Martin William Smith wrote:
[...]
>> What's more, if our collective is going to give away *any* of their output,
>> they will have to make a profit on the rest, to pay for this generosity.
>>
>> The socialist collective is already starting to sound like an ordinary
>> capitalist sub-system.
>
>Many or most of its *external* relationships are capitalist.
Yes. This as something of a problem though. You see the objective of
socialism (to my mind at least) is to end economic poverty and oppression.
If a version of socialism doesn't seem to make any difference then you can
can understand why I might be dissatisfied.
> When I
>say it is a socialist subsystem, I mean, generally, that its
>*internal* relationships are socialist. So let's talk about the same
>point of view.
[...]
>> Only difference being how they distribute their profits. But let's
>> not write it off, let's see where else it might take us.
>
>That is clearly not the only difference. A socialist subsystem would
>be mostly, at least, internally socialist, while a capitalist
>subsystem would be mostly internally capitalist. This difference
>would be large.
I'm not sure that is so. I believe I explained the dynamics of it in my
last post.
[...]
>They have not sacrificed there ideals. It is not automatically an
>ideal of every socialist that there is no medium of exchange.
No. But it is fundamental to socialism that production is carried out for
use, to satisfy need. Not to produce goods which are primarily commodities,
that is trade goods. Commodities are are items produced because, and only
because, the producer can exchange them for something the producer needs.
So medium of exchange is not the issue, I've never said it was. My point is
that if the producer is only producing goods that can and will be sold,
i.e. only producing commodities, then that is a far cry from socialism.
That might satisfy the needs of those why can afford the goods, it turns
away those who can't. So, by definition, the rationale of production is not
to satisfy needs, satisfying the needs of those with money in that case is
merely incidental - a *means* to an end. Not the actual objective.
It is the difference between prostitution and loving sexual relations.
[...]
>It should be easy to see that if capitalists and socialists agree on a
>point, then neither side can claim it for its own. Both capitalism
>and socialism use an exchange system. The difference is in who owns
>it. In a democracy (and please don't disallow the point because you
>don't like any of the current implementations of democracy), the
>community owns the medium of exchange regardless of whether the outer
>level economic system in that democracy is capitalist or socialist.
In theory, but the problem is that the medium of exchange might be "owned"
by the community, but it appears to be *controlled* by international
financial capitalists. That's something of a quibble perhaps, you will
probably counter that such is only the case because the community,
democratically, consents to these "experts" managing things for us.
Then I would counter that the community has been backed into that corner by
the the logic of the capitalist system, resistance is futile so to speak.
Perhaps I've sped this argument up. ;-) This idea of putting the opponent's
arguments for him, putting words into your mouth, is a habit I've picked up
from you Martin, so you're already having an influence on me. ;-)
>
>> [...]
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> And if anyone can't afford $500, the pragmatic collective members
>> rationalise, then they probably didn't really *need* a bicycle anyhow. ;-)
>> Anyhow, the poor will always be with us, right?
>
>No, they don't rationalize anything of the kind. In the first place,
>they do the best they can. In the second place, they vote to set the
>price at $501 and put the extra dollar in an account specifically for
>building bicycle libraries in poor neighborhoods.
They contribute a small perecntage to charity! McDonalds do that too, are
they a "socialist subsystem"? ;-)
> Poor people can go
>to the bicycle library and "check out" a bicycle for the day.
How will they get to this bicycle library and back?
> Or the
>money can be used to give bicycle scholarships to poor people. Use
>your imagination, Bill. The goal is to expand the socialist horizon
>with new ideas, not to shrink it to nothing by disallowing everything.
OK, but what I'm imagining is that poor people will trudge for miles to the
bicycle library, only to be interrogated by a hard-faced social-worker,
whose job it is to determine if they are "deserving" of being allowed to
borrow a bike for the day. Policy at the bicycle library is apparantly to
give priority to those who want to borrow a bike to go job-hunting.
Applicants are expected to prove they are not trying to "cheat the system",
by using the bikes to enjoy themselves.
>> >Internally, the bicycle makers practice whatever form of pure
>> >socialism you want to imagine.
>>
>> For the moment. After a while though they decide their operation is
>> under-capitalised, in the interests of cost-efficiency they decide
>> to raise some capital to modernise. Some collective members have
>> more capital to invest than others, but they are reluctant to invest
>> while everyone gets an equal say in running the co-op. Because they
>> will have more at risk than others, they argue they should have more
>> of a say.
>>
>> [...]
>
>Then the system falls apart, Bill. You don't have a very high opinion
>of socialist integrity.
Not so. But you have to be realistic. The collective has to compete for
market share and it can't do that with old-fashioned production methods.
Capital is needed or the enterprise will stagnate. I think they did the
sensible and practical thing. Socialist integrity cuts no ice in the free
market my friend.
> The only way to ensure that the above can not
>happen is to prohibit it by law.
Or to take hold of the *entire* means of production, so that *all* capital
was socially-owned and controlled. Then the people as a whole could
democratically determine that the infrastructure needs of the bicycle
collective was a priority. They can't do that now, at least without
sanctions being imposed by the watchdogs of international capitalism.
> If you really believe that is
>necessary, then you are actually saying socialism is impossible. If
>that's what you mean then just say it and stop calling yourself a
>socialist. You can't be a socialist if you don't even believe
>socialism is possible.
It is you that believes socialism is impossible, remember? I'm entitled to
call myself a socialist by your rule. Are you?
[...]
>> Yep, they need to compete for market share against competitors.
>
>And they can do so successfully by building for use, not for profit,
Building for the market is not building for use. Anymore than women
standing on street corners in the red light district are seeking out casual
sex. They are after money, offering sex on the market is merely the means
to an end.
There is no difference between that an offering offering bicycles on the market.
[...]
>> > 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.
>>
>> Now you want them to adopt feudal values. You're all over the place today
>> Martin.
>
>I'm sorry, what do mean by adopting feudal values. The Spartans were
>ancient Greeks known for their discipline and austere way of life.
>It was a chosen way of life. It wasn't feudalism.
You used "spartan" as an adjective, not a noun. Your noun was "Zen", as in
"Zen Buddhist". In the context I took you to be suggesting that the
collective could overcome the problems they face by adopting the values of
this feudal Buddhist sect. Buddhism is a belief system incorporating feudal
values of accepting your lot in life, which I don't think is appropriate in
the material circumstances of either capitalism OR socialism.
I may have misinterpreted you though, sorry if I did.
Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.
|
