The Martin William Smith Show wrote:

>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

Bicycle makers will need tools though and materials. Being socialist this
bicycle maker produces bicycles for use, not for sale. Most of the users
live in a capitalist system and are unemployed (many having been retrenched
from the capitalist bicycle manufacturer, put out of business by the
socialists.) Many of the end-users of the bicycles indeed live in
third-world countries and were previously unable to afford a bicycle, their
needs were of course seen as a priority by the collective and thousands are
shipped to India (until the shipping company suspends the collective's
credit). Many end-users choose, or are not able to contribute any tools or
materials?

But there's a problem, I think you can guess what it is. The bicycle
manufacturing collective finds that the local supermarket is not socialist,
hence it is unwilling to supply the collective members food simply because
they need to eat. Same story with their landlords. Down at the workshop
meanwhile, parts are becoming increasingly difficult to source, as the
collective's debtor and creditor policy of "from each according to their
abilities, to each according to their needs, become more widely known in
the trade.

The Fraud squad move in, it turns out that running a socialist bicycle
manufacturing sub-system is not strictly legal. The National competition
watchdog is also investigating complaints about the collective's "predatory
pricing policy". Indian manufacturers have also alerted the World Trade
Organisation about the dumping of large quantitites of effectively free
bicycles in their market.

Stay tuned for more exciting developments! Will India threaten Australia
with nuclear first strike? Will the multi-national retail chain have a
change of heart? How come the Salvation Army is allowed to get away with
this sort of nonsense? Where will it all end?

OK, I know its not up to your standard Martin, not in the same league
really, but I thought I'd have a go anyhow.

[...]

>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.

[...]

>For the record, a "Whatever" is an acknowledgement by wave off of a
>certain correctness of the argument being waved off.

He's got you there Alister, choose your words carefully.
>

[...]

>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.

I'm willing to bet it does depend on trade for survival, you can't all live
on raw fish and melted ice. :-)

> 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.

I don't even believe in it. Far as I'm concerned stories about Norway and
Father Christmas are all capitalist imperialist propaganda. People living
in the north pole! Pull the other one. ;-)

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.