Martin William Smith wrote:
[...]
>> Being socialist this bicycle maker produces bicycles for use, not
>> for sale.
>
>No, they produce bicycles for use, not for *profit*.
OK, let's see where that takes us.
>They have to
>sell most of them so they can purchase the tools and raw materials to
>make more bicycles.
So, at the very least, they have to produce *most* of them for sale. What
you have to realise though is that there is a practical difference between
producing things for sale and producing things for use. The difference is
that the end-users not only have to have a need for the bicycles, they have
to be able to pay for them. This is not merely an academic difference for
those with very little money.
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. Only difference being how they distribute their
profits. But let's not write it off, let's see where else it might take us.
[...]
>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.
That is to say they take a vote and agree to becoming a conventional
enterprise, a producer co-operative.
> The truth is they really don't have a choice,
You're starting to catch on now.
> 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.
And this is what I was talking about when I said that material
circumstances will influence people's choices and values. In this case the
collective has realised that their idealistic vision of producing bicycles
for use, rather than as commodities to be sold, is impractical. They've
decided that its better to adjust their ideals to fit what is practical
within the limits of the capitalist system. Having sacrificed their ideals,
they now rationalise that the new ideals were what they always wanted to do
anyhow.
[...]
>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?
>
>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.
So the co-op adopts a company structure. The capital investment is
successful, but most of the workers are only token share-holders, so there
is now a sharp conflict of interest between the large shareholder members
of the "collective" (as it is still sometimes referred to sarcasticly by
the union shop steward) and most workers are dependant on wages, the
dividend on their token share-holding being a mere pittance.
Within a few years all the original collective members have dropped out of
the workforce. Most have been retrenched, their token share portfolio,
valued at only $500. They go on the dole and are no longer able to afford
the trendy up-market bicycles no being produced by their old firm.
But as they end their days in poverty, they can at least look back with
pride on their role as pioneers of the New Socialist movement.
[...]
>These are all problems that must be worked out, but they don't change
>the fact that the bicycle maker is a socialist structure.
Perish the thought.
[...]
> 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.
Yep, they need to compete for market share against competitors.
> 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.
[...]
>>
>> >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.
Oh, I see, you mean they can have equality of individual wealth by
*imagining* they have such equality - "recalibrating" their view of
reality. I thought you meant it in some objective sense. I think I would
have just admitted I was wrong rather than resort to such a desperate
rationalisation.
Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.
|
