Marjonian Arguments, Term Paper Example

Some Marjonians wish to change their current way of life for change to a communal basket after getting a visit from a Marxist missionary.  At first, the majority believes that this is less tempting than their current way of life.  However, as the land begins to get worse, many more wish to live this way.  This gives rise to a discussion concerning the best possible system of distribution for a society.  The tribe decides, in the end, to stick with what they have done in the past and allow people to farm their own land in their own way instead of having a more socialized economic plan.  This decision was based upon a series of arguments made from both sides.This is the argument that has been presented by the tribe.

The essential arguments presented are based on ideas of fairness and equitability.

The tribe is attempting to keep things fair within their culture in the best way possible.  The arguments that they make are reflected by this idea.  The issue with their arguments is that they are making them with somewhat uninformed and short sighted judgment.  This essentially makes their arguments irrelevant, in that they don’t have the breadth of understanding to make an informed decision.  However, as they have lived in the region throughout history, their insight into the natural system should not be underestimated.

The argument that is made for keeping things the same is based on their notions of fairness.  If they had a community basket there would not be any incentive for people to work hard for extra, as they would have everything they need provided.  They argue that if things were changed it would not make any difference.  In the end, they make their decision on the basis that it is better to have choice than to have necessities provided by society.These arguments are rooted in the patterns of the past, though, and not in rapidly the changing social and ecological environments of today’s world.

They also make the argument that their way of life is the fairest.  This not only assumes that they have accounted for all the alternative ways of living, but that the current system would not be taken advantage of.  This is presented as untrue as the changes in the environment cause a measure of inequality by creating an unbalanced social distribution of land.  The changing climate makes it evident that this fairness cannot hold out against the changing weather patterns and the inherent greed that causes one person to take advantage of another.

The argument is made later on, when the land gets worse that even if the food were shared there would not be enough.The issue with this argument is that it assumes that those who have more need it, and those who have less do not.  Some people need more to get by.  Sick and pregnant people as well as young people would be better served by the idea of a communal basket.  However, this idea would be given legitimacy if those who had more were to make it a point to help out those who are in need of their own volition.

The ultimate basis for the decision to let things remain how they are is based on the argument that it is more important to have choices and make their own decisions than it is have an easy life.  While this argument does make some sense, it is much easier to make from a position of not being in need.  When a person truly needs help with something, they probably wouldn’t be so ready to argue against the idea of communism.

It is taken for granted that no one would bother doing any work, none the less extra, if there were no reward or incentive for some kind of benefit.The issues with this argument concern assumptions about the basic nature of people and how they relate to society and their roles within it.  It also assumes that everyone gets enough from this system.  It how people obtain extra and who deserves it, whether a person should have to work harder to get more, or if the society as a whole should pitch in to make sure those who need more get what they need.

Furthermore, their decision is predicated on the short sighted basis of the continuation of past weather patterns.  If the weather in their region were to change then the basis of their culture would be in disarray.  This is evidenced by the accounts of how the weather changed many people’s decisions during the second council meeting.  In this case, the people who had come into hardship since they had expressed their opinion during the first meeting changed their minds because the problem now affected them personally.  Many didn’t have an accurate understanding of the long term implications of climate change and expressed concerns with this premise in mind.The argument does not hold for this reason.

Although they have no ideas as to how it will play out within their own culture, the council is able to reject the idea of a communal basket.  This is the issue with the general claim.  The heart of their argument lies on the notion that people should work to get more.  The council believes that people will no longer have incentive to work when there is a communal basket.  This is interesting because this is one of the most common claims against Marxist ideas.  However, it is not necessarily grounded in truth.  A society that has a strong work ethic within its culture may still work hard for society.  This argument would be made true if they were to try a communal basket and it didn’t work.  However, without actually implementing it, there would be no way to know how their particular culture would act within that sort of social structure.

The council member argues that their present system of subsistence farming is the fairest.  This claim makes sense because people only receive something for the work that they have put in.  This would make sense in an environment that has the same conditions distributed equally.  The argument is made that those who have land more hospitable to the changing environment would have an advantage over the others.  On the other hand, the claim that their way of life is the fairest is given less credibility by the fact that they haven’t been exposed to very many options.  This opinion is made on a basis of ignorance, in the fact that they don’t really understand all the possibilities open to them.

The tribe has lived in the area for a long time and has a better understanding of how to live in the natural environment then outsiders, including the Marxists.  Although it might seem obvious to those in more advanced societies that some type of social safety is necessary, in a smaller society that relies mainly on farming this might not necessarily be the case.  The reaction of the specific culture to a certain doctrine could be different among the diversities.  In this sense, the tribe has the legitimacy to rule themselves in the way that they believe most necessary, as they have survived there alone for years in the past.  In this way their claim has legitimacy.

The fact that many within the society do take advantage of the changing climate gives evidence for the lack of a basis on their claim that it is the best system and that people will get what they need.  As the people with less usable land work for those who have the more usable land, issues of class and wealth come into play for the first time within their culture.  As the land gets worse equality becomes more difficult and those with a better lot hold out on change while those who are in need support it.

The arguments could potentially be compromised by implementing a more complex strategy for distribution.  The tribe needs to have a wider understanding of economics and socials structures.  Although they were visited and taught how to live in a Marxist sort of setting, they should consider trying other methods as well.  Perhaps something would come of some type of democratized land system, or maybe they should create a currency.The argument for the social basket would not fail if they tried it and people were to still work.

Another way to help solve this problem would be to gain a better understanding of the long term weather patterns in their area. By understanding how the weather effects their environment they could make better decisions as to how to solve their problem.  They could create a way to subsidy those who are growing less instead of going so far as community ownership.  In this way, the implementation of some of these reforms would mean that the arguments against community involvement in production would be put to rest.

It seems that the community council is probably wrong in their decision to completely ban a community basket. While it would be wrong to take everything from the farmers and distribute it completely among the tribe, there would seem to be an amount of social support from those in the community that have attained more.  The most advanced societies around the world have mixed social structures and ways of distributing wealth.  While Russia is no longer a total Communist state, the United States has begun to delve into more social welfare.