Bill Bartlett writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> So, at the very least, they have to produce *most* of them for sale. What
> you have to realise though is that there is a practical difference between
> producing things for sale and producing things for use. The difference is
> that the end-users not only have to have a need for the bicycles, they have
> to be able to pay for them. This is not merely an academic difference for
> those with very little money.
>
> What's more, if our collective is going to give away *any* of their output,
> they will have to make a profit on the rest, to pay for this generosity.
>
> The socialist collective is already starting to sound like an ordinary
> capitalist sub-system.

Many or most of its *external* relationships are capitalist.  When I
say it is a socialist subsystem, I mean, generally, that its
*internal* relationships are socialist.  So let's talk about the same
point of view.  When we talk about a subsystem *and* its external
relationships, then we are by definition talking about the system, or
at least a higher level of subsystem, that *contains* the socialist
subsystem.  It should not come as a surprise by now that I claim the
higher level subsystem need not be socialist nor that a system need be
viewed as being 100% one way or the other.

> Only difference being how they distribute their profits. But let's
> not write it off, let's see where else it might take us.

That is clearly not the only difference.  A socialist subsystem would
be mostly, at least, internally socialist, while a capitalist
subsystem would be mostly internally capitalist.  This difference
would be large.

> [...]
>
> >Although bicycles can
> >be used as a medium of exchange, the bicycle makers soon see that it
> >makes life harder for them, so they take a vote amongst themselves and
> >agree to participate in the exchange system of the greater community,
> >ie the state.
>
> That is to say they take a vote and agree to becoming a conventional
> enterprise, a producer co-operative.

They agree to participate in the community-owned exchange system of
which each of them is a part owner.

> >  The truth is they really don't have a choice,
>
> You're starting to catch on now.

My thinking has not changed.

> > but they
> >observe that this lack of choice makes no difference since their
> >democratic choice does not conflict with the system of the greater
> >community, ie the state.
>
> And this is what I was talking about when I said that material
> circumstances will influence people's choices and values. In this case the
> collective has realised that their idealistic vision of producing bicycles
> for use, rather than as commodities to be sold, is impractical. They've
> decided that its better to adjust their ideals to fit what is practical
> within the limits of the capitalist system. Having sacrificed their ideals,
> they now rationalise that the new ideals were what they always wanted to do
> anyhow.

They have not sacrificed there ideals.  It is not automatically an
ideal of every socialist that there is no medium of exchange.  The
definition I am still using, explicitly states that a medium of
exchange is, or can be, an element of a socialist system.  Your ideal
of a a socialist system with no medium of exchange is a view of a
subset of the set of all possible socialist systems.  You are welcome
to it, but you don't get to impose your restricted view on everyone
else who wants to implement socialism.

It should be easy to see that if capitalists and socialists agree on a
point, then neither side can claim it for its own.  Both capitalism
and socialism use an exchange system.  The difference is in who owns
it.  In a democracy (and please don't disallow the point because you
don't like any of the current implementations of democracy), the
community owns the medium of exchange regardless of whether the outer
level economic system in that democracy is capitalist or socialist.

> [...]
>
> >The bicycle
> >makers then establish an equivalence, one bicycle equals $500.  Their
> >intent is to set the price so that all expenses are covered and profit
> >is minimized.  The bicycle maker, producing for use, not for profit,
> >intends to be a non-profit organization.  If there is profit at the
> >end of any reporting period, it is used in the following period to
> >lower the bicycle price to the community.
>
> And if anyone can't afford $500, the pragmatic collective members
> rationalise, then they probably didn't really *need* a bicycle anyhow. ;-)
> Anyhow, the poor will always be with us, right?

No, they don't rationalize anything of the kind.  In the first place,
they do the best they can.  In the second place, they vote to set the
price at $501 and put the extra dollar in an account specifically for
building bicycle libraries in poor neighborhoods.  Poor people can go
to the bicycle library and "check out" a bicycle for the day.  Or the
money can be used to give bicycle scholarships to poor people.  Use
your imagination, Bill. The goal is to expand the socialist horizon
with new ideas, not to shrink it to nothing by disallowing everything.

> >Internally, the bicycle makers practice whatever form of pure
> >socialism you want to imagine.
>
> For the moment. After a while though they decide their operation is
> under-capitalised, in the interests of cost-efficiency they decide
> to raise some capital to modernise. Some collective members have
> more capital to invest than others, but they are reluctant to invest
> while everyone gets an equal say in running the co-op. Because they
> will have more at risk than others, they argue they should have more
> of a say.
>
> [...]

Then the system falls apart, Bill.  You don't have a very high opinion
of socialist integrity.  The only way to ensure that the above can not
happen is to prohibit it by law.  If you really believe that is
necessary, then you are actually saying socialism is impossible.  If
that's what you mean then just say it and stop calling yourself a
socialist.  You can't be a socialist if you don't even believe
socialism is possible.

> [...]
>
> >These are all problems that must be worked out, but they don't change
> >the fact that the bicycle maker is a socialist structure.
>
> Perish the thought.
>
> [...]
>
> >  For the
> >socialist bicycle maker cooperating and competing in a capitalist
> >environment, success depends on dedication to the pursuit of these
> >elements as they relate to building the perfect bicycle.
>
> Yep, they need to compete for market share against competitors.

And they can do so successfully by building for use, not for profit,
and, of course, assuming they can count on the government to disallow
unfair trade practices.  Gosh, another role for government.

> > Success then
> >depends on establishing a Korber-esque solidarity of bicycle building
> >artisans willing to live the somewhat spartan life of the Zen
> >bicyclist.  It is as simple as that.
>
> Now you want them to adopt feudal values. You're all over the place today
> Martin.

I'm sorry, what do mean by adopting feudal values.  The Spartans were
ancient Greeks known for their discipline and austere way of life.
It was a chosen way of life.  It wasn't feudalism.

> [...]
> >>
> >> >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.
> >
> >That *is* the explanation that was asked for.  Individual wealth
> >applies to individuals.  I see myself as a wealthy man, but I don't
> >have a lot of money.  Actually, I have saved quite a bit over the
> >years, but that's because I live a life like the spartan one of the
> >socialist bicycle artisan.  I don't spend the money on anything and
> >eventually even forget I have it.  The point is I have recalibrated my
> >view.
>
> Oh, I see, you mean they can have equality of individual wealth by
> *imagining* they have such equality - "recalibrating" their view of
> reality. I thought you meant it in some objective sense. I think I would
> have just admitted I was wrong rather than resort to such a desperate
> rationalisation.

I'm not imagining my wealth.  I should think, after the description
you gave of your own living situation, you would appreciate that.  But
if you insist on determining equality of wealth by comparing piles of
money, then you will never be satisfied.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701