> If so, then you know that concepts
> are defined in terms of their
> essentials, and what you seem to
> be arguing is that "the use of force
> to accomplish the goal of collective
> ownership of the means of
> production" is an essential element
> of socialism.
Pardon me, but you seem to be missing something rather large.
You want to argue basics and forget a biggie....
What in the bloody hell do you figure all the barbed wire and armed guards were /are for, if not a use of force to pursue the stated goal of socialism?
Ah. you're saying that's not socialism.
Well, here's where reality rears it's head; Has there ever been anyone who has managed to get to a point of supposed "collective ownership of the means of production" without needing to resort to use of force to establish it?
The reality is, that they're always needed and used because force is part and parcel of socialism even if Marx didn't identify it as such publicly. There is no freedom in socialism. That's the reality; force is the only way to accomplish socialism, force being an intergal part of socialism.
It seems to me that like many others before you, you're trying so very very hard to be 'objectivist', that you fail to reckon with the concept that it is usually the case that reality at some point along the way, choses sides.
In my view the concept of objectivity is one major flaw in Rand... Namely, in my view, there is no objective observer, because once one is exposed to reality, objectivity disappears... and in reverse, if one calls themselves objective the truth is they're foundationally disconnected from reality.
As you've nicely demonstrated.
Quoth "Bithead" --
-----
What in the bloody hell do you figure all the barbed wire and armed guards were /are for, if not a use of force to pursue the stated goal of socialism?
Ah. you're saying that's not socialism.
-----
On the contrary, it is indeed socialism -- of one variety. There are other varieties. The use of coercion is a characteristic of some forms of socialism. It is not a characteristic of all forms of socialism.
"Well, here's where reality rears it's head; Has there ever been anyone who has managed to get to a point of supposed 'collective ownership of the means of production' without needing to resort to use of force to establish it?"
Yes.
Tom Knapp
"Collective ownership" is a phrase that makes me want to pull my own intestines out and use them to hang myself.
It's Thanksgiving. Talk about nice things. Socialism is the poor bastard cousin of communism, and neither deserve anything other than scorn and derision.
Which reminds me... what's Hillary Clinton up to these days?
Yes.
I note with high amusement a total failure to name such.
Quoth "Bithead" --
"I note with high amusement a total failure to name such."
It's not my job to keep track of your reading of what I write for you. However, while finishing a cigarette and with nothing better to do, I'll name the such which you could have found on your own with a little mouse grease -- me. I belong to a unanimous consent anarcho-syndicalist cooperative.
Regards,
Tom
Tom, you're still allowed to smoke cigarettes? Just wait, it'll be illegal before you know it. heh
Thomas:
With respect, it seems to me that you are attempting to substitute mere "voluntary cooperation" (like partnerships, co-op businesses etc) as a political synonym for socialism, but at some point, no matter what the variant, socialism drops *voluntary* participation for some enforced action on the part of some or all of the persons in the whatever-variant socialist domain.
Unless, of course, you can _name_ a variant that disproves what I just said.
canadiaaaan: Quite correct, and exactly the point I was leading to, myself.
I belong to a unanimous consent anarcho-syndicalist cooperative.
Scene 3
[clop clop]
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the
behind you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an
inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By
exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to our outdated imperialist
dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our
society! If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how
d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the
Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an
autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We
take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the
week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal
affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the
purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of
the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to
carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing
swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive
power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some
farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart
Sorry, Tom, but your response struck me as out of a Python sketch... only not as credible.
Note: I just spotted this: "in which any manner of economic organization -- including the nominally collective -- is acceptable so long as coercion is not among its features". Fair enough, and freely entered contracts are not coercive, even in an anarcho-syndicaist collective--but then...why not just call it *that* (A/S collectivism)instead of "socialism"? A definition for a word can get so broad that it's pretty much defined out of reality, or: why, under a definition so broad, would not sheer "friendliness and good manners" between friends and acquaintances be subsumed under "socialism"?
But really, is not an "anarcho-syndicalist collective" just another form of contract freely enterable under capitalism?
Is group pressure coercion?
But really, is not an "anarcho-syndicalist collective" just another form of contract freely enterable under capitalism?
Precisely. And further, the commune would not exist without the captitalism around it, supporting it.
Bithead: It's not so much that the A/S collective would be "supported" by the capitalism around it--that's an assumption. But I think Mises clearly makes the point that economic calculation in any broadly useful sense requires a free market, and--surrounded by capitalism--the A/S collective could do a better job of pricing their products and figuring out what they needed to sell, create, etc. to continue heir..uh..."business".
Let's ask the Knights Who Say "Neeh!". Maybe they can answer this weighty question...
Guys,
This thing needs a little context.
First of all, I'm not attempting to promulgate any notion of a "libertarian socialism." I don't need to, because it was done long ago. As a matter of fact that, so to speak, is why we're gabbing about this.
Over on an email list I monitor, some ignoramus claimed that there could be no such thing as a "libertarian socialist." In point of fact, the original politic referred to -- and its generally understood meaning in most of Europe to this day is -- "communist anarchist." Ever since I pointed that out, Billy has been all over me for some reason.
It really doesn't matter whether or not I believe that a voluntary socialism is practical or desirable. The fact is that while the word "libertarian" may be separable from the word "socialism," history establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that they are not only not mutually exclusive, but are frequently associated.
Whether libertarianism can be squared with capitalism is another question entirely -- it really depends on whether wants to re-define capitalism to correlate with free market and laissez-faire ideas, which it did not originally do (the term "capitalism" was coined by Thackeray and popularized by Marx, and explicitly referred to a state-regulated industrial economy -- pretty much a socialism lite which Marx characterized as preceding the dictatorship of the proletariat).
We can play this thread out all you like, of course. If I wasn't willing to discuss it, I wouldn't have posted about it. Right now, however, I'm going to dig into some turkey &c. and thank whoever may or may not be in charge that the Pilgrims gave up compulsory collective farming before they croaked.
Regards,
Tom
All I know is, socialism makes me itch, and communism makes me retch. And I'm all out of lotion and Pepto.
Part I liked best -
~~~quote~~~I will not require history of theory. I went over all of 'em -- Bakunin, Kropotkin, Makhno, Proudhon, Tucker, Mowbray (bored yet?), Sacco & Vanzetti, Berkman, Steimer, Landauer, Brousse, Fleming, Goldman, you name 'em, and maybe a few that you don't know. I did it all by the time you got out of high school and I've worked hard to keep my chops up since then. And this is exactly how I know who's right and who's not, and why you're not.~~~end quote~~~ -
prying1 sez: just cuz you read something does not automatically make it the truth nor yourself the purveyor of truth. As K. Vonnegut Jr. said, "So it goes."
Bithead: It's not so much that the A/S collective would be "supported" by the capitalism around it--that's an assumption.
Hardly. Does it really have the means to support itself?
And Tom; THe fact of the matter is, "libertarian socialist." is a contradition in terms... as is "communist anarchist"...which by your OWN lights about the basics and Rand you should have figured out before uttering it.
Or is it now YOU who is atteching his own meanings to words?
Hiya bithead:
As for "It's not so much that the A/S collective would be "supported" by the capitalism around it--that's an assumption." Well, we kinda agree...I was meaning that the collective might _not_ be supported 
A smiley might have made my meaning clearer if I'da used one the first time.
Would or could an A/S collective be self-sufficient? Maybe and possibly--but "self-supporting/self-sufficient" depends on what is meant, since mere survival might be enough for some, but some folks may want more out of life than could be provided by a totally autonomous unit.
That said, there's no reason to assume that the collective wouldn't trade, and maybe even trade efficiently, with other individuals and groups. As examples, Hutterite and Mennonite communities co-exist and trade very well (and very successfully) with the people surounding them.
I was meaning that the collective might _not_ be supported
On the day after thankgiving, when I ahve a hangover the size of Buffalo, you trying the subtle approach with me? Shame on you.
:-D
Would or could an A/S collective be self-sufficient? Maybe and possibly--but "self-supporting/self-sufficient" depends on what is meant, since mere survival might be enough for some, but some folks may want more out of life than could be provided by a totally autonomous unit.
Well, yes, quality of life enters into it. I was given to understand that quality of life was at the top of the socialist's list of excuses.
As examples, Hutterite and Mennonite communities co-exist and trade very well (and very successfully) with the people surounding them.
Which leads me back to my earlier question; Is group pressure coercion?
Even with such pressures being applied within the groups you mention... their numbers are dwindling below self-supporting levels.
I have to admit, every time I encounter someone who considers "libertarian socialism" to be nothing but an "oxymoron" ... I generally attribute the last two syllables to that person, and move onward. There is NOTHING contradictory between a belief in liberty, and the opinion that some things can be accomplished through consensus and agreement among the members of a community. It happens every day, in neighborhoods all over the place, and much of what we call the "free market" is based on such mutual agreements.
I am even more wary of those who try to reconcile "anarchocapitalist" as a concept, since the interface between NO central authority, and the mishmosh of mixed economies and statism that "capitalism" actually consists of, is so impossible that even the thought of such is bewildering.
If a group of individuals wishes to pool resources and ideas, decide on matters via shared consensus, and maintain themselves "collectively" ... there is nothing about that that is incompatible with being "libertarians" -- so long as entry and exit to and from said group is not coerced.
I would think serious thinkers about liberty would have figured that out by now ...
There is NOTHING contradictory between a belief in liberty, and the opinion that some things can be accomplished through consensus and agreement among the members of a community
Oh, nothing except that everywhere it's been tried, the only way it's succeeded has been through some level of coercion... a point which you keep trying to side-step.
It happens every day, in neighborhoods all over the place, and much of what we call the "free market" is based on such mutual agreements.
But these would not exist without capitalism surrounding them, and supporting them.
There is no difference between a "business" that operates as a partnership or one that operates as a (larger) collective except the number of signers to the relevant contracts/agreements. Any issues of principle regarding coercion are morally identical, regardless of the number of people involved. The right or wrong of any given situation hinges on "what" is happening, not how many victims or oppressors there are. Morality is not a numbers game; it's a "principles" game.
Steve T,
Personally, I find it insulting that those of us of the capitalist libertarian bent, are frowned upon if we find the concept of mashing "socialism" into libertarianism, abhorrent. NO system is pure as the wind-driven, granted. Maybe the phrase "socialism" is just too dirty and undesirable. Maybe I'm just grumpy.
I certainly don't like the idea of government telling people they CAN'T mash socialism and libertarianism together, nor do I wish it on any other level. We're (still) a (pretty much) free society. The thought police haven't been properly trained and deployed yet - that will happen during the Rodham presidency.
Me, I like making a profit, even if Big Bro decides he deserves a disproportionate share of it. It's still better than any alternative.
Tom,
Would you agree that there this a valid distinction between collective ownership and joint private ownership?
For instance McDonalds is own jointly by many private shareholders who can buy and sell their shares as they please.
But this isn't socailism. Under socialism the supposed owners of a socialized good cannot buy and sell their supposed individual interest in it.
Do you agree?
John:
I don't know if or how Tom will respond, but I have some thoughts because you raise a valid question. I think there is a distinction.
That noted, a laissez-faire type like me can hardly raise an objection if some folks want to write some sort of contract for a truly collective-style operation, _freely_ join under the terms of that collective's contract, and attempt to survive and prosper using that method for the attainment of their common business goals or goals for their personal lives. They can write the contract with a "forfeit all" clause for those who leave, or perhaps some pro-rated portion of the collective's assets would be paid out upon someone's exit, or there are a wide range of other foreseeable arrangements.
I mean, I _might_ think it won't work, and/or that persons signing such a contract are foolish or whatever, but that's not properly any major concern of mine.
As long as no-one in the collective is coerced, and no-one (or the colective itself) doesn't attempt to coerce others in any way...well, go for it and good luck.
Kennedy:
The answer is yes.
Sorry now, I didn't think of that.
Bithead: I've ben thinking about your question: "Is group pressure coercion?"
Without further definition, I'd hesitate to answer with a resounding "yes", and lotsa times I'd for sure say no, it's not.
"We'd all like you to do this, and we won't like you if you don't" is not coercion, even if it's repeated a lot--it's just an ultimatum. As long as I'm free to decide what to do about the ultimatum and act accordingly, I'm free.
Quoth John Kennedy:
"Would you agree that there this a valid distinction between collective ownership and joint private ownership?"
Yes, there are several distinctions between collective ownership and joint private ownership, although in practice the latter often assumes some of the forms of the former.
"For instance McDonalds is own jointly by many private shareholders who can buy and sell their shares as they please."
Actually, McDonald's is slightly more complex than that. There franchise owners, etc. And, as a "corporation," McDonald's illicitly transfers some of its owners' potential liabilities to a collective fiction courtesy of the state.
"But this isn't socailism. Under socialism the supposed owners of a socialized good cannot buy and sell their supposed individual interest in it."
I'm not sure that that's a valid claim -- I'd be interested in it if you care to support it with evidence, though.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
"Actually, McDonald's is slightly more complex than that. There franchise owners, etc. And, as a "corporation," McDonald's illicitly transfers some of its owners' potential liabilities to a collective fiction courtesy of the state."
Fine, I was just trying to keep thing simple for the sake of example.
"I'm not sure that that's a valid claim -- I'd be interested in it if you care to support it with evidence, though."
To Beck you said "The only essential characteristic of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production..."
I'm tring to clarify what you mean by collective ownership there, as opposed to joint private ownership.
If you, I and a dozen others owned a factory but were individually free to sell our individual share or interest in the factory that wouldn't be socialism, would it?
To those who know:
We're dealing with another Scott Erb, here.
Look out.
Quoth John Kennedy:
-----
"I'm not sure that ["Under socialism the supposed owners of a socialized good cannot buy and sell their supposed individual interest in it" is] a valid claim -- I'd be interested in it if you care to support it with evidence, though."
To Beck you said "The only essential characteristic of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production..."
-----
I'll try to go back over the related correspondence to see if I said precisely that. I don't recall that I did.
There's a simple definitional claim: Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. It's not necessarily so that there aren't any other essential characteristics.
What was at issue was not what I claimed the essential characteristic(s) of socialism are, but what I claimed it isn't/they aren't: Billy claimed that coercion is an essential characteristic of socialism (riffing off of a more basic claim that "socialist libertarian" is a contradiction in terms" made by "Kae" on the individual-sovereignty list), and I contested that claim.
One thing that's missing here is that the claim of yours (that supposed owners of a socialized good can't sell it) is irrelevant to whether or not socialism must necessarily incorporate coercion. It is entirely possible to enter into a voluntary contract in which leaving the "collective" constitutes "selling" your pro rata share of the collective to the collective as a consideration for opting out of the contract.
That, however, is an aside. Billy has attempted to move the issue a couple of levels lower on the philosophical ladder to metaphysics and posit it as an either/or between "individualism" and "collectivism" on a spiritual level so that he can have his socialism and eat his coercion, too.
-----
I'm tring to clarify what you mean by collective ownership there, as opposed to joint private ownership.
-----
I suspect that such a clarification would, in fact, validate your own speculation, insofar as the disposition of "shares" in the collectively owned good would be the domain of the collective, rather than of the individual -- which means that to avoid coercion, terms would have to be created ahead of entrance into the collective.
-----
If you, I and a dozen others owned a factory but were individually free to sell our individual share or interest in the factory that wouldn't be socialism, would it?
----
Interesting question -- and I don't have a ready answer for you. Congratulations -- you're doing better than Mr. Beck, if the goal is to force me to clarify my thinking.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Quoth Billy:
"We're dealing with another Scott Erb, here."
I was unfamiliar with Mr. Erb until doing a bit of Googling pursuant to understanding your comment.
I've only gleaned three things from the Googling.
1) Erb drives Billy in-fucking-sane. Check.
2) Erb pisses people off by continuing to counter their "good news from Iraq" horseshit with the plain common-sense observation that the US has irredeemably lost the war in Iraq (and that it was bound to do so). Check
3) Erb is a professor at the University of Maine. Hold.
That's two of three, so I guess I can't complain. But it you'd like to give a more detailed explanation of why you think I'm like Erb, feel free.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
And by the way, happy birthday, Billy.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
US forces won the war in Iraq a long time ago. They routed Saddam's armies and ended his regime; one can dislike the results but there's no question about who won the war.
The the nation-building occupation is not a war. You win wars by killing people and breaking things but those actions can't build a nation. Nation building is a political objective, not a military one. There is no war left for the US military to win in Iraq because they already won it.
Erb also continues, like you, to defend socialism.
Bithead,
Pointing out that socialism isn't whatever you happen to want it to be at any given moment isn't "defending" it.
In point of fact, I actively oppose all coercive forms of socialism, in particular the statist forms from Soviet-style communism to Euro- (and unfortunately increasingly American-) style "social democracy." Among the non-coercive forms most don't pass muster with me on grounds of practical merit, and I don't feel any great need to defend the ones that do (or the ones that don't) against anything except incorrect characterizations.
I don't know why Billy wanted to pick this fight, and I don't particularly care. I do know that he's smart enough to eventually figure out that he's wrong. I guess we'll see if you are.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Your commentary did not sound to me condemming by any means. And for that matter, neither did Erb's, thus the connection.
And we're still at this; You think there is a non-coercive type of socialism, whereas I know better.
And by the way... in the spirit of things not being so and so just because you say so....
The US has not 'lost the war in Iraq"... nothing of the sort... that was won, in fact, and won long ago.
What's being engaged in at the moment is nation-building, which is altogether a different matter.
Quoth John T. Kennedy (echoed by Bithead):
"US forces won the war in Iraq a long time ago. They routed Saddam's armies and ended his regime; one can dislike the results but there's no question about who won the war."
Wars have objectives. If those objectives are not met, it's obvious that "victory" has not taken place.
Had the Bush administration set the removal of Saddam Hussein from power as its only objective, then the war would have been won (and the troops would be home). In point of fact, however, the administration set a number of objectives for the operation, including but not limited to a) to secure or destroy weapons of mass destruction, b) to create a western-style democracy in Iraq, c) to eliminate Iraq as a sponsor/spurce for terrorism, etc.
Of the three objectives I list above, all of which were given out by the administration as more important than just the removal of Saddam (two days before the war, Bush stated unequivocally that the invasion would go forward even if Saddam abdicated and left Iraq), none has been met.
We can argue about whether the WMD were even there or not (I believed that they were at the time, and said so), but the fact is that they were not found, they were not secured and they were not destroyed.
After the invasion, the US proceeded with the equivalent of replacing Adolf Hitler with Rudolph Hess, then "allowing" the Germans to elect Himmler or Goering instead. There is no western-style democracy in Iraq, nor will there be one. Right now the only question is whether the entirety of Iraq will become part of Greater Iran, or whether rump states in the north (Kurdish "social democracies") and center (either a Wahabe Islamist sharia regime or a new Ba'athist regime) will break off with only the south being absorbed by Iran.
Insofar as terrorism is concerned, the invasion added a funding, support and recruitment pool of 25 million people to al Qaeda, which had previously been effectively suppressed in Iraq by the Ba'athists.
The notion that the US won the war in Iraq by taking out Saddam is as absurd as the notion that the South won the War Between the States by taking out Lincoln.
Tom Knapp
"I'll try to go back over the related correspondence to see if I said precisely that. I don't recall that I did."
I was citing you from this post by Beck.
"Interesting question -- and I don't have a ready answer for you."
Well if it's socialism when you can sell your share then the NY Stock Exchange is socialism.
You know it's not. The stock market is comprised of joint private owners, not collective owners.
Contrary to your impression I did not say socialism must entail coercion. Voluntary socialism is possible on a small scale. But collective ownership is highly ineffecient and leads to economic nightmare scenarios on any large scale.
Do you think there are any benefits of collective ownership over joint private ownership?
Quoth Bithead:
"Your commentary did not sound to me condemming by any means."
Okay, try this on for size:
http://www.american-partisan.com...uest/
031300.htm
... and then, if you like, we can talk about in which respects my views have changed since writing it.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Quoth John T. Kennedy:
"'I'll try to go back over the related correspondence to see if I said precisely that. I don't recall that I did.'
I was citing you from this post by Beck."
Bingo. You got me. I was wrong, or at least insufficiently precise. Here's a different go at it:
"Any system in which the means of production is collectively owned is a socialist system. There may be other essential elements of particular kinds of socialist systems, and those elements may vary by kind, but if a system features collective ownership of the means of production, it's socialist."
"Contrary to your impression I did not say socialism must entail coercion. Voluntary socialism is possible on a small scale. But collective ownership is highly ineffecient and leads to economic nightmare scenarios on any large scale."
I agree that voluntary socialism is almost certainly not possible on a large scale. Insofar as efficiencies are concerned, there are different kinds of efficiencies and inefficiencies which plague different kinds of systems. I agree that socialism, voluntary or not, suffers from several problems.
"Do you think there are any benefits of collective ownership over joint private ownership?"
That's a contextual thing -- benefits for whom? If those leaving a collective may not take a share of the collectively owned X with them, then it obviously benefits the collective, and the people who remain in the collective (except to the extent that that fact may discourage people from joining the collective in the first place, or may serve as a disincentive to production among those who are thinking about leaving).
Collective ownership may be of benefit to someone considering joining the collective -- for example, if he wants X, and a collective is the only party offering X, or if the collective offers X on better terms than competing non-collectives.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
"Interesting question -- and I don't have a ready answer for you. Congratulations -- you're doing better than Mr. Beck, if the goal is to force me to clarify my thinking."
Nobody is "forcing" you to do *anything*, Knapp, but don't even try to play it like I didn't hit you with the precise same *principles*. You saw it before in our correspondance and in the bit that I posted at my place.
Quoth Billy:
"don't even try to play it like I didn't hit you with the precise same *principles*.
Okay, so now not only do concepts mean whatever you happen to want them to mean, but questions are "principles."
You're one of the last people I'd have expected such sloppy thinking from.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
"Okay, so now not only do concepts mean whatever you happen to want them to mean, but questions are 'principles.'"
So much for Socrates.
Ernest,
The Socratic Dialectic is not a principle. It is a method (which may be used to get at principles).
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Questions can contain principles and answers can elucidate them. There is no difference between what Kennedy pointed out and this:
"A statement of the political arrangement of socialism is not an "essence" of the thing: it's a high-level implication. And you can prove this to yourself by reflecting on the fact that everybody knows there is a difference between a business -- which fits your so-called "essential" definition -- and socialism."
A "essential" definition of socialism which fails to distinguish the difference between the joint ownership of a plumbing business and the collective control of the means of production is not useful, period.
Tom:
You state: "I agree that voluntary socialism is almost certainly not possible on a large scale"
OK, let's accept that for the moment (I do, and for more than a moment ). Doesn't that necessarily imply that your support for "socialist libertarianism" or "libertarian socialism" is really only a statement that you'd wish to live collectively on a small scale within an overall cultural environment that was _not_ socialist? If that's the case, then you should be supporting is "laissez-faire...(uh...call it...) capitalism" to defend your right/wish to operate as you see fit. And your defense of socialism as an "ism" is really only support for a small format method of organizing operations within a given _other_ (non-socialist) business climate.
Tom:
So in my convoluted (repetetive) way, what I meant by my post above was that your support of "libertarian socialism" is not so much a principle-based overall political philosophy, but merely pragmatic support for your wish to live in a manner that you know would _not_ work on a large scale with a population that could be called "free".
canadiaan,
You write:
"You state: 'I agree that voluntary socialism is almost certainly not possible on a large scale'
OK, let's accept that for the moment (I do, and for more than a moment ). Doesn't that necessarily imply that your support for 'socialist libertarianism' or 'libertarian socialism'
Back up just a second there. I acknowledge that "libertarian socialism" is not an oxymoron. The only sense in which I "support" it is in the sense that I support freedom. I've found it convenient to engage in it to some limited degree for specific technical reasons, and it's worked out better than I'd hoped, but ...
"is really only a statement that you'd wish to live collectively on a small scale within"
I did the commune thing when I was a youngster. Didn't care for it too much. At this time, my main work environment is as part of a unanimous consent cooperative, because that was the format that made sense for getting an enterprise going under certain conditions that existed (an enterprise that is labor-intensive rather than capital-intensive, and that the people whose participation I required were more interested in ensuring the enduring survival of regardless of who might stay or leave than in having a "share they could sell").
"an overall cultural environment that was _not_ socialist? If that's the case, then you should be supporting is 'laissez-faire...(uh...call it...) capitalism' to defend your right/wish to operate as you see fit."
With the exception of the word "capitalism" (which, as coined by Thackeray, popularized by Marx and still universally used outside a small, insular minority, means a "mixed" economy regulated by the state), you've got it exactly right. I'm an anarchist; if there has to be a qualifier or alternative, then "market anarchist," "laissez-faire anarchist" or "agorist" will work just fine.
"And your defense of socialism as an 'ism' is really only support for a small format method of organizing operations within a given _other_ (non-socialist) business climate."
My "support" for socialism extends only to noting that it can be implemented on a libertarian ethos, and that people who want, or have reason, to so implement it aren't committing any kind of Great Heresy Against Freedom.
Regards,
Tom
Shut the fuck up, kid. Pay attention. This is what I wrote to you: "That's called a 'business', in plain terms, and it is distinguished from socialism in the plain fact that either of those two men can sever his relationship to 'the means of production' -- which he 'collectively owns' with his brother -- on his own authority and people in socialism don't get to do that."
Compare it with Kennedy's question: "If you, I and a dozen others owned a factory but were individually free to sell our individual share or interest in the factory that wouldn't be socialism, would it?"
Look: it's not my problem when you cannot or will not read.
And I would "teach" you how to snip your strings off with wire-cutters.
That's because I don't work with goddamned weezils.
Fuck you.
Billy,
Damn. It was just starting to get interesting, too -- the difference between "freedom to sever a relationship" with property and "freedom to sell" property (the latter being one possible permutation among several of the former) strikes me as an interesting topic.
Your call, of course. I got the better end of this discussion, if for no other reason than that it caused me to stumble across your recommended reading list, several titles of which I've not yet read and now intend to. I just finished Isaac Deutscher's three-volume biography of Trotsky and am now reading his life of Stalin; after which I had planned to cleanse the brain with a re-reading of _The Gulag Archipelago_ and, oddly enough, go back to Durant's history of civilization, which you also list as "off the shelf." I can't skip the Solzhenytsin -- it's a spiritual necessity after wading through the semi-laudatory Deutscher-stuff, as I'm sure you'll understand -- but I may take a different direction after that. So thanks.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I think Billy Beck must be consistently the worst-mannered person I encounter on the Internet.
Commenting by HaloScan
