BS: liberty, freedom, and violence

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:15 PM

Without complicatin' the issue, I am less intersted in the structure of either socialism oe capiatalism. Both can work well or work poorly depending on how the wealth created from the two systems is distributed. Herein lies the problems we are seeing with capitalism, at least how it is practices in the US. Over the last 25 years the capitalists (as opposed to those who provide the labor for the machine to work) have taken used their influence over the governemnt to reduce regulations and taxes and in doing so have been taking incresingly larger shares of the collective wealth created by the system.

This money grab is certainly not any thing new in human nature but there does become a tipping point where those who provide the labor stand up and say, "No more!". This generation of capitalists is very aware of that sticky point but to by them time they have leant back to the labor force enough money so that the labor force *thinks* itself to not be slipping backwards qutie as fast as it is. Throw in the dumbing down of the labor force and the capitalists of today might very well get a good run this time but inevitably the system will break and it will be the labor force that makes the gains.

I'm sure that their are advantages to a capitalist system n however, in that it is somewhat more streamlines and can, for many poducts and servics, outproduce a socialist system since it is more market driven and more intertested in "net".

What I would rather see is the best of both sytems working in one society. There are certain things, such as health care and energy that lend themselves more to being collectively owned since we all gotta have these services and capitalists providing them makes the society on the whole more vulnerable. We are ceratinly seeing no in health care and we need to look no further than Enron for an example in the energy field...

Plus we don't need to deregulate industries. This is not a good idea from the standpoint of either our envirnments or out pocketbooks. Capitalists need to compete hard and play on a level playing field. Anything less is a formula for disaster...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:40 PM

In the old days in USSR the state owned and controlled capital, but private ownership still existed, they still needed money to exchange things, still had to purchase their possessions, how else could they match the inequality that exists in 'free' world. State ownership of capital did not change the capitalist character of industry, socialism is about terminating the social relation that is capital.

I do not believe socialism involves 'working for the good of all' it means working because you want to, because work is a pleasure, and more often than not work in capitalism is not a pleasure or it carried out in conditions that make it less pleasureable than it could be. When there are jobs that can never be a pleasure cleaning bogs or digging roads then we could democratically organise a way to share out the unpleasant tasks.

The 'socialism is the enemy of individualism' argument is a complete fallacy. As if there isn't a McDonalds in every town, new fashions that people follow every year, the same shops selling the same things all over the place. Socialism could mean free associations of producers, independently controlled rather than huge corporations where what to make or distribute is dictated from above and with more efficient production there would be more time to take a bit of pride in producing something better.

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:39 PM

The absence of individual ownership is a serious dsincentive to most individuals to acheive. It may be enlightened to "work for the good fo all" but the experience of the USSR shows pretty plainly that individual wins and ownership are important to motivating individuals to produce better.

So I suspect that while a safety net is mandatory in any but the most barbarian societies, that a balance between that net and individual excellence and the motives that fuel it must be struck.


A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:27 PM

To be honest Jim, you are touching on a contentious issue within the socialist movement, but I stick by my guns. I am not saying anything is better than capitalism, I am saying socialism would be better than capitalism. You say that 'It is in the pragmatics that socialism breaks down.' which is a presumption because socialism has never existed. You assert that 'economic realities and realities of human nature' might be a barrier to socialism let's discuss the pragmatics of what you mean.

Have a nice day yourself

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:01 PM

"It is the job of the socialist to state that socialist society is possible and provide an organisational basis to make it happen rather than to run a socialist society - that is the job of people, pragmatism can wait until it happens"

well, piers, you obviously see it that way. I see your "theoretical" approach as avoidance. It is in the pragmatics that socialism breaks down. To assert that it just seems that way, so let's try it anyway and see what happens, isn't naive -- it's disatisfaction with the way things are (probably because you see inequity or feel slighted) and saying that anything would be better. And it avoids economic realities and realities of human nature that, rather than "are decided by an economic system", decide how economic systems evolve.

You're entitled. I just think you're wrong (and I assume you think the same of me).

Have a nice day!

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 02:58 PM

So are you an anarchist Mr McGrath, in the vein of Bakunin and his creed?

Respectfully,
Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 02:07 PM

"So it isn't government that makes midchuck's Froggy Bottom mine" - what I meant was, that must mean something, but I couldn't interpret what that was enough to decide whether I agreed with it or not.
................................................

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, but socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Michael Bakunin, writing back in the 1870s, and summarising in a sentence much of the history of the 20th century. And the 21st too, as it's panning out.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:35 PM

Dear Jim Tailor,

'I think that [Piers'] definitions are as "simplistic" as yours, but I can't be sure because they really don't make any sense (try as I might to find some).'

I am writing about the basics of socialism in a non-pragmatic way for what I feel is a very good reason. It is the job of the socialist to state that socialist society is possible and provide an organisational basis to make it happen rather than to run a socialist society - that is the job of people, pragmatism can wait until it happens. Our job is to get across the message that we can organise without the 'no profit, no production', 'can't pay, can't have' premise to the economy, as humans did for tens of thousands of years. Providing blueprints for a future society is doomed because there are a huge number of possibilities within the framework of social ownership and democratic control, the people who know how best to organise e.g. guitar production are the people producing them now. We could sit here and speculate on the possibilities for days, but it will only ever be speculation.

We are not travel agents selling a packaged holiday who say take this option you will go there and this is what will happen on each day, we are more geography teachers saying socialism is over there, it is a propertyless society, go there and decide what you want to do when you get there.

If you are interested there is a load of much more articulate info at the WSM website.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:06 PM

brucie: Oops, I guess I didn't read Hilda's post correctly. I didn't realize she was defending herself. I'll re-read it.

Nope, I read it right, brucie, perhaps it is you who did not understand what she wrote. Guess I'll stand by my original post. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:43 AM

Wow, freda! And you might be the typical "mudcat liberal" if you think that any of those jokes have any basis in reality! (though some of them are kinda, y'know, funny.)

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:40 AM

Thank you Freda, Amos and Jim.

I hadn't seen this one before--I was looking for a print copy of a momologue Pat Paulsen (sp?) did back in the late 1960s or early 1970s on Laugh In. However, this one works. What a hoot.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:32 AM

forget cows, what about this..

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:23 AM

you mean this?

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:23 AM

a bovine guide to ideologies

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:21 AM

A Bovine Guide to Ideologies

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:18 AM

Hey, y'all. This is worth Googling. If someone could do a link, that would be great.

A Bovine Guide to Ideologies

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 10:38 AM

You're not the only one "lost", MofH.

I'm not sure what to make of...

"Socialism = social ownership, production for use, allocation of goods and services according to self-defined needs, total democracy for all."

I think that Pier's definitions are as "simplistic" as yours, but I can't be sure because they really don't make any sense (try as I might to find some).

I'd say that Pier's views are "theoretical" and not "pragmatic", but usually when something is "theoretical", "irrational" is not implied. In Pier's case I fear it is. There is little, if any, pragmatic element to his/her suggestions.

You were merely trying to cloud the issue -- make a rhetorical point when a practical one wouldn't fit. I could understand that. I don't understand Pier's.

Both are natural responses to the inability of the theoretical to answer a pragmatic question (who owns midchuck's Froggy Bottom in a socialist economy?). It doesn't mean that the theory is disproven, but it surely casts doubt on it.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 10:08 AM

"So it isn't government that makes midchuck's Froggy Bottom mine" - you lost me there. ???

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 09:35 AM

Of course it's simplistic - in three lines it has to be simplistic. I'm talking about an attitude, in which "ownership" is about things you can use and look after, not about taking advantage of other people.

There is a qualitative difference between "simplistic" and "simple". Three lines might imply the latter, but has nothing to do with the former. Nice dodge though, for those whose eyes are off the ball.

Piers,

All due respect, but your last definition makes even less pragmatic sense that the previous. So everybody owns everything, but we don't need any organization to sort this thing out? So it isn't government that makes midchuck's Froggy Bottom mine, it is midchuck's....what? ...generosity?

And again, it doesn't address the fact that most business is not developed to enslave workers -- most are developed around a desirable product or service. If you don't want those products or services nobody is requiring that you avail yourself of them, but history has shown that most people are willing to participate.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:45 PM

Of course it's simplistic - in three lines it has to be simplistic. I'm talking about an attitude, in which "ownership" is about things you can use and look after, not about taking advantage of other people.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:17 PM

Brucie 'Somewhat tongue in cheek I ask, "And where is the tax man in all this?"'

Socialism is the negation of the market system, where goods are produced according to need not for exchange, thus no need for money, and no need for taxmen. Of course without all the labour and resources that is dedicated to the finance industries, military, police, advertising and state, all essential for capitalism but not actually producing anything there will be a lot more time for making
music or guitars or whatever you want to do.

Rapaire, 'Socialism in its pure form would seem to reward the bland and mediocre.'

Would it? How's that?

What incentive is there to invent a guitar in the first place?'

I'm not sure the guitar was ever 'invented', but people like inventing things, some people live in dire poverty because they'd rather spend their time inventing things than getting a 'proper job' that pays.

In a small group humans can get along, each giving from his or her abilities. In a larger context other factors come into play, and either the best or the worst seems to rise to the top.

Yes, but capitalism must has always had a top and a bottom and minority control of the means of wealth production on which everybody depends - something to fight over.

'A pure socialist society would have no leaders -- and no incentive to improve itself.'

The former statement is true, and I don't understand where you are coming from with the latter.

'I can't envision any human society as perfect, given the imperfect materials from which it must be made.'

Neither can I.

Jim Tailor
'. . . those who favor some sort of pure socialism, seem to come from an understanding of economies which are characterized by some concept of production that seems to imply that most GNP is the result of huge, mega-employee business. And if only those businesses were governmentally owned, there would be a fairer distribution of the goods produced.'

I obviously haven't explained myself very well: government ownership is not socialism. There was a case in the UK where a chap had been taking coal from a government-owned coal yard, in his defence he said it was publically owned and so it belonged to him - he didn't win.
Socialists see democracy not as the narrow definition used in the developed countries, hierachy-enforcing, choice of which leader, but democratic decision making being part of the process at every level, that maybe consensual, or formal voting but everything from what
time you start work to how much to produce, to how many houses
to build in a place. There is no need for a government, because everybody governs.   

Big business, medium sized business or little business doesn't change the fact that the majority of people are forced to earn their living from selling their labour, be it as a self-employed person, working for a small company or a large corporation or the government.

Capitalism = private property, production for sale on market, allocation of goods and services according ability to pay, political democracy if you are lucky.

Socialism = social ownership, production for use, allocation of goods and services according to self-defined needs, total democracy for all.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:42 PM

"You can only honourably own as an individual what you can use yourself as an individual. You can own the house you live in. When you make someone pay you for living in a house you don't lve in, that is a kind of stealing. That is the distinction Proudhon was making when saying both "Property is Freedom" and at the same time "Property is Theft". "

This is so simplistic that there's no kind way to put it -- it's silly.

It is "property as theory" and has little basis in the reality of property (what? it's limited to real estate?) or ownership. It fails utterly to take into account labor (a very meaningful moral element to ownership) or risk (another meaningful element to ownership and investment).

It fails, in addition, to take into consideration the free agency of individuals to NOT chose to live in a house one may own but not live in.

And stealing? From whom? Those who live in a house they do not own are merely completing a transaction, the likes of which free people enter into every day. They may not want to own the house in which they live -- for many reasons. And the other side of the transactional coin is that the property owner has the community obligation to maintain the property if he wants it to remain both his and an investment from which he, with his risk and labor might make his own way in life.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:22 PM

That was worth saying twice, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:20 PM

What incentive is there to invent a guitar in the first place?

So as to be able to use it for playing music.

You can only honourably own as an individual what you can use yourself as an individual. You can own the house you live in. When you make someone pay you for living in a house you don't lve in, that is a kind of stealing. That is the distinction Proudhon was making when saying both "Property is Freedom" and at the same time "Property is Theft".

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:18 PM

What incentive is there to invent a guitar in the first place?

So as to be able to use it for playing music.

You can only honourably own as an individual what you can use yourself as an individual. You can own the house you live in. When you make someone pay you for living in a house you don't lve in, that is a kind of stealing. That is the distinction Proudhon with "Property is Freedom" and at the same time "Property is Theft".

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM

Each breath, by that reasoning, doesn't "solve" anything either. It doesn't make breathing any less necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM

Maybe so, Doug, but IMO there is a difference between being nonviolent and nonliving. I think people have the right to defend themselves, and I think they can do that and still be nonviolent (as in nonaggressive (sp?).

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:30 PM

Hilda: anyone who attacks another person with their fists, regardless of the reason, might find it a bit difficult to sell her/himself as anti-violent.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:23 PM

Jim:

Frank Hamilton made it clear -- he doesn't think war solves anything.

He's right, it doesn't solve anything.

A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:25 PM

Begs the question: What do ya do when you are attacked? Flash the V? Pass some flowers? Anyone with the brains God gave a turnip knows war is bad. On that, everyone DOES agree. But, again, if no one starts it, then no one has to finish it. This "he pushed me back first" crap has gotta go. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:06 PM

"I am not so radical a peacenik that I would oppose the defense of good people. But I must draw the line at unilateral aggression, wrongful use of force and wanton slaughter."
My read of Frank is that this doesn't really matter. All your splitting of hairs would still put you in the "war monger" camp.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 02:55 PM

There is a world of difference between a codified method of justice and starting a war.

Armed sheriffs are a very different thing from armed Marines. One is a bailiff ofd the peace, handling exceptions individually; the others is an intentional instrument of destruction.

I am not so radical a peacenik that I would oppose the defense of good people. But I must draw the line at unilateral aggression, wrongful use of force and wanton slaughter.

A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 02:18 PM

"War will never solve anything really. Hitler goes, we have Pol Pot or Saddam or Osama. War is a disease that breaks out periodically throughout the world and the only cure is peace (which entails justice)."

Interesting syllogism. Because another, unrelated war breaks out, the previous one is therefore, unjustified.

How rhetorically beautiful -- the "Peace cure", and how logically unfounded. And in this world of self-interested humans, by what means do you propose we maintain "justice"? And "justice" by whose definition?

So evil men will just lay down their arms when we offer them peace? What if that isn't what they want?

Martin Gibson may not have a very eloquent or gracious way with words, but when it comes to questioning the validity of the extreme left's logic, he may well have a point. This vapid peacenik rhetoric seems only to resonate with those who already accept it -- and not with a pragmatic world.

Have a nice day *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 02:03 PM

Freda,

George Bush's idea of freedom is not for all people but those who have a vested interest in maintaining his status quo which is about the myth of "free trade" (because it is not free, it is regulated) and advancing the wealth of his cronies.

Can't expect Bush to be as eloquent as King since he has not mastered the English language and his script writers have kept the comments he made as general as possible so as to mean nothing.

Peacemakers are the bravest of all. They face opposition whenever and wherever they advocate. It's so amazing how people are co-dependent on war solutions. The idea of a "just war" is a case in point. War reigns destruction on the innocent as well as those who are deemed guilty. How can that be "just"?

I don't think that war solves anything. It may make some richer for a time at the expense of others who suffer. But another irony is when FDR claimed that WWII would be the war to end all wars. It's like saying that you can save the house from fire by burning it down. War is the cure that kills the patient.

War will never solve anything really. Hitler goes, we have Pol Pot or Saddam or Osama. War is a disease that breaks out periodically throughout the world and the only cure is peace (which entails justice). In the meantime, we are subjected to war as a political football by leaders who keep the public controlled through fear and anger (demonizing others).

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:37 PM

I have no drum to beat for pure socialism.

Chrysler Motors, however, should be grateful that some sort of balancing action through the Federal government was available to them when they failed.

Lot of old folks skimped through their last decades because of the SocialSecurity system.

So maybe a small dose of social organization is worth the trouble, sharply constrained by individual rights.

Once that latter boundary starts to be eaten away at, as is currently occurring, I think alarums should be oiled up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:34 AM

LOL, pdq!

I think that, generally *wink* speaking, these types of discussions, for those who favor some sort of pure socialism, seem to come from an understanding of economies which are characterized by some concept of production that seems to imply that most GNP is the result of huge, mega-employee business. And if only those businesses were governmentally owned, there would be a fairer distribution of the goods produced.

The problem is two-fold (at least). One is that most economy's GNPs are NOT primarily the output of mega-employee businesses. The small business far outweighs the large (midchuck's ability to make his living with his privately owned Froggy Bottom is more the rule than the exception). Second (and ironically), the more the government tries to gain the kind of control/ownership that is the goal of the pure socialist, the more the pragmatic means of production is merely driven underground for survival (try to assume ownership of midchuck's Froggy Bottom and he will relinquish it -- deeming the red tape to maintain his business via the governmental red-tape not worth the effort. He will then resume his business, underground now, with his undeclared Collings -- and the common treasury from which all would have drawn will be forever without midchuck's input -- until he's imprisoned.).

Pure socialism loses its appeal when faced with the pragmatics of zero private ownership.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:18 AM

Under Socialism, you would ask the government for a guitar and three years later they give you a banjo.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:16 AM

The definition of such perfection would have to be dynamic with a clear perspective on the boundaries of "perfect" rates of change. You don't get good quality control defining a static and unchanging perfection.

However, there are probably some rations that you could define workable "perfect" limits for -- some of them would be grounds for interesting research. For example, ratios between advertising and crime, or the frequency and magnitude of social perturbations resulting in protest come to mind. The frequency of public falsehoods compared tothe frequency of violent deaths. The ration of a base-line low-end salary to the highest incomes. Or the range of earnings using a loaf of bread as a unit of measure.

Anyway, there are unlimited things you could measure, but the interest question would be which measures would mean something?

A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:14 AM

Sure, confrontation can achieve something - *provided*: you know exactly what you want to achieve; you have near-unanimous agreement with other people (including those of a different political viewpoint) that it is the right thing to do; what you plan to do is specified; the target is specified; and the exit strategy when the target is achieved is specified.

If you're thinking self-defense, it maps out quite nicely. You plan to stop the other guy hurting you, and your plan is to fight until he can't hurt you any more, and then you stop.

I would have no quarrel with GWB's two invasions, had they been planned to impose democracy. But they weren't - Afghanistan was planned to salve America's feelings after 9/11, and Iraq was planned to finish what Daddy started. And to create a concentration camp for storage of Afghan fighters afterwards, or to invade Iraq with no plan of how to put the country back on its feet afterwards or of how to get the troops back out - *that's* the problem.

And while we're at it, if you want to use that kind of language then you *have* to be scrupulous about your own integrity, and the same standards have to be applied everywhere. Support of Israel in appropriating Palestinian-owned land, failure to act in "non-headline" places like Sudan, failure to apply the rule of law in Guantanamo - all those things and more mount up against the US. I have no problems with the US being a "tough cop", but the US being a cop prepared to falsify evidence or beat evidence out of people is not acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:07 AM

The definition of such perfection would have to be dynamic with a clear perspective on the boundaries of "perfect" rates of change. You don't get good quality control defining a static and unchanging perfection.

However, there are probably some rations that you could define workable "perfect" limits for -- some of them would be grounds for interesting research. For example, ratios between advertising and crime, or the frequency and magnitude of social perturbations resulting in protest come to mind. The frequency of public falsehoods compared tothe frequency of violent deaths. The ration of a base-line low-end salary to the highest incomes. Or the range of earnings using a loaf of bread as a unit of measure.

Anyway, there are unlimited things you could measure, but the interest question would be which measures would mean something?

A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,Rapaire
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:04 AM

Socialism in its pure form would seem to reward the bland and mediocre. What incentive is there to invent a guitar in the first place? In a small group humans can get along, each giving from his or her abilities. In a larger context other factors come into play, and either the best or the worst seems to rise to the top.

A pure socialist society would have no leaders -- and no incentive to improve itself.

In a modified one, there would be a "safety net" for all, but the society would be so structured that people would be encouraged to excel. Of course, the same problem regarding "the worst rising to the top" would have to be dealt with -- and suppose that the worst wanted to excel at that?

I can't envision any human society as perfect, given the imperfect materials from which it must be made.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,Brucie
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:55 AM

Sorry, the above poster was me.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:54 AM

"In socialism if there are not enough guitars then it could dealt with by discussion between makers and users, suppliers of raw materials etc, etc."

Somewhat tongue in cheek I ask, "And where is the tax man in all this?"

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:58 AM

So a Froggy Bottom is rather nice guitar.

Amos writes: '. . . common ownership is necessary. Social Security is an example.' As I said above state ownership is not the same a social/common ownership. Nominally, citizens might 'own' an industry, but control is vested in a minority who are bound by the same production principles as a private enterprise. Social security is necessary because capitalism is inherently insecure.

If there are not enough guitars for everyone who wants one then there is clearly a problem. Capitalism means scarcity, as well as artificially created scarcity. In capitalism goods and services are allocated according to the ability to pay - can't pay, can't have, however much you might need something (and even in highly developed countries there are many folk that do not get essential food and medicine).

The 'common good' is an essentially capitalist ethic, the sort of thing political and industrial leaders (often one and the same) imply when religion or patriotism become unfashionable. Everybody has different needs and preferences for work, things to consume and
play with, hence the age-old socialist slogan 'from each according to ability, to each according need'. Socialism means socially owned and democratically controlled production of goods and services directly to fulfil human needs, without the disfiguring effect of the market holding us back. In socialism if there are not enough guitars then it could dealt with by discussion between makers and users, suppliers of raw materials etc, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 04:08 PM

Barbie paled in comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 04:04 PM

That's right! Alas, so is my rememberer (rubble, that is). I was probably reflecting a resistance to referring to that hottie, Betty, by her married name. Barney was a very lucky cave man.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 03:21 PM

Jim,

Their last name was Rubble.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 03:16 PM

You obviously need to shed your vestigial captitalism. It's making me feel violent. Well, sort of violent. Maybe just uneasy. No, really it's more "apathy". Yeah, "apathy" was what I was going for.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 03:10 PM

I am not sure whose desired end that is, Jim. I have desired many different ends in my life, and actually gotten aholt of a few, but I don't recall ever getting worked up about common ownership of things. Especially guitars!!!LOL!



A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 03:02 PM

Michael Millard is one of the most respected guitar builders in the country. Midchuck is fortunate enough to have one of his guitars. As the desired end is to commonly own all, I am willing to give midchuck the joyous opportunity to not have to wait until public ownership is official. I'll let him send it to me now. I'm only thiking of him -- I'd hate for him to be cast as the money-grubbing capitalist that wouldn't share his unfairly gained means of production.