From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 16:04:22 MST
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 22:11, John K Clark wrote:
> "Alexander Sheppard" <alexandersheppard@hotmail.com> Wrote:
> > Libertarian socialism is different.
>
> A Libertarian socialist would not try to use force to make me be socialist,
> I certainly won't use force to make you be Capitalist. Be a socialist if
> you want to but I'll stick to Capitalism, and may the better system win in
> the free market of ideas.
I don't think that there is any basic conflict between small-scale socialism,
especially on a Libertarian basis, and Capitalism. Most small scale groups
which use an alternate economic model internally, use a capitalist model when
dealing with non-members. E.g., the Tassahara Bakery is a religious commune,
with an internal pseudo-economic structure that's really based on Buddhist
principles (as they understand them), combined with a religious hierarchy.
Work is theoretically egalitarian, though the novices do more than an equal
amount of floor sweeping. But if you want their bread, you pay cash.
>
> >There would be no profits, no money--if you were producing wheat,
> > you'd produce wheat because you thought producing wheat mattered
>
> That's not the way human beings are wired so that won't work, its been
> tried of course and resulted in millions dead from starvation. And please
> give your posts zippier titles, it's as drab as socialist architecture
>
> John K Clark jonkc@att.net
You got that one right! The small-scale examples of socialism that I've seen
tended to fall apart because some people contributed, and others took
free-rides (sometimes it was more complex.. personality clashes, etc.). This
would tend to make the contributors reluctant to continue participating. But
on a really small scale, say 4-5 people, personality conflicts tended to be
more important than unequal contributions.
N.B.: These groups were organized in a quite informal fashion, and didn't
necessarily think of themselves as socialist. There wasn't any formal issue
of shares, etc. Usually they weren't productive economic units, but more
cost-sharing groups economizing on rentals. But I think they still qualify.
I'm not sure. None of the definitions that I have say really whether or not
this is socialist. Still, many of the essential features (as I understand
them) are present.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:00 MST