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