- Capitalism and Alternatives -

stability

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on September 06, 1999 at 17:55:12:

In Reply to: Indeed. posted by Red Deathy on September 06, 1999 at 15:51:35:

: Indeed, and is predicated upon such and structured to account for this.

Except I dont think it is structured for what actual people will do, but for what may happen if nigh on 99% of participants absolutely agree with it all.

: The point os socialism is that it universalises and communalises self-interest: 'The condition for the advancement of each is the advancement all'. If there is no possibility of gaining advantage over otehrs, then such things as the state, war, etc. will not occur.

I can well imagine that in a utopian sense but but not as an actuallity. The existence of a post revolutionary global socialism would not mean everyone will always agree to it, its stability is no more assured than any other 'system' of rules. It requires the absolute acquiescence of virtually all participants all the time to all the 'rules' (ie no hoarding, no selecting beneficiaries of effort) to remain remotely stable.

: 1:People do not want, per se, more than others.

I assume that saying 'per se' is accounting for your previous remarks that people buy a groovy car in order to display it over others.

: 2:It is perfectly possible to produce suffiency.

By whose standard? Not if everyone decides to have a luxury yacht it isnt.

: 3:Collaborative/collective use of resources is feasible, as opposed to exclusive ownership.

But unstable, the larger and less homogenous the group the more unstable.

: You miss teh point. I have previously demonstrated how privatised Law woould mean unequal access to the means of viuolence, and the probable recourse to violence by the rich Úlite.

There is no reason to expect uniform access to violence in socialism where one group may be larger than another, or where one group has within it a better tactician, better engineer etc.


: But as point 1 noted, the recourse to national/state governments is an almost inevitable result of power/privilege among an advanced Úlite. National wars are wars over resources.

And as I pointed out there is nothing to stop socialism going the same way save the unending will of almost all its participants, an unlikely scenario. And this is discussing post revolution. I do not even foresee sufficient agreement to faciliatte anything remotely similar to a genuine socialist revolution.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup