From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 07:12:12 MDT
On Saturday, October 26, 2002 6:12 AM Samantha Atkins
samantha@objectent.com wrote:
>> I can offer two working definitions for socialist society.
>>
>> One, the government controls the means of production. Under this
sort
>> of situation, individuals might still have private property and make
>> some economic decisions for themselves, such as what to buy, but they
>> cannot start or run private businesses.
>
> Hmmm. A difficult definiton in a society that doesn't at all
> fit with any notion of "means of production" which are ownable.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
> That view was far too static when it was first tossed about by
> Marx. In our day and age the "means of production" are not
> particularly ownable as the most realistic means is the human
> mind. By its nature it can only be "owned" by the individual.
> Is private property really that big an issue? The classic
> definition is that the state owns the means of production. But
> does that really mean anything?
Yes, the human mind is, in a sense, a means of production -- as are
human bodies. However, I believe what is meant is "capital" -- goods
used to make other goods. Granted, capital itself is defined with
reference to human plans and not independently, but, in any situation,
most physical capital is something someone can have control over. E.g.,
if there's a plant that makes cars, someone or some group can control
that plant. (Note: I did not use "ownership" in my first working
definition. It really does not matter. If the government controls it,
that's enough. In this situation, what's essential is the government
being able to control how capital used, including what sorts of plans it
fits into -- central planning, usually -- and how he outputs are
distributed.)
Granted, also, in a real world situation, capital is bound to be a
complex structure -- as opposed to the classical, Marxist, and even
Keynesian view of it as homogenenous input into production. (See
"Macroeconomics for the Real World" at
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Macro.html and the references
therein.)
Getting back to minds, if you consider them as capital -- which I'm not
going to debate -- I don't see any reason why they can't be controlled
by the government. The government could demand certain plans and
enforce control over how outputs from minds are used. It can also
forbid certain uses. Yes, in the strict Randian sense, the government
_probably_ can't (not yet at least) absolutely force people to think --
but it can punish people for not doing certain things and prohibit
others. Does it matter, e.g., if you can dream of being free, yet a
socialist state forces you to work ten hours a day digging ditches and
punishes you severely -- maybe by not feeding you or have you beat --
when your ditches are not dug according to the plan?
>> Two, a society where private property has been forbidden. (I use
>> "forbidden" here because in a socialist society it can't just be by
>> default, else private property might arise -- or re-arise -- and that
>> must be prevented for it to be this kind of socialism.) Under this
>> condition, all economic decisions are made by the government.
>
> This has never been attempted or seriously proposed.
Wrong on both counts. It has been attempted in certain small
communities, especially religious ones, such as some of the utopian
communities in America in the 19th century and communes elsewhere. It
was attempted because it was "seriously proposed" -- at least by any
measure of "seriousness" that makes sense.
> It would
> amount to making all decisions for individuals as there are very
> few individual decisions that do not have some economic (trade)
> component or impact. I know of no accepted definition of
> socialism that includes such.
Hmm. Looking in my dictionary, _Webster's_, definition 1.a. is "a
system of society or group living in which there is no private
property." That seems very close to my definition.
>> I offer up these up as working definitions. If there are any people
>> proclaiming themselves to be socialists on this list, it might be
better
>> to ask them what they mean by the term -- i.e., for them to define
it.
>> (I haven't been closely following the discussion, so I don't know if
any
>> have.)
>
> Neither of them satisfy basic criteria for a definition although
> the first is a bit closer.
Do you mean the logical form of a definition? Stuff like having clear
differentia, a clear genus, being noncircular, not using negative terms
unnecessarily, and fitting with the referents? If so, then the first
defintion would class socialism as a form of social system in which the
means of production are government controlled. There's your species --
how are the means of production controlled -- and your genus -- form of
society. Seems pretty clear to me. The classic use of this is that the
government would control businesses, especially factories where goods
are made, but also things like the rail systems, communication networks,
wharehouses, shipping, etc. Real world examples of this range from
small communes to large scale economies, such as the Soviet Union's
under War Communism and Stalin and Cambodia's under the Khmer Rouge.
(Granted, even these might have been mixed examples, but they came as
close to the socialist ideal as is probably possible.)
> Everyone who is throwing the word
> about should be able to say what they mean by it.
I've given you my working definitions.:)
> It is not
> simply up to those who might label themselves socialist. If we
> can't agree about what we are talking about then we should drop
> this conversation and go on to something else.
I didn't mean it was up to them to define it, but it would help in
understanding self-proclaimed socialists if they told us what they
meant. This would be a starting point, since they might still not
define it adequately and might fail to grasp essential features. It
would, however, clear up some things. If someone said, "By 'socialism'
I mean X" -- where X is reasonably clear -- then one could either agree
or disagree with that meaning and know what one is talking about.
Cheers!
Dan
See more of my writings at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
"You wanna get high?" -- Towelie from "South Park"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:47 MST