From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 15:57:58 MST
In reply to,
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:30:45 -0500
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc@att.net>
Subject: Re: Replies to Ron h and John Clark regarding the nature of
Well, if your socialistic community is not as large rich and powerful as
you'd like then just make it large rich and powerful, if you can that is.
(Reply) If to have a "rich socialistic community" means have a community
where the members have a reasonable degree of material prosparity, how are
you supposed to do that without either participating in the capitalist
system (thus effectively turning the "socialist" community into a big
capitalist enterprise) or having a group which is around the size of a
nation all become socialism at the same time? I mean, I just don't see any
other alternative, really. I also am unclear about what you mean by
"powerful".
In a predominantly capitalist society a tiny group of socialists would
generate absolutely no fear in the powers that be.
(Reply) Well, I'm really not sure what you mean by "socialist" here, as the
word has many possible meanings, but if I assume that you mean libertarian
socialism--then yes, I think it would generate tremendous fear in the powers
that be, in the sense that someone who unilaterally became a libertarian
socialist, in their actual action, would go into stores when they needed
food and take what they needed from the person who was controlling the store
by force, which is not allowed by capitalism. Such people are very dangerous
to the capitalist system, and this is why capitalists invoke state
authority, and have always invoked state authority, to deal with such people
on a large scale. People must not be allowed to have food, rather they must
be starved until they are compelled to work for a master. That's what
happens in "pure" capitalism, anyway. The state system has been forced and
persuaded into giving the oppressed classes the concession of ending this
particular threat, however, by way of welfare.
"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized
all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to
discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them
profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of
slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to
give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the
responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their
labour to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what the
latter might choose to give them."
--Lysander Spooner
In a predominantly socialist society a tiny group of capitalists would and
does generate total panic in the powers that be.
(Reply) Well, I'm not sure where the "powers that be" lie in a libertarian
socialist society. I'm not really sure, either, exactly what activities
would characterize these capitalists. But as far as I can see, any activity
which is characterized as uniquely "capitalist" necessarily affects other
people, and ultimately leads to forms of exploitation and domination. So if
we take the "powers that be" to be the general population, then they have
every right to oppose this.
You sound like a socialist would never dream of ever using force.
(Reply) Well, that isn't my intention--I mean, sure, everybody is willing to
use force to some purpose, except mabye pacifists. But capitalists are too,
to defend their chosen order of things, and I just want to make that
apparent, because a lot of people tend to shy away from it, in my
experience.
If I am a better architect than you and a harder worker than you then I'll
have a better house than you and I'm not going to voluntarily give it to you
even if you do have a larger family.
(Reply) I don't understand why this is something we want in a humanistic
society. Ultimately, it is a system of punishment for activities which are
not desired by the masters, the people who control the system. If being a
good architect is really such a desirable thing, then people ought to be
able to come to that conclusion themselves--not be coerced into doing it
because they don't want to have a small house, or no house at all.
I don't think that's likely to happen, but it's far more likely than a PPA
doing it.
(Reply) How so? I mean, there is definitely a degree of devotion to the
existing republican order in America inside the military--if some commander
today ordered the military to slaughter Congress, kill the President, etc.,
nobody would listen. But in a PPA, everybody is devoted to bringing
resources under their control. That's the only goal, effectively--that's
what profit is. And if that's your goal, then the surest way of doing it is
just to loot and plunder, if you've got force up your sleeve. The reason
that the military doesn't do that in America is because that's simply not
their goal, they choose not to do it, because they believe it wouldn't be a
good idea.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:09 MST