Martin William Smith wrote:
[...]
>Socialism doesn't have an objective. You have an objective, which is
>noble, and you choose socialism as your main tool to achieve your
>objective. But most other people want to end economic poverty and
>oppression as well. Many capitalists probably believe capitalism is a
>better tool to achieve that goal.
Yes, you're probably right that only people can have objectives and systems
are their tools.
And actually I agree that capitalism is one of the tools that is necessary.
It creates and has created the conditions necessary, the objective
possibility, to achieve the elimination of poverty. But it isn't the right
tool for the job of realising that possibility. Time to put that tool down
and pick up the appropriate one.
>
>If you are dissatisfied with a version of socialism that soesn't seem
>to you to be moving the world toward your goal, then find ways to make
>it work. Throwing it out won't get you closer to your goal unless you
>have a replacement that you can actually implement.
That's the general idea.
[...]
>I can be producing bicycles for money, or
>I can be producing them because I believe people need bicycles and I
>can fill their need. I can even do it for both reasons.
Only if the people with the need also happen to be people with money to pay.
> The fact
>that I get paid for my bicycles doesn't invalidate my sincere desire
>to fill a real need,
Your sincere desires are not the issue. The issue is whether all the people
with a real need can afford to front up with the cold hard cash.
> any more than does IBM donating to the arts
>invalidate the view that it does so to improve its PR. Some IBM
>employees want IBM to donate to the arts because there is a social
>need to support the arts; IBM marketers are the least likely IBM
>employees to be among them.
>
>So it is certainly possible for a capitalist transaction to fill a
>social need,
I have never said otherwise.
> and the fact that money changes hands from capitalist to
>socialist doesn't mean the socialist has sold his soul to the devil.
>You can't require people to live up to impossible standards. They get
>depressed.
You're attacking straw men again.
>
>If I want to claim I am a socialist, then I must look at the effects
>of what I am doing in the world. If I am contributing to making the
>world a better place, it doesn't matter whether I'm doing it by
>capitalist or socialist methods.
I would have to agree. But if you are doing it by capitalist means, then
you are not doing it by socialist means. Let's not get our tools mixed up,
let's call a spade a spade.
> If I'm doing the oppositie then I
>have to change what I am doing. If I believe that socialism is a
>better tool than capitalism, then if I want to call myself a socialist
>I should work to make it happen.
>
>But if I take this look at myself and my bicycle making, and if what I
>see is that the number of people who can afford to buy my bicycles is
>shrinking or staying the same, then I have to find a way to turn that
>around. I can't just stand pat and blame it all on evil capitalists
I'm not blaming it on evil capitalists either, I'm blaming it on
capitalism. Spades are just not designed for shovelling. The shovellors
only have spades.
>who force me to pay too high a price for their aluminum tubing. Nor
>can I just give up and take refuge in a purist view of socialism.
By "purist", I take you to be referring to my objections to your trying to
solve the above shovel shortage by calling the spade a shovel.
> If
>I choose either of those, then I have to stop calling myself a
>socialist. But if instead I become pro-active about making my plan
>work so that I help more people get the bicycles they need, and if I
>improve the prospects for other socialist structures to take root,
>then I say I'm a socialist.
>
>> It is the difference between prostitution and loving sexual
>> relations.
>
>I agree, but there is no requirement in the definition that a
>socialist system must reject all members who don't have a certain
>attitude.
Those "purists" who insist on calling a spade a spade you mean?
> I agree that without that attitude, people who claim they
>want socialism are lying. But then people who claim to be socialists
>while defining socialism out of existence are also lying.
Err... But us "purists" didn't define the shovels out of existence, we
never had any to start with. We just had spades that you wanted to call
shovels.
Actually I suppose, in a way, we *did* define the shovels out of existence.
But I'm not sure it changed anything for practical purposes.
[...]
>You can imagine a self service system like the one where you
>deposit a $2 coin to get a supermarket trolley, and you get your coin
>back when you return the bike.
Jesus! they only charge a 20c deposit here, and some people still jack up
at shopping at the supermarket chain that does it.
[...]
>> OK, but what I'm imagining is that poor people will trudge for miles to the
>> bicycle library, only to be interrogated by a hard-faced social-worker,
>> whose job it is to determine if they are "deserving" of being allowed to
>> borrow a bike for the day. Policy at the bicycle library is apparantly to
>> give priority to those who want to borrow a bike to go job-hunting.
>> Applicants are expected to prove they are not trying to "cheat the system",
>> by using the bikes to enjoy themselves.
>
>I don't think that will work. For example, here in Norway, *every*
>family gets a stipend from the state for each child until the child
>reaches a certain age (I think it 16). The family's income doesn't
>matter, and the marital status of the parent(s) doesn't matter.
Sounds like a very good system. Almost socialist I'll grant you. Here the
Family Allowance Supplement, which replaced the old Family Allowance (Well,
supplemented it, then superceded it) is now income and asset tested. But
whereas the old payment was quite low, the new payment is more substantial
(about $50 PW for each child + up to $50 PW rent assistance for those
renting privately) until the children reach 16.
But it is targetted to people on low incomes only (low wage families,
pensioners, the unemployed, etc.) so the Norwegian system is probably
superior.
[...]
>> Not so. But you have to be realistic. The collective has to compete for
>> market share and it can't do that with old-fashioned production methods.
>> Capital is needed or the enterprise will stagnate. I think they did the
>> sensible and practical thing. Socialist integrity cuts no ice in the free
>> market my friend.
>
>There is no socialist integrity. There is integrity.
But "socialist integrity" was your invention.
> The kind of
>rationalization you are talking about might put the socialist bicycle
>maker out of business. But it also means the need for bicycles is
>being met by more efficient means,
Only if you define "need" to exclude those people who can't pay.
> and it would also mean that more
>poor people would find bicycles affordable. That means the socialist
>bicycle maker has to find something else to do. He would have to do
>that in a pure socialist system too, if there were too many bicycle
>producers producing too many bicycles.
True, but a socialist system would not stop producing things simply because
nobody could afford to pay for them.
>
>But the problem you described was with an internal breakdown of
>integrity, where certain socialist members decided they should have a
>bigger slice of the pie because they were contributing a bigger slice
>of the collateral. So it wasn't the raising of the capital that
>caused the breakdown at all. It was the desertion of socialists.
>People do that sort of thing.
You're trying to imply out that lack of integrity of some individuals that
was the root of the problem. Not so, it was the system.
>> Or to take hold of the *entire* means of production, so that *all* capital
>> was socially-owned and controlled. Then the people as a whole could
>> democratically determine that the infrastructure needs of the bicycle
>> collective was a priority. They can't do that now, at least without
>> sanctions being imposed by the watchdogs of international
>> capitalism.
>
>You don't say what you mean by "take hold".
Sack the bosses.
Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.
|
