Ken MacLeod - Reading Order
Loznik
Stone Canal" and "The Cassini Division", are inter-connected, in that
he events of all three take place in the same "universe".
My question - will I do irrepairable harm if I do *not* read them in
the order in which they were published? I have the latter two books
sitting on my bookcase, but the first book has eluded me thus far.
Would it be better by far to hold out for TSF and read it first? I
read Iain Banks' "The Player of Games" before "Consider Phlebas" and
so far the only bad thing to happen is that I became hopelessly
tongue-tied when I met Banks. Any assistance would be gratefully
accepted ...
Loznik {:-)>
"All the lies, all the truth,
All the things that I offer you."
Jo Walton
loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com "Loznik" writes:
> I gather that Ken MacLeod's novels to date, "The Star Fraction", "The
> Stone Canal" and "The Cassini Division", are inter-connected, in that
> he events of all three take place in the same "universe".
>
> My question - will I do irrepairable harm if I do *not* read them in
> the order in which they were published? I have the latter two books
> sitting on my bookcase, but the first book has eluded me thus far.
>
You can read them out of order. They're going to be published in the
US out of order. In any case, some parts of :The Stone Canal: happen
before the events of :The Star Fraction: and I don't think it will
hurt to read that later.
I've just realised that last time I read them I read them backwards
anyway - it was just after :The Cassini Division: had come out, so
I read that. Then I was possessed by a burning desire to re-read :The
Stone Canal: to check that I was as horrified as I should have been
about two things in the plot of tCD. (I was, I hadn't misremembered.)
Then I re-read :The Star Fraction: too, because I wanted to. They worked
fine that way round.
I've given in and bought, but not yet read, :Cydonia:, despite a
ghastly cover. It's not in the same universe. Review in a few
days.
> Would it be better by far to hold out for TSF and read it first? I
> read Iain Banks' "The Player of Games" before "Consider Phlebas" and
> so far the only bad thing to happen is that I became hopelessly
> tongue-tied when I met Banks. Any assistance would be gratefully
> accepted ...
I read :Use of Weapons: first and I thought :Consider Phlebas: was
boring, if I'd read it first I'd probably never have bothered with
the others which would have been a great loss.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
First NorAm Public Appearance: Imperiums to Order, Kitchener, March 20th
Freshly UPDATED web-page http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Interstichia;
RASFW FAQ, Reviews, Fanzine, Momentum Guidelines, Blood of Kings Poetry
Roger Gray
loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com wrote:
> I gather that Ken MacLeod's novels to date, "The Star Fraction", "The
> Stone Canal" and "The Cassini Division", are inter-connected, in that
> he events of all three take place in the same "universe".
>
> My question - will I do irrepairable harm if I do *not* read them in
> the order in which they were published? I have the latter two books
> sitting on my bookcase, but the first book has eluded me thus far.
>
> Would it be better by far to hold out for TSF and read it first? I
> read Iain Banks' "The Player of Games" before "Consider Phlebas" and
> so far the only bad thing to happen is that I became hopelessly
> tongue-tied when I met Banks. Any assistance would be gratefully
> accepted ...
>
>
> Loznik {:-)>
>
> "All the lies, all the truth,
> All the things that I offer you."
It would be better if you held out, the story lines and time lines jump
all over the place and stuff that happens in the later two references the
first in some subtle and complex ways, and vice a versa, but DO read them,
they are v cool
Roger
Gordon Jinks
Loznik wrote in message <36b60d3b...@news.globalnet.co.uk>...
>I gather that Ken MacLeod's novels to date, "The Star Fraction", "The
>Stone Canal" and "The Cassini Division", are inter-connected, in that
>he events of all three take place in the same "universe".
>
>My question - will I do irrepairable harm if I do *not* read them in
>the order in which they were published? I have the latter two books
>sitting on my bookcase, but the first book has eluded me thus far.
>Loznik {:-)>
I read The Stone Canal and The Cassini Division before The Star Fraction,
and it didn't spoil my enjoyment of any of them (which was considerable).
In retrospect, some of TSC and TCD would have made a bit more sense in the
light of the events in TSF, but not in a big way, and certainly there were
no major spoilers for TSF by reading the others first - I enjoyed it as a
kind of prequel experience. Get reading them!
Gordon
p.s. if Ken's out there, or anyone else who knows, when can we expect
something new, and will it continue in the same universe?
P Nielsen Hayden
>I gather that Ken MacLeod's novels to date, "The Star Fraction", "The
>Stone Canal" and "The Cassini Division", are inter-connected, in that
>he events of all three take place in the same "universe".
>
>My question - will I do irrepairable harm if I do *not* read them in
>the order in which they were published? I have the latter two books
>sitting on my bookcase, but the first book has eluded me thus far.
I actually think the three books so far are _better_ approached in backwards
order. It was reading them that way that converted me from a respectful
admirer of interesting new British writer Ken MacLeod to a blithering Ken
MacLeod fanboy. And, not incidentally, got me to buy US rights to THE
CASSINI DIVISION and THE STONE CANAL.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Tor Books : http://www.tor.com
Ken MacLeod
<os...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>
>I read The Stone Canal and The Cassini Division before The Star Fraction,
>and it didn't spoil my enjoyment of any of them (which was considerable).
>In retrospect, some of TSC and TCD would have made a bit more sense in the
>light of the events in TSF, but not in a big way, and certainly there were
>no major spoilers for TSF by reading the others first - I enjoyed it as a
>kind of prequel experience. Get reading them!
>
>Gordon
>
You and Jo are right that the reading order doesn't matter - well, I
hope it doesn't, because I tried to make it not matter.
>p.s. if Ken's out there, or anyone else who knows, when can we expect
>something new, and will it continue in the same universe?
>
The next, _The Sky Road_, is due out in June. It's connected to the
others, but whether it's set in the same universe is partly what it's
about. Again, it contains no spoilers for the others, and can be read
independently of them.
After that (i.e. this year) I intend to write a novel set in a different
future entirely.
--
Ken MacLeod
Lawrence Person
Hayden) wrote:
> In <36b60d3b...@news.globalnet.co.uk> loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com
(Loznik) writes:
>
> >My question - will I do irrepairable harm if I do *not* read them in
> >the order in which they were published? I have the latter two books
> >sitting on my bookcase, but the first book has eluded me thus far.
>
> I actually think the three books so far are _better_ approached in backwards
> order. It was reading them that way that converted me from a respectful
> admirer of interesting new British writer Ken MacLeod to a blithering Ken
> MacLeod fanboy. And, not incidentally, got me to buy US rights to THE
> CASSINI DIVISION and THE STONE CANAL.
>
While I am very grateful that Patrick is bringing out these over here, I
must voice a mild disagreement here. I think reading them in order (TSF,
TSC, TCD) is preferable, as much of the suspense of TSC comes from
backloading the Big Science revelations of just what the Fast Folks and
The Malley Mile _are_, and these events are discussed rather
matter-of-factly in TCD.
But no, it won't ruin it for you reading them out of order.
--
Lawrence Person
lawr...@bga.com
New issue of Nova Express Now Available!
Nova Express Website: http://www.delphi.com/sflit/novaexpress/
David Kennedy
> I've given in and bought, but not yet read, :Cydonia:, despite a
> ghastly cover.
Open it now. Hasn't the hero got a great name? :-)
--
Dr David Kennedy, | kenn...@nortelnetworks.co.uk
Northern Ireland Telecommunications | ESN: 6 751 2678
Engineering Centre (NITEC), | Phone: 01232 362678
Nortel Networks | Fax: 01232 363170
Spike the Penguin
I discovered Ken McLeod's books through this group. I've read The Star
Fraction (and LOVED it) I'm not usually a scifi fan - but it was great. I
didn't realise the three books were related until I started TCD (which I've
nearly finished) . I've got TSC on hold at the local library, so I'm relieved
to find out that it doesn't particularly matter what order you read them in.
Looking forward to the next one!!!
By the way, here in NZ we get all the latest Iain banks, Ken McLeod etc pretty
quickly - I think before the USA. One of the benefits of being in the mighty
Commonwealth I guess.
- KT
David Dyer-Bennet
>In <36b60d3b...@news.globalnet.co.uk> loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com (Loznik) writes:
>>I gather that Ken MacLeod's novels to date, "The Star Fraction", "The
>>Stone Canal" and "The Cassini Division", are inter-connected, in that
>>he events of all three take place in the same "universe".
>>
>>My question - will I do irrepairable harm if I do *not* read them in
>>the order in which they were published? I have the latter two books
>>sitting on my bookcase, but the first book has eluded me thus far.
>I actually think the three books so far are _better_ approached in backwards
>order. It was reading them that way that converted me from a respectful
>admirer of interesting new British writer Ken MacLeod to a blithering Ken
>MacLeod fanboy. And, not incidentally, got me to buy US rights to THE
>CASSINI DIVISION and THE STONE CANAL.
I read them in the order _The Cassini Division_, _The Star Fraction_,
_The Stone Canal_ (the first entered the house as a review copy, I
bought the next two from amazon.co.uk and read them in publication
order). Based on one reading through them in that rather strange
order -- I'd actually suggest readin _The Stone Canal_ first, then
_The Star Fraction_, then _The Cassini Division_. TSC is split in
time in alternating sections, and the older section is the first
chronological events to take place, which may explain that
preference. Or perhaps I'm simply crazy.
Another way to look at it would be that the books sell okay, so the
order they were published in can't be a bad way to read them. And
Patrick suggests reading them backwards, so that's probably not a
mistake either. And at least one crazy person (me) suggests yet a
third order. Maybe it doesn't matter too much?
Anyway, read them. I liked them very well indeed.
--
David Dyer-Bennet d...@ddb.com
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
P Nielsen Hayden
>I read them in the order _The Cassini Division_, _The Star Fraction_,
>_The Stone Canal_ (the first entered the house as a review copy, I
>bought the next two from amazon.co.uk and read them in publication
>order). Based on one reading through them in that rather strange
>order -- I'd actually suggest readin _The Stone Canal_ first, then
>_The Star Fraction_, then _The Cassini Division_. TSC is split in
>time in alternating sections, and the older section is the first
>chronological events to take place, which may explain that
>preference. Or perhaps I'm simply crazy.
>
>Another way to look at it would be that the books sell okay, so the
>order they were published in can't be a bad way to read them. And
>Patrick suggests reading them backwards, so that's probably not a
>mistake either. And at least one crazy person (me) suggests yet a
>third order. Maybe it doesn't matter too much?
It probably doesn't matter too much. Thinking it over, I suspect some of my
response is because THE CASSINI DIVISION gets under way the fastest of the
three books. Also because MacLeod's sheer skill as a prose stylist improves
in leaps and bounds with each book. THE STAR FRACTION is well-written; THE
STONE CANAL is a big jump over that and very ambitious structurally; and
with THE CASSINI DIVISION he achieves, practically from the first page, the
kind of full-throated scientifictional roar I associate with just a very few
writers -- Bester, Zelazny, the Vernor Vinge of A FIRE UPON THE DEEP and A
DEEPNESS IN THE SKY.
>Anyway, read them. I liked them very well indeed.
Ayup.
David Kennedy
> ... MacLeod's sheer skill as a prose stylist improves
> in leaps and bounds with each book. THE STAR FRACTION is well-written; THE
> STONE CANAL is a big jump over that and very ambitious structurally; and
> with THE CASSINI DIVISION he achieves, practically from the first page, the
> kind of full-throated scientifictional roar I associate with just a very few
> writers -- Bester, Zelazny, the Vernor Vinge of A FIRE UPON THE DEEP and A
> DEEPNESS IN THE SKY.
I agree with the improvement in prose quality over the three books (another
reason why I reckon you should read in UK publication order, it's great to
find a writer has *improved*, less exciting to go and read a second book
which is less polished...).
However, I still can't understand why there is such a strong response
to Vinge's "A Fire Upon The Deep". "The Cassini Division" is a *much*
better book. I was distinctly underwhelmed by AFUTD, indeed, I actively
disliked much of it (although I loved the title!). I had the same
response to Vinge's, er, memory failure, the duology (I read an
omnibus) with the title like "The Forever War" (I know, that's Haldeman).
--
Rich Horton
<kenn...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>"The Cassini Division" is a *much*
>better book. I was distinctly underwhelmed by AFUTD, indeed, I actively
>disliked much of it (although I loved the title!). I had the same
>response to Vinge's, er, memory failure, the duology (I read an
>omnibus) with the title like "The Forever War" (I know, that's Haldeman).
I presume you mean _Across Realtime_? In the US at least, this is
sort of a 2.5-ology, consisting of _The Peace War_, the novella "The
Ungoverned", and _Marooned in Realtime_.
I loved Patrick's phrase "full-throated scientifictional roar". For
me, Vinge definitely has this. (As does K. MacLeod.) It seems like
an attempt to describe the purely SFnal qualities some writers
display, that are hard to map to a traditinal lit-crit index of
virtues (though they do reflect some aspects of such an index). In a
sense, the title of the last chapter of MacLeod's _The Stone Canal_
hints at what I'm thinking of: "Vast and Cool".
As to your response to Vinge, I'm tempted to simply adduce "voice
mismatch". It happens. Me, I enjoy practically every word he's
written, from "Bookworm, Run" and "Apartness" on. Though it's easy to
see he's improving.
--
Rich Horton | rrho...@concentric.net
Web Page: www.sff.net/people/richard.horton (New: reviews of
_Starlight 2_ and _New Worlds_, as well as collections by
Garcia y Robertson, Kelly, and MacLeod.)
David Kennedy
> I presume you mean _Across Realtime_? In the US at least, this is
> sort of a 2.5-ology, consisting of _The Peace War_, the novella "The
> Ungoverned", and _Marooned in Realtime_.
That's the one I meant.
I conflated _The Peace War_ with both _The Forever War_ and _Forever Peace_
(and I think I've just mangled on of those titles too!)
That was the first Vinge I'd read, without having noticed any rasfw
or similar discussion. AFUTD I did read after seeing it praised here.
> As to your response to Vinge, I'm tempted to simply adduce "voice
> mismatch". It happens.
Yesterday, I read the sample of 'A Deepness In The Sky' on Tor's
web page (http://www.tor.com/sampleDeepness.html). It didn't
make much of an impression, but I can't say why. I think that you're
right, it's just a case of Milages Varying.
Matt Austern
> I loved Patrick's phrase "full-throated scientifictional roar". For
> me, Vinge definitely has this. (As does K. MacLeod.) It seems like
> an attempt to describe the purely SFnal qualities some writers
> display, that are hard to map to a traditinal lit-crit index of
> virtues (though they do reflect some aspects of such an index). In a
> sense, the title of the last chapter of MacLeod's _The Stone Canal_
> hints at what I'm thinking of: "Vast and Cool".
Now that leads to another Ken MacLeod reading order question: it is
reasonable to read The Cassini Division before reading Marooned in
Realtime? The Cassini Division appears to assume that the reader is
familiar with some vocabulary from Marooned in Realtime.
R. Byers
On 4 Feb 1999, Matt Austern wrote:
> Now that leads to another Ken MacLeod reading order question: it is
> reasonable to read The Cassini Division before reading Marooned in
> Realtime? The Cassini Division appears to assume that the reader is
> familiar with some vocabulary from Marooned in Realtime.
How so? I haven't read MiR, but I have read TCD. It's hard for
me to tell anymore what impressions I've gotten from the books and what
I've gotten from MacLeod's posts here, but I *did* feel, in TCD more than
in his first two, that he was arguing against something or someone. Do
you think it's Vinge? Or are you just saying that he's building on what
Vinge has done?
I'm with those who were underwhelmed by AFuTD, but I recently
picked up MiR because there are enough people whose stfnal preferences are
similar to mine who like Vinge that I'm willing to give him another try.
But, boy, I found the tine world stuff really uninteresting.
Not that *you* said anything one way or the other on that score.
--
Randy Byers <rby...@u.washington.edu>
Ken MacLeod
<aus...@sgi.com> writes
>Now that leads to another Ken MacLeod reading order question: it is
>reasonable to read The Cassini Division before reading Marooned in
>Realtime? The Cassini Division appears to assume that the reader is
>familiar with some vocabulary from Marooned in Realtime.
<boggle>
(or should that be <bobble>?)
Please explain.
--
Ken MacLeod
Loznik
<k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> suggested:
Yes, I'm with Ken here - what is "Marooned in Realtime"? :-)
P Nielsen Hayden
>But, boy, I found the tine world stuff really uninteresting.
To quote Ted White at his most Olympian: "Boy, are you wrong."
Helpfully,
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <fxtu2x2...@isolde.engr.sgi.com>, Matt Austern
><aus...@sgi.com> writes
>
>>Now that leads to another Ken MacLeod reading order question: it is
>>reasonable to read The Cassini Division before reading Marooned in
>>Realtime? The Cassini Division appears to assume that the reader is
>>familiar with some vocabulary from Marooned in Realtime.
>
><boggle>
>
>(or should that be <bobble>?)
>
>Please explain.
I think Matt must be referring to Vinge's concept of the Singularity, which
features in the work in question and of which dramatic use is made in THE
CASSINI DIVISION. "It's the Rapture for nerds!"
However, the Vingean Singularity is now a meme on the loose; one hardly need
have read MAROONED IN REALTIME to engage with it.
Ian Sutherland
>By the way, here in NZ we get all the latest Iain banks, Ken McLeod etc pretty
>quickly - I think before the USA. One of the benefits of being in the mighty
>Commonwealth I guess.
To date, I believe that one of the benefits of being in the mighty
Commonwealth is that you can get Mr. MacLeod's books _at all_ without
ordering them from overseas. I seem to recall Mr. Hayden saying that
at least some of them would be published in the US some time soon,
to which I can only shout "Hurrah!".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Sutherland email: ia...@research.bell-labs.com
Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Sans Peur
Scott Taylor
<snip>
> However, the Vingean Singularity is now a meme on the loose;
> one hardly need have read MAROONED IN REALTIME to engage with it.
<sees this line, immediately thinks of a small thought balloon
(filled with Singularityness) with legs, running around nekkid
and giggling like a small child, decides it's time to go home and
take a nap...>.
Scott Taylor
Freelancer for hire
Have Powerbook, Will Travel
R. Byers
On 4 Feb 1999, P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> In <Pine.A41.4.05.990204...@homer22.u.washington.edu> "R. Byers" <rby...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >But, boy, I found the tine world stuff really uninteresting.
>
> To quote Ted White at his most Olympian: "Boy, are you wrong."
Okay, okay, I found it *dis*interesting.
--
Randy Byers <rby...@u.washington.edu>
Mark Dadgar
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> In <Pine.A41.4.05.990204...@homer22.u.washington.edu> "R. Byers" <rby...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >But, boy, I found the tine world stuff really uninteresting.
>
> To quote Ted White at his most Olympian: "Boy, are you wrong."
That must make two of us, then, 'cause it bored me as well.
AFUTD. Really wanted to like it. Just couldn't pull it off.
- Mark
Matt Austern
> >Please explain.
>
> I think Matt must be referring to Vinge's concept of the Singularity, which
> features in the work in question and of which dramatic use is made in THE
> CASSINI DIVISION. "It's the Rapture for nerds!"
That is exactly what I was referring to, yes. I was even thinking
specifically of that phrase, which is a wonderful putdown.
At the latest Potlatch there was a panel on religion in science
fiction, and a several people noted that "hard" SF is one place where
religion is to be found. If transcendence isn't a religious theme,
it's something awfully close.
Andrew Cummins
---Spoilers---
My problem with Cassini Division was the question as to why the fast
folk allowed themselves to be destroyed? And also why the slow folk
(humans) felt that they had to destroy them in the first place?
It all seemed too gratuitous for my liking - the heroine of the story
is an attractive mass-murderer...
-- Andrew
R. Byers wrote:
>
> On 4 Feb 1999, Matt Austern wrote:
>
> > Now that leads to another Ken MacLeod reading order question: it is
> > reasonable to read The Cassini Division before reading Marooned in
> > Realtime? The Cassini Division appears to assume that the reader is
> > familiar with some vocabulary from Marooned in Realtime.
>
> How so? I haven't read MiR, but I have read TCD. It's hard for
> me to tell anymore what impressions I've gotten from the books and what
> I've gotten from MacLeod's posts here, but I *did* feel, in TCD more than
> in his first two, that he was arguing against something or someone. Do
> you think it's Vinge? Or are you just saying that he's building on what
> Vinge has done?
> I'm with those who were underwhelmed by AFuTD, but I recently
> picked up MiR because there are enough people whose stfnal preferences are
> similar to mine who like Vinge that I'm willing to give him another try.
> But, boy, I found the tine world stuff really uninteresting.
mylovelyhorse
<izzy...@faerealm.com> wrote:
><sees this line, immediately thinks of a small thought balloon
A red balloon?
mike
==========
"He had an air of having wallowed, fully dressed, all day on an unmade bed"
'The Secret Agent' Joseph Conrad
==========
Ken Brown
which quote got me so I snip them except for...
> rapture for nerds
What impressed me about the books (as I ranted at some length in my
Interzone reviews) was the way they capured some of what it was like to be
British & on the Left in the last 30 years. I was sort of brought up on th e
Left, I've *been* to some of those pubs, I've been *sold* those papers, I've
*met* some of those veterans of previous struggles - mostly in seedy bars
over even more papers. I was encouraged by the way some Americans seemed to
find good stuff in books that looked as if they were directed straight at
me and people like me...
Ken Brown
mylovelyhorse
<kbr...@kbrown.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>What impressed me about the books (as I ranted at some length in my
>Interzone reviews) was the way they capured some of what it was like to be
>British & on the Left in the last 30 years. I was sort of brought up on th e
>Left, I've *been* to some of those pubs, I've been *sold* those papers, I've
>*met* some of those veterans of previous struggles - mostly in seedy bars
>over even more papers. I was encouraged by the way some Americans seemed to
>find good stuff in books that looked as if they were directed straight at
>me and people like me...
ditto.
very well put.
that's certainly a big part of the excitement of them for me - only I
wish the Left still had that kind of influence! Hey ho ...
PMccutc103
>What impressed me about the books (as I ranted at some length in my
>Interzone reviews) was the way they capured some of what it was like to be
>British & on the Left in the last 30 years.
Y'know, I keep hearing about how Ken is this Left guy, and I guess I'll have to
actually read his books one of these days, because it just doesn't seem
consistent with the comments that he makes here. Why, he even seems to
understand that mandating a minimum price above a market-clearing price leads
to a shortage. Such a grasp of elementary economics is almost entirely absent
from the Left.
In short, I just don't believe it.
--
Pete McCutchen
Lawrence Person
pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
> Y'know, I keep hearing about how Ken is this Left guy, and I guess I'll
have to
> actually read his books one of these days, because it just doesn't seem
> consistent with the comments that he makes here. Why, he even seems to
> understand that mandating a minimum price above a market-clearing price leads
> to a shortage. Such a grasp of elementary economics is almost entirely
absent
> from the Left.
>
Actually, I think the best way to describe him would be an Ex-Lefty (or,
if you prefer, a Libertarian ex-Trotskyite).
Nancy Lebovitz
Lawrence Person <lawr...@bga.com> wrote:
>In article <19990210174444...@ng134.aol.com>,
>pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
>
>> Y'know, I keep hearing about how Ken is this Left guy, and I guess I'll
>have to
>> actually read his books one of these days, because it just doesn't seem
>> consistent with the comments that he makes here. Why, he even seems to
>> understand that mandating a minimum price above a market-clearing price leads
>> to a shortage. Such a grasp of elementary economics is almost entirely
>absent
>> from the Left.
>>
>Actually, I think the best way to describe him would be an Ex-Lefty (or,
>if you prefer, a Libertarian ex-Trotskyite).
>
here) are that he thinks libertarianism is relatively sensible but the
best sort of society would be some flavor of non-propertarian anarchy.
Ken MacLeod
>In article <19990210174444...@ng134.aol.com>,
>pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
>
>> Y'know, I keep hearing about how Ken is this Left guy, and I guess I'll
>have to
>> actually read his books one of these days, because it just doesn't seem
>> consistent with the comments that he makes here. Why, he even seems to
>> understand that mandating a minimum price above a market-clearing price leads
>> to a shortage. Such a grasp of elementary economics is almost entirely
>absent
>> from the Left.
>>
>Actually, I think the best way to describe him would be an Ex-Lefty (or,
>if you prefer, a Libertarian ex-Trotskyite).
>
My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
or with understanding elementary economics.
--
Ken MacLeod 'The men of the future will yet fight their way
to many a liberty that we do not even miss.'
- Max Stirner
Jo Walton
pmccu...@aol.com "PMccutc103" writes:
>
> Y'know, I keep hearing about how Ken is this Left guy, and I guess I'll have to
> actually read his books one of these days, because it just doesn't seem
> consistent with the comments that he makes here. Why, he even seems to
> understand that mandating a minimum price above a market-clearing price leads
> to a shortage. Such a grasp of elementary economics is almost entirely absent
> from the Left.
>
The second thing I thought when I finished :The Star Fraction: was "I
can't wait for Pete McCutchen to read this book!"
I am longing to hear your economic analysis of it, but mostly I'm
looking forward to the spluttering. :]
It's sophisticated and clueful and it's not going to strike you as
the twittering of birds.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
First NorAm Public Appearance: Imperiums to Order, Kitchener, March 20th
Freshly UPDATED web-page http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Interstichia;
RASFW FAQ, Reviews, Fanzine, Momentum Guidelines, Blood of Kings Poetry
Del Cotter
Ken MacLeod wrote:
>>pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
>>
>>> Y'know, I keep hearing about how Ken is this Left guy, and I guess I'll
>>> actually read his books one of these days, because it just doesn't seem
>>> consistent with the comments that he makes here. Why, he even seems to
>>> understand that mandating a minimum price above a market-clearing price leads
>>> to a shortage. Such a grasp of elementary economics is almost entirely
>>> from the Left.
>
>My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
>or with understanding elementary economics.
Pete's position is that socialism is incompatible with understanding
elementary economics at least, so there isn't going to be any cure for
his cognitive dissonance anytime soon.
Pete, read _The Star Fraction_. I mean it.
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
The Alien Design Bibliography
http://www.branta.demon.co.uk/alien-design/
Michael S. Schiffer
Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <19990210174444...@ng134.aol.com>,
> >pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
> >> Y'know, I keep hearing about how Ken is this Left guy, and I guess I'll
> >have to
> >> actually read his books one of these days, because it just doesn't seem
> >> consistent with the comments that he makes here. Why, he even seems to
> >> understand that mandating a minimum price above a market-clearing price
leads
> >> to a shortage. Such a grasp of elementary economics is almost entirely
> >absent
> >> from the Left.
>...
> My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
> or with understanding elementary economics.
Before anyone addresses that question directly: would you be willing to say
(or point to, if this is the thousandth time you've answered the question)
what you mean by socialism? I've read _The Star Fraction_ and _The Stone
Canal_, but I'd hesitate to speculate on which, if any, of the characters'
views represented which elements of your own.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS "I decline utterly to be impartial
ms...@mediaone.net as between the fire brigade and
msch...@condor.depaul.edu the fire."
-- Winston Churchill, July 7, 1926
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Phil Fraering
>In article <19990210174444...@ng134.aol.com>,
>pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
>> Y'know, I keep hearing about how Ken is this Left guy, and I guess I'll
>have to
>> actually read his books one of these days, because it just doesn't seem
>> consistent with the comments that he makes here. Why, he even seems to
>> understand that mandating a minimum price above a market-clearing price leads
>> to a shortage. Such a grasp of elementary economics is almost entirely
>absent
>> from the Left.
>>
>Actually, I think the best way to describe him would be an Ex-Lefty (or,
>if you prefer, a Libertarian ex-Trotskyite).
That's only the second phase in the Conspiracy.
Phase 3: Trotskyite libertarianism.
Phil
(ps: would you like smileys with that?)
--
Phil Fraering "It is also for adults, of course, except for those
p...@globalreach.net who think they do not want to see a film about
/Will work for *tape*/ anything so preposterous as a seal-woman, and
who will get what they deserve." - Roger Ebert
Phil Fraering
>> My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
>> or with understanding elementary economics.
For which values of size and uniformity in a society, not to mention
willingness to put up with change?
Phil
Ken MacLeod
<ms...@mediaone.net> writes
>In article <ERUtrcAZ...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>,
> Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
>> or with understanding elementary economics.
>
>(or point to, if this is the thousandth time you've answered the question)
>what you mean by socialism? I've read _The Star Fraction_ and _The Stone
>Canal_, but I'd hesitate to speculate on which, if any, of the characters'
>views represented which elements of your own.
>
What I mean by socialism is the abolition of wage-labour by the
organised, deliberate, democratic majority action of the wage/salary
earning class.
See 'The Two Souls of Socialism' by Hal Draper and 'The Battle for
Socialism' by Max Shachtman, both of which can be tracked down at
Michael S. Schiffer
Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What I mean by socialism is the abolition of wage-labour by the
> organised, deliberate, democratic majority action of the wage/salary
> earning class.
> See 'The Two Souls of Socialism' by Hal Draper and 'The Battle for
> Socialism' by Max Shachtman, both of which can be tracked down at
>
> http://www.marxists.org/
I couldn't find the Draper article on the above site. For those looking for
it, it's available at <http://www.tao.ca/~gs/res/docs/draper.html>. If the
Shachtman article is entitled "The Fight for Socialism", it is at the
marxists.com site at
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/works/ffsind.htm>. (Note that some
of the links to particular sections don't work, but can be fixed by replacing
the first f in .../fff0x.htm with a capital f. E.g., part 7's link is given
as <http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/works/ffs07.htm>, but it's
actually <http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/works/Ffs07.htm>)
Comments after I've actually had a chance to read the things. :-)
Ken MacLeod
>>In article <ERUtrcAZ...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>,
>> Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
>>> or with understanding elementary economics.
>
>willingness to put up with change?
>
Size - classically, 'at least several of the advanced countries'.
Uniformity - beyond an acceptance of the basic procedures, no uniformity
is needed.
Willingness to put up with change - probably greater than in capitalism.
--
Ken MacLeod
Phil Fraering
>What I mean by socialism is the abolition of wage-labour by the
>organised, deliberate, democratic majority action of the wage/salary
>earning class.
This isn't quite necessarily incompatible with capitalism per
se, depending on how you define it.
Have you ever heard Eric Hoffer's statement that socialism and
communism are just heretical versions of capitalism?
Phil Fraering
>In article <t7l2a7.7v5.ln@lungold>, pgf@lungold.? writes
>>>In article <ERUtrcAZ...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>,
>>> Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
>>>> or with understanding elementary economics.
>>
>>For which values of size and uniformity in a society, not to mention
>>willingness to put up with change?
>>
>Size - classically, 'at least several of the advanced countries'.
Well, ask a vague question, get a vague answer.
>Uniformity - beyond an acceptance of the basic procedures, no uniformity
>is needed.
Will the country hold together?
>Willingness to put up with change - probably greater than in capitalism.
Are you saying that socialists are willing to put up with more change,
or that more change is possible in socialist systems than in capitalist
ones?
("Little does he know it, but Phil Fraering, and his computer, Lungold,
have just started receiving usenet traffic from The Twilight Zone.")
Ken MacLeod
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
[re socialism]
>
>>Uniformity - beyond an acceptance of the basic procedures, no uniformity
>>is needed.
>
>Will the country hold together?
>
Is that a problem?
>>Willingness to put up with change - probably greater than in capitalism.
>
>Are you saying that socialists are willing to put up with more change,
>or that more change is possible in socialist systems than in capitalist
>ones?
>
In a socialism based on democracy, yes.
>("Little does he know it, but Phil Fraering, and his computer, Lungold,
>have just started receiving usenet traffic from The Twilight Zone.")
>
News from nowhere. I know.
I'm well aware that no such society has ever existed, and that the
movements which have such a society as their aim are very small and
fragmented and often wrong about one issue or another. Writing SF about
socialist and libertarian revolutionaries and future socialist societies
and libertarian societies is one way of asking and answering questions
like 'What do you mean by socialism?'
It's taken me several years and four novels to work out some of my own
thoughts and feelings about all this stuff. That's not *all* that's
going on in my books, but it's part of what drives them.
I'm quite happy to argue about the politics etc outside of an SF
context, but I'm reluctant to generate long off-topic threads about
socialism on rasfw.
Except the ones I look forward to when Tor brings out _The Cassini
Division_ in the US this July, that is :-)
--
Ken MacLeod
Graydon
Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Uniformity - beyond an acceptance of the basic procedures, no uniformity
>is needed.
I'd say that a common universe of discourse is necessary, and goes a
bit beyond an acceptance of the basic procedures.
--
graydon@ | He either fears his fate too much,/Or his deserts are small,
lara.on.ca | That puts it not to the touch,/To win or lose it all.
-- James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose 1612-1650
Dan Goodman
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>In article <ftc5a7.929.ln@lungold>, pgf@lungold.? writes
>>>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>>is needed.
>
>
>>Is that a problem?
>
>>>>Willingness to put up with change - probably greater than in capitalism.
>
>>>Are you saying that socialists are willing to put up with more change,
>>>or that more change is possible in socialist systems than in capitalist
>>>ones?
>
>>In a socialism based on democracy, yes.
>
>socialism here to retard the rate of change. IF you define socialism
>as government interventionism in the economy up to and including ownership
>of the means of production.
There are two problems with that definition. First, it's not the one Mr.
McLeod is using.
Second, and probably worse, is that it's inaccurate.
To begin with, conservatives often support government intervention in the
economy. In the US, this support generally hasn't gone beyond protective
tariffs, strikebreaking, and subsidies. (And there are American
conservatives who do support genuine free enterprise.) In France,
government intervention is A Tradition and has been upheld by
conservatives as such.
And there are socialists who don't want _any_ government _at all_. Ever.
doing anything.
Karl Marx considered government necessary for the transition to a society
which wouldn't need government.
Socialism (3 syl.). The political and social scheme of Robert Owen, of
Montgomeryshire, who in 1816 published a work to show that society was
in a wretched condition, and all its institutions and religious
systems were based on wrong principles. The prevailing system is
competition, but Owen maintained that the proper principle is
co-operation; he therefore advocated a community of property and the
abolition of degrees of rank. (1771-1858.)
The Socialists are called also Owenites (3 syl.). In France the
Fourierists and St. Simonians are similar sorts of communists, who
receive their designations from Fourier and St. Simon (q.v.).
THE DICTIONARY OF PHRASE AND FABLE BY E. COBHAM BREWER FROM THE NEW
AND ENLARGED EDITION OF 1894
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Nancy Lebovitz
Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>What I mean by socialism is the abolition of wage-labour by the
>organised, deliberate, democratic majority action of the wage/salary
>earning class.
>
society still be socialist?
Coyu
>Date: Mon, Feb 15, 1999 14:23 EST
>>What I mean by socialism is the abolition of wage-labour by the
>>organised, deliberate, democratic majority action of the wage/salary
>>earning class.
>>
>If wage labor went away for some other reason, could the resulting
>society still be socialist?
But which way? "Hi, we've abolished wage labor, and keep our slaves
in common!"
Nancy Lebovitz
That wouldn't be socialism, but how about "The tech level is so high
that most stuff is free. If you want something really cool (especially
if it's new), you're going to have to get into the gift economy."?
James Nicoll
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Willingness to put up with change - probably greater than in capitalism.
>
>Are you saying that socialists are willing to put up with more change,
>or that more change is possible in socialist systems than in capitalist
>ones?
Or perhaps "could be"?
--
March 20, 1999: Imperiums To Order's 15th Anniversary Party. Guests include
Rob Sawyer [SF author], Jo Walton [game designer and soon to be published
fantasy author] and James Gardner [SF author]. DP9 is a definite maybe.
Imperiums is at 12 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Phil Fraering
>>Well, at least in the US, I get the impression that people want
>>socialism here to retard the rate of change. IF you define socialism
>>as government interventionism in the economy up to and including ownership
>>of the means of production.
>There are two problems with that definition. First, it's not the one Mr.
>McLeod is using.
I know it isn't. I'm trying to compare different definitions of the
word socialist.
>Second, and probably worse, is that it's inaccurate.
>To begin with, conservatives often support government intervention in the
>economy.
And I'd reply that said "Pat Buchanan Brigade" (for lack of a better
term) is, although they don't really know it, verging on socialism.
They spend a great deal of time vilifying many (most?) Republicans
for not pushing for more intervention in the economy; since "everyone
knows" that Buchanan's a "conservative" I suppose that makes the
Republicans in the House "liberal?"
In short, "conservative" and "liberal" are often useless terms.
They're meant to confuse people.
> In the US, this support generally hasn't gone beyond protective
>tariffs, strikebreaking, and subsidies. (And there are American
>conservatives who do support genuine free enterprise.) In France,
>government intervention is A Tradition and has been upheld by
>conservatives as such.
I am aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that Richard Nixon
started wage and price controls in this country.
Believe it or not, although I don't really approve of forced union
membership, I currently think the Federal government is full of
you-know-what in trying to force the American Airlines pilots back
to work. It's not their business to side with management just as
it's not their business to side with the union.
Phil Fraering
>>And I'd reply that said "Pat Buchanan Brigade" (for lack of a better
>>term) is, although they don't really know it, verging on socialism.
>No. They're verging on the Corporative State -- which is a kinder,
>gentler fascism. (Apologies to any fascist who feels insulted at being
>linked to Pat Buchanan.)
I think after a while fascism bleeds into socialism. Look at the
working definition I gave for socialism a while back, state ownership
of the means of production - I know it's one of many, but it's the
one that's stuck in my mind - under fascism, the means of production
are owned by people, but controlled by the state; frankly, this implies
a definition of "ownership" that just doesn't correspond to that used
by capitalist (and many socialist) systems. I guess it's a semantic
trick to try to get capitalists to invest in what's essentially a
socialist system.
You could have a field day trying to define the current setup in China,
where there is "private enterprise," both foreign and domestic, but
most businesses are required to be in partnership with a government-
owned corporate entity.
>>They spend a great deal of time vilifying many (most?) Republicans
>>for not pushing for more intervention in the economy; since "everyone
>>knows" that Buchanan's a "conservative" I suppose that makes the
>>Republicans in the House "liberal?"
>From Buchanan's point of view, yes.
>>In short, "conservative" and "liberal" are often useless terms.
>>They're meant to confuse people.
>Oh, they do have meaning. Quoting Ambrose Bierce from memory:
>_Conservative: a statesman enamored of the existing evils; as
>distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."-
>Conservatives want to preserve things as they now are -- or as they were
>in The Glorious Past. So both Americans who want to "return to the Free
>Enterprise System" and Russians who want to bring back Communism can
>reasonably be called conservatives.
>Liberals want to Make Things Better.
>Unfortunately, a number of people are mislabeled. So you have people
>billed as conservatives who want to implement wonderful new ideas -- new
>kinds of taxes, for example. And you have people billed as liberals who
>look back to the Good Old Days.
You've virtually replaced one set of useless definitions with
another there, because it lets you perform the semantic trick of
lumping in the Steve Forbes (for example) types with the Russian
Communist Party.
>>> In the US, this support generally hasn't gone beyond protective
>>>tariffs, strikebreaking, and subsidies. (And there are American
>>>conservatives who do support genuine free enterprise.) In France,
>>>government intervention is A Tradition and has been upheld by
>>>conservatives as such.
>>
>>I am aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that Richard Nixon
>>started wage and price controls in this country.
>The most recent time it was tried. It was done as part of the New Deal,
>and done during wartime.
And apparently the most damaging, as it was around then that we started
getting energy crises in earnest.
>>Believe it or not, although I don't really approve of forced union
>>membership, I currently think the Federal government is full of
>>you-know-what in trying to force the American Airlines pilots back
>>to work. It's not their business to side with management just as
>>it's not their business to side with the union.
>I believe it. Question -- do you count mandatory membership in
>professional societies as "forced union membership"?
I'm still thinking about that one. I *don't* want to go into the
reasons here, but some professional organizations are starting to
give me the creeps.
Dan Goodman
>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) writes:
>
>>>Well, at least in the US, I get the impression that people want
>>>socialism here to retard the rate of change. IF you define socialism
>>>as government interventionism in the economy up to and including ownership
>>>of the means of production.
>
>>There are two problems with that definition. First, it's not the one Mr.
>>McLeod is using.
>
>I know it isn't. I'm trying to compare different definitions of the
>word socialist.
>
>>Second, and probably worse, is that it's inaccurate.
>
>>To begin with, conservatives often support government intervention in the
>>economy.
>
>term) is, although they don't really know it, verging on socialism.
No. They're verging on the Corporative State -- which is a kinder,
gentler fascism. (Apologies to any fascist who feels insulted at being
linked to Pat Buchanan.)
>They spend a great deal of time vilifying many (most?) Republicans
>for not pushing for more intervention in the economy; since "everyone
>knows" that Buchanan's a "conservative" I suppose that makes the
>Republicans in the House "liberal?"
From Buchanan's point of view, yes.
>In short, "conservative" and "liberal" are often useless terms.
>They're meant to confuse people.
Oh, they do have meaning. Quoting Ambrose Bierce from memory:
_Conservative: a statesman enamored of the existing evils; as
distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."-
Conservatives want to preserve things as they now are -- or as they were
in The Glorious Past. So both Americans who want to "return to the Free
Enterprise System" and Russians who want to bring back Communism can
reasonably be called conservatives.
Liberals want to Make Things Better.
Unfortunately, a number of people are mislabeled. So you have people
billed as conservatives who want to implement wonderful new ideas -- new
kinds of taxes, for example. And you have people billed as liberals who
look back to the Good Old Days.
>> In the US, this support generally hasn't gone beyond protective
>>tariffs, strikebreaking, and subsidies. (And there are American
>>conservatives who do support genuine free enterprise.) In France,
>>government intervention is A Tradition and has been upheld by
>>conservatives as such.
>
>I am aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that Richard Nixon
>started wage and price controls in this country.
The most recent time it was tried. It was done as part of the New Deal,
and done during wartime.
>Believe it or not, although I don't really approve of forced union
>membership, I currently think the Federal government is full of
>you-know-what in trying to force the American Airlines pilots back
>to work. It's not their business to side with management just as
>it's not their business to side with the union.
I believe it. Question -- do you count mandatory membership in
professional societies as "forced union membership"?
--
Coyu
>Date: Mon, Feb 15, 1999 18:04 EST
>>But which way? "Hi, we've abolished wage labor, and keep our slaves
>>in common!"
>
>That wouldn't be socialism,
If the slaves are advanced machines, would it be socialism then?
Of course, they could well be advanced machines that _used_
to be human. Cyborged, downloaded, or perhaps merely lobotomized
beyond any hope of salvage...
Or perhaps the ideology doesn't _admit_ that they're human.
I mean, Athens was (and is) considered a democracy, even though
over 70% of its population couldn't participate in its civic life.
>but how about "The tech level is so high
>that most stuff is free. If you want something really cool (especially
>if it's new), you're going to have to get into the gift economy."?
Ooh - slippery slope to mercantilism, maybe even cash.
Ken MacLeod
<na...@unix3.netaxs.com> writes
>In article <d0E7iAAc...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>,
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>organised, deliberate, democratic majority action of the wage/salary
>>earning class.
>>
>If wage labor went away for some other reason, could the resulting
>society still be socialist?
>
Maybe, so long as wage-labour wasn't replaced by slavery or serfdom or
something like that! I suppose I should have added a clause about common
ownership and democratic control of the means of production and
distribution to the definition, but I clean forgot (or assumed it was
included in 'abolition of wage-labour').
You can have societies without wage-labour, slavery or serfdom that
aren't socialist. Everybody owns their means of production and trades
the products. If modern capitalism could give rise to such a society
then of course socialism wouldn't be an issue.
--
Ken MacLeod
Ken MacLeod
<dsg...@visi.com> writes
>In article <1jh7a7.o9j.ln@lungold>, Phil Fraering <pgf@lungold> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>Well, at least in the US, I get the impression that people want
>>socialism here to retard the rate of change. IF you define socialism
>>as government interventionism in the economy up to and including ownership
>>of the means of production.
>
>There are two problems with that definition. First, it's not the one Mr.
>McLeod is using.
>
True, it isn't. But to be fair, it's not necessarily inconsistent with
the definition I used. The 'workers' government' advocated in one of the
texts I referred to most certainly would be interventionist and would
own the major industries. And socialists-by-my-definition have advocated
specific interventions and nationalizations by existing governments.
(So, as you correctly point out, have conservatives.)
What socialists like Shachtman, Draper et al said, over and over and
over, is that state interventions and nationalizations aren't
necessarily socialist or even steps towards socialism.
But even the interventions by existing governments aren't always or even
mainly motivated, as far I can see, by a desire to retard the rate of
change. Quite often they're brought about to speed it up and move it in
a particular direction. (Perhaps the *wrong* direction, but that's
another argument.) Look at NASA! The Channel Tunnel! French railways!
The S & L bailout! (Oops, wrong example ...) The US superhighways!
--
Ken MacLeod
JBassior
MacLeod
If the machines are sentient they are people, and their enslavement will have
the same pernicious effects on a society as the enslavement of any other
people.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Nancy Lebovitz
is apt to leave people believing that work is something slaves do. If
the AIs can do work that people couldn't do anyway, might people still
believe that humans do the sort of work that only humans can do?
Graydon
James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <ftc5a7.929.ln@lungold>, Phil Fraering <pgf@lungold> wrote:
>>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>Willingness to put up with change - probably greater than in capitalism.
>>
>>Are you saying that socialists are willing to put up with more change,
>>or that more change is possible in socialist systems than in capitalist
>>ones?
>
> Or perhaps "could be"?
Especially in circumstances under which they're using an imagination
of government in which the government's job includes making it
difficult for corporate interests to prevent change in the
marketplace.
Or, helya, even _notices_ that large, profitable corporate interests
might want to keep things from changing.
Ken MacLeod
>>> If the slaves are advanced machines, would it be socialism then? << Ken
>MacLeod
>
Watch it with those AOL attributions! I didn't say that!
--
Ken MacLeod
Samael
JBassior wrote in message <19990216100148...@ng100.aol.com>...
>>> If the slaves are advanced machines, would it be socialism then? << Ken
>MacLeod
>
have
>the same pernicious effects on a society as the enslavement of any other
>people.
How sentient is sentient? Fish sentient? Dog Sentient? Gorilla Sentient?
AOLer sentient?
Samael
Coyu
>Date: Tue, Feb 16, 1999 11:44 EST
>>>> If the slaves are advanced machines, would it be socialism then? << Ken
>>MacLeod
>>
>Watch it with those AOL attributions! I didn't say that!
Yeah; I said it - Coyu, more usually found on s.h.w-i.
Though I'm flattered at being mistaken for Ken, you know, well, er...
There can be only one.
David Given
>JBassior wrote in message <19990216100148...@ng100.aol.com>...
>>MacLeod
>>
>have
>>the same pernicious effects on a society as the enslavement of any other
>>people.
>
>How sentient is sentient? Fish sentient? Dog Sentient? Gorilla Sentient?
>AOLer sentient?
He probably means
`that-word-that-English-doesn't-have-that-people-refer-to-when-they-say-
sentient-or-intelligent-or-things-like-that'.
Bit of a mouthful, unfortunately. Are there any contenders for a shorter
version?
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+
| Work: d...@tao.co.uk | I don't see you, so don't pretend you're
| Play: dgi...@iname.com | there.
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+
Dan Goodman
>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) writes:
>
>>>And I'd reply that said "Pat Buchanan Brigade" (for lack of a better
>>>term) is, although they don't really know it, verging on socialism.
>
>>No. They're verging on the Corporative State -- which is a kinder,
>>gentler fascism. (Apologies to any fascist who feels insulted at being
>>linked to Pat Buchanan.)
>
>working definition I gave for socialism a while back, state ownership
>of the means of production - I know it's one of many, but it's the
>one that's stuck in my mind - under fascism, the means of production
>are owned by people, but controlled by the state; frankly, this implies
>a definition of "ownership" that just doesn't correspond to that used
>by capitalist (and many socialist) systems. I guess it's a semantic
>trick to try to get capitalists to invest in what's essentially a
>socialist system.
>
>You could have a field day trying to define the current setup in China,
>where there is "private enterprise," both foreign and domestic, but
>most businesses are required to be in partnership with a government-
>owned corporate entity.
>
>>>for not pushing for more intervention in the economy; since "everyone
>>>knows" that Buchanan's a "conservative" I suppose that makes the
>>>Republicans in the House "liberal?"
>
>>From Buchanan's point of view, yes.
>
>>>In short, "conservative" and "liberal" are often useless terms.
>>>They're meant to confuse people.
>
>>Oh, they do have meaning. Quoting Ambrose Bierce from memory:
>>_Conservative: a statesman enamored of the existing evils; as
>>distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."-
>
>>Conservatives want to preserve things as they now are -- or as they were
>>in The Glorious Past. So both Americans who want to "return to the Free
>>Enterprise System" and Russians who want to bring back Communism can
>>reasonably be called conservatives.
>
>>Liberals want to Make Things Better.
>
>>Unfortunately, a number of people are mislabeled. So you have people
>>billed as conservatives who want to implement wonderful new ideas -- new
>>kinds of taxes, for example. And you have people billed as liberals who
>>look back to the Good Old Days.
>
>another there, because it lets you perform the semantic trick of
>lumping in the Steve Forbes (for example) types with the Russian
>Communist Party.
IT IS NOT A SEMANTIC TRICK -- look in some dictionaries of political
terms!
And they belong together at least as much as Steve Forbes conservatives
belong with the anti-Dreyfusards.
>>>> In the US, this support generally hasn't gone beyond protective
>>>>tariffs, strikebreaking, and subsidies. (And there are American
>>>>conservatives who do support genuine free enterprise.) In France,
>>>>government intervention is A Tradition and has been upheld by
>>>>conservatives as such.
>>>
>>>I am aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that Richard Nixon
>>>started wage and price controls in this country.
>
>>The most recent time it was tried. It was done as part of the New Deal,
>>and done during wartime.
>
>And apparently the most damaging, as it was around then that we started
>getting energy crises in earnest.
>
>>>Believe it or not, although I don't really approve of forced union
>>>membership, I currently think the Federal government is full of
>>>you-know-what in trying to force the American Airlines pilots back
>>>to work. It's not their business to side with management just as
>>>it's not their business to side with the union.
>
>>I believe it. Question -- do you count mandatory membership in
>>professional societies as "forced union membership"?
>
>I'm still thinking about that one. I *don't* want to go into the
>reasons here, but some professional organizations are starting to
>give me the creeps.
Coyu
>Date: Tue, Feb 16, 1999 12:26 EST
>>>> If the slaves are advanced machines, would it be socialism then?
[NB: Ken MacLeod did not say the above; I, Coyu, did.]
>>> If the machines are sentient they are people, and their enslavement
>>> will have the same pernicious effects on a society as the enslavement
>>> of any other people.
>>How sentient is sentient? Fish sentient? Dog Sentient? Gorilla Sentient?
>>AOLer sentient?
Nice knowing we're at the top of the ladder.
>He probably means
>`that-word-that-English-doesn't-have-that-people-refer-to-when-they-say-
>sentient-or-intelligent-or-things-like-that'.
>
>Bit of a mouthful, unfortunately. Are there any contenders for a shorter
>version?
'Human-equivalent'? Begs the question, though.
This is why, in my guise as 'Ken MacLeod' (?!), I had originally asked
would it be socialism if the 'advanced machines' were whittled-down
humans... that is to say, is socialism path-dependent?
Matt Austern
> It's taken me several years and four novels to work out some of my own
> thoughts and feelings about all this stuff. That's not *all* that's
> going on in my books, but it's part of what drives them.
Four! Does that mean that the fourth hasn't been published yet?
PMccutc103
>>My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
>>or with understanding elementary economics.
>
>Pete's position is that socialism is incompatible with understanding
>elementary economics at least, so there isn't going to be any cure for
>his cognitive dissonance anytime soon.
Yes. Or, rather, I think that large-scale socialism is incompatible with an
understanding of elementary economics. Families are one voluntary socialist
institution which seem to do reasonably well, and some communes do OK. If
people want to form voluntary socialist enclaves, I have no objection.
>
>Pete, read _The Star Fraction_. I mean it.
>
I have just ordered _The Star Fraction_ from Laissez Faire books, and I shall
read it upon its arrival.
And then Jo can hear me splutter, probably clear accross the Atlantic.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>What I mean by socialism is the abolition of wage-labour by the
>organised, deliberate, democratic majority action of the wage/salary
>earning class.
I shall track down the articles that you cite and read them when I have the
chance, but I have to say that the "democratic" abolition of wage-labor (or
"labour," if you prefer) is most likely going to require a series of
interventions in economic affiars which I believe would not be undertaken if
one understood basic economics.
To make the matter less abstract, I would point out that employee-owned
companies are far from unknown. Nor are they all small-fry; United Airlines is
owned by its pilots. In most cases, the employees of these enterprises choose
to retain a system of wage-labour. The United pilots could have organized their
company along socialist lines; insteady they chose a traditional organization.
For a likely explanation of why they so chose, I refer you to the discussion in
_Atlas Shrugged_ about the fate of the Twentieth Century Motor Corporation.
To be a little less glib, wage-labour is a way of allocating business risk.
Far from being some tool that capitalist use to "exploit" the creators of
"surpluss value," wage-labour is a useful arrangement. Given any sort of
economic freedom, wage-labour, or something like it, will develop.
On a side note, talk about the "working class" makes me itch. With the rise of
the mutual fund and widespread ownership of stock and pension plans, there is
no distinct body that you can call the "working class." This whole Marxist
intellectual apparatus really should be consigned to the ashbin of history.
>
>See 'The Two Souls of Socialism' by Hal Draper and 'The Battle for
>Socialism' by Max Shachtman, both of which can be tracked down at
>
>http://www.marxists.org/
>
I shall. Perhaps they will change my mind. But don't hold your breathe.
>--
>Ken MacLeod 'The men of the future will yet fight their way
> to many a liberty that we do not even miss.'
>
I think I've heard that one before.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>Uniformity - beyond an acceptance of the basic procedures, no uniformity
>is needed.
Are you willing to accept differences in wealth in your socialist society?
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>>If wage labor went away for some other reason, could the resulting
>>society still be socialist?
>>
>
>Maybe, so long as wage-labour wasn't replaced by slavery or serfdom or
>something like that! I suppose I should have added a clause about common
>ownership and democratic control of the means of production and
>distribution to the definition, but I clean forgot (or assumed it was
>included in 'abolition of wage-labour').
Question: is United Airlines, which is partly owned by its pilots, a socialist
enterprise?
Why do you think it is that the pilots chose to purchase only part of the
company, rather than the whole thing. and to continue to allow some portion of
the "surplus value" created by their labor to be "appropriated" by those evil
capitalist shareholders?
And why, pray tell, did the flight attendants vote against purchasing some of
the means of production?
>
>You can have societies without wage-labour, slavery or serfdom that
>aren't socialist. Everybody owns their means of production and trades
>the products.
And such a society would inevitably develop into something like capitalism.
See Ronald Coase's work on the theory of the firm.
>If modern capitalism could give rise to such a society
>then of course socialism wouldn't be an issue.
>
Nothing prevents such a development. It's just that it would be horribly
inefficient.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>>>Willingness to put up with change - probably greater than in capitalism.
>>
>>Are you saying that socialists are willing to put up with more change,
>>or that more change is possible in socialist systems than in capitalist
>>ones?
>>
>
>In a socialism based on democracy, yes.
>
Why?
A lot of people don't like change, and would be likely to vote against it,
given a chance. Why look at the anti-corporate farming initiatives in several
US. states, or at the pressure you get from steelworkers and the like to
prevent them from losing the job that their family has done for three
generations.
Freedom, not democracy, is the key to change.
--
Pete McCutchen
Gary Farber
[. . .]
:>How sentient is sentient? Fish sentient? Dog Sentient? Gorilla Sentient?
:>AOLer sentient?
: He probably means
: `that-word-that-English-doesn't-have-that-people-refer-to-when-they-say-
: sentient-or-intelligent-or-things-like-that'.
: Bit of a mouthful, unfortunately. Are there any contenders for a shorter
: version?
Sapient.
--
Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Phil Fraering
ps towards socialism.
>But even the interventions by existing governments aren't always or even
>mainly motivated, as far I can see, by a desire to retard the rate of
>change. Quite often they're brought about to speed it up and move it in
>a particular direction. (Perhaps the *wrong* direction, but that's
>another argument.) Look at NASA! The Channel Tunnel! French railways!
>The S & L bailout! (Oops, wrong example ...) The US superhighways!
The US superhighways may be a sterling example of unintended
consequences.
And NASA might be lumped in with the S&L bailout as a bad example
of promoting change.
Phil Fraering
>>You've virtually replaced one set of useless definitions with
>>another there, because it lets you perform the semantic trick of
>>lumping in the Steve Forbes (for example) types with the Russian
>>Communist Party.
>IT IS NOT A SEMANTIC TRICK -- look in some dictionaries of political
>terms!
You're only demonstrating how useless or obfucationist many
political dictionaries are.
Dan Goodman
>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) writes:
>
>>>You've virtually replaced one set of useless definitions with
>>>another there, because it lets you perform the semantic trick of
>>>lumping in the Steve Forbes (for example) types with the Russian
>>>Communist Party.
>
>>IT IS NOT A SEMANTIC TRICK -- look in some dictionaries of political
>>terms!
>
>You're only demonstrating how useless or obfucationist many
>political dictionaries are.
A point I'm trying to make: It _does_ make sense to lump those two kinds
of people together. They have some things very much in common.
Yes, they're rather unalike in certain other ways. Just as the American
conservatives of around 1800 were rather different from current American
conservatives. (Back then, for example, it was conservatives who wanted
many of the things today's conservatives fight against.) And just as
Thomas Jefferson wouldn't exactly fit in well with today's liberals.
(Though probably better than Martin Luther would fit in with most kinds of
Lutherans....)
Michael Brazier
> In article <10daa7.t9n.ln@lungold>, Phil Fraering <pgf@lungold> wrote:
> >dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) writes:
> >
> >>economy.
> >
> >term) is, although they don't really know it, verging on socialism.
>
> No. They're verging on the Corporative State -- which is a kinder,
> gentler fascism. (Apologies to any fascist who feels insulted at being
> linked to Pat Buchanan.)
>
> >for not pushing for more intervention in the economy; since "everyone
> >knows" that Buchanan's a "conservative" I suppose that makes the
> >Republicans in the House "liberal?"
>
> From Buchanan's point of view, yes.
Just to confuse matters further, most of the USA's Conservative Movement
currently regards Buchanan as a lapsed brother, not quite a conservative
anymore. His economic proposals are the main reason why.
> >In short, "conservative" and "liberal" are often useless terms.
> >They're meant to confuse people.
>
> Oh, they do have meaning. Quoting Ambrose Bierce from memory:
> _Conservative: a statesman enamored of the existing evils; as
> distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."-
>
> Conservatives want to preserve things as they now are -- or as they were
> in The Glorious Past. So both Americans who want to "return to the Free
> Enterprise System" and Russians who want to bring back Communism can
> reasonably be called conservatives.
A definition which would remove almost _all_ of the USA's
"conservatives" from the category; the American conservatives oppose the
present order of things, and show very little interest in re-creating
any Glorious Past I know of.
This is why "conservative" and "liberal" are so often misleading -- the
words have several conflicting meanings, each one appropriate to a
different context, and often the reader has the wrong context in mind.
For instance, "conservative" in modern American politics means roughly
what "liberal" did in 19th-century Europe, while the American "liberal"
would in other contexts be called "socialist" or, for some cases, "mad
as a hatter". Then there's the Russian case, where those who favor
Communism are called "conservative"; a usage which, before Gorbachev,
would have seemed utterly ridiculous.
--
Michael Brazier
Michael Brazier
> >>What I mean by socialism is the abolition of wage-labour by the
> >>organised, deliberate, democratic majority action of the wage/salary
> >>earning class.
> >>
> >If wage labor went away for some other reason, could the resulting
> >society still be socialist?
>
> Maybe, so long as wage-labour wasn't replaced by slavery or serfdom or
> something like that! I suppose I should have added a clause about common
> ownership and democratic control of the means of production and
> distribution to the definition, but I clean forgot (or assumed it was
> included in 'abolition of wage-labour').
Any such clause is logically equivalent to "state ownership of all
property". And unless F. A. von Hayek has been refuted recently, any
society based on state ownership of all property won't be a democracy
for long, or a good place to live.
> You can have societies without wage-labour, slavery or serfdom that
> aren't socialist. Everybody owns their means of production and trades
> the products. If modern capitalism could give rise to such a society
> then of course socialism wouldn't be an issue.
But then there is every reason to think modern capitalism _can_ give
rise to such societies; in fact, the USA seems to be headed in that
direction -- a society in which almost everyone has a fair amount of
capital, and isn't beholden to one employer for their livelihood.
--
Michael Brazier
Phil Fraering
>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>My position is that socialism is not incompatible with personal liberty
>>>or with understanding elementary economics.
>>
>>Pete's position is that socialism is incompatible with understanding
>>elementary economics at least, so there isn't going to be any cure for
>>his cognitive dissonance anytime soon.
>Yes. Or, rather, I think that large-scale socialism is incompatible with an
>understanding of elementary economics. Families are one voluntary socialist
>institution which seem to do reasonably well, and some communes do OK. If
>people want to form voluntary socialist enclaves, I have no objection.
I'll go one step further: Capitalism is the *key* to the
success of _voluntary_ "socialist" "enterprises" :-).
There. That should confuse everyone.
Dan Clore
> Question: is United Airlines, which is partly owned by its pilots, a socialist
> enterprise?
Answer: no. Reason: while the workers at United Airlines own a majority
of the company's stock, they are divided into two groups to ensure that
they have no effective control over the company. In consequence the
company is run pretty much like any other capitalist corporation, with
(some) dividends going to (some of) its workers. A much better example
of socialist enterprise would be the Mondragon Cooperative (actually a
network of co-ops with over 50,000 members), whose worker-owners have
full, democratic control over the o-ops. By an odd coincidence Mondragon
also outperforms its capitalistic competition....
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Graydon
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <919185982.3645.0...@news.demon.co.uk> David Given <dg> wrote:
>[. . .]
>:>How sentient is sentient? Fish sentient? Dog Sentient? Gorilla Sentient?
>:>AOLer sentient?
>
>: He probably means
>: `that-word-that-English-doesn't-have-that-people-refer-to-when-they-say-
>: sentient-or-intelligent-or-things-like-that'.
>
>: Bit of a mouthful, unfortunately. Are there any contenders for a shorter
>: version?
>
>Sapient.
Early exposure to :Lord of the Rings: and making maple syrup has left
me prefering 'sophont'; it doesn't sound like the Ent equivalent of
hardened arteries.
JBassior
If the AIs can do work that people couldn't do anyway, might people still
Lebovitz
The humans could do this work if they were willing to spend some time as
cybernetic entities. But if this work is done by slaves, they will become
convinced that this sort of work is "not fit for free men" and will
consequently slight research into this area.
This is exactly analogous to the Ancient prejudice against the "base
mechanic arts", which aborted the Hellenistic Industrial Revolution. It could
abort a Cybernetic Information Revolution just as easily.
More importantly, it will leave the humans tied to the notion that only
organic life and experience are meaningful. This will retard the course of
human evolution and our eventual expansion into other modes of existence.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
John Boston
>
>In article <7acm4i$78r$6...@news.panix.com>,
>Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <919185982.3645.0...@news.demon.co.uk> David Given <dg>
wrote:
>>[. . .]
>>:>How sentient is sentient? Fish sentient? Dog Sentient? Gorilla Sentient?
>>:>AOLer sentient?
>>
>>: He probably means
>>: `that-word-that-English-doesn't-have-that-people-refer-to-when-they-say-
>>: sentient-or-intelligent-or-things-like-that'.
>>
>>: Bit of a mouthful, unfortunately. Are there any contenders for a shorter
>>: version?
>>
>>Sapient.
>
>Early exposure to :Lord of the Rings: and making maple syrup has left
>me prefering 'sophont'; it doesn't sound like the Ent equivalent of
>hardened arteries.
Onomatonoeisis?
John Boston
PMccutc103
>PMccutc103 wrote:
>
>> Question: is United Airlines, which is partly owned by its pilots, a
>socialist
>> enterprise?
>
>Answer: no. Reason: while the workers at United Airlines own a majority
>of the company's stock, they are divided into two groups to ensure that
>they have no effective control over the company.
I'm not sure what you mean about the workers being "divided" by some
unspecified actor. The deal that got done was the one proposed by the pilots;
if anybody "divided" the workers, it was the workers themselves.
Had they wished to do so, they could have structured the deal itself
differently in any number of ways. The could have bought the whole company,
for example, by dipping into the pension fund for the money, or they could have
chosen to govern it "democratically."
They chose to retain a traditional hierarchical corporate structure, and wage
labour, and to have the pension fund invest in assets other than UAL. No
amount of socialist bleating can change the fact that the employees, when given
a choice, chose traditional capitalist arrangements. For good reason: trying
to run an airline "democratically" would have been a disaster.
In consequence the
>company is run pretty much like any other capitalist corporation, with
>(some) dividends going to (some of) its workers.
Right. The flight attendants don't get any. Because they were offered in on
the deal _and they voted no_. I repeat: they _voted_ no. The means of
production were offered to them, and they turned it down.
A much better example
>of socialist enterprise would be the Mondragon Cooperative (actually a
>network of co-ops with over 50,000 members), whose worker-owners have
>full, democratic control over the o-ops.
I've never heard of this outfit. What do they produce/sell/do?
By an odd coincidence Mondragon
>also outperforms its capitalistic competition....
>
Fine, if you say so.
But, if true, your assertion proves my point: that persons are perfectly free
in a market economy to form voluntary socialist enterprises and that nothing in
the structure of capitalism prevents such enterprises from flourishing.
If cooperatives organized along these lines really are, on the whole, more
efficient than traditionally-organized capitalist companies, then they should
be able to supplant them in the natural course of events.
--
Pete McCutchen
Nancy Lebovitz
JBassior <jbas...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Slavery is apt to leave people believing that work is something slaves do.
>If the AIs can do work that people couldn't do anyway, might people still
>believe that humans do the sort of work that only humans can do? << Nancy
>Lebovitz
>
>The humans could do this work if they were willing to spend some time as
>cybernetic entities. But if this work is done by slaves, they will become
Is it obvious that people can spend some time as cybernetic entities?
Even if it's possible, I think the technology is likely to be developed
later than AIs.
Samael
Gary Farber wrote in message <7acm4i$78r$6...@news.panix.com>...
>In <919185982.3645.0...@news.demon.co.uk> David Given <dg>
wrote:
>[. . .]
>:>How sentient is sentient? Fish sentient? Dog Sentient? Gorilla
Sentient?
>:>AOLer sentient?
>
>: He probably means
>: `that-word-that-English-doesn't-have-that-people-refer-to-when-they-say-
>: sentient-or-intelligent-or-things-like-that'.
>
>: Bit of a mouthful, unfortunately. Are there any contenders for a shorter
>: version?
>
>Sapient.
Except that there is (as far as I know, from the reading I've been doing
recently) no decent definition of sentience or sapience. Nothing that is
really scientifically testable.
Samael
Kevin
: Freedom, not democracy, is the key to change.
But, what kind of freedom and what kind of change?
Capitalist societies have had to limit freedom in all aspects of life in
order to ensure its survival, through government and guns, on an
international scale. The result has been, at least in America, that the
top one percent of all households have a greater net wealth than the
bottom 90 percent. As Manning Marable says, personal liberty becomes the
"exclusive property of the rich."
Socialism seeks to promote human equality and empower the working class and
other oppressed people. This promotion and empowerment entails redistributing
wealth and power from the few to the many, so that every person and every
group are provided for and have equal voices in society.
In a socialist society, freedom *and* democracy drive change. The less
people have to worry about where their next meal will come from, the more
they'll be able to think about the needs of others and the state of the
world. The greater the opportunity to be heard in all spheres of society,
the more people will participate, and the broader the scope of ideas and
debate. The result is a participatory democracy of empathetic, enlightened
people.
Sadly, this not the world I live in today, nor will it be within my lifetime.
I'm hoping that Ken's books will at least give me some optimism, aside from
entertainment. (I have the last two books; but, I am waiting for the first
book to arrive, before plunging into the series.)
Kevin
Graydon
John Boston <jbo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <7ad6q3$tlm$1...@lara.on.ca>, gra...@lara.on.ca says...
>>In article <7acm4i$78r$6...@news.panix.com>,
>>Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>Sapient.
>>
>>Early exposure to :Lord of the Rings: and making maple syrup has left
>>me prefering 'sophont'; it doesn't sound like the Ent equivalent of
>>hardened arteries.
>
> Onomatonoeisis?
Insufficent early exposure to the pronuncation of Classical languages,
I think.
Chris Williams
pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
> On a side note, talk about the "working class" makes me itch. With the
rise of
> the mutual fund and widespread ownership of stock and pension plans, there is
> no distinct body that you can call the "working class." This whole Marxist
> intellectual apparatus really should be consigned to the ashbin of history.
Pete, do you have any good numbers on this? Percentage of lifetime income
derived from investment as opposed to that derived from sale of labour
power? Also, how it varies between different deciles of the working class,
between nations, and over time?
I'm looking for this information, and if I can't find it, I plan to write
the book myself (Working title: _Marx Was Right: Economic Determinism
Explains Loads After All_). But I'd rather read it.
My gut feeling is that there is still a global proletariat: but some
sections of it overlap significantly with ownership of capital. Which is
no reason not to be socialist, especially if you're sure to have the right
soul.
Chris
Chris Williams
pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
> Why do you think it is that the pilots chose to purchase only part of the
> company, rather than the whole thing. and to continue to allow some portion of
> the "surplus value" created by their labor to be "appropriated" by those evil
> capitalist shareholders?
Because on their own they'd never be able to re-capitalise it when
necessary to remain competitive?
Chris
Coyu
>Date: Wed, Feb 17, 1999 06:33 EST
> This promotion and empowerment entails redistributing
>wealth and power from the few to the many, so that every person and every
>group are provided for and have equal voices in society.
And after the redistribution, when wealth and power accumulate once more?
I used to run Dr. Marable's editorials as filler, preaching to the converted.
Most readers who bothered found him so deadly dull, they offered
to write their own. An innovative way to get fresh blood.
Dan Goodman
way. Competition doesn't work because the competitors are all smart. It
works because the ones who know what they're doing -- or who luck out --
are the ones who survive.
And sometimes, everyone in an industry is doing things wrong.
gur...@saruman.wizard.net
[snip weepings that socialism isn't a reality, and how naughty capitalism
is]
> Socialism seeks to promote human equality and empower the working class and
> group are provided for and have equal voices in society.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work with real human beings. It's been tried
numerous times throughout history (and no, it isn't a phenomenon limited
to the twentieth century), and it's always failed, to one degree or
another.
Some people want more money than anyone else. Some people want power.
Some people are just plain unkind. Socialism assumes that these sorts of
people don't exist, people who will try to get more than others, and
darmn the system. Perhaps, one day, these sorts of
emotions/wants/whatever will be eradicated. Probably not soon.
It's something I wish more socialists/communists (recognizing the two
terms aren't synonymous) would realize.
Sorry, bit of a rant.
Brent P. Newhall
Editor of Papyrus
http://www.papyrus-fiction.com/
Coyu
>Date: Tue, Feb 16, 1999 15:45 EST
>to continue to allow some portion of
>the "surplus value" created by their labor to be "appropriated" by those evil
>capitalist shareholders?
A magpie peck here, Pete. It's interesting to note that cigarette makers
get seven times the average value added per worker in the US, and
petroleum refiners about four.
So yeah, I'd say there's some appropriation going on.
I also don't think it's a coincidence that those industries are so hostile
to labor, either.
gur...@saruman.wizard.net
[snip]
> There's at least one pernicious effect which might not happen. Slavery
> is apt to leave people believing that work is something slaves do.
This isn't historically accurate, though. Lots of Caucasian Americans
picked cotton in pre-Civil War America.
This also depends on the work. If slaves are the only ones who repair
industrial machinery, it still won't necessarily affect who repairs cars.
[snip]
Dan Clore
> >> Question: is United Airlines, which is partly owned by its pilots, a
> >socialist
> >> enterprise?
> >
> >Answer: no. Reason: while the workers at United Airlines own a majority
> >of the company's stock, they are divided into two groups to ensure that
> >they have no effective control over the company.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about the workers being "divided" by some
> unspecified actor. The deal that got done was the one proposed by the pilots;
> if anybody "divided" the workers, it was the workers themselves.
I don't know the history of the deal so I'll take your word for it.
> A much better example
> >of socialist enterprise would be the Mondragon Cooperative (actually a
> >network of co-ops with over 50,000 members), whose worker-owners have
> >full, democratic control over the o-ops.
>
> I've never heard of this outfit. What do they produce/sell/do?
A lot of different things. They started with silverware and have added a
lot of different products. Roy Morrison's book on them has a list that
goes on for pages.
> By an odd coincidence Mondragon
> >also outperforms its capitalistic competition....
> >
> Fine, if you say so.
I do say so.
> But, if true, your assertion proves my point: that persons are perfectly free
> in a market economy to form voluntary socialist enterprises and that nothing in
> the structure of capitalism prevents such enterprises from flourishing.
>
> If cooperatives organized along these lines really are, on the whole, more
> efficient than traditionally-organized capitalist companies, then they should
> be able to supplant them in the natural course of events.
The problem is that banks are unwilling to lend money to co-ops. At
Mondragon they had the foresight to include their own cooperative bank
so they don't have that problem. But for most other co-ops, when they
hit rough times, they go belly up for lack of cash. (Traditional
capitalist companies don't have trouble getting loans in such times.)
David Navarro
>
> Well, I would quibble with those numbers -- usually when you look at those
> estimates, they do things like not counting money in fully-vested pension funds
> the like, or not counting personal real estate. But even if I accept your
> numbers, so what? The people at the top of the heap generally get there by
> producing wealth and making us all better off. People like Ford and Rockefeller
> and yes, even Gates, are heroes, not villians.
Eeeek! You may have been onto something until you mentioned Gates.
Take Linux, a product developed without financial incentive of any
kind. It soundly trounces anything ever put out by Microsoft in their
entire history, at just about every level of performance. That's one
example in which blind greed has failed to produce the better result.
I like the ability Capitalist society has to produce "cool" goods that
appeal to geeks like me, but I believe that things like health,
education or land should not be in private hands. I guess that makes
me a socialist.
--
___________________________________________________
David Navarro http://www.alcaudon.com
___________________________________________________
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Phil Fraering
>PMccutc103 wrote:
>> Question: is United Airlines, which is partly owned by its pilots, a socialist
>> enterprise?
>Answer: no. Reason: while the workers at United Airlines own a majority
>of the company's stock, they are divided into two groups to ensure that
>they have no effective control over the company. In consequence the
>company is run pretty much like any other capitalist corporation, with
>(some) dividends going to (some of) its workers. A much better example
>of socialist enterprise would be the Mondragon Cooperative (actually a
>network of co-ops with over 50,000 members), whose worker-owners have
>full, democratic control over the o-ops. By an odd coincidence Mondragon
>also outperforms its capitalistic competition....
Are you sure they _aren't_ capitalists?
If I own my own business, am I therefore a socialist?
Phil Fraering
>In article <inqca7.ubv.ln@lungold>, Phil Fraering <pgf@lungold> wrote:
>>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) writes:
>>
>>>>You've virtually replaced one set of useless definitions with
>>>>another there, because it lets you perform the semantic trick of
>>>>lumping in the Steve Forbes (for example) types with the Russian
>>>>Communist Party.
>>
>>>IT IS NOT A SEMANTIC TRICK -- look in some dictionaries of political
>>>terms!
>>
>>You're only demonstrating how useless or obfucationist many
>>political dictionaries are.
>A point I'm trying to make: It _does_ make sense to lump those two kinds
>of people together. They have some things very much in common.
If you went out of your way, yes, but you'd also probably be able
to establish similar correspondences between American liberals and
Russian conservatives, with about the same amount of effort.
Ken MacLeod
writes
>In article <xjFA3EAa...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>,
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Uniformity - beyond an acceptance of the basic procedures, no uniformity
>>is needed.
>
>I'd say that a common universe of discourse is necessary, and goes a
>bit beyond an acceptance of the basic procedures.
Fortunately the market is already taking care of it.
At least that's my take on Marx's view that in capitalism 'all that is
solid melts into air, all that is sacred is profaned, and man is at last
compelled to face, with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and
his real relations with his kind.'
--
Ken MacLeod
Ken MacLeod
<aus...@sgi.com> writes
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> It's taken me several years and four novels to work out some of my own
>> thoughts and feelings about all this stuff. That's not *all* that's
>> going on in my books, but it's part of what drives them.
>
>Four! Does that mean that the fourth hasn't been published yet?
Yup. _The Sky Road_, due out in the UK in June.
--
Ken MacLeod