- Capitalism and Alternatives -

No, it wouldn't.

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist party, UK ) on July 20, 1999 at 15:06:35:

In Reply to: Re: Yes it would. posted by DonS on July 20, 1999 at 01:27:00:

: (Don): I fail to see why abolishing money will increase voluntary work. It seems clear to me that money is a much better system than any barter system.

No, not Barter, free access, people produce goods, for free, which then anyone can take a share of, no money, no restrictions.

:I fail to see why socialism must be moneyless, democratic, or international.

If its not democratic, its not social, if its not world-wide, its not social, if its not moneyless, it won't work.

: (Don): Assuming "the tech is there", it still doesn't work, because there are to many issues to be decided for the majority to decide each and every one. If we delagate to some subgroup, we still end up with some defacto government.

Why not delegate to several subgroups, all of whom are recallable, all of whom meet in public and are open to public scrutiny, all appointments made democratically.

People would vote on what efects them- so workers in one factory would vote on that factory and its conditions, people in a community would vote on teh prod8ce they need and teh work to be done, etc. Not every issue effects every person.

:Who counts the votes? I prefer the minimal republican nation-state, with the capitalist economic system, myself.

Elected delegates, and votes can be done by show of hands (secret ballot being a sign of tyranny), so everyone can see how many votes there are, or sonmething- fokllks have sufficient nouse to see these things through.

: (Don): Some administrative class is still required, to count the votes, and enforce the decisions.

No, not at all- is a capitalist elected to a municipal board anyless a capitalist? If people are elected into posistions, that are recallable, and have short time limits (I even would accept election by lottery- like Jury service, for some posistions) then they will not form a different class- their economic interest being the same as everyone elses.

:Who decides what we will vote on?

Truye democracy means everyone can move for a vote- unions allready deal with this through 'Composites', where several branches put forward similar motions, which can be merged into one- it is possible to manage it.

:Will everyone vote on whatever their heart desires?

They'll vote on what effects them.

: The former would be an administrative nightmare, since everyone will voice their own unique concearns.

No, because most conserns will go to grass roots group meetings, and most concerns will be group concerns (work conditions, schedules, etc.).

:Someone would have to sort it out, and they would no doubt force their own outlook on the outcome. The latter suggests some controlling authority decideing what issues can be voted on--yet another way of determining the outcome.

No, because the final matter comes to teh ballot, and all officers are removable.

As for tyranny of teh masses, thats a battle cry let out by the economic minority, whose interest lies in not being exproriated by the majority.- since thre wiould be no economic minorities (everyone sharing a class interest, no nations, etc. there would be no stable minorities, just differences of opinion.

: (Don): How come it can exist world-wide but not in a nation-state?

Because nations exist within a world-wide economy, so socialism will have to be a world-wide economy too.

:It seems to me the natural state of affairs is for the "smaller communities" to band into competative groups to gain an advantage.
But since they're not competing, and tehre is no advantage to be gained, they won't.

:It is not at all clear why they should have an incentive to all work towards this socialist ideal . . .

Because its in their best interests, because otherwise free access ends, and their quality of life diminishes.

: (Don): By abolishing the producers, all will starve.

I meant, production would be by the consumer, the split would end.

: (Don): Here in the US, it seems clear to me that the rich get rich by catering to the demands of the majority. I mean, for Christ sake, the movie industry is driven by teenage consumers. The majority of consumers are not rich. The rich minority may have a higher per capita impact, but the big cash cows are what the people want. Hence crappy TV, the light truck market, jetskies, minivans, ATCs, hunting stuff, and other low-brow stuff popular with us working class types.

And such things are well within their pocket, but devcent food, housing, clothing and medical care, is not in their pocket- nor can we forget the influence of the advertising industry in manufeacturing wants.

: (Don): Have you heard of crdit cards?

Same difference, then you are constrained by your credit rating.

: (Don): If I have free access to goods, why should I work?

1:For pleasure.
2:For pride.
3:For your freinds and familly.
4:Because you know that you need to to ensure you keep getting things for free.

:And if I do decide to work for personal enjoyment, why do you think the things I produce would add value to your system? And if I decide to produce out of greed, why wouldn't I market my goods on a blackmarket capitalist system?

Well, the latetr is simple, free goods would undercut any price you cared to name, as for tehf ormer, you'd have to use your good sense for that.

: (Don): Right now, I have free association, unless you have some other definition for *that*. Free labor? Do you mean: no compensation for labor?

No, because I can only work for capitalists, and once I have a job, I can't do anything to jeopordise it, or lose it, or move, easilly, to another, my freedom is contrained by my employer. I meant both no compensation, and that labour would be entirely voluntary, a free act, not the act of a wage-slave.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup