Martin William Smith wrote:

[...]

>> ...socialism is a macro economic *system*, its not
>> a micro management style, it can't be applied to individual
>> enterprises, because they have to operate in a capitalist economic
>> environment.
>
>Not everybody, Bill.  Your countryman, alister air, agreed with the
>definition of socialism I used from the Collins English dictionary.
>There was nothing in that definition that disallowed a socialist
>structure operating in an encompassing capitalist one.

Alister was remiss then. My Macquarie dictionary (the pocket version)
defines socialism thus:

        "A theory or system of social organisation which
        advocates public ownership and control of the means
        of production, capital, land, etc."

Not public ownership and control of *some* of it, public ownership and
control of it. And you notice that this socialism is a system of "social
organisation", not a system of enterprise management. A system of social
organisation cannot be be interpreted to mean a system of operating
isolated *industries*.


  Nor did the
>definition say they can't operate side by side.  Nor did it require
>the purity you long for.  Furthermore, by requiring that purity, you
>fall into the trap I mentioned earlier, namely that it results in a
>system that cannot be implemented.  As soon as people see, or think
>they see, that they can produce more, create more, or gain more wealth
>by cooperating under capitalist rules, they will do so;

While they see things that way socialism is impractical, I agree. Only when
it becomes clear that they cannot enjoy the benefits of the inventive
capacity of human society under a capitalist system, will people
democratically agree to scrap the system for one that better serves our
needs.

> your system
>will no longer be pure, and it will unravel like a KMart sock.

You mean... You telling me that if I get my socks elsewhere that will stop
happenning. ;-)

>  By
>holding to that purist view despite its impossibility,

It is only impossible in the circumstances where people don't agree with
such a change. You said so yourself. What makes you thing people's
subjective views are incapable of change?

> you reveal
>yourself to be someone who doesn't really want to solve the problem.
>You want to enjoy the fellowship of righteous opposition without
>having to actually do anything about it.

Well to be quite candid, what I really enjoy is arguing with people who
disagree with me.

But I am doing something about it, I'm explaining it to you. We have agreed
already that people like you would have to change your views before
socialism is possible, I'm therefor doing precisely what is needed. Not
much else can be achieved without your agreement.

[...]

>The fact that the economy is an integrated whole doesn't mean it does
>not have parts.  Nor does it mean it can't contain socialist parts.
>It sounds like your purist definition has gone past owning the means
>of exchange to eliminating those means altogether.

You use the term "purist" as if it was some sort of insult. I'm not a
purist actually, I just think that it is pointless to use words without any
regard to the concepts they convey. You've almost convinced me to stop
calling myself a "socialist", as it means a supporter of capitalism in your
lexicon.

But do feel a bit stubborn about it, a bit hard done by. I reckon that it
isn't too much to ask that people like you use the standard word CAPITALISM
when you are referring to:

        "a system under which the means of production,
        etc. are mainly privately owned"

        (Macquarie definition of capitalism)

It just doesn't seem fair for you to appropriate the word socialism, to
describe something you already have a perfectly serviceable word for.
Especially since it leaves us socialists without ANY word to describe the
system we advocate.

But I guess it isn't a fair world. What word can we use, "purist" is the
bone you seem to be throwing us. Even then, I suppose you'll eventually
want it back.

[...]

>> >You have a low opinion of these "grunts", who are, after all, citizens
>> >with equal standing in law if not in fortune.
>>
>> They aren't permitted to form a trade union, they cannot resign their jobs
>> at any time, the working conditions are a damn sight more dangerous than
>> would be permitted in any other industry. Need I go on?
>
>Yes, you must go on.  There is nothing in the definition of socialism
>that requires the ability to form a trade union.  Members of the
>military sign a contract, and contract law applies under socialism.

[...]

You missed my point entirely I was commenting on your assertion that
soldiers have equal standing in law with other workers. I didn't mention
socialism.

[...]

>On one hand you say socialism is a macro economic system, but on the
>other hand you raise all these objections having nothing to do with
>macro economics.

No, you just missed my point.

[...]

>How's that?  A system can't be contained in a system?  What is a
>subsystem then?  I understand Tasmania might not have any systems that
>are complex enough to contain subsystems, but, I asure you, in most of
>the rest of the world, such behemoths do exist.  We even have a system
>called the flush toilet, which is a subsystem of something called the
>sewer.  We discovered that septic tanks don't work well in a dense
>pack situation.

Is THAT why my septic plays up in the winter?!

> No way you would know this on the island though.
>Septic tanks probably just mean juicier strawberries down there.

I can't get used to these new-fangled septic tanks, whatever was wrong with
digging a hole and burying the contents of the shit-can every few weeks
anyhow? Guess its a bit tough on the womenfolk up there in the frozen
arctic zone? But in these more habitable climates its no great burden. At
least I could understand the technology. ;-)

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.