Martin William Smith wrote:

>I gave the defintion, which is the basis for the test:
>
>socialism - 1. an economic theory or system in which the means of
>production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community
>collectively, usually through the state.  It is characterized by
>production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual
>wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually,
>by government determination of investment, prices, and production
>levels.

This is a poor and ambiguous definition. I prefer the Australian English
definition and reject your pommie version.

This is actually a reasonable description of the so-called
"Marxist-Leninist" social theory, so-called because I suspect Marx would
have been quite startled with the idea of his name being attached to the
theory that having the state run the economy is "socialist".
>
>So you're wrong. It does *not* seem that being government-owned is my
>sole criteria. Not *everything* the government does is "socialist"
>according to me, with or without quotes.  In fact, I don't say
>*anything* the government does is socialist.  I refer to socialist
>*systems*.

Is that "little bit" socialist systems, or "pure" socialist systems?

>All subsystems of a properly functioning democratic government of the
>people, by the people, for the people (I forget the correct order) are
>socialist subsystems.

Ah, now I see the distinction, you aren't saying that everything *any*
government does is socialist, you mean that everything a *democratic* (PFD)
government does is socialist?

OK, but why? Even the rather second-rate definition you have unearthed from
that obscure pommie dictionary ;-)  doesn't say anything like that, even
that definition describes certain objective characteristics to socialist
theory. One of these is the mistaken idea, probably picked from Marxist
leninist theory, that control of the economy is "usually" associated with
socialism.

But it does also mention other criteria, such as "production for use rather
than profit", "equality of wealth", etc. How can you ignore these and
simply claim that everything a "PFD government" does is socialist? Even
when the said PFD government is obnjectively ruling over a capitalist
economy?

>  The system comprising those subsystems is
>socialist.  I'm not sure whether it it is better to say that it is
>embedded in a capitalist system or that it exists alongside one.

And how do you reconcile your claim that all PFD government departments are
"socialist subsystems", even when they clearly fail to meet the
definitions you yourself have approved.

For example surely you wouldn't claim that one of the characteristics of a
government school is "equality of individual wealth" between all students,
teachers, maintenance staff, administrators, etc.?

Or is it that you think government ownership (PFD government of course!) is
the only important benchmark for determining a "sub-system's" socialist
credentials? I cannot help thinking that this is the logical error you are
trying to justify.
>
>> You don't think there are a few tiny wee flaws in this childishly
>> simplistic conception?
>
>I'm sure there are flaws.  All real systems have them.

Not all theories have such obviously *fatal* flaws though.

> That's the
>problem with your purist vision.  It can't be implemented because it
>has no flaws

You've lost me there.

>  Without flaws, it will remain in the luminiferous ether
>of your mind forever.  I don't mean you should design in flaws.  I
>mean you have to start talking about something you can actually build.
>If you build it, they will come.  They will then begin fixing the
>flaws, an iterative process that can never end.

Agreed, in principle. Though I would have to caution that some fatal flaws
are not amenable to repair and will undermine the entire construction. Best
then not to design in any *fatal* flaws you would surely agree.

Which is what I've been trying to explain, political government is a fatal
flaw in a design for a socialist system, this has in fact been demonstrated
by the failed USSR. It was not the only fatal flaw, the other one that
comes to mind was that it attempted to *impose* socialism on an unwilling
and incomprehending population, not to mention an economy which was not
sufficiently developed to adequately satisfy the needs of all its people.

These are of course all examples of *fatal* flaws, not amenable to any
iterative process.

Despite those qualification though, I agree with you in principle.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Ok, so *direct* control is a requirement.  Implementing that
>> >requirement means losing the support of most of the tax money.  In
>> >saying that a public univeristy is a socialist institution, I mean
>> >that the community owns it.
>>
>> But they don't own it, the state owns it. The government is not the
>> community.
>
>The government is the community.  That's a requirement.  Every member
>of the government is a member of the community.  Every member of the
>community participates, at some level, in the governemt.

Two problems here. Yes, in PFD government (nearly) everyone participates at
some level. But that isn't the same as democratically controlling those
decisions. being consulted once every few years about which pack of
bastards you least object to ruling over you does not satisfy the criteria
in *my* preferred definition of socialism, social ownership AND CONTROL of
the means of production. Not nearly, not even close.

But more fundamentally, if not more importantly per  se, political
government, or "government of the people", is not itself an appropriate
solution. It is not the people I believe need to be governed, it is the
economy that needs to be governed.

One of the distinguishing features of government under capitalism of course
is that the economy is a purely anarchistic sytem, there is no government
of the economy. It is at the whim of the tiny minority who own its
component parts. yes, the government governs the lives of people, and it is
democratically elected. But most of the really important decisions that
affect people's lives are outside of the control of government. Not subject
to even the limited democratic influence of political government.

The economy is an anarchistic system under capitalism, only the people are
governed. So by definition the people have no say in the economy. In
summary, people have no say in anything of consequence and only a very
limited say even in the limited role of government.

I assert that this needs to be reversed, the economy needs to be governed,
put into the service of the people by the people. Government of people's
lives would then become unnecessary, since the only differences that remain
between people would be personal (not economic as at present). These
personal differences not being ones that have ever been amenable to
settlement by political government anyhow.

>  I don't like
>what you're doing now, Bill.

Just thinking on my feet Martin, I have got other things to do and I can't
concentrate all my attention here. Thankfully you haven't picked up on my
really bad blunders so far. ;-)

>On one hand you argue against me,
>staking out your purist high ground, but on the other hand you respond
>to Frank Scott this way:
>
>"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."
>
>What happened to the purist high ground?  Workers not making all the
>decisions?  Practical administrative solutions?  Unions structured as
>representative democracies?

You are confusing me with someone else. I have never claimed the purist
high ground, you attempted to tar me with that brush. And I at no time
insisted that workers in any particular industry or enterprise were
entitled to make *all* the decisions.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> >You state a general requirement: For a public
>> >university to be a socialist structure, the students, faculty, etc
>> >must have direct control of it.  ...but you don't say how it can be
>> >implemented.
>>
>> It can't be implemented, within a capitalist economic framework.
>
>I admit I am confused.  Some people would say you are talking out both
>sides of your mouth.  I say you have an evil twin.

You'll have to explain that to me?

[...]

>I am a little bit socialist.  Actually more than a little bit.

Considering your definition of socialist does not seem to differ a lot from
my definition of capitalist, that is no *great* comfort. But it does
suggest that your heart is in the right place. ;-)

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas