alister air writes:
> At 15:33 15/06/99 +0200, Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> >Why?  *Only* because you say it *must* be that way.  Suppose we have a
> >socialist system that makes bicycles.
>
> You still do not get it.  A socialist system would not make bicycles and
> bicycles alone, any more than a capitalist system makes bicycles
> now.

I don't get it because it can't be gotten.  You cannot expect bicycle
makers to make their own TV sets and Selective Serotonin Reuptake
Inhibitors.  It's just not going to happen.

> There's really no point arguing this with you any more - if no-one
> else on this list can get you to nuderstand economic systems in
> their entirety, I'm probably not going to have any luck either.

I don't think you will either.  Your requirements for socialism now
include all these: There must be one and only one organization; it
must be a direct democracy with no titles other than some term that
means worker or citizen; all decisions taken by the organization are
arrived at by vote of all the members; the organization makes
everything, ie nothing is made outside the organization; there is no
money, but it doesn't matter because there isn't anybody else to trade
with; if the organization votes to paint all bicycles black, then, as
Henry Ford said, you can have any color you want, as long as it's
black.

> >> *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.
>
> *What* not so obvious way?  Because the obvious way would be if they were
> all, for example, paid at the same rate.  I do not see how "equality of
> individual wealth" can be used to describe inequalities of
> individual wealth.

That's because that's the way you measure wealth.  You can't see any
other way of measuring it.

> >No.  I object.  You deleted, and did not answer, the question that
> >revealed the absurdity of your position.
>
> If you say so.  There is a difference between not producing and being
> unproductive.  I suppose - if you wished to take this argument to the
> absurd levels you seem to prefer - teachers produce educated people,
> doctors healthy ones, and the military "produce" dead ones.

The sound of a mind expanding.  Stand back!

> >> Whatever.
> >
> >For the record, a "Whatever" is an acknowledgement by wave off of a
> >certain correctness of the argument being waved off.
>
> No.  "Whatever" means I think you're wrong, but it's not worth the bother
> trying to convince you of that.
>
> >centuries, millenia even, Australians didn't even know Norway existed.
> >Bartlett still doesn't know much about it.
>
> Are you trying to be a dickhead or is this your natural 'debating'
> style?

See Bartlett's response.

> >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.
>
> Answer - because socialism, by its nature, is non-competitive.  But
> this is getting no-where, and boring the shit out of every
> subscriber to this list, with maybe two exceptions (and I'm not one
> of those).

The sound of the threat of good example being stamped out again.

I agree socialism is based on cooperation, and capitalism is based on
competition, but there are also the concepts of internal relationships
and external ones.  A system can implement cooperative relationships
internally and competitive ones externally.  In fact, all systems do
this.

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