Re: Socialism: A Hypothesis of Working Conditions

Richard Kennaway <drachirREVERSEEACHPARTTOREPLY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <1ijzdwd.117hidj1rj57l7N%zeborah@xxxxxxxxx>,
Zeborah <zeborah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a strictly socialist society I don't know if there would be money to
go in my pocket to start with. Could be, I guess, depending how they
chose to arrange things. But yes, 'my' house and the food in 'my'
freezer would belong equally to everyone, so anyone who needed shelter
or food could shelter there and eat of it, just as I could shelter
anywhere or eat anything I needed. Unless of course the community at
large decided that each individual should be entitled to some shelter
and some food that may not be encroached upon, in the same way as their
body may not be encroached upon;

Where did that rabbit come from? Is the argument here "the community is
good; organ-jacking and forced breeding are bad; therefore the community
would never do it"?

The argument is that if a given community would do it then I wouldn't be
arguing quite so enthusiastically in its favour. (<-- This is
understatement, btw. Especially since, if I have been arguing
enthusiastically in favour of socialism, it's only in reaction to people
reacting with such hostility against the very concept. In reality I see
things as More Complicated Than That; I'm simly unwilling to dismiss
socialism as inherently inferior, unworkable, and evial.)

that would be up to the community.
There are pros and cons to either approach.

What happens if "the community" decides that some individuals should
*not* be entitled to shelter or food? Is that also up to the community?

What happens in capitalism if an electricity company decides that some
individual (who happens to need electricity for life-support equipment)
should not be entitled to electricity?

What will you, personally, do if "the community" decides to turn you out
of your house?

Go and sleep in someone else's house. Though I don't know where the
future tense comes from. Fear-mongering from right-wing critics
notwithstanding, New Zealand is unlikely to become a socialist state any
time soon.

What will you do if it decides for you where you shall
live, what you shall work at, and for how many hours a week?

I wouldn't feel obliged to obey the rules of such a community.

If these
things are to be your choices, how will you make them when anyone can
take what is yours becuase it is also theirs?

You forget that in this case I can take what is theirs because it's also
mine.

Who will choose to work
when (as you say in <1ik14fd.zb0bud12yukpzN%zeborah@xxxxxxxxx>)
"everyone" owns the result?

It's a mystery, but somehow Wikipedia seems to be growing and improving
despite the fact that the results are not individually owned. Also,
occasionally I pick up trash in the streets despite the fact (or rather,
because of the fact) that everyone in my community benefits from me
doing so.

"Socialism is wonderful" relies on a belief that people are inherently
altruistic.
"Socialism is unworkable" relies on a belief that people are inherently
selfish.
Neither is true.

By "the mob" do you mean an entity different from "the community as a
whole"? How do they differ?

No. Why on earth should I?

Because you like "the community as a whole", but appeared to dislike
"the mob" in saying it can be "as tyrannical as any dictator".

Can I not like and dislike one thing at the very same time? What a
simplistic view of the world you have. I like it when it does good
things and I dislike it when it does bad things. Same as democracy,
dictatorships, and even, yes, capitalism.

<snip a whole bunch of mischaracterisations because I'm bored with
defending myself against straw men>

If you think this is a deep discussion then you hold your ideas very
shallowly,

Exactly. I even believe I've said as much.

and if you have not heard my views on the subject of
socialism you have not been reading the messages you are replying to.

Quite likely. I tend to skim over things when they sound hostile,
particularly when it's not a subject I see any reason for getting het up
about.

What are my views about socialism? That if everyone owns everything
then no-one owns anything;

Inasmuch as I can see where you're coming from with this, I don't think
it's a problem. Inasmuch as it might be a problem, I don't see where
you're coming from.

No-one owns air, which means that anyone may take air and bottle it and
sell the result. A Frenchman may even take air that used to be 'New
Zealand' air if either he gets permission to come to New Zealand to get
it, or he's willing to wait for it to drift out of NZ airspace.

In a socialist society, everyone in that society owns all the food in
that society. The difference between this and air, however, is that
those outside the society do not own the food: a Frenchman may not take
food from the socialist society, though any member of the socialist
society may.

that the community as a whole is nothing
other than each person individually;

Sure: that's the case no matter the political system.

that when people can freely enter
into such agreements as they wish with other people, then that is when
the people indeed own and regulate the means of production, distribution
and exchange;

Yes, though I think it desirable for there to be limitations on what
agreements may not be entered into (eg being able to enter into an
agreement to murder someone isn't good; and I'm ambivalent about the
ability to enter into an agreement such that one person permanently
gives up their autonomy to the other).

that "the community as a whole" as an entity with power
over every individual person is a totalitarian state;

If it has unlimited power over every individual person then sure. But
not if it only has some kinds of power over every individual person,
unless you think that every government in the world is totalitarian.

that the society
you have described above, where you do not even own the house you live
in or the food in the freezer (except as thecommunityasawhole may be
pleased to grant this favour) is just such a state.

I do too own them. It's just that everyone else owns them too. How we
deal with a clash in interests between the multitudinous owners depends
on the society.

One society might decide to use a simple majority vote and not worry
about the homelessness that results. This would be bad.

Another society might decide to use a majority vote but to make housing
the resulting homeless person(s) a priority. This would be better but
would still have some defects.

Another society might give those using the house a larger vote than
those living next door, and give those living next door a larger vote
than those living far away. This in itself doesn't necessarily solve
homelessness but does mean that those directly affected by a decision
are heard more strongly than those not affected by it.

Another society might give those using a house the absolute right to
keep using it (and the entire responsibility for pests that issue from
it). In this respect it would be similar to our society, though in
other respects it might differ: there would need to be rules governing
what percentage of time a person must be resident in order to count as
"using" it, for example. There may or may not be additional rules about
eg whether someone may demolish their house without community consent.

There's a children's puzzle that consists of 15 square blocks arranged
in a 4x4 frame, with one space empty. The blocks are numbered and the
task is to get them into some specified arrangement by a series of moves
that slide a block into the adjacent space.

The thing is, the blocks can never fill the whole square. Wherever the
empty space is, you can always fill it with a block, but that just makes
the empty space turn up somewhere else.

Hold your ideas shallowly, turn away from conversation that goes beyond
paddling, and plead confusion whenever things are in danger of becoming
clear, and you can go on sliding the blocks around indefinitely and
never admit there's a gap.

On the other hand -- leaving aside the parts where you ascribe to me
motives of willful stupidity -- it's fun.

This thread is in no danger of overturning our present society. It's
just a thought experiment. A game. Why not play for a while? Can you
conceive of a way in which, in theory, a group of people might hold
property in common, make decisions in common, and yet not devolve into
tyranny? Slide some blocks around and see what happens. Just for fun.

<snip 'feudalism' which Brian has already answered>

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Socialism: A Hypothesis of Working Conditions
    ... making it much less clear what "the community decides" means. ... Depends on the society. ... can change the rules by consensus of the king: ... You haven't offered any definition of socialism other than either ...
    (rec.arts.sf.misc)
  • Re: Socialism: A Hypothesis of Working Conditions
    ... making it much less clear what "the community decides" means. ... how one chooses among them is by the consensus of the community--which ... If by consensus the society requires that nobody disagrees, ... One kind of socialism requires consensus, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.misc)
  • Re: If Obama Supports The Second Amendment....
    ... You're confusing outright theft where the government, with its guns, ... distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. ... Go read Orwells' Animal Farm for a parable of socialism. ... EVERY organization or society. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Why Socialism ? Albert Einstein
    ... Socialism Comes to America " Albert Einstein ... The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists ... because of competition among the capitalists, ... The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Off-Topic -- Gender Discrimination
    ... Not victims per se. ... It is not healthy for a society to place too LITTLE emphasis on personal responsibility either. ... conditioning and possible social disapproval, ... akin to socialism. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)