NT: Simon's idea of Socialism has drifted perilously close to Capitalism! With a little luck we'll have a new supporter of incentives, entreprenurship, and freedom by Spring!SK: With all due respect, do not expect me to EVER support an inhuman system that can help but doesn't. Do not expect me to EVER accept the system that knows asbestos is poisonous but doesn't tell the workers. (That is what caused the eath in my family that stopped my writing earlier). Do not expect me to EVER accept a system that has enough money to bring the Third World up to acceptable living standards, but doesn't. Do not expect me to EVER support a system where freedom means the freedom to put others to work for you, the freedom to choose between nearly identical political parties and completely identical trade brands.
NT: But Yugoslavia was not planned from the "bottom up".
The individual workers had no way of signaling the factory that they wanted more or less of a good. This is because Socialism does not allow one man to pay more for something than his neighbor. Without competitive prices, the number of red, blue, and yellow shoes a Yugoslav factory would produce would be little more than random.
SK: The OOUC had its leading body elected by workers, from the pool of
workers and was subject to the will of the workers. The OOUC's leading body was indeed managed from the bottom up, because they had to -and did- follow what they were told. After all, they were workers themselves. Take the OOUC-built cars for example. The Z-Yugo never got much popularity outside Yugoslavia, but you hopefully do know that it was designed from specifications adapted from what the people had told they needed, don't you? It reflected their needs, it was cheap and while it as said never became popular outside Yugoslavia, they had no problem with it.
NT: But Simon, THIS IS CAPITALISM! (pardon my caps). Wall Street investment banks, law firms, consulting practices, and a host of the most capitalist institutions in the world operate in exactly the same fashion.
Consider two Yugoslav factories.
One is staffed with intellegent, able workers. The other has a lot of slow and lazy ones. Which set of Yugoslav workers will take home more money? The first, of course. The system you described does not allocate "to each based on his need".
It serves out the gains to those who produced them.
True Capitalism would move from the unit of the factory to that of the individual. But we are still going in the right direction.
SK: Of course you write in capitals, you are a capitalist. (bad pun and I know it) But then consider Microsoft. How much does Bill get compared to a measly programmer in a cubicle? And how much does Bill produce compared to said programmer? Would the Microsoft staff be better off if the income was shared rather than decked out according to a pecking order, where the top gets astronomical amounts and the bottom gets lower wages than most other software companies? I should think so.
Socialism, as it has been pointed out by some of this board,
should give the gains EXACTLY to those who produce them, in opposition to capitalism, which gives the gains to those who can put others to produce.
The point is that under capitalism, the means to produce are owned by
capitalists, and the workers who operate them and actually makes it
possible are placed lower than the one doing the least of the work. This is changing today, in for example the information sector where many programmers of course own their own machines, but it would be beneficial to all if EVERY means of production was owned by the people who operate it, in the period they operate it. If they cease to operate it, they cease to own it, no longer having the need.
SK: "To each based on necessity" is Marx' ideal utopian state, not a
description of a system that has been created yet. OF COURSE lazy people do not get as much as active people, that is justice. In capitalism, the people who rake in the big money are EXACTLY the lazy ones. Who has the greatest chance of achieving success, the young semi-moron with a millionaire family that pays to get him into Harvard or the poor but intelligent and hard-working person that can't afford it? Sure, Bill started at the bottom (which is why most Americans are so proud of him), but he is the exception, not the rule. I do not believe in a society where success is made possible without doing anything for it, Socialism is meant to give people equal opportunity in life, not to make them completely equal throughout life. As Mikhail Bakunin (the father of modern anarchism) put it, "a society where every person regardless of gender, upon entering life, should find the same possibilities to develop his or her faculties as a human being." In capitalism, that is impossible. I must by the way point out that I am not myself an anarchist, but given that communism and anarchism are basically for the same end but with different means, I sympathize with its ideal.
NT: Under a Socialist system, what will be done with people who simply
refuse to work? What will be done with those who are only willing to do work that they "like" rather than the work that is needed? Who will decide which artists will be supported as artists and which will be sent to the steel mills? I call this decision-making body the "Central Committe". Yes, I expect it to be democratically elected. No, I don't think that it's members will be "evil". But if you want socialism, you have some tough decisions to make. Who, who, who, will make them?
SK: The idea of the State ultimately controlling the people is warped and does not have anything to do with the ideal of socialism. Have you made any thoughts as to why socialist states call themselves "people's republics"?
No person is to be "sent" to the stell mills, people go to the steel mills because that is the work that is available and believe it or not, there are some who like it (I know several machinists and metalworkers wholike their jobs). If a person has the ability to work at a steel mill, most will (and do) prefer it. If the steel mill is owned by the people who work there and not by the big boss it might even get a little more meaning than slaving away on the machine without seeing half the rewards that get out of it.
People become artists because they like it - Hell, that is why I am educating myself as a programmer - I like it. People who refuse to work, indeed. Which person in his right mind existing in a society where terms of need are more important than terms of profit, would refuse to work considering that it is necessary for society and therefore also himself? If we do consider one of those horribly lazy individuals who won't work (they are the ones who in capitalism gets other people to do it for them and make big bucks), a possible practice is putting said person on a waiting list until a job suited for his or her qualifications is found. If such a job does not turn up, the person should be offered education to increase said qualifications. If the person still plain refuses to work, when a job is both available and suitable for the person's qualifications, it is safe to assume that such a person is not interested in giving according to ability and therefore not interested in receiving according to need either. When there is no logical reason left that the person does not work, he should not be given as much as those who do. But I believe that if society is formed to a need basis over a profit basis, such a person type would dwindle compared to today. If you know you and everyone else will be better off doing something than living after the "every man for himself" principle in capitalism, only a severely demented person would not work.
None.
