NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not after links or textbook definitions here. I'm trying to make sure that in the future I will be able to put a face to the name, as it were, so I can effectively talk to people in terms they understand. I also think that many socialists/mutualists and anarchists get off too lightly around here because they spend more time attacking than defending, simply by virtue of rarely making positive statements alá "It should be like this" instead of "It shouldn't be like this".

So from resident leftists from A to Z, here are a few questions (and if anyone has suggestions on what to add, that'd be good too).

Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?
Do you think the labour theory of value is correct? What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?
In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.
Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?
Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?
How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?
What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?
If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?
Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?
Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?
Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?
If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?
When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?
While we're at it, what do you think of money?
What about competition? Would you say you support a free market?
If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?
Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?
Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?
If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?
Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?
How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?
Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?
Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction?
Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?
How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?
How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?
How do you think we can go about reaching this world?

Try and answer truthfully and in the spirit of the question. I don't plan on arguing with you here, it's simply for future reference and to avoid confusion. If anything's not clear, I'll try to explain it, just ask. Thanks.

MY "socialism" is simply that there is no other morally legitimate reason for any government in any form, under any idiology, economic theory, or system of belief, to even exist at all, then to do the best it can to keep people from starving, freezing, or beating each other over the head, and to insure and maintain tangable infrastructure and the tecnologies of tangable infrastructure, in the closest and best possible harmony with nature's diversity and cycles of renewal. preferably while remaining as otherwise unintrusive as it possibly can.

it has been my observation that the dynamics of symbolic value, cannot alone, be counted upon to achieve these ends.

what any government, past or present, calling itself socialist, or anything else-est, might or might not have done, is of no pertinence whatsoever to these observations.

=^^=
.../\...

First, I think you're strongly confusing socialisim with communisim, and autocratic communisim at that. But I'll answer, even the silly questions, for you. Although you should know I'm not exactly a "leftist", more of a right-winger socialist. You may see it as a contradiction, but it works for me.


Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?
It was some form of socialisim. Valid or not depends on who is doing the validating, and to who the system applies. If you want a specific answer we'd have to break it down. NEP era would be a yes for valid, in my eyes, as would Gorby era attempts, and some of what Kurschev tried, everything else was just despotisim vieled as communisim.

Do you think the labour theory of value is correct? What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?
I'm not an economist, so I honestly don't care. What works works. And according to semiotics, value is arbitrary, so define it as you like. Although I would expect something that takes more skill and longer to make to be worth more, otherwise there is no point making it.

In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.
But, I do think individual property rights are legit. To assume socialisim means they are not is like assuming the moon is made of cheese.

Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?[/quote
Refer above, if it's someone's, then it's theirs.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein;13551526] Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?
Social and economic matters are unseperable, everything acts on the other. To what degree they are either, however, is an issue that depends on the context. In realms of public versus private, it becomes public when it is better for the society to be such.

How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?
Being an individual?
And I'm a semi-proponant of it. I believe that individualisim only gets you so far, and you need to have that spark of community there as well. Work for yourself as far as it works for you, but when your community needs you, step in.

What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?
Ideally, if they're not oputting in, they're not getting out. Doing anything else just seems stupid.

If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?
Judges and courts, trial by jury, all that.
Although I am also a proponant on expanding the death penalty.

Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?
Like said above, land can be owned. Owned privately and publicly. If you own your land, build a house on it if you like. Or not. Your call not mine.

Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?
Yes? How else would that "anyone" earn a living?

Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?
I'm no buisness person, but however they normally do it. Buisness plan, setting up the stuff, all of that. I'm in favour of public loans to help start small buisnesses as well. If that counts.

If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?
Well apart from that being a horribly unrealistic situation, the quickest solution is to find one of that person's competitors and have them make a simmilar thing. Otherwise, it's back to making sweaters like everyone else, or even by hand.

When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?
The person who set the buisness up makes the decsions, within the scope of the law and with the community which has helped it start in mind. Likewise I would assume, and hope, that the person running it would get skilled labour, or better yet train what they need from whoever is willing to work there. If they want direct deposit or just a cheque is between them and their employer.

While we're at it, what do you think of money?
I like how in Canada I don't have to read it to know what I have. Different colours are win, all green is boring.

What about competition? Would you say you support a free market?
Not an unlimited free market. I support a small-buisness oriented market, free enough for them to work and flourish, restrictive enough for them not to work against the community. Very close (But not excactly) what NEP was intended to be, except working.

If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?
First, whoever used up all the insulin should be shot, but that's my personal; thought on that. Otherwise, the one who will make the most use of it gets it. If it's a guy in his 20s and an 80 year old man, tough luck for the old man. If it's two 40 year olds, rock-paper-scssiors.

Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?
It ends when the decsions of the majority harm the minority or the community as a whole. Otherwise, voting works alright, not perfect but alright.

Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?
I'm a big fan of representative democracy.
And following that I would expect the public to be able to vote in those who they believe most qualified to do their job, and if nessecary vote members into temporary "special groups" for matters that need it.
However a working election system is needed *couthNotAmericacough*.

If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?
Not sure I understand. But if I had a choice between ending the freedom of a serial rapist to live, and violating the freedom of a young woman to be safe, the serial rapist dies. (I'd have killed him for less of a choice actually)

Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?
Yes and no.

How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?
The environment should be a high concern, alongside well being of the community. But only if it's actually proven. Some nutjob screaming trees have souls and can't be cut down should be ignored.

Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?
I have no idea what a moral absolutist is, but I'm starting to doubt I would be one.
As for organising society, what works depends on the people, the time, and the culture. There is no perfect way for everyone.

Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction?
Medical science makes that distinction quite clear. If you can't physicly live without it, you need it. Like water, food, warmth, clothing, shelter, air. Anything else is a want.

Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?
The only way I can see acting against one's own interest would be suicide. If they so choose that act, they6 already deserve to die anyway, and force is being used, and is justified, because they're doing it. No government involvement nessecary.

How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?
As big as it wants to be?

How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?
Borders = yes. Relations with other countries, the government's job, no?

How do you think we can go about reaching this world?
Purge the infidels!
But seriously, depends. If there are cultural shifts among the world's major populations, then we can do it easily. If not, kill everyone, the planet might be better off without us anyway.

Well I am not a revolutionary – nor is my mind fixated on this as the way things are to be but I will try to answer honestly and in the spirit of open dialogue.

First and foremost I think socialism confuses the issue in and of itself. Socialism as best I can understand it is the idea of someone making everyone have the lifestyle we have today (that of the bourgeoisies) without acknowledging that such a lifestyle is dependent on the system currently in effect. More specifically dependant on the wage labour of the proletariat. As such I will try to answer the following questions not as a socialist – but as a person who does not believe in the current system, accepts Marxist theory, and believes that changing towards those ideals (Marxist) would be beneficial. I myself have yet been able to label myself other than by the broad stripe of ‘communist’.

The USSR was a valid attempt towards communist but was lost at about the time of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. A conscious decision to introduce technically minded and able individuals to accomplish the end without concern for the mean was made and began the process of internally destabilizing the party. This left room for inevitable corruption. While I wouldn’t consider myself a luddite or unappreciative of specialization one must carefully consider how such concerns are integrated into a planned economy.

I do think individual property rights are legitimate – my system merely begs the question of how one would morally acquire such rights.

Yes

As far as the consideration of ‘government’ – and I use the term loosely – the difference between a social and economic matter is one where the community has no say and one where the community is the final word. While possibly naïve communism is ideally a utopia and issues like these would fall to the wayside as people worked within the community. In regards to the separation of public and private I imagine that would probably fall to the community unit itself to decide.

Individualism conjures to my mind buzz words like rational self interest and the endless accumulation of goods. And so no – I would not count myself a proponent.

My goal is to set up a system wherein such exploitation is not possible. Taking out without putting back in my theoretical system would be like me asking you about people who give to charity endlessly in your system, its non-starter.

If people break rules in my system they would be crimes of passion, negligence, or simply malice. Ultimately it would fall on the community to decide what to do with the offenders. As odd as it may sound the answer might be nothing.

The land itself may never be owned de jure. A person may – temporarily – may own the land by de facto simply because the own the product that is about to come from the ground – because they sowed it, reaped it et cetera but it is more likely that a group of individuals owns the product as they all contributed to it via their labour.

No.

The ‘factory’ would be constructed in much the same way it is today. More worker considerations would be made but ultimately the physical process is the same. Socially the community agrees that the nature can sustain the construction and then a form of collective or union would form from there. They would agree on how the tasks would be done and then do them.

They’d be asked. Assuming that do not want to take part the sweaters are never made.

Now in regards to decision making this is stumbling block for myself. Some writers suggest having a ‘manger’ and having this person’s pay reduced from the actual producers. I am not sure I like this decision. I personally see the workers voting on every decision until the size of the operation mandates the election of a manager who would then make the decisions until the workers as a whole deposed them. The workers would not be chosen so much as decide that they would like to be part of the enterprise and show up to help. The workers would be paid by a function looking something approximately like this: Value of total production / hours worked = $

Money today? It’s a wreck that has somehow become an entity onto itself. What it should be is a convenient form of notation of the value of something so that we are not reduced to the barter system.

Your definition of a free market is decidedly vague and your question seems loaded or otherwise oddly worded.

The person who is most likely to survive until the next delivery does not get it – as cruel as it sounds his need is less as there would be a possibility that they might survive.

End? Voting in what respect? This might imply a level of centralization which does not exist.

Representative democracy,… no,… not a problem so much as a concern as to how it would be adapted under the newer model. It would be my hope that people were being represented but voting inequality in would be rather redundant.

I don’t see how this has anything to do with my communism

Technological progress is humanity in a sense. Its one of the few things that is distinctly of human and not of nature. Honestly we can use or abuse technology as we see fit, and it is my hope that communism will see that technology is a tool to us and not an end onto itself.

Ultimately the environment is a resource. I can only hope that the community will be smart enough to practice sustainability, else it will just kill itself later.

Am I a moral absolutist? Yes. Ergo, yes there is a best way to organize society. Have a discovered it beyond a reasonable doubt? No.

The community at large makes the distinction between needs and wants. Though I should imagine they would be rather straightforward after one or two generations.

Can people? Yes they do all the time. Should they? No. Forcing them? Not sure. Personally I would not see a problem with that but that’s not been resolved with my communism as a whole picture.

As many as needed, though the individual communities would probably be in groups of 15 – 40 thousand

Communities’ will self identify. The borders will be fluid as people think of themselves as one thing or another without ever having moved. Relations between would be handled by the individual members showing up at town hall meetings that concerned them and by voting

Honestly I see this world coming after the end of bloodshed and globalization. Europe, north America, and the pacific rim are already starting to fit Marx’s paradigm of class identification vs national identification. As time goes on and more wars sanitize the world’s cultures and bring us more in line with a global economy we will loose the national identity entirely. Eventually the world will be liberal democracies who will be to spend thrift to maintain military as their citizens become too selfish to want to pay for them. With the loss of national identities will come the death of patriotism, and with it the last vestiges of militarism. Then those proletariat who were removed from the market will add their voices with the common worker. The loss of the government jobs will fuel unrest. Eventually the governments will be forced to bow to the demands of an increasingly hostile populist as their laissez faire policies have left them as libertarian shells of their former selves. By this point the old institutions of power will be ignored. People will scoff as borders. They will look at banks who demand and interest payment and say ‘make me’. The system we have today will implode and after rioting, and food scarcity people will begin to pick up and provide for themselves. Communal farms will be first – then personal necessities will under go the same process. Then eventually this will bloom out and expand. I see my communism as the natural foregone conclusion to today’s system.

* Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?

No, they wasted too much money oppressing the people. At one point 10% of the people were in Gulags, which totally screws up an economy.

However, I did like their design bureaus, which encouraged competition, but I think more could have been done. On a final note, the fact that they decided what your career would be was idiotic, and they probably lost many good engineers and such to janitorial work.

* In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.

I think people should be allowed to own things. I just don't think that people like Bill Gates should be earning ~$600 every four seconds (especially after making a shitty OS), or that the children of pop stars will never have to do an honest day's work in their life.

* Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?

Depends. For smaller things, like clothes, jewelry, and such, I think it should be the person's decision to donate them, and the state shouldn't waste time enforcing that. But if you have, say, 10 houses, you obviously don't need them, and they could be put to better use.

* Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?

Very much so. The private sphere ends roughly at your doorstep. Nobody should tell you what to think or how to live, so long as it doesn't effect others. However, things like energy and water conservation are public matters, and so how much water you personally use is a semi-social matter.

* How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?

It's not part of my lexicon, but I would define it as a way of thinking that revolves around the individual, with out regard to society. I am not a proponent of it, because if everyone looks out for only themselves, that's simply greedy. I believe that if everyone helps everyone else out, then the world will be a much easier, happier place.

* What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?

If someone exploits the system, they, and anyone who helped them directly, ought to be punished severely. Not just by the government, but society as a whole.

* If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?

A punishment should be laid out to fit the crime. Say a doctor takes advantage of a social welfare system. I would say that they should make him preform double the equivalent amount in surgeries or clinic hours for no pay.

Of course it should be decided by a jury of the accused's peers, who should be given all the possible evidence, and hear all the arguments.

* Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?

It can only be occupied temporarily. It makes no sense that a dead person should own land, or that people should simply inherit something for no other reason than that he got the right set of parents. Granted, I have no problem with inheriting something which you will use, but you are still only occupying the area. Basically, I don't believe people should inherit things that they obviously don't need, when other people could make much better use of it.

Although I can understand sentimental value. I suppose I couldn't argue taking away a house that is important to the family history. But it should actually be important, and not just some house that they'll think of once every year or so.

* Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?

Yes. Even if you were employed by the state, it really only means that you are employed by the people, or by the oligarchy, or by the monarch, or by whoever ultimately wields the power.

* Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?

How the hell should I know? I am not a factory designer. Is there a point to this question other than setting up the scene for the next one?

* If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?

Offer that person a deal. "Hey, make this machine, and we'll give you X amount of money." That usually works, I assume.

If they don't want to? Oh well. I guess we'll have to go about using old techniques.

* When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?

The building decisions should be made by the project foreman, or the engineers, and the running of the factory by the plant manager, much like a capitalist factory would be run. Just like a capitalist factory, they would get orders for what needs to be produced from higher up, and just like a capitalist factory, if that man does something wrong, the higher ups will make suggestions based on previous experiences on how to fix it.

The workers will be hired based on skill, and hopefully not because of what they look like, what they believe, or whats between their legs (or who they want between said legs).

And just like a capitalist factory, the worker will be paid in cash.

* While we're at it, what do you think of money?

It's a necessary medium of exchange. Going to the barter system makes no sense, and the state could never adequately decide what a person needs. It allows the citizen flexibility, but it also allows the government to be more efficient.

* What about competition? Would you say you support a free market?

Competition is always important. I would support a mixed market, so that people get competition, but can also hold their corporations responsible for pollution and such.

However, I would lean towards state-owned corporations, with private enterprises making up absolutely all of the small businesses. That way, major industries, like steel, will not see major layoffs when recessions hit, since they can afford to run at a loss. The added income to those worker's families can be spent at small businesses, which are then spent at other small businesses, helping the economy to keep going.

* If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?

This is largely unrealistic. In real life, the person who came second in the line is simply said "I'm sorry, but we have no more insulin."

Further, there would be a reserve, and once that had been tapped, the doctor should notify the insulin providing company that they are running low. Being a socially responsible company, the company has to get insulin to that doctor. And since the company can run at a loss, they can run the insulin out with out thinking of the cost.

Of course, that'll drive up the cost to the taxpayer, but since it's a one time thing, they will not notice it. And if it does start to accumulate, and people complain, they the people who are complaining are assholes.

"Oh, I can't be bothered to pay an extra $25 dollars in taxes to save a diabetic's life. I have jewelry to buy!"

* Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?

I think that there should be a clear majority (with at least 60% of the people voting). Otherwise, what ever is being voted on should be a point of debate until the balance shifts. However, voting is not appropriate for smaller things, like how to run a certain factory. That takes a more efficient approach.

* Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?

No. The expert's jobs should be to convince the populace what it is in their best interest to do, not to decide for them. If the populace is to ignorant to take good advice, then they earned the consequences.

* If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?

Define positive and negative freedoms.

* Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?

Yes, and no. Although I would like to encourage people to spend less time on the computer and in front of the TV, although that'd be the pot calling the kettle black.

* How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?

The environment is not a resource in the same way that lumber or coal is. I believe it is the right of the community to decide, by personally I feel that the environment is something that should be protected.

* Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?

Yes, but only because being the best doesn't equate being perfect. Obviously one system will work better than the others. However, that only says that one system won't suck as much as the others. No I am not an absolutist.

* Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction?

Yes, there is. You need water, you need clothes. You want television, you want nice clothes. Normally, I feel that the people should make the distinction, but that would be far too idealist to use everywhere. I believe that they people should be paid fair wages for their work, and be forced to put in (through taxes) money towards things like insurance, and towards education, and towards the community. After taxes, though, you are left to buy the rest.

* Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?

Yes, and not physical force. monetary and social, yes.

* How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?

It would be a fairly large society, but I don't have specific figures. I would think that there is a balance between large, with lots of resources, and small, with a more efficient government.

* How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?

Pretty much the same as any other nation. The borders would be less defined, but mostly in the interest of protecting the community from, say, wages dropping to unacceptable levels, or jobs being taken away from people who are only there to hoard money to bring back to their poorer nation, while not paying taxes in return.

Although if they pay taxes, and are in almost all respects, just like any other citizen, I don't see a problem with it. My main concern is that they give back to the community in the same way as actual citizens.

* How do you think we can go about reaching this world?

The entire world? Impossible. You can't get a group of people to agree on where to go to lunch. Opinions vary too widely.

Although I suppose through public discussion and education, one could eventually reach that goal, if one were so inclined.

I would like to point out my answer in regards to the insulin question start with a flawed premise. In accepting communism I have to reject most of the capitalist scarcity myths. Since we are talking hypotheticals the benefit to a planned economy is that things like this will never happen.

Wow, what a lot of questions. :) I didn't realize we'd left quite so much unexplained.

Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?No. The means of production weren't controlled by the people working in them. The state was also not acting in a manner consistent with worker control of the means of production.

Do you think the labour theory of value is correct? What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?Neither is correct. The labor theory of value is an attempt to objectify value, which is a subjective concept. The market considers positive values, and rarely considers negative ones.
For instance, the market might say "How much should we pay the CEO?" but never "How much should the CEO pay us for the priviledge of working here?" While the latter question is unlikely to be asked, it wouldn't be a consideration at all in a market system.
In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.
Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?Property rights based upon use are legitimate. Sometimes a thing might not be actively used, but a person might still retain property rights over it (such as food that is going to be eaten the next day.)
The reason for this is that active use is the purpose of property rights - people have the right to use resources because resources are needed to sustain human life.
Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?]Well, to extend from the previous point, since a person is using their body at all times, things related to a person's body (and mind) are within the private sphere, (unless the person is working for the community at the specific moment). This includes their labor.
However, and this is the important part, a person does not necessarily have the right to labor with a resource that is outside of their body. Most likely there will be resources that the community isn't using, and the person can labor with them in any way they please, but the community gets to reserve resources first (except when it comes to withholding the necessities of life.)
How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?I believe individualism is the maximization of individual liberty -for all individuals. I am a proponent of this.
What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?Well, a person has the right to the necessities of life, so the community can't deliberately withhold them. Most likely the person would be asked to leave the community. The community could also prevent access to food (and other necessities) within the community of those resources can be accessed outside of the community. (A person has the right to the necessities of life, but not necessarily to be supplied with them by the community.)
If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?The community would make a decision, but most likely it would be done by arbiters elected by the community to make the decision. Punishment could be anything between having the person work extra, or not receive something they want, or be under house arrest. If a person doesn't accept their punishment, they can be considered to have broken the social contract, and no longer receive its benefits.
As the community is not a state, it does not retain a monopoly on violence, so the community cannot commit violence against the individual. However, if the person is outside of the social contract, they do not (necessarily) have protections from individuals committing violence against them.
Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?No - only occupation and use is legitimate.
Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?No. If a person is not using the resources they are paying someone else with, they lose the right to them, and thus the resources can be claimed by that someone else without exchange of labor.
Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?The community would discuss the need for the factory. It would also discuss the possibility of exporting the sweaters to other communities, or to capitalist countries. The community would also discuss where the factory would be built, and also if it has the resources to build it. The community would then vote.
If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?Well, the community would -most likely there would be people responsible for the day-to-day running of the factory, so they would- approach the person and ask them to take part.
If the person is unwilling, the community would see if it's possible to import the machine from somewhere else. If this is impossible, the community would try to find a way to work around it.
When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?The community would probably choose people responsible for running the factory day-to-day. The workers would be chosen initially by volunteering, then by a discussion of their qualifications. If employment would require skills a person doesn't have, it might be possible for them to still have the job if they are willing and able to learn the skills. They would be paid the same as anyone else - by having access to things the community can provide.
While we're at it, what do you think of money?
What about competition? Would you say you support a free market?I dislike both money and the free market. Competition can be fine. Furthermore, there will most likely be capitalist places to trade with.
If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?Well, if one person possesses the insulin legitimately, then they get it. If neither does, it would be decided randomly.
Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?Voting is fine as a way of making decisions.
If a minority dislikes the outcome of a vote, they always retain the right to secede.
Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?It's possible a panel of experts can make decisions, but the community always retains the right to overrule them.
If something is in the constitution, though, the community might not be able to overrule the constitution.
If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?I would pick the least harmful choice. Sometimes violating a positive freedom is least harmful, sometimes violating a negative freedom is.
Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?Technology has generally been good for humanity. I wouldn't mind if certain things were reversed, such as WMDs.
How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?The environment does have rights that can trump the wishes of the community, but only sometimes. The potential harm to the enviroment vs. potential gain must be considered.
Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?There probably isn't a best way to organize society. I don't believe I am a moral absolutist.
Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction?Well, needs are obviously things needed to maintain the necessities of life. Those things can be objectively determined.
Things might also fall under the realm of needs, to be decided by the community.
Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?People can act against their own interest. The community doesn't have the right to use violence, though.
How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?As big as it can be for decisions to still potentially be made via direct democracy. Probably 100,000 people or so. It could also become part of a confederation, though.
How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?I suppose the borders would be the things the community is using. Relations could be anything, but ideally they would be open at first, until a social contract between the two communities can be reached.
How do you think we can go about reaching this world?Well, it remains to be seen if it is possible to peacefully secede from a state, but I believe that it could be done this way.

If you don't mind some input from a decided non-socialist;


Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?

Yes. Until Stalin's perversions of the system, the USSR was, in fact, attempting to put into practice Marxist theory. It failed because the lack of oversight within the system allowed the movement from idealistic dictatorship to cult of personality.

Do you think the labour theory of value is correct? What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?

The Labour theory fails totally due to its false premise. The value of an item has nothing to do with the labour involved in it's manufacture; the value of an item is solely what someone is willing to pay for it. Supply and Demand is the only system that works, or ever has, or, probably, ever will.

In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.

Individual property is totally legitimate. Ownership not only provides for the basis of economy, but also the basis for legitimate taxation.

Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?

Cetainly. Ownership of an item is, by definition, the control of the use of that item. It is entirely reasonable to choose to NOT use an item, particularly if there is some gain to be had by doing so.

Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?

Yes, there is a difference, but there is also an overlap. Social and economic matters have significant effect upon each other.

Likewise, the public and private are separate items with some degree of overlap. The individual has the obligation to do no harm (or the least harm) to the many, but likewise the many have an obligation to the freedom of the individual.

How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?

I consider individualism to be the elvation of the rights of the individual above those of the society. I am most assuredly in favour of it.

What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?

If someone can exploit the system - let them. Then try to understand how he did what he did, and if necessary, make changes so that it can be prevented in the future.
However, "exploiting the system" is often doublespeak for simply using the current system efficiently. There is nothing wrong with that.
If a group of people jointly own something ("communally") then they have every right to exclude outsiders.

If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?

The rules in a society are it's laws. I see nothing wrong with learned Justices imposing sentences of loss of liberty or loss of property on lawbreakers.

Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?

Land may be owned; whether de jure or de facto, the person who holds possession of that land, has the power to prevent others from using it, and reserves it for his own use, owns it. All else is philosophical gibberish.

Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?

Certainly. The employer is purchasing the time and labour of the employee for money. Provided both contractors are content with the exchange, the employment is perfectly legitimate.

Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?
If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?

The person has the idea. He then communicates the idea to investors, who provide him with money to realize the idea, in exchange for either usury or shares in the company. Provided he gets sufficient investment, the person then buys land for the site, hires construction agents to build the actual factory. Once built, the appropriate inner machinery is purchased and installed, workers are hired and initial raw materials are purchased, and legal fees for business start-up are dealt with. Then you start to work to pay back the investment, buy new raw materials, maintain the factory, pay bills, and maybe even make a slight profit.

In the case of a special machine, simply approach the person openly and offer a reasonable fee to do the job. If they refuse, offer a reasonable fee to licence their work. If they again refuse, look for a work-around.

I'll complete this later - need to go.

-snip-
That is, I think, largely a negative argument: what your socialism is not. The question is: what is it?

First, I think you're strongly confusing socialisim with communisim, and autocratic communisim at that.
I'm pretty sure that I'm not. The difficulty is in figuring out whether a non-state "community" ends up taking a similar role to a state or not. Hence why some questions may blur boundaries - you just have to make your view on the actors as well as the actions clear.

And I'm not entirely sure "autocratic communism" isn't an oxymoron.

In regards to the separation of public and private I imagine that would probably fall to the community unit itself to decide.
Thus making everything a public matter, since the community could (presumably at any point) decide to move the boundary one way or the other.

Those are the sort of deeper nuances that I'm trying to figure out with these questions.

Your definition of a free market is decidedly vague and your question seems loaded or otherwise oddly worded.
The free market and competition are connected regardless of what you think can be traded or how society is structured. It involves people having the choice between providers of some economic good and an allocation of resources as rewards accordingly. That creates competition between providers to do a job that will get more rewards, usually by doing a better job than others.

Some socialists wouldn't see a problem with this because it's simply the scale of property (and the implications of that scale) that they have a problem with in capitalism, while others don't like the idea of property at all and therefore don't think that the allocation of reward in direct connection with the provision of the good is valid. The latter type would not be in favour of a free market or competition, and might prefer cooperation as the only valid way for stuff to be created.

End? Voting in what respect? This might imply a level of centralization which does not exist.
Socialist emphasis of shared ownership of resources and/or means of production implies that on any project larger than what can be achieved by an individual alone, people have to work together. Generally socialists don't like the idea of a boss man making the decisions, so things like communes and workplace democracy feature big.

If this idea is extended beyond simply the workplace to consider other resources you use or hold, communal voting becomes an absolutely central part of the life of anyone living in this community. And then from there arises the question of what sort of areas are outside the jurisdiction, as it were, of communal voting and decisionmaking.

How the hell should I know? I am not a factory designer. Is there a point to this question other than setting up the scene for the next one?
Yes. Building a factory can be a big investment of the community's scarce resources. In capitalism the entrepreneur would consult with the individual owners of various items needed and go ahead. That process is well known to all of us.

But with the resources owned collectively and no banks to provide a big sum of capital to start up, the process must obviously be different. So if your world were real, what would be the practical, real-world steps I'd have to take to try and build this factory?

This is largely unrealistic. In real life, the person who came second in the line is simply said "I'm sorry, but we have no more insulin."
I would like to point out my answer in regards to the insulin question start with a flawed premise. In accepting communism I have to reject most of the capitalist scarcity myths. Since we are talking hypotheticals the benefit to a planned economy is that things like this will never happen.
The insulin question is not about insulin. It's about how to allocate resources when it's really crunchtime. If they are owned collectively, both people have the same right to the insulin, but only one person can have it.

Oh, and planned economies have in fact experienced shortages, including of bare necessities. That's quite well documented, so I wouldn't call it a capitalist myth.

Not sure I understand. But if I had a choice between ending the freedom of a serial rapist to live, and violating the freedom of a young woman to be safe, the serial rapist dies. (I'd have killed him for less of a choice actually)
I don’t see how this has anything to do with my communism
Define positive and negative freedoms.
A positive freedom is a freedom to do something. A negative freedom is a freedom from having something done to you.

For example, if I own a car and you want to go to the next town (and we can't agree with each other), we have two options: violate your freedom to go to town or violate my negative freedom, force me to take you but protect your positive freedom to go to town.

A strict capitalist view is that positive freedoms are created by the individual and can't be given by the state, since positive freedoms clash both with each other and with negative freedoms. Negative freedoms, like being kept safe from violence against oneself or one's property can be protected equally for everyone and can therefore be done by a state without involving value judgements on the worthiness of individuals.

Socialists put forward that the freedom from being murdered isn't worth much if you're unemployed and starving. Therefore some intervention to enforce positive freedom (to have a job, or even to have food) can be justified if we're genuinely in favour of freedom.

And from there arise potential clashes, since enforcing positive freedoms can (and very often will) lead to violating other people's freedoms. So the question is: if you had to choose, are you a priori biased towards one or the other?

Briefly - the pursuit of acceptable levels of cheeriness. If people aren't being reasonably well fed and patched up when they get sick, that's pretty sad, to be honest.

Yes. Until Stalin's perversions of the system, the USSR was, in fact, attempting to put into practice Marxist theory. It failed because the lack of oversight within the system allowed the movement from idealistic dictatorship to cult of personality.


Have you ever read anything by Lenin? Stalin didn't "corrupt" his system, the only difference between the two I could find is that Lenin eventually wanted the revolutionary stateto wither away for a purely communistic system.

Lenin advocated the same levels are terror and violence as Stalin - (in How to Organize Competition "The rich and the crooks are two sides of the same metal, they are the two principle categories of parasites which capitalism fostered; they are the principle enemies of socialism. These enemies must be placed under special surveillance of the whole people; they must be ruthlessly punished for the slightest violation off the laws and regulations of socialist society. Any display of weakness, hesitation, or sentimentality in this respect would be a grievious crime against socialism.)

Have you ever read anything by Lenin? Stalin didn't "corrupt" his system, the only difference between the two I could find is that Lenin eventually wanted the revolutionary stateto wither away for a purely communistic system.

Lenin advocated the same levels are terror and violence as Stalin - (in How to Organize Competition )

I have read Lenin, actually. And I find several strong differences between the two: Lenin utilised violence in what he saw as a worthwhile cause, where Stalin utilised violence for the purposes of his self-aggrandizement - a strong difference of motive. Lenin also brought persuasion, diplomacy, and compromise to the table, where Stalin, by and large, found these foreign concepts - a strong difference of tactics. Finally, Lenin, unlike Stalin, usually operated via a consensus of his fellow leaders - a strong difference in attitude.

Finally, while Lenin's written pieces do indeed bespeak a ruthlessness as great as Stalin's, his actions show that he knew when to be ruthless and when to give quarter. This was a lesson Stalin never learned - he ruled by terror alone.

Further, even in his writings, Lenin does not go as far as Stalin did. Consider the very piece you quoted: Lenin is calling for all such "Parasites" to be most closely watched, and to be seriously punished if they violate the law. Stalin simply purged all such "Parasites".

Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?

It was neither. Socialism is about public power. It requires democracy, or it is meaningless. Leninist methods of authoritarian centralized control tend instead to create a new ruling class--and one that is not composed of the proletariat.

Do you think the labour theory of value is correct?

I think that competitive equilibriums produce prices that approximate the cost of production, but not beyond that.

What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value?

I have no objection to such a theory, and never have.

In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.

I don't think individual property rights are illegitimate. I think private property rights are rightfully established by democratic choice, not the law of nature, and can be rightfully changed by democratic rule as a consequence. I think this because I believe in freedom: we should be able to choose for ourselves the rules according to which the society we live in functions. This is, however, subject to equality under law: we cannot deny to others what we do not deny to ourselves.

We should make the democratic choice to have an economy dominated by public instead of private ownership because to be truly free, we must have the capacity not only to choose from the cards dealt to us, but also to participate in the dealing. Economic freedom in capitalism is a false freedom: Coke or Pepsi, one master or another master. Socialism lets us choose what kind of society we want to live in, the content and context of our choices, instead of having it imposed on us by the privileged minority that controls the overwhelming share of the means of production.

That's two paragraphs, not one, and I don't know if either are "short"... sorry.

Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?

Yes. You're missing the import of "use." What is meant is not that if you aren't using your shirt today, someone else can take it. That's perverse. The distinction drawn is between your shirt, whose primary role is for your own use, and your factory, which you need not even ever see to own and gain profits from.

Where does the private sphere end and the public begin?

Somewhere between the house you live in and the factory you own. ;)

Seriously, I'll admit that the lines drawn here are always vague and blurry, but that's the case with a lot of important distinctions. The standard is something like this: if it's something that's truly personal, that's private sphere. If it's something you're using to interact with society, it's within the legitimate realm of public intervention.

Nobody wants government inspectors traipsing through people's rooms to see who's having sex with whom. But that's not a good reason to oppose government intervention over economic matters like conditions of employment. The economy has a necessarily public, non-personal character.

Is there a difference between economic and social matters?

Yes, and even an important one. But the people who want to dismiss, say, heterosexist oppression as irrelevant because it isn't "economic" are full of shit.

How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?

Impossible question to answer. I don't have a clue what "individualism" as such means. There are versions in certain contexts that I agree with, and versions in other contexts that I disagree with.

I believe in "individualism" when individualism means recognizing your self-worth, your inherent dignity as a person, when it means critically investigating the society you live in without assuming that it's automatically right just because other people tell you it is.

But the end for me of any such project is always individuals who are free together, as equals. The individualism that tells us to disregard others, that tells us we can only ever pursue our own private interest, to me contradicts itself by enabling the sacrifice of some people's freedom for the freedom of others.

In recognizing my own dignity and worth, I recognize the dignity and worth of others. The reasons that apply to me apply to them as well. They do not own me, but I don't own them either, and just as my welfare and freedom has intrinsic value, so does theirs. Whatever my personal obligations to them, I am obligated politically to seek a society of equality and freedom for all.

What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back?

Then we talk to him. Or we stop him from taking out to one degree or another (though he is free to leave and work elsewhere). Or we leave him alone and figure he'll get over it.

It depends on a lot of things, like what specific socialist economic model we choose to adopt... I'm open to flexibility in these matters, and trial and error. Nothing ever works exactly as planned.

How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?

The same way you justify any kind of exclusionary property right--we live in a world of scarcity. Is there an implicit objection to communal monopolism here? But most of us envision a wide variety of jobs open to people. People like variety. And nothing about public ownership implies unified management.

If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?

For our purposes, it would work pretty much the way it does now... I'm at least sympathetic to the idea of abolishing prisons, but advancing the argument seems to detract from the main direction of these answers. Hopefully greater economic equality would reduce the graver injustices of our criminal justice system.

Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence?

Land can be owned de jure within a society that has legitimately established private property over it.

What about a private home on a piece of land?

Of course.

Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?

Yes.

Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?

Too general to give a clear answer. (That's true within capitalism, too.) She would certainly be appealing to a public institution for capital, one accountable to standards decided upon democratically by the public. In actually bringing it about, she'd probably have to win the approval of the community in which she decides to build it... though in the final analysis, that may be just a matter of market price, with the "owner" being the community.

If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached?

"We want you to build this machine for us." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about incentives? Then it depends on the existing incentives structure... if we've opted for communism, then we'll try to make the task enjoyable, as we try to make every task enjoyable. If we've opted for a more market-like labor system, we'll probably offer to pay him well.

I myself tend towards communism, but only, as I've emphasized in the past, in the context of broader social and economic changes. And, again, I expect that there would be a lot of flexibility and variation on this and other matters.

What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?

We won't force him or her.

When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions?

This is one of the more difficult questions--indeed, the most difficult of all, I think, as least in non-communist models. I think workers should have a say in the conditions of their labor--working hours, etc. But I also think the project should be accountable to the public standards of the community as a whole (in which, of course, the workers get to participate).

In the ideal communist society, much of this question can be discarded: if labor is done for its own sake, we can expect worker-run workplaces to serve the community on their own. Can we achieve that in reality, as Marx thought? I don't know.

Edit: Wait, is this about technical expertise? There's no reason the workers wouldn't be able to elect a manager (or the community appoint one) if they thought she could make better decisions, or more efficient ones, than them. Delegation is perfectly legitimate. The problem is when legislative power ceases to be founded in the public, and is itself given away on a permanent basis to "representatives" distant from the people.

How are the workers chosen from the community?

More or less the way they are today. From the people who apply.

How are they paid?

Fairly. :)

Again, it depends.

While we're at it, what do you think of money?

Money is a good thing, generally. Even under communism, it would make sense to measure value with money.

What about competition?

Competition is wonderful as long as it doesn't come at the expense of what it should be promoting: free, happy, healthy lives.

I imagine that individuals in a socialist society would compete over everything, because they're human... but in the end, no one would be starving.

Would you say you support a free market?

Certainly not. But market criteria for success should certainly rank highly in judgments about economic decisions. The real issue is that instead of us controlling the market, the market controls us: under market capitalism we do not choose the kind of society we want to live in, and allow market mechanisms in the places they will fit, but instead let markets determine our society for us.

If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies?

God, that's an awful question. Probably randomly. Maybe on the basis of need--whose family is more in need of care?

Does the community have a say?

Not specifically. That would be perverse. But it would probably set the general standard.

Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end?

It "ends" in three respects.

First, substantive political equality must be preserved. Constant majority-minority relations are a false political equality, and would probably mandate secession or some sort of power-sharing system.

Second, equality under law. In principle, what this means is that any voter should be able to will the policy she supports whoever she is--she should be able to say that the policy is acceptable from the perspective of everyone in the society. In terms of practical standards we can enforce, it means that we don't differentiate arbitrarily between people.

Third, constitutional protections for minority rights are important. These derive their legitimacy from the fact that they are themselves enacted by the democratic process. What this means is that there are strong pragmatic reasons for people to support minority rights: they recognize that they will be in the minority sometimes, and if they can enact a general rule that must be followed, they can protect themselves (and in the process everyone else.)

Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?

Yes.

Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts?

Of course. The commune won't be voting on strictly technical questions--who would want to?--though it should be its own choice to delegate.

Do you have a problem with representative democracy?

Yes, insofar as it distances legislators from the people and makes access a matter of wealth and power.

If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick?

Positive. Negative rights trump positive ones. (Though negative rights do not come magically from nature--at least not negative rights over property. They are themselves established by society. Matters like welfare should not be seen as the imposition of positive duties, but rather as decisions as to who has negative rights over what.)

Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity?

As a whole? No. It was an unmitigated disaster for too long.

Would you like to reverse any of it?

I'm more interested in controlling it, in establishing a society where we can make it serve us, instead of one where it sometimes functions to define our choices for us.

I'm something of a primitivist at heart, but I know it won't happen, and I'm not sure it would be a good thing.

How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?

Sentient animals have moral value that must be considered. Ecosystems have no moral value--we are not obligated to recognize their worth--but we might recognize in them an intrinsic value of sorts, sort of like the way we might respect great art independent of the specific pleasure it gives us.

Is there a one best way or organise society?

Certainly not. The rule is freedom, not compliance with my personal preference.

Are you a moral absolutist?

Yes, in that I believe there are objectively right and wrong answers to moral questions. But I also believe that there is often more than one right answer. More important than the particular decision we make regarding what is right is that we make it in conditions of equality and freedom.

Where is the difference between a need and a want?

A need is something without which life is endangered or rendered essentially worthless or near-worthless. A want is things we desire beyond that.

Who can make that distinction?

We can, democratically.

Can people act against their own interest?

Of course we can. We can act with respect to moral duty, with respect to right.

Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?

Force is justified in defense of freedom, and thus to enforce the democratic legislation of collective freedom. It is not justified to make others virtuous. It can't be--you can't force people to disregard their interest, you can only change what their own interest is. You might get them to obey you out of fear, but not out of right.

How big would your society be?

As large as the world. As small as your neighborhood. ;)

The really important thing is that politics are organized bottom-up, not top-down. We begin from the local community assembly at the grassroots level and work up.

How many people would live in it?

Who knows? That's definitely something it's better to leave up to the people involved.

How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled?

Through loose federation, probably. We talk, we cooperate, we probably have some rules for dealing with each other (especially on economic matters), but we try to avoid squashing local autonomy or disrupting the bottom-up principle of political organization.

We will never have a "perfect" anarchy, but we can work towards an approximation.

Would your community have borders?

Yes, but much the same way US states have borders. That's the ideal, anyway.

How do you think we can go about reaching this world?

We? ;)

Within the cultures of material affluence that exist in the West, we can stress how socialism offers us substantive freedom: the capacity to choose the kind of society we live in, which is really the capacity to choose what kind of lives we lead. We can also stress the injustice of the immense inequality in wealth and the horrors of poverty that still remain with us.

Globally, unfortunately, the fundamental question still remains how to create a global economy that can provide for the basic needs of the world's population, and there we can say that socialism offers this prospect through the empowerment of the poor.

Being an individualist, which none of you guys can define, I'll do it for you:

1 the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
• self-centered feeling or conduct; egoism.
2 a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. (kudos to the OED)

In other words, the exact opposite of socialism.

And from there arise potential clashes, since enforcing positive freedoms can (and very often will) lead to violating other people's freedoms.

This is what I deny, most fundamentally. We can only come to such a conclusion on the basis that we have a natural "negative right" to the results of free-market capitalism. But why? All the bases for property independent of social sanction fail. And, ultimately, if we believe in freedom we should believe in the freedom of the individuals within a society to decide for themselves, collectively.

Now, the difficult ethical question--though it is one that is decidedly not political, and either way does not weaken the case for socialism--is whether it is legitimate to violate the product of that collective agreement for the sake of a compelling positive good. In a society that has freely chosen to adopt free-market capitalist property rights, am I entitled to steal a triviality to save someone's life?

I think ultimately (and reluctantly) that the answer has to be "no"... though perhaps the truly moral thing is to steal it, turn myself in, and take the consequences. :)

the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.

I believe in that. Nothing un-socialist about it.

self-centered feeling or conduct; egoism.

I don't believe in that. Probably non-socialist, though not necessarily. There are self-interested reasons to support socialism.

a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.

I believe in freedom for individuals. Therefore, I believe in collective control.

Down with your oppressive categories. ;)

Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?
No.
The only way I believe Socialism could work is if the people have the motivation to work that stems from their Patriotism and love for fellow brethren. In a non-democratic system (and especially in an oppressive totalitarian system), one's motivation to work comes from not getting sent to a gulag. This would be the same motivation as in capitalism, and production efficiency will remain low.

Do you think the labour theory of value is correct?
What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?
Either is inconsequencial to my system.
In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.
It's not that they're not legitimate, is that in a society where overall happiness is attempted to be maximized, there is no need for them.
Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?
No.
Where does the private sphere end and the public begin?
One's home would count as private sphere. Anything else is public sphere.
Is there a difference between economic and social matters?
YES. Individual people deserve the freedom to do whatever they want to in social matters as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Individual people doing whatever they want in regards to economic matters is indirectly harmfull to the rest of society and thus this freedom should be taken away from them.
How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?
Yes, I'm a strong proponent of it. I would just say it is mostly choice of action. Of course this must comply with not harming other members of society. I believe in my proposed society, individualism is not only more strongly encouraged but also more accessible to a person. One can choose to be employed in whatever job he/she wants to. They can spend their free time exploring their true interests without having to worry about the economic factor of living. If they wish to pursue art, they can do so without the economic pressures currently present in the real world. And so on...
What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?
That someone will be sent to reeducation.
If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?
Reeducation/rehabilitation, based on set laws.
Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?
Temporarily in all cases.
Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?
Um, no.
Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?
He presents his idea to a committee. The committee decides whether it's a necessary/promising/important idea and evaluates cost/benefit and so on and then sends directions to the building sectors...
If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?
Wierd situation, but I guess he will kindly be asked to do so because it would contribute to society and hence himself. I don't see why they wouldn't want to take part (evading - but really it's unrealistic. I mean, or he could teach his unique skill to someone else or write a book about it or something).
When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?
A panel of economic experts.
Voluntarily.
About $0 an hour.
While we're at it, what do you think of money?
Shouldn't be in the hands of the populace.
What about competition? Would you say you support a free market?
Competition is frowned upon generally within my nation. Since I have no control over other nations, I can't force upon them my economic system.
But yes, I believe my nation's production will be of high caliber, and since the government makes purchases internal tariffs are out of the question, so I guess tariffs in other countries would harm the business of my nation so ...yes?
If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?
The younger. No.
Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?
The second the majority encroaches on the rights of the minority (all are equal before the law). Yes.
Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?
Economic. No.
If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?
Not clear.
Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?
Yes. No.
How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?
To the extent that the society needs the environment. No it doesn't have any rights. Humans have rights. Higher mammals have very little rights. That's it.
Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?
Yes. Undecided.
Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction?
Not at one clear spot. Society (majority)
Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?
I guess...
Um, no?
How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?
Size is irrelevant. Could be any size.
How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?
Well. Yes.
How do you think we can go about reaching this world?
Start with small group of willing individuals. Ask for tax reductions for a community within a country. Annex communities around. Grow in size.

If you don't mind some input from a decided non-socialist;



Yes. Until Stalin's perversions of the system, the USSR was, in fact, attempting to put into practice Marxist theory. It failed because the lack of oversight within the system allowed the movement from idealistic dictatorship to cult of personality.



The Labour theory fails totally due to its false premise. The value of an item has nothing to do with the labour involved in it's manufacture; the value of an item is solely what someone is willing to pay for it. Supply and Demand is the only system that works, or ever has, or, probably, ever will.



Individual property is totally legitimate. Ownership not only provides for the basis of economy, but also the basis for legitimate taxation.



Cetainly. Ownership of an item is, by definition, the control of the use of that item. It is entirely reasonable to choose to NOT use an item, particularly if there is some gain to be had by doing so.



Yes, there is a difference, but there is also an overlap. Social and economic matters have significant effect upon each other.

Likewise, the public and private are separate items with some degree of overlap. The individual has the obligation to do no harm (or the least harm) to the many, but likewise the many have an obligation to the freedom of the individual.



I consider individualism to be the elvation of the rights of the individual above those of the society. I am most assuredly in favour of it.



If someone can exploit the system - let them. Then try to understand how he did what he did, and if necessary, make changes so that it can be prevented in the future.
However, "exploiting the system" is often doublespeak for simply using the current system efficiently. There is nothing wrong with that.
If a group of people jointly own something ("communally") then they have every right to exclude outsiders.



The rules in a society are it's laws. I see nothing wrong with learned Justices imposing sentences of loss of liberty or loss of property on lawbreakers.



Land may be owned; whether de jure or de facto, the person who holds possession of that land, has the power to prevent others from using it, and reserves it for his own use, owns it. All else is philosophical gibberish.



Certainly. The employer is purchasing the time and labour of the employee for money. Provided both contractors are content with the exchange, the employment is perfectly legitimate.



The person has the idea. He then communicates the idea to investors, who provide him with money to realize the idea, in exchange for either usury or shares in the company. Provided he gets sufficient investment, the person then buys land for the site, hires construction agents to build the actual factory. Once built, the appropriate inner machinery is purchased and installed, workers are hired and initial raw materials are purchased, and legal fees for business start-up are dealt with. Then you start to work to pay back the investment, buy new raw materials, maintain the factory, pay bills, and maybe even make a slight profit.

In the case of a special machine, simply approach the person openly and offer a reasonable fee to do the job. If they refuse, offer a reasonable fee to licence their work. If they again refuse, look for a work-around.

I'll complete this later - need to go.

WOOT FOR TROTSKYISM

Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?
No. It never got past the dictatorship of the revolutionaries (should be proletariat, but I don't think Stalin and Lenin were proles, they just used the proles)
Do you think the labour theory of value is correct? What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?
Wealth is finite. Wealth is based on how much of other peoples time you can buy. If a man has a personal chef, driver, nanny, etc, then he is using up much more than his share of the wealth. Obviously his nanny can't have 4 staff herself.
In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.
They have some legitimacy. Just less than human rights.
Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?
If there is exceptional wastage, such as a person having 3 holidays homes and there are homeless people, then I think some of those unused goods should be used for the common good. ore personal items, clothes, your usual abode, is legit.
Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?
I don;t understand what you are getting at here. If it's about secret police, spying, etc, I think that privacy is important.
What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?
They get their very basic needs, food shelter medical care, access to education and that's it. At some point, I'm sure they'll want a better quality of life and put in more effort. Socialism does not say a Doctor and a guy who chooses to casually surf all day are treated the same.
If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?
The judiciary. Why does it need to be different?
Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?
The government is the employer in a communist system.
Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?
Requests funding. IF his idea is fine,he gets the funding. A bit like now, but the government replaces the role of the bank.
If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?
A silly example, as the chance of only 1 person on the planet being able to make it is tiny. If that person doesn't want to, then find someone else, or train someone else to build the machine.
When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?
An administrator. A job like any other. With cash. A socialist or communist system doesn't need to be totally devoid of cash. If I want a play station and someone wants an X-Box,t hat can happen. We don't have to be all totally equal.
What about competition? Would you say you support a free market? A free market involves savvy people taking advantage of suckers. A free market needs much more control than most have on them in the current world.
If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?
As someone else said, this situation shouldn't be allowed to arise. If it did, the one with the most to give to society.
Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?
Democracy is just the tyranny of the majority over the minority. :-) Sadly, except in certain critical areas, the majority have to have the right. No-one can honestly judge that they are smart enough for their decision to override the majority. This is why education is critical. Make sure the majority are not racist, to stop things like Rwanda happening.
Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?
Socialism should come through democracy. If it is forced on the populace, it will fail. Unless people have been indoctrinated from a young age about the evils of socialism, most people think it is a good idea. It is one of the great successes of the US elite and their media, that they have so many average people convinced it is wrong.
If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?
No idea what you mean here? If it's a case of negative freedoms are Thou shalt NOT {murder}, Thou shalt not {jay walk}, and positive freedoms are Thou shall have free speech, thou shall be able to spit in public, then I think it is a case by case basis, as the 4 examples I have shown, most people would choose to suspend 1 positive and 1 negative.
Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?
Mostly yes. The benefit of nuclear technology, I'm not sure is worth the cost. I don't knw enough of the benefits of nuclear medicine, to truly judge that though.
How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?
It is a resource that should be assessed like any other. No company would run it's factory in to the ground to make extra profit 1 year, just to make a loss the next 12. The environment is the same. As soon as you can't ship off the cost of externalities (like the environment) then companies would treat the environment with the respect it deserves.
Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?
No. Different societies need different systems. I think every society can care about it's fellow humans, more than being greedy and selfish though.
Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction? A need is just that. Without it you die. Sustenance and shelter. Wants that are nearly needs are companionship and happiness. Next level down, tools to succeed. Education and social support. We can keep going. Bottom of the list. World Of Warcraft account. :-)
Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?
Many often do. Some people would say getting married is acting against one's interest. :-) It would have to be obvious. The kind of things mentally ill people do.
How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?
That's not really in my control. If it got too small, I would try to make incentives to have more kids, and increase immigration. If it got too big, I'd limit immigration, and limit childbirth.
How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?
By diplomats. I imagine so. Even if I didn't want borders, I think my neighbours might.
How do you think we can go about reaching this world?
The 3rd world sets a good example, by revolting against it's 1st world masters, telling the WTO to stick their debt up their XXX, and actually try to help their people. If all the 3rd world worked together, they have the resources to succeed. After this good example happens, the already socialist leaning governments of the EU, go further socialist, and the US is marginalised.

I'm not after links or textbook definitions here. I'm trying to make sure that in the future I will be able to put a face to the name, as it were, so I can effectively talk to people in terms they understand. I also think that many socialists/mutualists and anarchists get off too lightly around here because they spend more time attacking than defending, simply by virtue of rarely making positive statements alá "It should be like this" instead of "It shouldn't be like this".

So from resident leftists from A to Z, here are a few questions (and if anyone has suggestions on what to add, that'd be good too).

Certainly, here's my best attempt at these. Quickly browsing through the thread, it amazes me how much of a difference there is between various socialists on NSG. I disagree quite a bit with many of them on various things.

Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?

It was an attempt at socialism. Unfortunately, it showed once and for all why any attempt to impose perfection upon humanity is doomed to fail. And I don't think it was a valid way to reach socialism, because I don't feel that 'the ends justify the means'. I feel that the means become the ends, that very few (if any) humans are noble enough to take power and then voluntarily give it away.

This, I feel, was Marx's greatest mistake. Too much concentration on the state imposing socialism.

Do you think the labour theory of value is correct? What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?

Value is, I feel, subjective. I may value something more because I've put a lot of work into it, or because the person who gave it to me made it personally. I generally find the most value in things is from the time and feeling that is in it. So I don't find mass produced trinkets valuable, but a handmade thing that is a lot less objectively nice, but means a lot to me because of who made it and why they did, would be more valuable.

In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.

Quoting Kropotkin:

The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all. All things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth.

All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products," any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you build."

All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as "The Right to work," or "To each the whole result of his labour." What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!

I agree with this, basically. I lean a little more towards a gift economy though, so I really advocate each passing on everything they do not need to those who do.

Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?

Sort of. It's a hard question. I don't feel that hoarding is justified. How about we say that something, instead of being exclusively yours, is mainly used by you. Each then, as a mark of respect, doesn't just walk off with that which another mostly uses, even if they could. I'm sort of evading the question, but does this make sense?

Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?

Blurry. Each case must be judged on its own merits, that's part of the core of my anarchist feelings. So I'd lean towards deciding that for each thing based on the specifics there, and not making massive generalisations. However, just to do that a bit. I feel that private and public are completely linked. Nothing is purely private, if we live in a society. And nothing is purely public, if we are individuals. So I'd say there isn't really a line.

Similar with economics and society. The economic system affects society, and the society affects the economics. That's most of the reason I like the idea of a gift economy---I feel it would have generally positive effects on society.

How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?

Extreme concern for the self, above all others. Linked with selfishness. Would probably tend to lead to a very fragmented, combative society. Of course, societism* in it's purest form would lead to a very cohesive, unified society, at the expense of all degree of individuality. Hence, I wouldn't be a major proponent of either, but instead favour enough concern for society to get along and work effectively, and enough concern for the individual for each to be themselves.

*A word I've just coined. Basically, the opposite of individualism.

What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?

We are working together for the good of all of us. If you don't want to help, you can fuck off somewhere else, and do your own thing. We'll even be nice enough to provide you with tools, probably. Basically, play nice and we're all happy. Otherwise, good day to you.

If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?

Those affected, by consensus. Obviously, by advocating anarchism, I can't actually be speaking of rules and enforcement as such. Instead, those who refuse to cooperate with the group will be asked to leave, at the decision of the group. This isn't quite a perfect answer, and not quite what I'm wanting to say, but I'm not sure how to phrase it better.

Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?

Only occupied temporarily, of course. That falls right out of the idea of no right for anyone to steal from all by claiming private property that is exclusively theirs. Some semblance of personal space will (hopefully) naturally emerge from the inherent respect of each person for other people.

Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?

People can rightfully work together. However, I agree with the Zerowork movement on modern employment system. We have instituted a system that prevents one from dying of starvation, while guaranteeing one will die from boredom. I don't like employment because of the connotations of authority, basically.

Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?

They tell other people about the idea, who may agree with them or not. Improvements might be suggested, other ideas brought up. Those who agree with building the factory and working in it then get to work, collecting materials from others who have them, asking others for help if they need it, etc.

If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?

Well, someone heads over and says "Hey, we're working on a factory to make sweaters, and we'll need a machine to do X. Could you give us a hand with it?". If xe's feeling helpful, xe then does, or else xe doesn't. If xe won't, then they can do something else, or wait for xir to finish xir current project, or whatever, really.

When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?

Everyone affected by a decision gets to make it. What other fair system is there? The workers are chosen as being everyone and anyone who wants to help. Because I generally feel that a gift economy is the way to go, they are paid by: commendations, congratulations, etc, and by first pick, as it were, of the new production. So people help out, and the products are given to them. They then pass on the spares to others, and so on.

While we're at it, what do you think of money?

The institution by which private property, land ownership, and all the issues of capitalism became possible. I'm against it.

What about competition? Would you say you support a free market?

I support a really really free market: http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/reallyreally.php

If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?

This is the sort of question I hate, and this is also, unfortunately, the area in which capitalism is the best. Deciding how to allocate scarce resources. Anyway, I'm really not happy about it, but I think all those involved would have to come to an agreement about who was worth more to the group. This is the sort of question I really hope wouldn't have to come up though.

Ah, alternately: I'm not advocating a centralised distribution system or anything of the like, so the decision wouldn't really need to be made like that. Rather, someone would have some insulin, as you've specifies there's a bit. This person will then give it to someone, probably the first they find. Alternately, they'll work out some way of making the decision. Importantly, they act autonomously, and take responsibility for their decision.

I'm not happy with this either, but I think it's a slightly better way of doing it.

Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?

Consensus democracy. The right of the majority to outvote the minority ends as soon as the minority is greater than zero.

Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?

Yes. No human can be adequately represented by another person, because that person will always be different. Also, no group of representatives can ever legitimately have the authority to order any other persons to do so anything. So they could meet for discussion, I suppose, but not actually enforce any sort of decision.

If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?

Could you give me a few examples of both of these please? I'm still only learning. I'd probably lean towards protecting persons, when the choice comes down to it.

Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?

Not inherently a good thing. I'm generally in favour of technology, but various parts have, I feel, done more harm than good.

How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?

The environment is a resource, yes. As such, it's use must be carefully considered, with an eye on the future. So we don't cut down and burn the whole forest, but a few branches at a time, to ensure that we're well provided next winter.

Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?

Well, I think there is, and that way is anarchism. However, I'm not infallible. It may not be correct, in which case we'll find that out and try something else. Humanity is near infinitely adaptable, we'll get there eventually.

Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction?

Each person, for themselves. Who else can legitimately make it?

Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?

Yes they can, and it is never justified to force another human into a course of action like that.

How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?

The entire world, ideally. I'm not advocating any sort of centralised distribution system though, don't get me wrong there. I advocate smallish groups, probably 20 to 50 or so in size. These are roughly self sufficient, and pass on extra resources that they don't need to others who do. So the essentials are produced everywhere, and extra goods, luxuries, and the like are passed on from where they are made to those who do not have them.

How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?

Well, by talking to them. No solid borders, live on the land you need, but don't abuse the resources. For people who don't want to cooperate, we simply don't pass material on to them, and they can survive for themselves if they wish.

How do you think we can go about reaching this world?

Dispose of the state, of that apparatus by which the rich steal from the poor. Then we'll see what happens. I half agree with Hakim Bay, and the idea of a Temporary Autonomous Zone. Maybe we can't ever have a long term society that will work without collapsing into government. If so, let us overthrow it each time, live in the revolution.

Try and answer truthfully and in the spirit of the question. I don't plan on arguing with you here, it's simply for future reference and to avoid confusion. If anything's not clear, I'll try to explain it, just ask. Thanks.

No problem. I'd just like to make a couple things clear here though. First is that I reserve the right to change my position as I learn and discuss more. This can't be taken as guaranteed for all time. Secondly, please remember that what I advocate and lean towards is in no way required to be similar to anyone else.

And, ultimately, if we believe in freedom we should believe in the freedom of the individuals within a society to decide for themselves, collectively.

Please explain the bolded part.

I also think that many socialists/mutualists and anarchists get off too lightly around here because they spend more time attacking than defending, simply by virtue of rarely making positive statements alá "It should be like this" instead of "It shouldn't be like this".

i don't think this is the case. at least it didn't used to be, during the era of the truly epic 'the anarchist thread' and its sequels. of course, i got bored with doing terribly much exposition on the topic here after like the fourth of those, so maybe i haven't been paying attention since and have just been viewing other threads in light of background that may no longer be widely shared.

as a general rule, i typically am quite close to S on most things. And due to my inherent laziness, and the fact that he gave a longer answer already, "what S said".

There are self-interested reasons to support socialism.

yeah, greedy desire to take for yourself that which others have labored to produce.

Please explain the bolded part.

the idea is that we just aren't isolated individuals and property relations were not handed down by god, and therefore freedom necessitates belief in collective decision-making on such issues within a framework of equality and autonomy.

yeah, greedy desire to take for yourself that which others have labored to produce.

Did you even read what all the posters said in this thread? What part of "to each according to their labor" do you not understand?

the idea is that we just aren't isolated individuals and property relations were not handed down by god, and therefore freedom necessitates belief in collective decision-making on such issues within a framework of equality and autonomy.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

Please explain the bolded part.

If we believe that people should be free, then that surely applies to how they regulate their social relations. To assert that there are rules--like capitalist private property rights--that they must accept is to deny them the choice of what kind of society to live in.

If you mean how they decide collectively... well, democratically, of course.

yeah, greedy desire to take for yourself that which others have labored to produce.

Or to take for yourself what you have produced and been deprived of. ;)

yeah, greedy desire to take for yourself that which others have labored to produce.

your implied theory of both production and obligation leave much to be desired in terms of mapping on to both reality and morality.

If we believe that people should be free, then that surely applies to how they regulate their social relations. To assert that there are rules--like capitalist private property rights--that they must accept is to deny them the choice of what kind of society to live in.

If you mean how they decide collectively... well, democratically, of course.

Thanks.

Did you even read what all the posters said in this thread? What part of "to each according to their labor" do you not understand?

Yeah, great idea, but greed is an inherent part of human nature for us to overcome. It isn't tied to outside things like personal property. Likewise, slothfulness will always corrupt a pure socialist system because there will always be more who will do less than they can because they are expecting others to take up the slack. This makes the producers call for an authority to require equal labor from all, which creates a totalitarian system.

Am I too late to see Andaras post in this thread? You know it's gonna be fricken hilarious.

Yeah, great idea, but greed is an inherent part of human nature for us to overcome.

Technically, I'm philosophically committed to the idea of moral duty. We should never let our actions be determined by self-interest. But I'm willing to admit that we are only human, and a society where we are always disregarding our wants and sacrificing our happiness for the sake of moral obligation doesn't look very nice to me either.

Where the capitalist argument breaks down, though, is in its assumption that the only way to have happy, human lives is within the framework of material greed. I don't see any reason to believe that. Indeed, there seem to be many ways of seeking happiness that are more natural and human. We enjoy innovation, creativity, even many kinds of labor for their own sake, for the enjoyment it brings us within the activity, not for any reward--unless, of course, we happen to live in a society dominated by such rewards, where the pressures are to maximize them.

As far as "altruism" goes, there's a strong human element to that too. Is it unnatural to feel affection, sympathy, compassion--to care for others and act for their welfare? It seems, if anything, that a society that puts material advantage over everything else undermines our capacity to seek happiness in those ways, to reconcile our own interests with those of others by deriving happiness from their happiness.

It isn't tied to outside things like personal property.

Surely private property plays a role? By having our welfare subject to the market, we are perpetually insecure... which means we are always striving for more.

Likewise, slothfulness will always corrupt a pure socialist system because there will always be more who will do less than they can because they are expecting others to take up the slack.

To the extent that "slothfulness" is natural... why should we be beating it out of people anyway? If being lazy is important to our natural happiness, then let's have a society where we can be lazy, instead of one where we are chained to the machine of accumulation.

It's noteworthy that your entire post completely ignored what Trotskylvania pointed out--namely, "to each according to their labor." Material incentives can remain perfectly well in socialism. At least for some time, in some circumstances, they will have to. Many of us, like me, ultimately look to a society where we can largely move beyond that necessity... but whatever you think of that hope, you cannot discount the possibility of a less radical socialist model on that basis.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not. The difficulty is in figuring out whether a non-state "community" ends up taking a similar role to a state or not. Hence why some questions may blur boundaries - you just have to make your view on the actors as well as the actions clear.
No, you are confusing them. Communisim is the absolute community control over everything. Socialisim is the public or community influence over everything. Think of Socialisim as more a middle ground between Communisim and basic Capitalisim (And basic Capitalisim and Socialisim occupying the middle between Communisim and a complete free market).

And I'm not entirely sure "autocratic communism" isn't an oxymoron.
Um, either you have no idea what Communisim is, or you have no idea what an oxymoron is. An autocratic communistic state, like the USSR under Stalin, was the control of the system in the hands of a single community representative with absolute authority. It's the other side of the scale from democratic communisim. Remember, communisim, socialisim, capitalisim, all economic systems. Democracy, autocracy, both political. One (economic) is how things are done, the other is how decsions are made.




A positive freedom is a freedom to do something. A negative freedom is a freedom from having something done to you.

For example, if I own a car and you want to go to the next town (and we can't agree with each other), we have two options: violate your freedom to go to town or violate my negative freedom, force me to take you but protect your positive freedom to go to town.
Tough shit for me if you own the car. If I'm bleeding to death and the hospital is in the next town tough shit for you, we're going. But for a sunday drive, tough shit on me, I can get my own car or find something else to do.

A strict capitalist view is that positive freedoms are created by the individual and can't be given by the state, since positive freedoms clash both with each other and with negative freedoms. Negative freedoms, like being kept safe from violence against oneself or one's property can be protected equally for everyone and can therefore be done by a state without involving value judgements on the worthiness of individuals.
That would be a socialist viewpoint as well, since it's political and not economic.

Socialists put forward that the freedom from being murdered isn't worth much if you're unemployed and starving. Therefore some intervention to enforce positive freedom (to have a job, or even to have food) can be justified if we're genuinely in favour of freedom.
First, I hardly see how having food (and thus being alive) is a "positive freedom" under your definition. It's existance. Being denied food kills you. If you deny yourself food, that's your choice, but being denied access to food, that is not.

And from there arise potential clashes, since enforcing positive freedoms can (and very often will) lead to violating other people's freedoms. So the question is: if you had to choose, are you a priori biased towards one or the other?

A breif look into positive/negative liberty seems to contradict some things you have said. Namely, from what I read, positive liberty, or freedom as you call it, is a big thing in socialisim, which you claim the counter to.

I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to think you're less serious about understanding others beliefs on this, and instead using it as a veil to hide your own misconceptions behind. As you clearly assume socialisim=communisim=Stalin=USSR, which is faulty logic at best.

Yes. Building a factory can be a big investment of the community's scarce resources. In capitalism the entrepreneur would consult with the individual owners of various items needed and go ahead. That process is well known to all of us.

But with the resources owned collectively and no banks to provide a big sum of capital to start up, the process must obviously be different. So if your world were real, what would be the practical, real-world steps I'd have to take to try and build this factory?

First, you haven't done your homework. Even communist nations have banks.

Second, this assumes resources are particularly scarce on a nationwide level.

Third, in todays world, no individual person builds a factory, corporations build factories.

So, in the real world given a socialist government and society, the factory would be built just like in a capitalist nation, with the only difference is that the money comes from either the state, or from the state owned bank.

The insulin question is not about insulin. It's about how to allocate resources when it's really crunchtime. If they are owned collectively, both people have the same right to the insulin, but only one person can have it.

Oh, and planned economies have in fact experienced shortages, including of bare necessities. That's quite well documented, so I wouldn't call it a capitalist myth.

The Capitalist Method: Whoever will pay the most for it, and damn those who are too poor.

The Socialist Method: Whoever needs it most.

In fact, I'd like to see you answer these questions. What would you do, if you are a capitalist, when two customers need a vital resource? But of course the only true capitalist approach is to make as much money as possible, so it's not much of a challenge.

A positive freedom is a freedom to do something. A negative freedom is a freedom from having something done to you.

For example, if I own a car and you want to go to the next town (and we can't agree with each other), we have two options: violate your freedom to go to town or violate my negative freedom, force me to take you but protect your positive freedom to go to town.

A strict capitalist view is that positive freedoms are created by the individual and can't be given by the state, since positive freedoms clash both with each other and with negative freedoms. Negative freedoms, like being kept safe from violence against oneself or one's property can be protected equally for everyone and can therefore be done by a state without involving value judgements on the worthiness of individuals.

Socialists put forward that the freedom from being murdered isn't worth much if you're unemployed and starving. Therefore some intervention to enforce positive freedom (to have a job, or even to have food) can be justified if we're genuinely in favour of freedom.

And from there arise potential clashes, since enforcing positive freedoms can (and very often will) lead to violating other people's freedoms. So the question is: if you had to choose, are you a priori biased towards one or the other?

That's a straw man argument and is therefore invalid. I don't know of any socialists who think that it doesn't matter if someone is murdered if they are poor, and that is an obviously backwards argument.

It would be a capitalist state that says "Poor person? Obviously they are poor for a reason. They can just stay in this dangerous environment, and if they get stabbed, oh well, they should have gotten a job."

However, a socialist government would say "This is a citizen, and doesn't deserve to sit out here on the street where he could be stabbed in the hobo on hobo gladiatorial matches. Here is an apartment, it's not much, but we aren't made of money. Now start looking for a job."

But to answer your question, for something insignificant like a drive to the next town, the person who wants to go isn't dieing, so no should make the other person drive them. Although it would be nice for a neighbor to help out someone other than themselves, but if the person simply wants to go to the next town, that's a personal problem.

Now, if it were a scenario like this: You are starving, and you go up to a rich man's house to ask for food. He doesn't want to give you food, because you smell.

Then that would be a different situation. But still, it wouldn't be solely the rich person's responsibility. The community would put together money, or offer him a job, in order to help him get back on his feet.

Being an individualist, which none of you guys can define, I'll do it for you:

1 the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
• self-centered feeling or conduct; egoism.
2 a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. (kudos to the OED)

In other words, the exact opposite of socialism.You're a hermit, or aspire to be?

An autocratic communistic state, like the USSR under Stalin, was the control of the system in the hands of a single community representative with absolute authority.

How can an absolute dictator be a "community representative"?

Communism embodies common ownership--and there is no common ownership if there is autocratic rule.

Remember, communisim, socialisim, capitalisim, all economic systems. Democracy, autocracy, both political.

Capitalism is perhaps a "purely" economic system, in that any political system can coexist with free-market capitalism, but socialism and communism, insofar as they represent an attempt to expand democracy into the economic sphere, are not so clearly so.

Perhaps you could have a genuinely democratic economy with a political dictatorship... but especially considering the fact that economies and governments tend to interrelate, that would probably be a tension-filled arrangement that wouldn't last very long.

How can an absolute dictator be a "community representative"?

Communism embodies common ownership--and there is no common ownership if there is autocratic rule.
He doesn't have to be chosen by the community to say he represents it. In the case of autocratic communisim, it becomes such that the community is the autocrat, and all those below him are, in effect, his posessions. It's like serfdom or worse, except the autocrat actually puts some effort into his posessions. In effect the autocrat is the community in and of itself, as defined by an autocratic model of membership in that "community", the state in question, being the autocrat.

I didn't say it worked perfectly, or was even remotely close to ideal communisim, but it's there.



Capitalism is perhaps a "purely" economic system, in that any political system can coexist with free-market capitalism, but socialism and communism, insofar as they represent an attempt to expand democracy into the economic sphere, are not so clearly so.

Perhaps you could have a genuinely democratic economy with a political dictatorship... but especially considering the fact that economies and governments tend to interrelate, that would probably be a tension-filled arrangement that wouldn't last very long.

I don't see how capitalisim is a democratic economy. Not everyone gets a say, only those able to pull it off get a say. In which case capitalisim would be a form of meritocracy, not democracy. In actuality, I would have to say a socialist economic model might actually be more democratic then free market capitalisim, as it includes the population and provides even minimal capital, unlike free market systems where capital is not an inherent right of the person, and only the few are able to attain any real ammount of it.

I'm not sure whether or not I classify as "socialist" as such, but I share a lot of left wing economic views, so I guess it counts for the purposes of this. So, "Forward, workers of the world" and all that…


Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?

Economically, yes. Industry and most key infrastructure was under state control and publicly owned, as were all major assets of strategic value. I personally disapprove of “class warfare” culture, however. See my later answers for more on that.

Do you think the labour theory of value is correct? What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?

I’m not an economist so am not really in a position to go into detail on this, but having briefly studied both ideas a few years back I think neither is entirely correct, for market prices are affected by more than simply either supply and demand, or the efforts and resources sunk into the production of the object. Both, however, undeniably play a part as far as I understand them.

In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.

Non-socialist viewpoint alert. I would separate here the idea of large scale property rights from “personal” property rights. I.e. acres and acres of good productive land as opposed to an Ipod or underwear. I believe that all major assets are inherently and ultimately the property of the state (and, in the final sense, the institution of the ruler). Without the establishment of peace, law and order and infrastructure, brought about by the acts of the ruler - conditions that allow these assets to be accumulated - the individual would either not possess them, or they would not exist. One can enjoy certain rights to this property (as a tenant or leaseholder has certain rights) but it is not their property at the end of the day, they merely have the right to utilise it unless an emergency situation demands otherwise. In addition these assets need to be in the hands of the state to be deployed effectively how and where needed to maintain the best quality of life for the society as a whole.

Do you think exclusive personal (e.g. your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?

Again my view is that you have the rights to use these things. Id’ go further and say that practically speaking some of these things are effectively “yours”, since anything else is patently absurd (i.e. your underwear can’t reasonably be taken off you). However larger things such as homes, cars etc. again I think fall into the situation described above. They are yours for as long as there is no other pressing need for them. If a single person is occupying a 5 bed house and there is a large family who only have access to a 1 bed apartment, for the sake of the quality of life of the family, and for the peace and quality of life of society as a whole (no one wants to live in a society full of overcrowded tenements) the homes should be swapped around, if for some reason there is no other way a home can be made available for them.

Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?

Yes. What people do in their own homes socially and their private social lives is no business of the state. Matters that do not impact upon the law, order, peace and overall quality of life of the nation should not be of concern to the ruler of that nation. Unemployment, poverty, inadequate infrastructure and services lead to chaos and disorder. Whether or not someone, in the privacy of their own home, likes it from behind is not likely to lead to panic on the streets.

How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?

Individualism is a nice way of saying "I don't care about society see no problem screwing over everyone else to get my own way and do what I want. F**k you". Contrary to popular myth, you, the individual, are not the centre of the universe. Cultural etiquette and tradition are mechanisms that allow us to interact with the world around us in a set of rules that are mutually understood, so as to avoid misunderstanding and to ensure peace, civility and order are maintained. Individualism (in excess) rejects this in favour of our own self-defined rules, regardless of others, and so I oppose it.

What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?

Because although the effects of my policies can be seen as left wing I don't believe the property is owned by the people of the nation. Ergo if someone is abusing their access to these resources provided to them, then I see no reason why their access should not be restricted, for to allow it to continue would only sow the seeds of discontent, animosity, and further corruption, generally undermining society and creating a culture of apathy and starting a downward spiral.

If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?

Judges are good to me. Punishments should be harsh to act as a deterrent to others, and laws perceived as being fair. People will only obey the rules if they have faith in them being both fair and in seeing them enforced, so that they do not feel that crime is rewarded with leniency.

Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?

It can be owned de facto, but not de jure by a private person. Land can only truly belong to the ruler of that land.

Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?

Yes. If someone agrees to serve someone in return for money, that's up to them. However if one person has a large number of people in their employ, then there is a risk to the rights of the workers being infringed upon, and the growth of the employers power leading to abuses, for they are not responsible for these people. Ergo there must be a strong enforcement of laws concerning workers rights, and large scale employment projects should be in the hands of the state. (strategic industries should likewise be state monopolies)

Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?

It depends on the scale of this factory. Assuming it is a large scale enterprise then my process would be as follows:

* Submit idea as petition to relevant state body.
* If approved man is employed by the body to oversee factory operations upon it's opening. Resources and design staff are assigned to the project for construction by the agency responsible for industrial development.
* Factory begins operations. Man is paid to oversee day to day operations of the project and products go to state for distribution, sale or export as needed. If this a for profit project then a share of the profits would be awarded to the man for his foresight.

If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?

Since the man who came up with the idea would have the best understanding of the project in the first instance it would be best for him, with the authority placed in him as manager of the project, to approach the designer directly. If he did not want to co-operate he could ask the relevant department to ask (which could offer greater resources than he could command only from his project). For a minor project like this I would leave it at that. If it were a strategic project I believe the person with the skill should be required to do one of three things:

1. Show a willing worker exactly what to do and train him
2. Help find a suitable worker elsewhere willing to do the work on his behalf (assuming the state, for some reason, hasn’t already done this?)
3. Do it himself

Option 4 would be prosecution. You know you are the only person able to do this and to refuse to help in any way at all is dishonourable and unacceptable. I find that in reality it is highly unlikely that only one person would have a skill. Some skills are in short supply but few are absolutely unique to the degree that no one else at all could do it, even if not quite as well.

When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?

The project ultimately belongs to the ruler (the role, not the individual), although the relevant ministry would handle most aspects of allocating resources and liasing with other ministries, except on a project of great importance.

During construction most workers would be from ministry work gang (I.e. from those responsible for industrial development) so although working on his project, would not be hired by the man who had the idea, but rather just working on his project. Once up and running he would have more say as long as he was running the factory in accordance with the rules set by the ministry whom is responsible for this area of business, and the labour law. He would be in modern parlance "site manager" whereas the ministry would be the "directors" and the ruler, the "CEO".

The workers wouldn't be conscripted in any way. People would apply for the jobs as they do now, and would be chosen based on their suitability for the roles for which they apply. They would be paid for their work in currency.

While we're at it, what do you think of money?

Money is a convenient system of exchange. However I think there should be inherent value in money (i.e. coin of actual mineral value) as this helps prevent events like the Asian financial crisis.

What about competition? Would you say you support a free market?

In non-strategic non-essential services I see no issue. However strategic services and industries are too important to be left to such elements.

If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?

It is decided based on the needs of the society. Whose death would have a bigger impact on society in terms of dependents, family and social ties etc. For example, an adult with family (partner, children, parents) would have priority over a child (no dependents, partner). A functioning medical system, however, is one of the key infrastructures of any nation, and it would be a matter of national importance to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to make such situations as rare as humanly possible. An unhealthy population suffers from a lower quality of life, and is more likely to lead to a breakdown in law and order and eventual rebellion and social collapse, if the situation is ignored. Triage is not an ideal solution for your people. They deserve better.

Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?

I believe that the views of the populace must be heard by the government, but I do not think majority decisions are necessarily the best. Given the size of modern nations a system of elections to elect representatives to a parliament is one way of having the views heard, but I would not give a parliament the powers the current UK ones has to dictate policy, except in exceptional situations. Non-socialist view alert. This is the job of the ruler (Monarch, in my system) taking into account views expressed by Parliament, and the advice of his (or her) council.

Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?

Most things would be decided this way. Though I favour parliament being able to submit proposed acts, they should not be able to force them to be actioned, unless there is a compelling situation. The problems with representative democracy:

1. It leads to the government appealing to the lowest common denominator, rather than attempting to advance and progress towards the finest things the nation can achieve. Arts and culture suffer most from this.

2. It leads to division, tribalism and sectarianism by playing to divisions in society rather than unifying it as many groups uniting under one leader. This is also why I dislike “class warfare”

3. It leads to short term policies, quick fixes and un-necessary U-turns, inconsistent ideologies and changing policies for no good reason, other than to create “clear space” between one party and another. This is incredibly wasteful and counter-productive.

If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?

It would depend entirely on circumstances and what specific freedoms we were talking about. However given that people generally are told NOT to do something for a more specific reason than the right to DO something, I would probably rather restrict a positive one.

Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?

Good: Medicine, jet travel, word processing/personal printing, freezing (food preservation), agricultural mechanization, television as a means of tuition, computing as a means of tuition and cultural revival, the bullet train.

Bad: Mobile telephones, information fog, television as a means of entertainment, cheap personal firearms, the car, disposable culture.

It's too close to call. It's easy to hate technology (I do) but the advances it has given us we often take for granted, particularly medicine and availability of information. This morning I looked up some plates from Description de l'Egypte from my computer. I could not have done this 50 years ago. It would have been incredibly hard to find what I wanted. Technology has also undermined and degraded our cultures. It is too close to call.

How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?

The environment is a resource upon which our lives depend, ergo we cannot dismiss issues that affect it for they affect us. The survival of the people depends upon the survival of the environment. All planning and decisions should be taken for the very long term, both in terms of environmental, financial, developmental, social and cultural needs and impacts.

The environment as a whole doesn’t have rights per se, but it’s welfare has to be considered as part of long term human need. Humans need a breathable atmosphere in 10,000 years time. Their rights to drive Range Rovers and burn coal now may need to be sacrificed for that long term need. You may see that as a sacrifice for the sake of the environment, though I would not.

Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?

I think there are several possible solutions. All have drawbacks. My model has it's drawbacks, but they are ones I personally would more happily accept that those of other models. I believe my model is good and tested. I understand other people believe the same thing about their model.

Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction?

It is a relative line depending on the state of society as a whole. In Britain a person on the street hasn't eaten since yesterday. He needs food. If he were in Darfur and the person next to him hadn't eaten in three days, he wants food. It is something that has to be determined by the state of the society at that point. As in this country now, these things are determined by the government (means testing).

Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?

People can act against their own interest, but that is not always bad. They may be acting against themselves for the good of many others, which is a commendable act. However if they are acting in a destructive manner, as a last resort I would resort to force, once other avenues have proved unsuccessful. I would in the first instance rely on education and, to put it bluntly, indoctrination and propaganda to try and create a culture where consideration for other people, and society as a whole, is ingrained in the culture of the people. This is the most powerful weapon of all. But yes, the threat of force is always necessary. Fists and velvet gloves, sadly.

How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?

I don’t' think culling people is a good policy. ergo, society is as big as the nation. If the nation has a billion people it is a billion people. If it has 500,000 it is 500,000. Ideally, in a modern society with advanced medicine, where the risk of mortality in adult and child life is low, society should aim to keep the population low though birth control and use of adoption for childless couples, to reduce strain on services and the environment, and prevent a population explosion.

How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?

There would be borders, and armed forces would protect them from hostile nations. Provided plentiful work is available and the infrastructure able to cope, migrants seeking work and better economic conditions would not be turned back. People seeking to promote political causes which could harm diplomatic relations with our nations however, would not be welcome. Good relations with other nations are more important than harbouring dissidents. Interaction with other nations would be through the normal diplomatic channels. Ambassadors would be chosen by the ruler, ideally with a focus on those who are eloquent, cultured, confident yet calm and peaceful, reflecting a nation that is likewise.

How do you think we can go about reaching this world?

Abandoning our obsession with short term gain and focusing less on money and more on our people and culture. We can do great things is we stop worrying about how much profit we can make, and more on what we can achieve through effort. We could have the best universities, the best museums, the best architecture, the best artists and musicians and the most beautiful cities if we started to think about what we want to have in 50, 100 or 500 years, and not if we can get back our money within the year. Do not discount cost completely, for everything has to be paid for, but keep it in proportion to what we wish to achieve.

Ultimately, we also have to realise that because the majority of people want something does not necessarily make it right or desirable, and to realise that to make a more pleasant world over all, we may have to accept not always getting our own way and not always being our own boss. It does however, take a huge cultural change (but not in the sense of “revolution” or a “brave new world”), and a lot of propaganda.

Try and answer truthfully and in the spirit of the question. I don't plan on arguing with you here, it's simply for future reference and to avoid confusion. If anything's not clear, I'll try to explain it, just ask. Thanks.

Your welcome. I hope my answers give you the insight you want.

He doesn't have to be chosen by the community to say he represents it.

Yes, he does. Otherwise he doesn't represent it at all. He claims to represent the community, but really is just a fraud.

In the case of autocratic communisim, it becomes such that the community is the autocrat, and all those below him are, in effect, his posessions. It's like serfdom or worse, except the autocrat actually puts some effort into his posessions. In effect the autocrat is the community in and of itself, as defined by an autocratic model of membership in that "community", the state in question, being the autocrat.

Um... that requires a very flexible definition of "community." I think it makes a lot more sense to say that the "community" includes everyone, and the autocrat is ruling over the community.

The community is not defined by the political system.

I don't see how capitalisim is a democratic economy.

It isn't. I was speaking of socialism and communism.

Yes, he does. Otherwise he doesn't represent it at all. He claims to represent the community, but really is just a fraud.
And herein lies the problem. You are approaching this from your frame of thought on the situation, what, as the OP put, "your socialisim" is. I am approaching this more arbitrarily. While I agree personally he is a fraud, and doesn't really represent the community, the reality is, if he has the authority and ability to enforce his will, he can be whatever he wants, including the representative of the community. This is what I'm getting at, not how it looks in a view from the concept of individual and human rights, but as a view from how it's interpreted in practice. And in practice what an autocrat says, is what is.


Um... that requires a very flexible definition of "community." I think it makes a lot more sense to say that the "community" includes everyone, and the autocrat is ruling over the community.

The community is not defined by the political system.

It does indeed require a very flexible definition of community, I was hoping you'd pick up on that being what I was using.
Likewise, remember that an autocrat ruling over a community, when dealing with other communities, is still a representative of that community. Wanted or not.



It isn't. I was speaking of socialism and communism.
Disregarding the communisim part of the above, then I believe we agree on that.

And herein lies the problem. You are approaching this from your frame of thought on the situation, what, as the OP put, "your socialisim" is.

No, I'm not. There are plenty of perfectly socialist forms of economic organization that I would oppose--say, a socialism inspired by Christian religious fanaticism. But they're still socialist. Autocratic rule is not.

the reality is, if he has the authority and ability to enforce his will, he can be whatever he wants, including the representative of the community.

No, he can't. He's just the ruler. He can make other people say he represents the community, but he doesn't actually represent the community.

And in practice what an autocrat says, is what is.

Nonsense. Autocrats do not dictate reality. They can use their power to shape society to their will, but they can never do other than rule. The moment they begin to actually represent the will of the community, they are no longer autocrats.

Likewise, remember that an autocrat ruling over a community, when dealing with other communities, is still a representative of that community.

That's what he's taken as, in foreign affairs. In no way does it say anything about his domestic economic policies.

A dictator who controls everything in the economy is more akin to the epitome of the monopoly capitalist than to anything socialist.

Soheran I think we're using the concept of representation, in this context, differently. So I will define it (In hopes that you will too define your use, or point out where we conflict) so that we can continue this and hopefully you might see what I have been getting at.

As I have been using the term, the representitive of the community speaks for the community as a whole on how it acts, whether through brutality or kindness, chosen or not. In this capacity, the ruler is the representative, as he defines the community through rule, and as he situates the "head" of the community. I do not mean this in the context of actually represnting the views of individuals of the community or the community from a bottem-up approach. I am sure there is a better word then representative I could have used, but tonight I don't care to look it up.

I'm not after links or textbook definitions here. I'm trying to make sure that in the future I will be able to put a face to the name, as it were, so I can effectively talk to people in terms they understand. I also think that many socialists/mutualists and anarchists get off too lightly around here because they spend more time attacking than defending, simply by virtue of rarely making positive statements alá "It should be like this" instead of "It shouldn't be like this".

So from resident leftists from A to Z, here are a few questions (and if anyone has suggestions on what to add, that'd be good too).

Was the USSR socialism, or a valid way to reach socialism? If not, why?
- It was and it will always be, to me, in practice. The USSR had one of the very first ´communist/socialist´ forms of governments in the world.

Do you think the labour theory of value is correct? What about a market-based supply and demand theory of value? Why?
- It was, mainly because it was searching for an equality that was none existent at the time.

In a short paragraph or less, explain why you don't think individual property rights are legitimate.
-That´s the thing, I do think everyone´s entitled to own private property.


Do you think exclusive personal (eg your clothes, home etc) property is legitimate, even the item isn't in use?
- Yes, I do think exclusive personal property is legitimate. If I work for it, it rightfully belongs to me.


Where does the private sphere end and the public begin? Is there a difference between economic and social matters?
-This question could be answered the same way you answer where does my rights end and the other person´s begin. Simple, private sphere ends where the public sphere interferes. Although economics and social matters are different they go in tandem because economy always affects society. You have a good economy, society prospers. You have a bad economy, society gets stuck.

How would you define the term "individualism", and are you a proponent of it?
-Independence and and self-reliability. Yes, I´m a proponent of it, I think that in order to achieve total adulthood and be recognized as a competent human being you need to be individual.

What happens if someone is out to exploit the system, takes out but never puts back? How do you justify a communal, exclusionary property right?
-Revolution, no doubt, will ensue. Communal, exclusionary property right, how to define it without getting into thin ice? I don´t think it´s justifiable in the first place.


If people break a rule, how would they be punished? Who would make the decision on how and why?
-Punishment should be administered according to the crime. If it´s a minor infraction, minor punishment. Not ´an eye for an eye´, though. As to who would decide on how and why, a group of peers. That would be the best alternative.


Do you think land can be owned de jure, or only occupied temporarily by presence? What about a private home on a piece of land?
-De jure. Same applies to private piece of land.

Can anyone rightfully be employed by someone else?
-Yes, they can be.

Say someone has come up with an idea for a factory that makes sweaters. What does the process for making it happen look like?
-It depends on the scale and magnitude of the idea.


If the factory requires a special machine that only one person can build, how will that person be approached? What happens if he or she doesn't want to take part?
-Same as if the machine could be built by a thousand other builders. If the person refuses, then one must search for alternatives.


When building and running the factory, who makes the decisions? How are the workers chosen from the community? How are they paid?
-The decisions should be made by the person most qualified to. Workers should be choses according to their individual area of expertise. They will be remunerated on performance and level of educational achievements. Of course, exhorbitant sums of money would not be paid on account of just education alone. Merits would be recognized and dully awarded.


While we're at it, what do you think of money?
-Money is necessary but shouldn´t become the center of life.


What about competition? Would you say you support a free market?
-Yes, I do support a free market. It´s only just to both the big corporations and the small ones.

If two people have diabetes and there is only enough insulin to save one until a new delivery arrives, how is the decision made on who gets it and who dies? Does the community have a say?
-The decision must fall upon the affected parties. No one else should get involved. The only way I would permit the community to have a say is if the death on one of these two individuals affects the workings of it directly.

Where does the right of the majority to outvote the minority end? Do you believe in voting as a means of making decisions for the group, for that matter?
-It ends when there´s an obvious abuse of power. Everyone has, should have a voice. Yes, voting is crucial to maintain a well oiled group concensus.


Are there any economic or social matters you wouldn't leave to a public vote, but for example to a panel of experts? Do you have a problem with representative democracy?
-Of course. If the voting requires a certain expertise, by all means, I would leave it to the experts. Democracy, like every other form of government is a fairytale. But it seems to work better than the others. I do have a problem with representative democracy because it´s not real. It doesn´t represent what the entire community wants, but what a ´certain´ sector wants.

If you had the choice between violating a positive freedom or a negative one, which would you pick? Why?
-Negative freedom. It´s more justifiable than violating a good one. Plus, it would be better overlooked.

Has technological progress been a good thing for humanity? Would you like to reverse any of it?
-It has had it´s pros and cons, like every other human activity. I would try and control pollution.

How are environmental concerns considered when making allocation decisions? Is the environment a resource, or does it have rights that trump the wishes of the community?
-That one depends on the country. In Spain´s case, the environment is always taken into consideration where allocation is concerned. It has rights.


Is there a one best way or organise society? Are you a moral absolutist?
-No, there´s not an only way to organize society. Societies vary as much as colors and people do. Nope, I´m not a moral absolutist, I can bend rules.

Where is the difference between a need and a want? Who can make that distinction?
-Needs are the items indispensable for life. Wants are just items you would like to have but that, in lacking them, your life isn´t affected. That distinction falls to the individual in question. What may be needs for one person can be wants for another.

Can people act against their own interest? Would it be justified to use force against them to change that?
-Oh, yes, they do act against their own interests sometimes. No, force shouldn´t be administered here. Free will. But an intervention is justifiable only if the actions of this one person start affecting the functioning of the community.

How big would your society be? How many people would live in it?
-I would like a moderate society, not too small and not too big. As for how many people would live in it, I would let that same society decide by itself.

How would relations with other countries/communities/societies be handled? Would your community have borders?
-Diplomacy with some show of moderate force is, to me, the alternative to handle relations between countries/communities/societies. As for borders, unfortunately yes, it will have them. They´re sadly necessary.

How do you think we can go about reaching this world?
-Beats me, but honest conversations tend to have a good effect. Maybe that could be approached as a way to start communicating with our world better. And of course, we should try to look farther than what our particular horizons show and try to better understand our world neighbors. We need to discard fear because we don´t understand the logics of a particular country and strive to relate to it or understand it better. It all rests in the verb, try.


Try and answer truthfully and in the spirit of the question. I don't plan on arguing with you here, it's simply for future reference and to avoid confusion. If anything's not clear, I'll try to explain it, just ask. Thanks.

My answers are bolded.;)

I don;t understand what you are getting at here. If it's about secret police, spying, etc, I think that privacy is important.
Well, most socialists think that economic matters, since they pertain to scarce resources, are necessarily communal matters. Even if I don't interact with anyone else and build a house using wood from a tree, then I have still create an external effect on the rest of society due to the fact that they can't use that tree anymore, or the space where my new house is.

So, as most people said, economic matters can't be private. If however economic and social matters are closely connected, then that means that the privacy of social matters must also be questioned. Indeed, as far as our labour and skills are concerned, those are clearly economic factors, but their privacy seems to be an exception, which leads on to another question...

A silly example, as the chance of only 1 person on the planet being able to make it is tiny. If that person doesn't want to, then find someone else, or train someone else to build the machine.
The idea is that the guy's skill is a scarce resource that is of great value to society. If it was a pile of bricks needed to build the factory, few people here would argue he should have the ability to stop the build by denying the use of the bricks.

But several people already said that if he didn't want to build the machine, the factory won't be built in this way. Only Abju has so far argued that he should be forced to help, or that he doesn't have the right to refuse. So that implies a difference between the economic factor "brick" and the economic factor "labour" and even that there are economic matters which are legitimately private and up to private choice rather than social.

I support a really really free market: http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/reallyreally.php
Hmm, that raises more questions than it answers. What if I have a Plasma TV and everyone wants it...if this is a gift economy sort of thing, would I be making the decision? What gave me the right to do so?

Indeed, a question with gift economies in general: property rights still exist, don't they? People simply taking things is frowned upon (and you said it could lead to people being asked to leave), so they need to be given things. And the givers come into posession of these goods presumably through making them - and so the making of the good created some sort of property right. Is the justification for that similar to a capitalist one, making a gift economy simply capitalism without money?

Could you give me a few examples of both of these please? I'm still only learning. I'd probably lean towards protecting persons, when the choice comes down to it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13551724&postcount=9 Look near the bottom.

Money is a convenient system of exchange. However I think there should be inherent value in money (i.e. coin of actual mineral value) as this helps prevent events like the Asian financial crisis.
It wouldn't, but that's another story.

Your welcome. I hope my answers give you the insight you want.
I think you might enjoy having a read of Giovanni Gentile. Probably not all of it, but I see certain parallels.

No, you are confusing them. Communisim is the absolute community control over everything. Socialisim is the public or community influence over everything. Think of Socialisim as more a middle ground between Communisim and basic Capitalisim (And basic Capitalisim and Socialisim occupying the middle between Communisim and a complete free market).
I tend to stick to the marxist definitions. They're the most well-known ones and I'm least likely to get into arguments about them.

Um, either you have no idea what Communisim is, or you have no idea what an oxymoron is. An autocratic communistic state, like the USSR under Stalin, was the control of the system in the hands of a single community representative with absolute authority.
But it wasn't what Marx, or indeed Stalin, would have called communism. Communism is the whole "fishing in the morning, writing in the afternoon and playing music with the family in the evening" idea that Marx wrote about: no scarcity, no need, no government - utopia.

It's the other side of the scale from democratic communisim. Remember, communisim, socialisim, capitalisim, all economic systems. Democracy, autocracy, both political. One (economic) is how things are done, the other is how decsions are made.
In which case you're remarkably close to my view of "power" as being either violence or non-existent.

That would be a socialist viewpoint as well, since it's political and not economic.
It clearly isn't. The car is an economic resource. So is money - if the state takes taxes from me it can be seen as violating a negative freedom (the freedom from having my property taken away) in order to create a positive freedom (the freedom to have a roof over your head even if you don't have a job). You might argue about whether taxes are actually my property and therefore seek to eliminate the negative freedom part, hoping one can create positive freedom out of nothing, but as far as this matter is concerned you'd be avoiding the question.

A breif look into positive/negative liberty seems to contradict some things you have said. Namely, from what I read, positive liberty, or freedom as you call it, is a big thing in socialisim, which you claim the counter to.
Huh?

"Socialists put forward that the freedom from being murdered isn't worth much if you're unemployed and starving. Therefore some intervention to enforce positive freedom (to have a job, or even to have food) can be justified if we're genuinely in favour of freedom."

What contradicts this statement?

I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to think you're less serious about understanding others beliefs on this, and instead using it as a veil to hide your own misconceptions behind. As you clearly assume socialisim=communisim=Stalin=USSR, which is faulty logic at best.
Don't let my signature scare you. I actually am genuinely interested in understanding, and as the responses here (and your talk with Soheran) would already have shown you, I'm perfectly justified in asking people to define what exactly their stance is - there are few ideologies more poorly defined than "socialism", and that's only made worse because most socialists on here are of the libertarian kind.

My definitions I take from Marx, yes. That's not a value judgement, it's an acknowledgement of their widespread use and the lack of usable alternatives. The rest I'm leaving to you guys to explain. The question about positive v negative liberties has arisen over time from the dozens and dozens of discussions I had here with various people on the subject of what exactly freedom constitutes. I felt that a mere definitions of the terms by themselves wouldn't actually help people answer the question when they asked about it, so I pointed out the context, as derived from those discussions.

No sinister motives here.

First, you haven't done your homework. Even communist nations have banks.
That depends on what your communism looks like. Hence the question.

Second, this assumes resources are particularly scarce on a nationwide level.
It doesn't have to be on a nationwide level. A factory requires land, bricks, mortar, electricity and so on and so forth. Since there isn't an unlimited amount of those (regardless of how big the area is), there is a need to consider costs and benefits in the process of planning and building the thing.

It's a question about entrepreneurship in your society. Entrepreneurs have ideas for combining resources in a way that creates benefits to them and others. If there is no individual who owns the resources, then the entrepreneur can't approach that individual to make a case and the process must be different. So it's a question about entrepreneurship, innovation and also what life would be like in practice.

In fact, I'd like to see you answer these questions. What would you do, if you are a capitalist, when two customers need a vital resource? But of course the only true capitalist approach is to make as much money as possible, so it's not much of a challenge.
Yes, that's the market process for allocating scarce resources. It's not much of a secret, nor is my support for it. It brings with it the benefit of a certain amoral approach to the question.

The question is: if not that process, then which one? Hence my question and the need to either say "flip a coin" or reveal some moral judgement process. Though many people just seem to take the utilitarian approach, which is a cop-out in my view.

That's a straw man argument and is therefore invalid. I don't know of any socialists who think that it doesn't matter if someone is murdered if they are poor, and that is an obviously backwards argument.
That's not what I said. Obviously not being killed is just about as fundamental a negative liberty as it gets, and comparing it to the freedom to read a magazine wouldn't be much of a challenge.

The question on whether someone should be allowed to steal to achieve a certain goal (and there's gotta be a cut-off somewhere: stealing to get food, stealing to put your kids to school, stealing to buy a car, stealing to buy a gold ring) can be.

I tend to stick to the marxist definitions. They're the most well-known ones and I'm least likely to get into arguments about them.

But it wasn't what Marx, or indeed Stalin, would have called communism. Communism is the whole "fishing in the morning, writing in the afternoon and playing music with the family in the evening" idea that Marx wrote about: no scarcity, no need, no government - utopia.
Well if it helps your understanding, as far as I'm concerned Marx was an idiot. That's my personal thought on it.

In which case you're remarkably close to my view of "power" as being either violence or non-existent.
Pretty much.

It clearly isn't. The car is an economic resource. So is money - if the state takes taxes from me it can be seen as violating a negative freedom (the freedom from having my property taken away) in order to create a positive freedom (the freedom to have a roof over your head even if you don't have a job). You might argue about whether taxes are actually my property and therefore seek to eliminate the negative freedom part, hoping one can create positive freedom out of nothing, but as far as this matter is concerned you'd be avoiding the question.
Well then I'll simply say I don't believe in the concept of there being two different freedoms. I believe in the singular concept of liberty, and that liberty has many levels on which it works, for the individual, the family, the group.


Huh?

"Socialists put forward that the freedom from being murdered isn't worth much if you're unemployed and starving. Therefore some intervention to enforce positive freedom (to have a job, or even to have food) can be justified if we're genuinely in favour of freedom."

What contradicts this statement?

I have never met a socialist, and on whatever level you believe I am I do not personally believe, that it is possible to be free from being murdered. It is not a free or unfree choice. You have the freedom to not want to be murdered, to defend yourself, but not to be not murdered. So the whole point is moot.


Don't let my signature scare you. I actually am genuinely interested in understanding, and as the responses here (and your talk with Soheran) would already have shown you, I'm perfectly justified in asking people to define what exactly their stance is - there are few ideologies more poorly defined than "socialism", and that's only made worse because most socialists on here are of the libertarian kind.

My definitions I take from Marx, yes. That's not a value judgement, it's an acknowledgement of their widespread use and the lack of usable alternatives. The rest I'm leaving to you guys to explain. The question about positive v negative liberties has arisen over time from the dozens and dozens of discussions I had here with various people on the subject of what exactly freedom constitutes. I felt that a mere definitions of the terms by themselves wouldn't actually help people answer the question when they asked about it, so I pointed out the context, as derived from those discussions.

No sinister motives here.

There's always sinister motives, even if you don't believe they are sinister, they are. But that doesn't matter.

The end result is this, to help you along and understanding. No one's ideological grouping actually fits (Unless they blindly follow whatever they are told, in which case they're idiots). everyone sees things, believes things, and approaches things drasticly differently. My approach to everything tries to take this into account as much as possible, and instead of pushing what I believe, trying to get others to realise it for themselves without me ever explicitly stating it. To this end I believe that the group as a whole and the individual are inseperable in so far as survival goes for the temporary. And my "socialisim" revolves around that singular concept, that the individual must, when nessecary, work for the benifit of the group. And likewise, the group must, when nessecary, work for the benifit of the individual. The man who makes millions as a CEO should help the community by putting that money into public works, hospitals, public infastructure and health and welfare. And likewise the community, with the public systems at their disposal, must put that into use for the individual when he is bleeding to death on the sidewalk. It's a symbiotic relationship, that is my socialisim.

You might argue about whether taxes are actually my property and therefore seek to eliminate the negative freedom part, hoping one can create positive freedom out of nothing, but as far as this matter is concerned you'd be avoiding the question.

No, you wouldn't be.

Society has every right to decide for itself on how negative rights are to be allocated--and that means it can regulate and redistribute property as it sees fit. Not by saying "You must give of what is yours", but by saying "This is not yours"--or "It is only yours under these conditions."

I, as an individual, cannot violate your negative rights, even in pursuit of positive goods. I am not entitled to steal from you to help others. But society is entitled to redefine property rights, because that is not stealing... property rights have no origin independent of society.

Thus making everything a public matter, since the community could (presumably at any point) decide to move the boundary one way or the other.

Those are the sort of deeper nuances that I'm trying to figure out with these questions.



Allow me to rephrase then. I do not have an overarching prescription for the division. It is my belief that the individual community – upon its inception – would make such a definition. So the boundary could be anywhere yes – I imagine if this intruded to personally onto an individual they would move to another community.




The free market and competition are connected regardless of what you think can be traded or how society is structured. It involves people having the choice between providers of some economic good and an allocation of resources as rewards accordingly. That creates competition between providers to do a job that will get more rewards, usually by doing a better job than others.

Some socialists wouldn't see a problem with this because it's simply the scale of property (and the implications of that scale) that they have a problem with in capitalism, while others don't like the idea of property at all and therefore don't think that the allocation of reward in direct connection with the provision of the good is valid. The latter type would not be in favour of a free market or competition, and might prefer cooperation as the only valid way for stuff to be created.


In my system I see free markets developing. But no person can hire another and so production is kept localized. If there is a demand for whatever it is that you’re doing beyond what you can provide with your own hands I foresee people looking to apprentice under you and mimic your style. People can choose your production right up until you can’t make anymore of it. I simply see scarcity in this system as a non-starter so the question of a free market is relegated to that of an inconsequential nature.




Socialist emphasis of shared ownership of resources and/or means of production implies that on any project larger than what can be achieved by an individual alone, people have to work together. Generally socialists don't like the idea of a boss man making the decisions, so things like communes and workplace democracy feature big.

If this idea is extended beyond simply the workplace to consider other resources you use or hold, communal voting becomes an absolutely central part of the life of anyone living in this community. And then from there arises the question of what sort of areas are outside the jurisdiction, as it were, of communal voting and decisionmaking.


The question end was meant sarcastically. I can foresee the community’s will being first and foremost in most all things. The reason that I suggested that the level of centralization we are envisioning might be different is because in a system where everyone’s opinions are taken in an weighed I don’t see individuals being having to be overruled on a regular basis. If people are constantly being ruled against I don’t expect them to identify with the community any longer and would stop participating in the townhall meets – whereupon the community looses its control over the individual.




The insulin question is not about insulin. It's about how to allocate resources when it's really crunchtime. If they are owned collectively, both people have the same right to the insulin, but only one person can have it.

Oh, and planned economies have in fact experienced shortages, including of bare necessities. That's quite well documented, so I wouldn't call it a capitalist myth.


What do you think I am calling a capitalist myth? Do I deny that there is a limited amount of stuff on the planet? No. Do I believe that there is a scarcity of the necessities? No. Not in the least. I believe that primary reasons people don’t get their medicine, food, water, shelter, etc is not because there is only so much of it and that it must be doled out according to a preordained set of priorities but because the system under which we currently operate has no impetus to actually dole these necessities out unless it is somehow profitable to do so. In regards to the documented scarcities of resources in planned economies – so? I thought you were interested in establishing and defining a hypothetical position.

You are asking me to answer a question once you have given me the assumption, I reject the assumption. The entire purpose of having this system is so that we can assign resources based on need. If you are asking me about a specific point in history, or going to establish a context we can answer this again. Otherwise this question does not relate to “ MY socialism “




A positive freedom is a freedom to do something. A negative freedom is a freedom from having something done to you.

For example, if I own a car and you want to go to the next town (and we can't agree with each other), we have two options: violate your freedom to go to town or violate my negative freedom, force me to take you but protect your positive freedom to go to town.

A strict capitalist view is that positive freedoms are created by the individual and can't be given by the state, since positive freedoms clash both with each other and with negative freedoms. Negative freedoms, like being kept safe from violence against oneself or one's property can be protected equally for everyone and can therefore be done by a state without involving value judgements on the worthiness of individuals.

Socialists put forward that the freedom from being murdered isn't worth much if you're unemployed and starving. Therefore some intervention to enforce positive freedom (to have a job, or even to have food) can be justified if we're genuinely in favour of freedom.

And from there arise potential clashes, since enforcing positive freedoms can (and very often will) lead to violating other people's freedoms. So the question is: if you had to choose, are you a priori biased towards one or the other?

Once again this question shouldn’t apply to my fully functioning hypothetical. If we are talking about transitioning from a real world system towards my hypothetical then I would have to say that I am biased towards positive freedoms. Again the entire goal of the system is so that conflicts like this will not arise. I don’t want to devalue your argument by attacking the analogy but I am at a loss to express it. Supposing the community decided that going to town is a positive freedom that requires protection I should imagine that those who feel strongly about the issue would work to see its protection. So rather than forcing you to drive Joe Blow to town the community would have those who wanted to drive Joe Blow drive him.

The entire purpose of having this system is so that we can assign resources based on need.
Yes, and if the need of two people is the same, then we need another way of assigning them. By you guys answering the insulin question I can get a hint what that other way might be.

Again the entire goal of the system is so that conflicts like this will not arise.
And if that's the case, then your answer to the question would involve explaining how that is. You said that ideally people will enforce others' positive freedoms voluntarily since they voted for it. That means that no negative freedom is violated because no one needs to be forced to do anything.

But to try a hypothetical in which someone would have to be forced: Suppose you have a person who is a capitalist at heart, and who happens to still live in the area in which your system developed. He's going to town meetings but keeps getting outvoted. He doesn't identify with the system. But he also doesn't want to leave his home, so he stays. He gets vegetables from his garden, and when a sudden comet strike hits the community's warehouse his vegetables happen to be the only food left.

So now there are people who need food, which would be the enforcement of a positive freedom. There is a guy who does not consider that worthwhile by itself, and who prefers his negative freedom not to have his vegetables stolen. Would you rather want to see the person's choice and individual freedom protected, or is the community justified in using force of some form to get the vegetables?

And assuming you pick the latter, at what point would things switch over and the capitalist would have the right to keep the good? And to get back to the insulin question - what if the capitalist needs the vegetables to survive himself?

I think a consideration of the enforcement of negative v positive freedom can tell a lot about the reasoning and motivation for the system someone advances even if that person may never have taken the time to formulate it.

Hmm, that raises more questions than it answers. What if I have a Plasma TV and everyone wants it...if this is a gift economy sort of thing, would I be making the decision? What gave me the right to do so?

Indeed, a question with gift economies in general: property rights still exist, don't they? People simply taking things is frowned upon (and you said it could lead to people being asked to leave), so they need to be given things. And the givers come into posession of these goods presumably through making them - and so the making of the good created some sort of property right. Is the justification for that similar to a capitalist one, making a gift economy simply capitalism without money?

Yes, true. I suppose what I borrow most from a gift economy is the attitude it involves, that of saying "I'm not directly getting something out of this, but you need it, so you can have it". In the form described in that CrimethInc piece, I see it as a way of subverting the traditional capitalism for more interesting ends.

The main reason for a gift economy idea is it seems to be the only way of organising a communist system without a central government to coordinate things. Each person produces what they can, be it music, or housing, or ingenious devices, and passes them on to others who need them. Those who won't join in with the giving, have no part of the recieving.

If necessary when working on a smaller scale inside a capitalist system, a group can quite reasonably sell on what they don't need, and use the results to buy other stuff they do. As other groups also adopt this, they can begin to freely give and recieve between themselves, without needing to resort to money.

So yes, whoever is currently in possession decides where it goes next. But if one person is simply hoarding material, then the rest can and will stop giving to them. Call it subverted capitalism, if you like.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13551724&postcount=9 Look near the bottom.

Thank you.

Now, each particular case must be judged individually. So it would depend why he wants to go to town, and why you wish to refuse. Of course, that's presuming you 'own' the car anyway. If you're not using it, for instance, then he would probably be perfectly justified in using it to get to town. If you are, then he still might be, depending on the reasons. I don't claim to have some sort of blanket rule that will solve all problems.

Hello there.

It's a bit presumptious of me to barge into this thread but I think Neu Leonstein thinks of me as one of the resident socialists, so I'll just pop a paragraph of explanation for him below:

I'm not a Socialist, I don't have any strong beliefs that you would term positive. I critisise your Libertarianism because I believe it wouldn't work and can articulate the reasons why a lot better than I can the reasons why I believe Libertarian Socialism also wouldn't work. I believe that, depressingly, the system we're in is probably not too far from the least worst system that is available to us. I agree with both sides that our system is horribly flawed but I see greater flaws in both radical solutions.

I do hope the Libertarian Socialists are right though. That would be great.

It wouldn't, but that's another story.


Pls explain how, out of interest. If one unit of currency has, say, 5 grams of gold in it's coin as physcial worth, then no one is going to sell that coin for a value below the value of 5 grams of gold...

(Also, though I neglected to mention it, it's kind of a moot point since I believe exchange controls are neccessary, though I still also think a gold standard is neccessary as an additional protection)

Pls explain how, out of interest.
Well, the Asian financial crisis was caused by currency pegs (and crappy lending practices), which are basically artificial prices. If you make money out of something valuable, it may not necessarily do much by itself. Banks would still lend against the cash people deposit, betting that not everyone will want to get cash out at the same time. The transaction value of money will still be more important than the physical value of it. There may be a floor below which prices/exchange rates wouldn't fall, but all people who hold cash would do at that point is destroy all your money and turn it into something else.

There are a few ways one can prevent something like the Asian crisis from happening: you can float your currency (as Thailand did eventually, and it got off relatively lightly), you can prevent trade in your currency (which obviously severely hurts your trade, and has implementation issues, as Argentina learned) or you can have so much reserves that you won't have to abandon the peg, which is what China is aiming for.

But the transaction (or speculative) value of a bit of currency must be greater than the physical value of it, otherwise people will just destroy the currency and trade the gold itself. The reason the gold standard was a bit different back in the days wasn't that money was made of gold, it was that the reserve requirements were very different - governments were only able to print money that was backed in gold, and I believe banks were only able to lend money that was backed in gold. So money markets worked very differently, and returning to that would basically entail the elimination of the majority of the world's money which obviously has a bit of a disruptive effect.