our current society that suggest the ways that technology is making the need for capitalism obsolete. This should give you a general sense of how to construct an Engels Utopia.
-Next you should consider some currently important areas of society that you might find most feasible to extrapolate as elements of this futuristic Utopia.


WRITING THE ASSIGNMENT

You must choose one of the possible areas below, writing a long paragraph (at least half a page, single spaced) describing what that area might be like in an Engels non-capitalist technologically driven furute

  • ART AND/OR ENTERTAINMENT
  • GOODS: DURABLE & PERISHABLE
  • TRANSPORTATION
  • FOOD SERVICES
  • MEDIUMS OF EXCHANGE
  • SAFETY/LAWS
  • COMMUNICATION

Unformatted Attachment Preview

FREDERICK ENGELS (1820-1895) Although Marx discusses labor and machine and clearly sees how machines transform labor, it is his younger co-author, Engels, who writes most tellingly about the role of technology in the life of work and society. Engels, like Marx, predicts ever-increasing role of machine used to steal labor 1. machinery becomes the most powerful weapon in the war of capital against the working-class 2. instruments of labor constantly tear the means of subsistence out of the hands of the laborer; very product of the worker is turned into an instrument for his subjugation. Engels maintains that machine development & production causes supply/demand problems for capitalism Technological innovation creates an army of unemployed 1. The perfecting of machinery is making human labor superfluous. 2. Improvement in machinery means the displacement of more and more of the machine-workers themselves 3. Improvement in machinery means the production of a number of available wage workers in excess of the average needs of capital, the formation of a complete industrial reserve army, a regulator for keeping wages down to the low level that suits the interests of capital. An army of unemployed means fewer who can afford the goods the capitalist produces: supply of products increases but demand for products falls 1. The overwork of some becomes the preliminary condition for the idleness of others 2. Modern industry, which hunts after new consumers over the whole world, forces the consumption of the masses at home down to a starvation minimum 3. And in doing thus destroys its own home market. 4. The extension of the markets cannot keep pace with the extension of production. ENGELS describes the booms/busts we have become so familiar with in Silicon Valley. 1. The whole industrial and commercial world, production and exchange among all civilized peoples, are thrown out of joint about once every 10 years. 2. Commerce is at a stand-still, 3. the markets are glutted 4. products accumulate, 5. hard cash disappears, 6. credit vanishes, 7. factories are closed 8. bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy 9. the mass of the workers are in want of the means of subsistence, because they have produced too much of the means of subsistence; The stagnation lasts for years Engels predicts ever-increasing role of machine to transform the conditions that allow for liberation from capitalism and proprietary machine ownership 1. The means of getting rid of the supply/demand problems of machine-driven capitalist production must also be present, within the changed modes of production themselves. 2. These means are to be discovered in the stubborn facts of the existing system of production. Engels predicts government eventually will evolve into a worker-owned state. Advanced government allows for end of private property 1. The first act by which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society, the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society, this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. 2. As soon as the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a State, is no longer necessary. 3. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; The State is not abolished. It dies out In the end, when the state and capitalism are abolished, we will have a world where overseeing of technology and technologically-driven distribution of goods will be the pattern of society The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. No way to know when the state/economy has reached critical point No way to know when or if successful revolt will take place or is needed Worker-run state might naturally evolve as technology and production reach the point where the middle-man of capitalism just is no longer necessary. 1. Think of the way we can now vote without the need for the government middleman (the politician). Representative government was designed so that laws and administration could be decided on in a timely fashion. Elected officials did the deciding because just to count the votes of election of officials took weeks, sometimes months. With the technology we have today we could all vote on the issues that now only elected officials vote for. Our democracy could be just electronically decided votes of all the people, American Idol fashion. 2. Think now of the way you can order groceries from Safeway online. All goods could be produced and distributed according to the Amazon/Safeway model, with orders sent and innovations developed according to electronic placing and coordination of orders. As we continually move toward these online forms of buying and selling, the very existence of market forces will change dramatically, such that our good old capitalist system might just gradually disappear, and placing orders/filling orders might not look like buying and selling at all. No way to know when technology reaches limit of theft This scenario would be where capitalism and the capitalist State are violently overthrown by workers due to the unbearable theft of productive forces and theft of labor. This was the vision of Marx. Engels suggests that this would not be necessary: the development of technology will naturally evolve into an overseeing organ of production and distribution. Frederick Engels Socialism: Utopian and Scientific III [Historical Materialism] The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch. The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has become unreason, and right wrong [1], is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange changes have silently taken place with which the social order, adapted to earlier economic conditions, is no longer in keeping. From this it also follows that the means of getting rid of the incongruities that have been brought to light must also be present, in a more or less developed condition, within the changed modes of production themselves. These means are not to be invented by deduction from fundamental principles, but are to be discovered in the stubborn facts of the existing system of production. What is, then, the position of modern Socialism in this connection? The present situation of society — this is now pretty generally conceded — is the creation of the ruling class of today, of the bourgeoisie. The mode of production peculiar to the bourgeoisie, known, since Marx, as the capitalist mode of production, was incompatible with the feudal system, with the privileges it conferred upon individuals, entire social ranks and local corporations, as well as with the hereditary ties of subordination which constituted the framework of its social organization. The bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society, the kingdom of free competition, of personal liberty, of the equality, before the law, of all commodity owners, of all the rest of the capitalist blessings. Thenceforward, the capitalist mode of production could develop in freedom. Since steam, machinery, and the making of machines by machinery transformed the older manufacture into modern industry, the productive forces, evolved under the guidance of the bourgeoisie, developed with a rapidity and in a degree unheard of before. But just as the older manufacture, in its time, and handicraft, becoming more developed under its influence, had come into collision with the feudal trammels of the guilds, so now modern industry, in its complete development, comes into collision with the bounds within which the capitalist mode of production holds it confined. The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them. And this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man, like that between original sin and divine justice. It exists, in fact, objectively, outside us, independently of the will and actions even of the men that have brought it on. Modern Socialism is nothing but the reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class directly suffering under it, the working class. Now, in what does this conflict consist? Before capitalist production — i.e., in the Middle Ages — the system of petty industry obtained generally, based upon the private property of the laborers in their means of production; in the country, the agriculture of the small peasant, freeman, or serf; in the towns, the handicrafts organized in guilds. The instruments of labor — land, agricultural implements, the workshop, the tool — were the instruments of labor of single individuals, adapted for the use of one worker, and, therefore, of necessity, small, dwarfish, circumscribed. But, for this very reason, they belonged as a rule to the producer himself. To concentrate these scattered, limited means of production, to enlarge them, to turn them into the powerful levers of production of the present day — this was precisely the historic role of capitalist production and of its upholder, the bourgeoisie. In the fourth section of Capital, Marx has explained in detail how since the 15th century this has been historically worked out through the three phases of simple cooperation, manufacture, and modern industry. But the bourgeoisie, as is shown there, could not transform these puny means of production into mighty productive forces without transforming them, at the same time, from means of production of the individual into social means of production only workable by a collectivity of men. The spinning wheel, the handloom, the blacksmith's hammer, were replaced by the spinning-machine, the power-loom, the steam-hammer; the individual workshop, by the factory implying the co-operation of hundreds and thousands of workmen. In like manner, production itself changed from a series of individual into a series of social acts, and the production from individual to social products. The yarn, the cloth, the metal articles that now come out of the factory were the joint product of many workers, through whose hands they had successively to pass before they were ready. No one person could say of them: "I made that; this is my product." But where, in a given society, the fundamental form of production is that spontaneous division of labor which creeps in gradually and not upon any preconceived plan, there the products take on the form of commodities, whose mutual exchange, buying and selling, enable the individual producers to satisfy their manifold wants. And this was the case in the Middle Ages. The peasant, e.g., sold to the artisan agricultural products and bought from him the products of handicraft. Into this society of individual producers, of commodity producers, the new mode of production thrust itself. In the midst of the old division of labor, grown up spontaneously and upon no definite plan, which had governed the whole of society, now arose division of labor upon a definite plan, as organized in the factory; side by side with individual production appeared social production. The products of both were sold in the same market, and, therefore, at prices at least approximately equal. But organization upon a definite plan was stronger than spontaneous division of labor. The factories working with the combined social forces of a collectivity of individuals produced their commodities far more cheaply than the individual small producers. Individual producers succumbed in one department after another. Socialized production revolutionized all the old methods of production. But its revolutionary character was, at the same time, so little recognized that it was, on the contrary, introduced as a means of increasing and developing the production of commodities. When it arose, it found readymade, and made liberal use of, certain machinery for the production and exchange of commodities: merchants' capital, handicraft, wage-labor. Socialized production thus introducing itself as a new form of the production of commodities, it was a matter of course that under it the old forms of appropriation remained in full swing, and were applied to its products as well. In the medieval stage of evolution of the production of commodities, the question as to the owner of the product of labor could not arise. The individual producer, as a rule, had, from raw material belonging to himself, and generally his own handiwork, produced it with his own tools, by the labor of his own hands or of his family. There was no need for him to appropriate the new product. It belonged wholly to him, as a matter of course. His property in the product was, therefore, based upon his own labor. Even where external help was used, this was, as a rule, of little importance, and very generally was compensated by something other than wages. The apprentices and journeymen of the guilds worked less for board and wages than for education, in order that they might become master craftsmen themselves. Then came the concentration of the means of production and of the producers in large workshops and manufactories, their transformation into actual socialized means of production and socialized producers. But the socialized producers and means of production and their products were still treated, after this change, just as they had been before — i.e., as the means of production and the products of individuals. Hitherto, the owner of the instruments of labor had himself appropriated the product, because, as a rule, it was his own product and the assistance of others was the exception. Now, the owner of the instruments of labor always appropriated to himself the product, although it was no longer his product but exclusively the product of the labor of others. Thus, the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the capitalists. The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, every one owns his own product and brings it to market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests. [2] This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today. The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all important fields of production and in all manufacturing countries, the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residuum, the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation. The first capitalists found, as we have said, alongside of other forms of labor, wage-labor ready-made for them on the market. But it was exceptional, complementary, accessory, transitory wage-labor. The agricultural laborer, though, upon occasion, he hired himself out by the day, had a few acres of his own land on which he could at all events live at a pinch. The guilds were so organized that the journeyman to today became the master of tomorrow. But all this changed, as soon as the means of production became socialized and concentrated in the hands of capitalists. The means of production, as well as the product, of the individual producer became more and more worthless; there was nothing left for him but to turn wage-worker under the capitalist. Wage-labor, aforetime the exception and accessory, now became the rule and basis of all production; aforetime complementary, it now became the sole remaining function of the worker. The wage-worker for a time became a wage-worker for life. The number of these permanent was further enormously increased by the breakingup of the feudal system that occurred at the same time, by the disbanding of the retainers of the feudal lords, the eviction of the peasants from their homesteads, etc. The separation was made complete between the means of production concentrated in the hands of the capitalists, on the one side, and the producers, possessing nothing but their labor-power, on the other. The contradiction between socialized production and capitalistic appropriation manifested itself as the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie. We have seen that the capitalistic mode of production thrust its way into a society of commodity-producers, of individual producers, whose social bond was the exchange of their products. But every society based upon the production of commodities has this peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own social inter-relations. Each man produces for himself with such means of production as he may happen to have, and for such exchange as he may require to satisfy his remaining wants. No one knows how much of his particular article is coming on the market, nor how much of it will be wanted. No one knows whether his individual product will meet an actual demand, whether he will be able to make good his costs of production or even to sell his commodity at all. Anarchy reigns in socialized production. But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has it peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social inter-relations — i.e., in exchange — and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition. They are, at first, unknown to these producers themselves, and have to be discovered by them gradually and as the result of experience. They work themselves out, therefore, independently of the producers, and in antagonism to them, as inexorable natural laws of their particular form of production. The product governs the producers. In mediaeval society, especially in the earlier centuries, production was essentially directed toward satisfying the wants of the individual. It satisfied, in the main, only the wants of the producer and his family. Where relations of personal dependence existed, as in the country, it also helped to satisfy the wants of the feudal lord. In all this there was, therefore, no exchange; the products, consequently, did not assume the character of commodities. The family of the peasant produced almost everything they wanted: clothes and furniture, as well as the means of subsistence. Only when it began to produce more than was sufficient to supply its own wants and the payments in kind to the feudal lords, only then did it also produce commodities. This surplus, thrown into socialized exchange and offered for sale, became commodities. The artisan in the towns, it is true, had from the first to produce for exchange. But they, also, themselves supplied the greatest part of their individual wants. They had gardens and plots of land. They turned their ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

YvettahSA
School: UIUC

Hello,Attached find is the completed work. I did follow all the instructions to obtain the completed work. Have a look at it and let me know how you feel about it.Thanks and all the best😎.

Insert surname1
Professor’s name
Student’s name
Course title
Date
Art and Technological Utopia
In the artistic and technological utopia, inspired by Engels, the technological and artistic
community would definitely prosper without any obstacles. It would be an inspirational
community where the artists would have no worries on matters concerning the release of their
various artistic work and also they would be encourage to work with confidence and past their
own limits. Technological driven people will also be encouraged to work extremely harder in
order to achieve the unimaginable things with no worries of any form of repercussion that may
come with their creativity (Leruth, & Michael, 2017).Also, with no limits whatsoever, advances
in technology would definitely have proven the effort of resolving the various world problems
such as hunger, conta...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors