frank scott wrote:

[...]
>
>Some seem to believe in the democracy of the consumer - I buy, therefore
>I govern - while others opt for democracy of the producer - which I find
>a little closer to the ideal - but left out is the total lack of any
>such thing under present rules of capital, whether global, local,
>familial, religious or atheistic.

Yes, there is a problem here for socialists on both counts. I think the
reason for that is the concepts being entirely theoretical. Since democracy
is inderstood in a very narrow way under capitalism, even those of us who
want more have a hard time grasping what might, otherwise, be.

In general terms though I would agree that neither democracy of the
consumer, NOR democracy of the producer is quite adequate. The principle I
would test any system by is democracy of those affected. If I am affected
by an decision I want a say, ideally in proportion to the degree I will be
affected. If not my interest is academic, and it is best if I leave the
decisions up to those who the decision will effect.

So I am not completely comfortable with notions of workers making all the
decisions in any industry, there are other people affected who deserve a
say. We do have to develop practical administrative solutions. Which is
where an organisation such as the IWW is important, the IWW's aim of
"building the new society within the shell of the old" is specifically
directed towards developing just such models.
>
>Finally, one last opinion: any society that expends millions, really
>billions, to feed its dogs and cats, and see to their health care, while
>denying a job or a dwelling place or a medical care visit to even one
>person in that society, is a diseased and screwed up place that needs
>serious social change. I believe it is capitalism which helps breed that
>kind of social idiocy - among decent, even loving individual humans who
>wouldn't dream of hurting another human, in a conscious, material and
>individual act. But if such a place called itself socialist, anarchist,
>christic or judaic, it would still be a diseased place in need of
>serious social change.

And of course it is far more than one person so denied the means of a
decent life within present capitalist society. It is most of humanity.

As I have said, if I could be convinced these problems were amenable to
solutions within capitalism, I would be very relieved. But while I'm open
to contrary argument, eager to be convinced I'm wrong in fact, I am not
very optimistic on that count. Since I tend to the belief that there are
few people who consciously prefer a system where most people are denied a
decent life, and since it is equally clear that there is no material
necessity for the suffering, that we have the technological means for
everyone's need to be provided, I am optimistic that we can solve such
problems.

But not under capitalism of course, quite simply because capitalism does
not work under the logic of supplying people's needs, its logic is
production for profit and scarcity. Insecurity and want make for a better
profit margin all around.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.