Bill Bartlett writes:
> The Martin William Smith Show wrote:
> >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
>
> Bicycle makers will need tools though and materials.

They will have to buy those from capitalists, unless they can trade
for them from other socialist organizations, but let's say they
are the only socialist subsystem in the total system.

> Being socialist this bicycle maker produces bicycles for use, not
> for sale.

No, they produce bicycles for use, not for *profit*.  They have to
sell most of them so they can purchase the tools and raw materials to
make more bicycles.  Also, the bicycle makers must eat, so they have
to sell some of their bicycles to food producers or grocery stores.
Strictly speaking, to be a pure socialist subsystem by the pommie
definition, they have to own the medium of exchange.  That means they
would have to trade bicycles for whatever they need, because theat's
the only thing they own that they can exchange.  Although bicycles can
be used as a medium of exchange, the bicycle makers soon see that it
makes life harder for them, so they take a vote amongst themselves and
agree to participate in the exchange system of the greater community,
ie the state.  The truth is they really don't have a choice, but they
observe that this lack of choice makes no difference since their
democratic choice does not conflict with the system of the greater
community, ie the state.

Important concept: The rules and systems of the state should reflect
the choices of the community.  If they don't, they won't work.  The
level of conflict within the community will be directly proportional
to how well the rules and systems of the state reflect the choices of
the community.  If a consensus can't be reached, there will be a need
for enforcement.

The state is a democracy, which means, partly, that its means of
exchange (dollars) is owned by the community collectively.  The
community has agreed to back this exchange medium with the gold
reserves it owns, and so dollars are eventually established as a
reliable means of exchange (so reliable that the gold reserves are no
longer required to maintain stability of the currency, ie the
stability depends more on a Korber-esque solidarity).  The bicycle
makers then establish an equivalence, one bicycle equals $500.  Their
intent is to set the price so that all expenses are covered and profit
is minimized.  The bicycle maker, producing for use, not for profit,
intends to be a non-profit organization.  If there is profit at the
end of any reporting period, it is used in the following period to
lower the bicycle price to the community.

Internally, the bicycle makers practice whatever form of pure
socialism you want to imagine.

> Most of the users live in a capitalist system and are
> unemployed (many having been retrenched from the capitalist bicycle
> manufacturer, put out of business by the socialists.) Many of the
> end-users of the bicycles indeed live in third-world countries and
> were previously unable to afford a bicycle, their needs were of
> course seen as a priority by the collective and thousands are
> shipped to India (until the shipping company suspends the
> collective's credit). Many end-users choose, or are not able to
> contribute any tools or materials?

These are all problems that must be worked out, but they don't change
the fact that the bicycle maker is a socialist structure.

> But there's a problem, I think you can guess what it is. The bicycle
> manufacturing collective finds that the local supermarket is not socialist,
> hence it is unwilling to supply the collective members food simply because
> they need to eat. Same story with their landlords. Down at the workshop
> meanwhile, parts are becoming increasingly difficult to source, as the
> collective's debtor and creditor policy of "from each according to their
> abilities, to each according to their needs, become more widely known in
> the trade.

Why is this a problem?  Answer: Because you have left out the concept
of a medium of exchange.  The definition of socialism does admit one.
It requires that the medium of exchange is owned by the community,
usually the state.  I have outlined above how that would work in the
case of a socialist structure.  Socialists are allowed to touch money
without losing their purity.

> The Fraud squad move in, it turns out that running a socialist bicycle
> manufacturing sub-system is not strictly legal. The National competition
> watchdog is also investigating complaints about the collective's "predatory
> pricing policy". Indian manufacturers have also alerted the World Trade
> Organisation about the dumping of large quantitites of effectively free
> bicycles in their market.

Nonsense.  There is every reason to believe that an efficient bicycle
maker, run along the lines I describe above, would put all competing
capitalist bicycle makers out of business.  High quality and low price
are the main requirements.  Investment in R&D is another.  For the
socialist bicycle maker cooperating and competing in a capitalist
environment, success depends on dedication to the pursuit of these
elements as they relate to building the perfect bicycle.  Success then
depends on establishing a Korber-esque solidarity of bicycle building
artisans willing to live the somewhat spartan life of the Zen
bicyclist.  It is as simple as that.

> Stay tuned for more exciting developments! Will India threaten Australia
> with nuclear first strike? Will the multi-national retail chain have a
> change of heart? How come the Salvation Army is allowed to get away with
> this sort of nonsense? Where will it all end?
>
> OK, I know its not up to your standard Martin, not in the same league
> really, but I thought I'd have a go anyhow.

You're doing just fine.

> [...]
>
> >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.
>
> Yes Martin, do go on. I agree so far - it isn't obvious. But you are going
> to explain it to us, right? I can't wait.

That *is* the explanation that was asked for.  Individual wealth
applies to individuals.  I see myself as a wealthy man, but I don't
have a lot of money.  Actually, I have saved quite a bit over the
years, but that's because I live a life like the spartan one of the
socialist bicycle artisan.  I don't spend the money on anything and
eventually even forget I have it.  The point is I have recalibrated my
view.  I used to see myself as a wage slave.  In your view, that's
exactly what I still am.  But I don't see myself that way.  If I were
to try to live the western materialist life to the full, I would
quickly come to grief.  I don't do that, but the reason I don't do it
has more to do with the fact that I have recalibrated my view so that
I no longer even want to live that kind of life, more than it has to
do with the simple fact that I can't live it because I'm not a wealthy
owner.  If I woke up tomorrow to find that the world had suddenly
become socialist over night, my life would not change (except in
trivial ways).  That is generally true of people in the military as
well.

> [...]
>
> >For the record, a "Whatever" is an acknowledgement by wave off of a
> >certain correctness of the argument being waved off.
>
> He's got you there Alister, choose your words carefully.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >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.
>
> I'm willing to bet it does depend on trade for survival, you can't all live
> on raw fish and melted ice. :-)

I don't think it does, although I'm not willing to test the
hypothesis.  One of the reasons (the main reason) Norwegians voted to
stay out of the EU was because of their farm system.  Norway can and
does grow its own food supply, but due to the high costs of farming in
the Norwegian climate and geography, its farms cannot be competive in
the world market without public support.  Norway, having been invaded
and occupied several times over the centuries, wishes to keep its farm
system intact to maintain its own food supply.  It would not be
allowed to do that if it joined the EU, because its farms would be put
out of business by lower priced food from the south.  That's the
hypothesis.  I think they made the right decision, even though it
means I pay $5 Australian for a box of strawberries.  They are,
however, the best strawberries I have ever tasted, even without the
septic tanks.

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