From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 04:12:07 MDT
Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2002 7:27 PM Samantha samantha@objectent.com
> wrote:
>
>>> Then you added, "Interestingly, many of these "socialist"
>>>groups also had strong beliefs about private property. In some
>>>areas they were quite competitive, and perhaps more properly
>>>described by the term "capitalist", but again, without a good
>>>definition, it's hard to know."
>>
>>I read him as asking for your working definition. You keep not
>>giving one. How about it?
>
>
> 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.
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?
> 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. 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.
> 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. Everyone who is throwing the word
about should be able to say what they mean by it. 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.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:47 MST