- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on May 06, 1999 at 15:28:25:

In Reply to: Warum? posted by Red Deathy on May 06, 1999 at 13:19:02:

: Likewise C1 could walk into C2 and start to improve/use their facilities- freedom of movement between communes necessarilly means this (and freedom of association is a fundamental freedom), because teh communes must not be exclusive, anyone can join, and thus share in the goods, but, as everyone must recognise, they have a need to ensure that production continues so that they ay go on sharing.

How do you enforce that everyone must recognise it? Many will simply not follow it. If C2 are abusing C1s productivity by freeloading how do you stop it? If some people decide that the rewards of not working are the same as working but at less personal expense (time and effort) then they are exploiting the producers.

: 1:People who took without working would be fairly unpopular anyhow.

but there is no provision from stopping it happening, nor from 'raids' of smiling 'sharers' taking goods and disappearing back to their own non-productive commune (thus not caring about popularity in C1)

: 2;work and the need to contribute would be seen both as a necessary and a natural part of life, if these people want socialism to continue, they must help out, otherwise C1 would just stop working.

Tada!!!! You've got it.

: : I can see why people individuate then.

: Why?

So as not to be pushed into the C1 situation.

: No, I am saying that everyone, so long as they have contributed to the best of their abilities (and from what you were saying C2 were doing their best, but not as well)

Trying hard to farm and making no food means no food. Results no sweat. If that seems 'unfair' then how?

: then they ahve a right to share in the mutual produce. The people of C2 would need to work lest socialism and the world of free access falls apart.

Tada!!! youve got it again.

Youre answering my assertion that socialism will not come about, and will not work if it by chance did.

: Just as much as the members of C1 must co-operate to make it work, and since C1 and C2 are part of the same commmune, the same logic applies. C1 could, perhaps be self sufficient materially, but that would mean cutting themselves off socially from the rest of the world.

Somthing they might be happy to do.

Follow Ups:

  • Aha! Red Deathy Socialist party Uk May 07 1999 (1)

The Debating Room Post a Followup