alister air writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> >First, a socialist institution need not, and can not, own *all* the
> >means of production.
>
> But a socialist system can - and must.

Why?  *Only* because you say it *must* be that way.  Suppose we have a
socialist system that makes bicycles. Surely it is possible to have a
socialist system that makes bicycles.  Hammers are not required to
make bicycles, so why must this socialist system own all the hammers
in the world?  What if there are two socialist systems?  How can they
both own all the hammers they don't need?  These requirements are
absurd unless you *mean*: There can be one system only; it must be
socialist; it can have no subsystems, and it must own everything that
could possibly ever be used productively.  Do you see mt point?  You
have defined socialism out of existence.

> >> Furthermore, "equality of individual wealth" most certainly does not
> >> exist in the military.  It never has, and never will in its current
> >> form.
> >
> >Of course it does.  It doesn't and never will for you, because you
> >only measure wealth in terms of money, and you only measure equality
> >by insisting on equality of discretionary funds.
>
> *I* don't measure wealth by money - but I'd be interested to hear how the
> term "equality of individual wealth" can apply to the armed forces.

The armed forces, which are a subset of what we are referring to as
the military, are composed of individuals, ie people.  The term
"equality of individual wealth" applies in the not so obvious way.

> >You're saying the military doesn't produce anything.  Then teachers
> >don't produce anything either.  Doctors don't produce anything.
>
> Teachers educate.  Doctors heal.  Philosophers - well, we're all doing
> that, aren't we?  Airline pilots fly planes.  Army people invade and kill.
> One of these (well, possibly two - do we really need philosophers ;-) )
> isn't particularly useful in a civilised society.

No.  I object.  You deleted, and did not answer, the question that
revealed the absurdity of your position.  By saying these people don't
produce, you are saying they are non-productive.  You must either
admit that you mean these people are non-productive, or you must admit
they are productive.  If you admit they are productive, then you must
admit they produce something.

> >Of course it's difficult in your view.  Your view is based on a
> >definition that disallows it.  It can't get any more difficult than
> >that.
>
> Whatever.

For the record, a "Whatever" is an acknowledgement by wave off of a
certain correctness of the argument being waved off.

> To me, a subsystem is something that runs inside a system, but is
> dependant on that system for its survival.  Subsystems are not
> seperate systems.  A subsystem is run by the operating system - it's
> not capable of running all by itself (to bring a work-related
> example to this discussion).

A subsystem is a system that forms a part of a larger system.  It may
or may not depend on the larger system for its survival.  Norway
trades with Australia.  Norway is a subsystem of the trading system
formed by Norway and Australia.  Norway does not depend on that
trading system for its survival.  Norway *is* a separate system from
Australia. Some subsystems can run on their own, and some can't.  For
centuries, millenia even, Australians didn't even know Norway existed.
Bartlett still doesn't know much about it.

> >Subservient?  Existing-inside-of now means subservient? This discovery
> >will give great relief to people with cancer of the pancreas.  There
> >you go blaming the victim again.
>
> Subserviant in the sense that the organisation is not able to stand
> on its own feet because of external factors which apply to it.  Are
> you being deliberately obtuse, or just needlessly inflammatory?

No.  You are trying to say subordinate, not subservient, and you mean
subordinate in the sense of being under the control or authority of
another.  But that still isn't a characteristic that applies to all
subsystems.  They can be cooperating subsystems, as they are in the
Norwegian/Australian trading system example.

Question: Why can't a socialist system cooperate with a capitalist one?

Answer: Because Alister would grind his teeth at night over the
thought that someone, somewhere, might be getting rich.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701