Fraud: Socialism without Central Control
porta...@my-deja.com
socialist society simply by applying the principles of democracy to the
economy and to the corporations, turning corporations into
cooperatives, banks into credit unions so forth. This socialist system
would require a one worker/one vote basis in corporations (instead of
one share/one vote) and would involve worker ownership of means of
production. This latter quality is said to be different than both
private ownership of means of production and the dreaded government
ownership of means of production. It sounds like a fraud. Maybe
someone could provide explanations as to why the following would be
wrong:
There is no such thing as a gray area between private ownership of
means of production and government ownership of means of production. If
a group of workers (instead of capital owners) are allowed to own (or
given the ownership of) a factory, without having to seek approval for
their legal management decisions from the public or the government, how
is this supposed to be different than private ownership? If the factory
is successful, it will leave its competitors behind, it will make a lot
of money – and the pretty soon workers turned owners will be enjoying
life standards well above the rest of the society. Back to square one
in other words, presuming that this change in ownership structure was
supposed to bring about a more equalitarian society. As soon as workers
are given ownership and/or control of means of
production, they will act exactly as private owners. Which is of course
what they are. Others suggested the means of production should only
be “rented” to the workers. If it’s only a rental agreement, this is no
different than private ownership. Workers/renters of successful
enterprises will once again reap big profits, leaving behind the rest
of the society. If this rental arrangement involves a slew of
restrictions on the actions of the owner-workers, including perhaps how
rich they are allowed to get from their practices, well, then this is
Government ownership and central control. The only way to stop a
few “lucky” members of the society from getting way way ahead of the
rest of the society through business dealings is to place restrictions
on those business dealings – in other words central planning by the
government.
It is also said that such a socialist society would turn corporations
into cooperatives, forcing these institutions to adopt one person/one
vote rules. I presume this, again, is meant to alter the structure of
businesses so that at the end of the day the profits of the business
will be divided among employees in a more equalitarian fashion rather
than a few individuals walking away with huge paychecks. Maybe
somebody could explain why the following scenario would not hold true:
Suppose, in this Socialist realm, there is a pharmaceutical cooperative
with 200 workers. As expected they each have one vote and
consequently equal or relatively close salaries. But there still exists
a competitive market. And suppose there’s a scientist who is very close
to finding the cure to AIDS. This scientist needs to be employed by a
pharmaceutical cooperative in order to benefit from their facilities in
developing the AIDS drug. He’s asking 80% of the
proceeds from the drug. And suppose, once developed, the drug will
bring in $1 billion. This means this particular worker is asking for a
salary of $800 million. This would leave the other 200 workers with a
total of $200 million or $1 million per person. What will the workers
do? They will, of course, make the deal – in a competitive market,
there are other pharmaceutical cooperatives who would hire the
Scientist with the AIDS cure. Consequently, even in this “democratic”
process, we end up with one employee making $800 million whereas the
other 200 employees are making $1 million each. How is this different
than the system as it is now? It is not, of course. The folly with the
premise of this democratic process is that it presumes the current
decision-makers in corporations are making decisions at odds with the
interests of the workers. This is almost always not the case; but even
when it is, empowering the workers certainly would not change the
picture. If you make each worker a shareholder and/or a voter in his
corporation’s decisions on a one share/one voter basis, they’ll make
the same exact decisions as current CEOs, for a simple reason: CEOs
make decisions that maximize shareholder wealth; thus, workers turned
shareholders are every bit likely to make the same decisions which
maximize shareholder wealth. In terms of maximizing each individual’s
worth, there is not one iota of difference between a worker with one
share and a tycoon with a million shares – they’ll both make the same
decisions. Which is why in the long-term a corporation that has a one
worker/one vote policy would act no differently than a one share/one
vote corporation.
For example, suppose the Chainsaw Al strolls into a corporation and
starts cutting jobs. Surely, he’s not acting in the best interest of
workers, right? Well, actually, he is. There’s of course the classic
argument that those workers who are fired will not end up in a worse
condition because hopefully they’ll find new jobs whereas if they kept
their old jobs in an underperforming company, they would at some point
(when the company goes broke) lose those jobs anyway. But far more
importantly, after the cut-backs, those employees who were not fired
end up in a much better condition. Whether employees own shares or not,
they naturally do much better in a firm that wins the
competition. If cutting back jobs makes the company more competitive,
then the employees who were not cut-back end up benefiting from the cut-
backs. (At the very least in the sense that they get to keep theirs
which would be impossible in the near future if the corporation was
allowed to grow uncompetitve). Therefore, if the workers could know
beforehand who would be cut, if they decided purely on financial terms
(as people sooner or later do), if they had this democratic-voting
scheme, they would still make the same decision as Al Dunlap – assuming
at least that the workers who won’t be cut outnumber those who will be.
This is extremely simplistic, of course, many other factors
contribute to what happens in corporations, but makes the point that
one worker/one vote environment would not be any different.
In short, there’s but one way to implement any form of socialism:
Government ownership and central planning. Everything else would lead
to the same picture as today, sooner rather than later.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Samokhvalov
porta...@my-deja.com ÐÉÛÅÔ × ÓÏÏÂÝÅÎÉÉ <8cldbq$bk4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> ...
Lengthy, but essentially true, however, some corrections would be OK.
The principal difference between capitalism & socialism lies in the economic
motivation; in socialism, economy caters for the needs of the society, as a
whole, as established by common consent - this means planning. In
capitalism, the aim of a subject engaged in economic activity is profit, no
matter, who the subject is - a person, a team, a local authority, a
government, hence, all the accompanying qualities: unemployment, stimulation
of consumerism, etc. Owenership is of secondary importance - private
enterprises can be made to serve public interests (example - Nazi economy
during the War).
James A. Donald
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:36:28 GMT, porta...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Lately, there’s been a number of posts suggesting the formation of a
> socialist society simply by applying the principles of democracy to the
> economy and to the corporations, turning corporations into
> cooperatives, banks into credit unions so forth. This socialist system
> would require a one worker/one vote
That is one possible interpretation of those posts. However they were
vague evasive, and weasel worded, and many alternative interpretations
of those posts are equally plausible
The interpretation I find most plausible is either Soviet style
democracy or syndicalist democracy.
In Soviet style democracy the workers get to vote, but are protected
from making bad choices by a party that represents the true interests
of the workers. The government then decides what the workers shall
produce and what they will consume, but since the government and the
party represents the workers, this constitutes the workers themselves
deciding. See "the Cassini division" for book written by someone who
sincerely believes in this system, and believes this would constitute
true anarchy if only the endlessly and permanently re-elected
politburea were nice guys instead of bad guys.
Syndicalist democracy is pretty much the same as Soviet style
democracy, except that the workers get to rearrange the chairs in the
company cafetaria. Allegedly this is a big difference which justifies
different radical left factions murdering each other in large numbers.
> This means this particular worker is asking for a salary of $800
> million. This > would leave the other 200 workers with a total of
> $200 million or $1 million > per person. What will the workers do?
> They will, of course, make the deal
Been there, done that. See my web pages "Capitalism in Catalonia"
<http://catalog.com/jamesd/cat/capital.htm>
In Catalonia, while the libertarian socialists had power, the
entertainment industry was socialized, but for some time the
collectives were left with substantial real power over their
individual theaters, so that in practice this was closer to
collectivization than socialization, which meant that at first
there was a free market in entertainment -- at first the
people went to see what they wanted to see, rather than what
their masters decided would be good for them to see. Naturally
they wanted to see certain singers and not others. The theater
industry democratically and freely voted that everyone would
have the same wage: 15 pesetas, long holidays, and lots of
benefits. Blood of Spain, page 222:
As a demonstration of the efforts being made, let it
be realized that the greatest of opera singers, like
Hipolito Lazaro, and the most humble of workers are
going to get the same daily wage.
Blood of Spain, page 224 then quotes Hipolito Lazaro as saying
to the Tivoli theater collective:
We are all equal now, and to prove it we all get the
same wage. Fine, since we are equal, today I am going
to collect the tickets at the door, and one of you can
come up here and sing.
After a spot of haggling, his pay went up to 750 pesetas.
Someone else got 500 pesetas, and everyone else got the short
end of the stick. So if you have liberty, you will not have
equality. He was able to get 750 pesetas because he was free
to leave or to refuse to work as directed, same reason as I
get rather good pay today
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
D+684LI7ZCcxUUlFqjMVXTu0viTKyfNCyIB23o9Y
4PaQ5cTk6CR9IAs7TO2pgTPzRR+VlemqHzlhQ1TiV
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Mark Samokhvalov
James A. Donald пишет в сообщении <38f0588a...@nntp1.ba.best.com> ...
>> socialist society simply by applying the principles of democracy to the
>> economy and to the corporations, turning corporations into
>> cooperatives, banks into credit unions so forth. This socialist system
>> would require a one worker/one vote
>
>vague evasive, and weasel worded, and many alternative interpretations
>of those posts are equally plausible
>
>The interpretation I find most plausible is either Soviet style
>democracy or syndicalist democracy.
>
>In Soviet style democracy the workers get to vote, but are protected
>from making bad choices by a party that represents the true interests
>of the workers. The government then decides what the workers shall
>produce and what they will consume, but since the government and the
>party represents the workers, this constitutes the workers themselves
>deciding. See "the Cassini division" for book written by someone who
>sincerely believes in this system, and believes this would constitute
>true anarchy if only the endlessly and permanently re-elected
>politburea were nice guys instead of bad guys.
>
>Syndicalist democracy is pretty much the same as Soviet style
>democracy, except that the workers get to rearrange the chairs in the
>company cafetaria. Allegedly this is a big difference which justifies
>different radical left factions murdering each other in large numbers.
>
>> million. This > would leave the other 200 workers with a total of
>> $200 million or $1 million > per person. What will the workers do?
>> They will, of course, make the deal
>
That's t he way it is now. Lazaro had a cause, and the rest had a cause to
meet his demands, because they all depended on the money he made. Now
imagine a different situation: a large population. production limited by
ecology and scarcity of resources, so is consumption to the limit, that
cutting one's equal share makes life for him uncomfortable. Production so
automatized (not to cut labour, but to maintain high quality standards),
that it's difficult to find work even for fun. What shall be the attitude
of the community to outstanding talents then? A good guess is, that they
would be offered non-material benefits, e.g., public esteem and adoration.
In ancient times, such stimuli worked quite well. So, if Lazaro doesn't want
to sing in this theatre, he can go and sing in another, or in the streets,
or just keep his mouth shut - there'll plenty of others, perhaps, not so
good, as him, longing to sing for the public.
Ken MacLeod
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
>In Soviet style democracy the workers get to vote, but are protected
>from making bad choices by a party that represents the true interests
>of the workers. The government then decides what the workers shall
>produce and what they will consume, but since the government and the
>party represents the workers, this constitutes the workers themselves
>deciding. See "the Cassini division" for book written by someone who
>sincerely believes in this system, and believes this would constitute
>true anarchy if only the endlessly and permanently re-elected
>politburea were nice guys instead of bad guys.
I think you've misunderstood me, and _The Cassini Division_, which I
wrote.
In fiction the viewpoint of the narrator is not necessarily that of the
author.
--
Ken MacLeod 'In the Beginning all the World was America ...'
John Locke, _Second Treatise of Government_
Constantinople
<8cp70v$nmi$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>:
>That's t he way it is now. Lazaro had a cause, and the rest had
>a cause to meet his demands, because they all depended on the
>money he made. Now imagine a different situation: a large
>population. production limited by ecology and scarcity of
>resources, so is consumption to the limit, that cutting one's
>equal share makes life for him uncomfortable.
This is not making sense. Here you suppose that we are all really
poor...
>Production so automatized (not to cut labour, but to maintain
>high quality standards), that it's difficult to find work even
>for fun.
...and here you suppose that everything is automated and we live
a life of leisure. But if we were poor and had a lot of time on
our hands we would probably do something to make ourselves less
poor. We might, for instance, create businesses and hire workers,
and then it would be easier for others to find work.
Your implicit response to this also makes no sense. You say that
there is nothing more that humans can do to increase their
wealth...
>What shall be the attitude of the community to outstanding
>talents then? A good guess is, that they would be offered
>non-material benefits, e.g., public esteem and adoration.
...but here you admit that people can in fact increase their
wealth (e.g., by listening to a singer)...
>In ancient times, such stimuli worked quite well. So, if Lazaro
>doesn't want to sing in this theatre, he can go and sing in
>another, or in the streets, or just keep his mouth shut -
>there'll plenty of others, perhaps, not so good, as him, longing
>to sing for the public.
...and here you admit that idle people are a vast reservoir of
untapped wealth.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:15:40 +0400, "Mark Samokhvalov"
<samokh...@mtu-net.ru> wrote:
> Now
> imagine a different situation: a large population. production limited by
> ecology and scarcity of resources, so is consumption to the limit, that
> cutting one's equal share makes life for him uncomfortable. Production so
> automatized (not to cut labour, but to maintain high quality standards),
> that it's difficult to find work even for fun. What shall be the attitude
> of the community to outstanding talents then?
That is your socialist utopia? Equality at the poverty line?
The old rationale was that increased production would free people from
greed and selfishness. Now you seem to be arguing that eco socialist
restraints would prohibit greed and selfishness.
Used to be that socialists claimed that socialism would make everyone
well off. When that did not work out too well, they now are finding
justifications for making everyone poor.
I earlier argued that the earth could eventually support a population
of a five hundred billion to a trillion at the US standard of living
by employing known technology.
I expect that if the world follows the capitalist path this will
eventually seem confining, and those few post humans who boringly stay
at home in the solar system will eventually rip the planet earth
apart, and construct a belt around the sun, construct a sun girdling
twenty story city in the form of a belt around the sun, a belt five
hundred million kilometers in circumference, twenty million kilometers
in width, and fifty meters (twenty stories) thick. The average
inhabitant of this city will have a square kilometer of it for
himself, a personal income equivalent to several hundred million in
today's money, and the total population will be about ten thousand
trillion.
And then those few who chose to stay in the solar system will start
worrying about resource limits and will have to recycle everything.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
FiOHaG4tekPneGHIDZV1W7JOH5zj9XdgUQVhdN1e
44PqAXXHkIdolK32EyFYieoEj6h72Xo5C8FpRSWMj
Mark Samokhvalov
Constantinople пишет в сообщении <8F11688D0f2...@209.99.56.11> ...
>>a cause to meet his demands, because they all depended on the
>>money he made. Now imagine a different situation: a large
>>population. production limited by ecology and scarcity of
>>resources, so is consumption to the limit, that cutting one's
>>equal share makes life for him uncomfortable.
>
>poor...
Exactly. There're theories around, that with Californian living standards
for the entire planet, it would end up in a state of ecological disaster in
less than a month.
>
>>Production so automatized (not to cut labour, but to maintain
>>high quality standards), that it's difficult to find work even
>>for fun.
>
>...and here you suppose that everything is automated and we live
>a life of leisure. But if we were poor and had a lot of time on
>our hands we would probably do something to make ourselves less
>poor. We might, for instance, create businesses and hire workers,
>and then it would be easier for others to find work.
Again, You forget ecology. To produce, you need energy. Some of it is lost
as heat. Unless heat generated on the planet is dissipated, its temperature
rises. There's a natural limit to the Earth's dissipating ability, that, in
turn, limits the use of energy. And there're limited resources, pollution,
etc., to add.
>
>Your implicit response to this also makes no sense. You say that
>there is nothing more that humans can do to increase their
>wealth...
There is. Relocate to space. But for life in space you'll need a communist
society - free individuals in an alien environment won't survive a day -
just imagine a ship's crew made up of free individuals.
>
>>What shall be the attitude of the community to outstanding
>>talents then? A good guess is, that they would be offered
>>non-material benefits, e.g., public esteem and adoration.
>
>...but here you admit that people can in fact increase their
>wealth (e.g., by listening to a singer)...
Yes, wealth of emotions.
>
>>In ancient times, such stimuli worked quite well. So, if Lazaro
>>doesn't want to sing in this theatre, he can go and sing in
>>another, or in the streets, or just keep his mouth shut -
>>there'll plenty of others, perhaps, not so good, as him, longing
>>to sing for the public.
>
>...and here you admit that idle people are a vast reservoir of
>untapped wealth.
Is that news to You?
>
>
James A. Donald
<samokh...@mtu-net.ru> wrote:
> Exactly. There're theories around, that with Californian living standards
> for the entire planet, it would end up in a state of ecological disaster in
> less than a month.
These theories are very popular with those who have realized that no
one will believe that socialism will provide capitalist living
standards, so they now are thinking up good reasons for imposing
socialist living standards.
> Again, You forget ecology. To produce, you need energy. Some of it is lost
> as heat. Unless heat generated on the planet is dissipated, its temperature
> rises. There's a natural limit to the Earth's dissipating ability, that, in
> turn, limits the use of energy. And there're limited resources, pollution,
> etc., to add.
The heat limit is about one people trillion each using as much energy
as the average US citizen does now.
g_d...@my-deja.com
"Mark Samokhvalov" <samokh...@mtu-net.ru> wrote:
>
> Constantinople пишет в сообщении
<8F11688D0f2...@209.99.56.11> ...
> >samokh...@mtu-net.ru (Mark Samokhvalov) wrote in
> ><8cp70v$nmi$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>:
> >
> >>a cause to meet his demands, because they all depended on the
> >>money he made. Now imagine a different situation: a large
> >>population. production limited by ecology and scarcity of
> >>resources, so is consumption to the limit, that cutting one's
> >>equal share makes life for him uncomfortable.
> >
> >poor...
>
standards
> for the entire planet, it would end up in a state of ecological
disaster in
> less than a month.
Right. What should we do to stop the 'developing world' from, errr,
'developing'?
James A. Donald
In article <8crogo$cql$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>, "Mark Samokhvalov"
<samokh...@mtu-net.ru> wrote:
>> Exactly. There're theories around, that with Californian living
>standards
>> for the entire planet, it would end up in a state of ecological
>disaster in
>> less than a month.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:26:13 GMT, g_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Right. What should we do to stop the 'developing world' from, errr,
> 'developing'?
Socialize them of course. It is for the good of the planet. :-)
The reminds me of the argument frequently made by socialists that
because Germans were so evil, they should have had socialism imposed
on them after Wrold War II.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
jtUH1ki1c+e91zwfI5t61vzVzFo/rC2hmA7hD7Bk
4JjDwBbsRZT/+oSI7r9DeSInz0Q6X8YbZoqvfiAZT
Libertarian
There has been some talk recently among some misguided theorists that
capitalism can exist without the state. But it is clear to any
sensible person that capitalism not only needs the state, it perpetuates
the state. With private property, you must have police to gaurd this
property, and you must have armies to defend a given region
of property woners's wealth. Regaurdless of whether this state
is public or private, it is still a state, with it's force,
authority, hierarchy, dungeons (jails and prisons), torturers
and murderers (legal system employees).
It is basicaly a con-job... to promise that if capitalists are given
unrestricted rule and control, that they will somehow start to act "nice"
and not monopolize, bully, or abuse others with their privleges.
Capitalism cannot exist without the state. Capitalism IS the state.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > In Soviet style democracy the workers get to vote, but are
> > protected from making bad choices by a party that represents the
> > true interests of the workers. The government then decides what
> > the workers shall produce and what they will consume, but since
> > the government and the party represents the workers, this
> > constitutes the workers themselves deciding. See "the Cassini
> > division" for book written by someone who sincerely believes in
> > this system, and believes this would constitute true anarchy if
> > only the endlessly and permanently re-elected politburea were nice
> > guys instead of bad guys.
Ken MacLeod:
> I think you've misunderstood me, and _The Cassini Division_, which I
> wrote.
>
> In fiction the viewpoint of the narrator is not necessarily that of
> the author.
In my other posts on the Cassini division I made the distinction
between author and narrator. It is clear your views are not the same
of those of the narrator. In this posting I neglected to do that, so
I have misrepresented your view, but I have not misrepresented or
misunderstood the book
The narrator regards "the union" as true anarchy. She is (of course)
one of the dozen or so people in charge, with the power to make war or
peace in consultation with a handful of others, while the public are
either unaware of these decisions, or of no consequence in these
decisions.
The narrator has privileged access to high tech resources, and most
importantly, privileged access to information.
The institutions of the Union have a marked resemblance to the
institutions the Soviet Union pretended to have. The leadership group
has been reelected with great regularity and without any divisive
political campaigns for hundreds of years.
For the masses no news was good news. The masses do not need to
bother their pretty little heads about larger matters. The masses
gladly and voluntarily follow a central plan generated and maintained
by the Union's central computers. They rely on the central authority
of the Union not only for goods and resources, but also for all
information about what the Union is up to. When the narrator
encounters capitalism, she is shocked and enraged by the nosyness of
the press, which is eager to discover what is happening in matters of
vast importance and considerable danger to everyone.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
lpaGVxk67rPpQEUEeYlL8AVez+VAFjPkujQavQE3
4AIor+3uRl5PptxkaJjIeS8wKWQqaeiuZSysHI6vM
James A. Donald
On 10 Apr 2000 21:08:12 -0400, liber...@nospam.org (Libertarian)
wrote:
> There has been some talk recently among some misguided theorists that
> capitalism can exist without the state. But it is clear to any
> sensible person that capitalism not only needs the state, it perpetuates
> the state. With private property, you must have police to gaurd this
> property,
The police and their equivalents are a recent creation. They took
over enforcement one hundred years ago in Califonia, one hundred and
fifty years ago in Britain.
In a world where large numbers of people are armed, theft is more
dangerous, not less.
In california, the main selling point for police takeover was not that
they would enforce more effectively, but that alleged criminals were
less likely to suffer on the spot execution, that private enforcement
tended to be one sided.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
vfr0mWVK2IGxsOGKsWd+iVwOCHqDzKVBfvEY9c4x
4J/4JZJJ7TkrA4sq/cT9DmmYANNlQirW5Omzdqqee
Ken MacLeod
Normally I snip except for essential context, but it's difficult to do
so here. So if you're interested, please scroll down.
In article <38f2bab4...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, James A. Donald
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
> --
>James A. Donald:
>> > In Soviet style democracy the workers get to vote, but are
>> > protected from making bad choices by a party that represents the
>> > true interests of the workers. The government then decides what
>> > the workers shall produce and what they will consume, but since
>> > the government and the party represents the workers, this
>> > constitutes the workers themselves deciding. See "the Cassini
>> > division" for book written by someone who sincerely believes in
>> > this system, and believes this would constitute true anarchy if
>> > only the endlessly and permanently re-elected politburea were nice
>> > guys instead of bad guys.
>
>Ken MacLeod:
>> I think you've misunderstood me, and _The Cassini Division_, which I
>> wrote.
>>
>> In fiction the viewpoint of the narrator is not necessarily that of
>> the author.
>
>In my other posts on the Cassini division I made the distinction
>between author and narrator. It is clear your views are not the same
>of those of the narrator.
Thank you.
> In this posting I neglected to do that, so
>I have misrepresented your view, but I have not misrepresented or
>misunderstood the book
>
I believe you have misunderstood it. I leave your interpretation here
with my response below.
>The narrator regards "the union" as true anarchy. She is (of course)
>one of the dozen or so people in charge, with the power to make war or
>peace in consultation with a handful of others, while the public are
>either unaware of these decisions, or of no consequence in these
>decisions.
>
>The narrator has privileged access to high tech resources, and most
>importantly, privileged access to information.
>
>The institutions of the Union have a marked resemblance to the
>institutions the Soviet Union pretended to have. The leadership group
>has been reelected with great regularity and without any divisive
>political campaigns for hundreds of years.
>
>For the masses no news was good news. The masses do not need to
>bother their pretty little heads about larger matters. The masses
>gladly and voluntarily follow a central plan generated and maintained
>by the Union's central computers. They rely on the central authority
>of the Union not only for goods and resources, but also for all
>information about what the Union is up to. When the narrator
>encounters capitalism, she is shocked and enraged by the nosyness of
>the press, which is eager to discover what is happening in matters of
>vast importance and considerable danger to everyone.
>
Part of this is true, but about the Division, not the Union. The
Division has secrets, but the Union has none.
The Cassini Division is an elite military force, not elected, and not
the government or the leadership. It is subordinate to the social
administration of the Solar Union (and this subordination is shown,
though the narrator - Ellen - and some other conspirators are
insubordinate, and thereby hangs the tale).
In the Solar Union all levels of the administration are directly
elected, their meetings are open to anyone to attend or report on,
anyone can stand for election and there is no Party. There are divisive
political campaigns (not shown, but implied by such things as the
appeasers - as Ellen calls them - and the Radiation Nation). If there is
a central plan it only covers a few global issues ('the almost deserted
hall of the Central Planning Board, with its golden statue of Mises').
Everyone other than small children is armed, or can easily become armed.
The Cassini Division is a dangerous elite and within it Ellen is a
dangerous elitist. But the Division doesn't outgun the Union, and Earth
Defense doesn't outgun the population.
And in the end, when the situation has changed, nothing can prevent the
Union dissolving into separate individuals and groups appropriating
resources throughout the Solar system.
I based the structure not on the premise 'imagine the institutions the
Soviet Union pretended to have, and imagine the right people in charge
of them'. I based it on trying to imagine the most democratic communist
system I possibly could, and then having something go wrong. Leave aside
the question of whether such a society is possible, or what other things
could have gone wrong. (Many other things could have gone wrong.) The
story is about the Cassini Division (or part of it) going wrong (or
right, depending on how you look at it.)
The whole story would have looked very different from the viewpoint of
someone on Earth, taking part in the debates and decisions and
infuriated that a faction in the Division had evaded them. Or from the
point of view of Mary-Lou Radiation Nation Smith. If I'd wanted to write
about that, I wouldn't have written a book called The Cassini Division.
I'd have written a book called, perhaps, The Solar Union.
Maybe someday I will.
--
Ken MacLeod
James A. Donald
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:55:56 +0100, Ken MacLeod
<k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I based the structure [of the Solar Union] not on the premise
> 'imagine the institutions the Soviet Union pretended to have, and
> imagine the right people in charge of them'. I based it on trying to
> imagine the most democratic communist system I possibly could
And you wound up with the institutions that the Soviet Union pretended
to have.
Could it be that the most democratic possible communist system is not
all that democratic?
And even if you regard the Solar Union as democratic, it certainly is
not anarchic.
In the book, the narrator believes that people are free, and
continually assures us that they are free, yet they did not sound free
or act free. I had assumed that was, in part, intentional.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
UTjQf0WVILKQEjwEv4WQYA8T4qQErqqPYN5RVNlp
4q4WR8AqtCCrlVHK7ocqLjXGbg8VUtE08evGTnhiN
James A. Donald
> > one of the dozen or so people in charge, with the power to make war or
> > peace in consultation with a handful of others, while the public are
> > either unaware of these decisions, or of no consequence in these
> > decisions.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:55:56 +0100, Ken MacLeod
<k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In the Solar Union all levels of the administration are directly
> elected, their meetings are open to anyone to attend or report on,
> anyone can stand for election and there is no Party.
The masses not only have no news sources for the doings of the Cassini
division, they have no news sources for anything. The Solar Union
"democratically" controls everything, including information about the
Union.
Ken MacLeod
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
>> > The narrator regards "the union" as true anarchy. She is (of course)
>> > one of the dozen or so people in charge, with the power to make war or
>> > peace in consultation with a handful of others, while the public are
>> > either unaware of these decisions, or of no consequence in these
>> > decisions.
>
>> elected, their meetings are open to anyone to attend or report on,
>> anyone can stand for election and there is no Party.
>
>division, they have no news sources for anything. The Solar Union
>"democratically" controls everything, including information about the
>Union.
>
What part of
>meetings are open to anyone to attend or report on
is unclear?
Any individual in the Union can attend, and report on, any meeting at
any level in the Union.
No Pravda, just completely unrestricted samizdat.
What's the problem?
--
Ken MacLeod
Ken MacLeod
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
> -->> I based the structure [of the Solar Union] not on the premise
>> 'imagine the institutions the Soviet Union pretended to have, and
>> imagine the right people in charge of them'. I based it on trying to
>
>to have.
>
The Soviet Union pretended to have no Leading Role of the Party? No
restrictions on reporting or publication? No secret meetings? No
restrictions on personal armament?
>Could it be that the most democratic possible communist system is not
>all that democratic?
>
>And even if you regard the Solar Union as democratic, it certainly is
>not anarchic.
>
>In the book, the narrator believes that people are free, and
>continually assures us that they are free, yet they did not sound free
>or act free. I had assumed that was, in part, intentional.
>
If they release smart-matter viruses their neighbours will object
violently. Apart from that and the usual constraints against murder,
rape and robbery they can do whatever the fuck they like. They can
become non-co-operators. They can take resources and set up non-co-
operating space settlements if they want to. Most don't.
Apart from the people in the Division, the only people in the Union that
we see as individuals are the South African woman and the photographer
at the party, and Suze, and the Solar Union delegate. None of them are
intended to sound, or act, like they aren't free.
As for the rest of the population, all we see is lots of people working
or relaxing. From Ellen's point of view, the end of history and the last
men are not particularly inspiring, no.
'I sighed, with a small shiver, and turned to the airport gate.'
--
Ken MacLeod
steve
On 10-Apr-2000, liber...@nospam.org (Libertarian) wrote:
> There has been some talk recently among some misguided theorists that
> capitalism can exist without the state. But it is clear to any
> sensible person that capitalism not only needs the state, it perpetuates
> the state. With private property, you must have police to gaurd this
> property, and you must have armies to defend a given region
> of property woners's wealth. Regaurdless of whether this state
> is public or private, it is still a state, with it's force,
> authority, hierarchy, dungeons (jails and prisons), torturers
> and murderers (legal system employees).
Three things:
1. It is absurd to equate protection of private property with the "state".
If I defend my home against an intruder I do not compell anyone to do
anything except
to respect my property, which is the very nature of property. If you do not
believe in property
as a concept, then THAT is the issue we must resolve. You are essentially
equating property with statism.
2. There will always be evil individuals in the world so you will also have
to defend your wife and sister against rapists.
Do you contend that that too is the "state"?
3. You might also want to note that the most heavy handed statism has always
come with the "collectivist" philosophy.
This is precisely because property (which is rooted in self ownership) is
fundamental to individual liberty, and is rejected by the collectivists.
> It is basicaly a con-job... to promise that if capitalists are given
> unrestricted rule and control, that they will somehow start to act "nice"
> and not monopolize, bully, or abuse others with their privleges.
No one here (not libertarian, anyway) has advocated "unrestricted rule and
control" by anyone. The very significant restriction is respect for
individual liberty.
That basically eliminates "rule and control" by capitalists or socialists.
steve
--
"It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
James A. Donald
> > > 'imagine the institutions the Soviet Union pretended to have, and
> > > imagine the right people in charge of them'. I based it on trying to
> > > imagine the most democratic communist system I possibly could
James A. Donald:
> > And you wound up with the institutions that the Soviet Union pretended
> > to have.
Ken MacLeod:
> The Soviet Union pretended to have no Leading Role of the Party?
The narrator's Solar Union had a leading role for the ideology of
"true knowledge". The permanently elected establishment with a
permanent ideology, an establishment that is the sole source of
information, sounds very like a party with a leading role.
> No
> restrictions on reporting or publication?
The narrator's Solar Union was the sole source of reporting and
publication, which strikes me as a rather severe restraint. Recall
your criticism, and the narrator's criticism, of the capitalist press,
which she contrasted not with a free press of small zines, but with
the silence that she was accustomed to.
James A. Donald:
> > And even if you regard the Solar Union as democratic, it certainly is
> > not anarchic.
> >
> > In the book, the narrator believes that people are free, and
> > continually assures us that they are free, yet they did not sound free
> > or act free. I had assumed that was, in part, intentional.
Ken MacLeod:
> If they release smart-matter viruses their neighbours will object
> violently. Apart from that and the usual constraints against murder,
> rape and robbery they can do whatever the fuck they like.
If they do whatever the fuck they like they are "non cooperators", and
"non cooperators" are excluded from the Solar Union, which controls
all the resources and all the technology, and almost all the means of
production.
> Apart from the people in the Division, the only people in the Union that
> we see as individuals are the South African woman and the photographer
> at the party, and Suze, and the Solar Union delegate. None of them are
> intended to sound, or act, like they aren't free.
The low status woman that the narrator encounters while she is going
to pick up the scientist from England sounded to me like a docile
brainwashed slave. Again, I had assumed that was intentional.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
kEfn4tW74SlbhBDUwMFJKqpUjmyBBofNK3KGBc83
4yrxUFkD5hEACLyNL/oANGETyDwavkkJabdcoS7Tr
James A. Donald
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:47:54 +0100, Ken MacLeod
<k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The masses not only have no news sources for the doings of the Cassini
> > division, they have no news sources for anything. The Solar Union
> > "democratically" controls everything, including information about the
> > Union.
>
>What part of
>
>>meetings are open to anyone to attend or report on
>
>is unclear?
As an author, you probably do not get to attend any meetings. My job
requires me to regularly attend meetings, and when I was active in
left politics I also regularly attended organizational meetings.
I can assure you from personal experience that "the meetings are open
to anyone" is completely worthless. Nobody wants to attend meetings,
and if they attend political organizational meetings they will not
obtain any useful information.
I hate attending meetings. Everyone I know hates attending meetings.
The idea that lots of meetings will make society more democratic and
free is simply laughable.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
tQR1Ct2EnBSjmG3EAFFDUhK0VimjwWaHza/m9imz
4SulIENQn/egany8EEj4+GPQvgQF7+ChEFk9xNogz
James A. Donald
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:17:19 +0100, Ken MacLeod
<k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Apart from the people in the Division, the only people in the Union that
> we see as individuals are the South African woman and the photographer
> at the party, and Suze, and the Solar Union delegate.
Read your own words. You wrote a book about an organization described
as anarchic and democratic, and it is all about the only people that
count, the only people that can really act, the political leadership.
Books set in anarcho capitalist utopias, such as "across realtime",
and the "probability broach", or anarcho capitalist distopias, such as
"snow crash" are about ordinary people, people that are braver,
wilder, and better with weapons than the average person, but not
possessed of any special authority.
Face it. You cannot show ordinary people in an anarcho socialist
utopia because they are just boring little slaves and have no power or
authority to do anything interesting.
Ursula Guinn shows an ordinary person in an anarcho socialist society,
but in order to have any story, she has to first put him in conflict
with the society, and then get him out of there to a capitalist
society so that interesting things can happen.
Science fiction is full of rattling good stories of ordinary people in
social systems resembling anarcho capitalism, and of odinary people
revolting against systems resembling socialism, but no stories of
ordinary people in anarcho socialist societies. One can no more write
a story about a happy subject of an anarcho socialist collective than
one can write a story about a sheep in a flock.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
RcoV1czsjH2UL9R7Z6vjc3FxM1cy4Rp4up/+SAGy
4mW1d50xmAE4aCJXbM+SaWR6p06jjijgO0Abpk4R3
Michiel Buddingh'
> One can no more write
> a story about a happy subject of an anarcho socialist collective than
> one can write a story about a sheep in a flock.
Hmm... I have read `exciting' stories written by survivors of the Auschwitch
concentration camp, about their life there, and I have read interesting
fiction about life in the 13th century, with the 100-year
war and the black plague torturing Europe. For some reason I have never
read exciting stories about life in the current capitalist system, or
about life in a luxury hotel.
But to say the firstmentioned systems are better......
You talk about anarcho-socialists as if they were sheep in a flock.
Mind, you, most sheep are very happy in the flock, and, as man is a
social animal, he likes to live in flock-like systems as well.
If you fear these societies will lack individuality, or rather,
the lack of possibility to express this individuality, I ask you
where you base this on, and I advise you to take a better look
at the current society. Apart from a small percentage of the population,
man is very happy to live in flocks. Look at consumerism. Everyone owns
a tv, a car, a house, and, lately, a pc. Many drink Coke,
or, if they feel the need to manifest their `individuality', Pepsi ;-)
People use Windows 9x, and if they feel the need to manifest their
individuality, they (a) customize their desktop (b) buy an iMac in
a different color.
Individuality is currently en vogue, and, of course, cashed in on.
Freedom of self-expression and development is being redefined as
freedom of consuming. This, you'll agree, is not the same.
If you fear people won't have different opinions anymore, look around
you? How many do you know who *think* about their opinion...most of
them just match theirs to the `flock' they're currently in.
Do you fear people won't have differing ideas about economy or property
anymore? There are things far worse than that; mind you, most people
share the same attitude towards breathing, but that doesn't mean they
can't disagree on anyone else.
For the few that can't live in Utopia's, those who have a desire for
the wilderness, they can become fur trappers, or mounties, or ore
prospectors,
or whatever caters to their tastes. But don't presume that what is good for
them is good for all.
--
Michiel Buddingh' - A.K.A. Ajuin
Tony W. Frye
>
> --
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:17:19 +0100, Ken MacLeod
> <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Apart from the people in the Division, the only people in the Union that
> > we see as individuals are the South African woman and the photographer
> > at the party, and Suze, and the Solar Union delegate.
>
> Read your own words. You wrote a book about an organization described
> as anarchic and democratic, and it is all about the only people that
> count, the only people that can really act, the political leadership.
As opposed to your support for statist military coups in Chile and the
hierarchical structure of General Pinochet's Chilean Army to wipe out
parliaments, political dissent, parties, and impose a totalitarian market
dictatorship. You're hardly an authority on anarchy. Anarchists may be
misguided (as primitivism is always a force of destruction), but you don't
rank to even be among them.
jobo
Mark Samokhvalov <samokh...@mtu-net.ru> wrote in message
news:8cmfhh$102r$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru...
> Lengthy, but essentially true, however, some corrections would be OK.
> The principal difference between capitalism & socialism lies in the
economic
> motivation; in socialism, economy caters for the needs of the society, as
a
> whole, as established by common consent - this means planning. In
> capitalism, the aim of a subject engaged in economic activity is profit,
no
> matter, who the subject is - a person, a team, a local authority, a
> government, hence, all the accompanying qualities: unemployment,
stimulation
> of consumerism, etc. Owenership is of secondary importance - private
> enterprises can be made to serve public interests (example - Nazi economy
> during the War).
IMHO world wars are not in the intersest of the public.
It needs both society owned means of production and democratic control.
mikel evins
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:38f422f6...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> --
> Ursula Guinn shows an ordinary person in an anarcho socialist society,
> but in order to have any story, she has to first put him in conflict
> with the society, and then get him out of there to a capitalist
> society so that interesting things can happen.
Your reading of _The Dispossessed_ is very different from mine. I think that
the most interesting stuff happens on Anarres, and that the main point of
the story is that, given a society that is supposed to have eliminated all
possessions and institutionalized authority, you still don't automatically
get freedom. The way I read it, much of what it's about is that Shevek is
oppressed by people who supposedly have no power to oppress him, people who
use the rhetoric of solidarity to try to control him.
I don't think Shevek had to leave Anarres in order for anything interesting
to happen. Rather, I think Urras was a device used to clarify Anarres by way
of contrast. I can easily imagine a version of the story without an Urras.
--
mikel evins
mi...@reactivity.com
David Stevens
>
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:38f422f6...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> > --
>
> > Ursula Guinn shows an ordinary person in an anarcho socialist society,
> > but in order to have any story, she has to first put him in conflict
> > with the society, and then get him out of there to a capitalist
> > society so that interesting things can happen.
>
> Your reading of _The Dispossessed_ is very different from mine.
I agree with Mikel Evins, but I can't let the opportunity slip ...
> I think that
> the most interesting stuff happens on Anarres, and that the main point of
> the story is that, given a society that is supposed to have eliminated all
> possessions and institutionalized authority, you still don't automatically
> get freedom. The way I read it, much of what it's about is that Shevek is
> oppressed by people who supposedly have no power to oppress him, people who
> use the rhetoric of solidarity to try to control him.
>
> I don't think Shevek had to leave Anarres in order for anything interesting
> to happen. Rather, I think Urras was a device used to clarify Anarres by way
> of contrast. I can easily imagine a version of the story without an Urras.
<SAR> Mikel, you are egoising again!
-- David Stevens
[drsyou...@slip.net] (Remove your_pants to reply)
Trotsky, Sex & Drugs http://www.slip.net/~drs
Ken MacLeod
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
> --
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:17:19 +0100, Ken MacLeod
><k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Apart from the people in the Division, the only people in the Union that
>> we see as individuals are the South African woman and the photographer
>> at the party, and Suze, and the Solar Union delegate.
>
>Read your own words. You wrote a book about an organization described
>as anarchic and democratic, and it is all about the only people that
>count, the only people that can really act, the political leadership.
>
I think you'd define anyone with a responsible position, no matter how
minor, in the anarcho-socialist society as 'part of the political
leadership'.
The book is not *about* the Solar Union. The Solar Union is backdrop.
Substantially the same story could have been told about a solar
capitalist society in conflict with post-humans who'd crippled the
humans' electronics - say, a capitalist society with Drexler nanotech,
very little electronic communication, and a global minimal state with
Green enclaves of wilderness. The ordinary people of the society would
have been just as much in the background, and the business, military and
political leadership in the foreground.
Why? Because their actions are of more consequence *for the story*.
>Books set in anarcho capitalist utopias, such as "across realtime",
>and the "probability broach", or anarcho capitalist distopias, such as
>"snow crash" are about ordinary people, people that are braver,
>wilder, and better with weapons than the average person, but not
>possessed of any special authority.
>
I should know, I've written a few.
>Face it. You cannot show ordinary people in an anarcho socialist
>utopia because they are just boring little slaves and have no power or
>authority to do anything interesting.
>
I've just seen a TV adaptation of Flaubert's novel _Madame Bovary_.
It's about Emma Bovary's life-long faithful and happy marriage to a
provincial physician, his uniformly successful practice and her wise
household management.
Not.
You may also remember the smash-hit film _Apollo 14_.
>Ursula Guinn shows an ordinary person in an anarcho socialist society,
>but in order to have any story, she has to first put him in conflict
>with the society, and then get him out of there to a capitalist
>society so that interesting things can happen.
>
James Hogan, in _Voyage From Yesteryear_, shows ordinary people in an
anarcho-socialist society running rings around people from a statist
capitalist society.
>Science fiction is full of rattling good stories of ordinary people in
>social systems resembling anarcho capitalism, and of odinary people
>revolting against systems resembling socialism, but no stories of
>ordinary people in anarcho socialist societies. One can no more write
>a story about a happy subject of an anarcho socialist collective than
>one can write a story about a sheep in a flock.
>
Popular fiction is full of rattling good yarns about happy families,
voyages that pass without incident, the Swiss Army in WW2, crimes where
the culprit is caught red-handed, honest politicians and businessmen,
and young lovers whose families say 'Great! When's the wedding?' and who
never encounter potential rivals for their love. And so on.
Not.
And yet, you know, such people and situations exist.
--
Ken MacLeod
Ken MacLeod
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
> --
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:55:56 +0100, Ken MacLeod
><k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > I based the structure [of the Solar Union] not on the premise
>> > > 'imagine the institutions the Soviet Union pretended to have, and
>> > > imagine the right people in charge of them'. I based it on trying to
>
>James A. Donald:
>> > to have.
>
>Ken MacLeod:
>> The Soviet Union pretended to have no Leading Role of the Party?
>
>The narrator's Solar Union had a leading role for the ideology of
>"true knowledge". The permanently elected establishment with a
>permanent ideology, an establishment that is the sole source of
>information, sounds very like a party with a leading role.
>
Three hundred years from now, almost everybody is a humanist. Yawn. More
experienced immortals tend to get re-elected. Yawn.
>> No
>> restrictions on reporting or publication?
>
>The narrator's Solar Union was the sole source of reporting and
>publication, which strikes me as a rather severe restraint.
If by this you mean that the elected decision-making bodies of the Union
have any control over what is said about them or who says it, this is
explicitly stated not to be the case.
> Recall
>your criticism, and the narrator's criticism, of the capitalist press,
>which she contrasted not with a free press of small zines, but with
>the silence that she was accustomed to.
>
The silence is radio silence, not absence of news reporting or debate,
both of which are mentioned in the same context.
It wouldn't have made any difference to the broad outline of the story,
or the society depicted, if Earth had been buzzing with electronic
communication and the entire administration from local to solar chosen
by lot.
>James A. Donald:
>> > And even if you regard the Solar Union as democratic, it certainly is
>> > not anarchic.
>> >
>> > In the book, the narrator believes that people are free, and
>> > continually assures us that they are free, yet they did not sound free
>> > or act free. I had assumed that was, in part, intentional.
>
>Ken MacLeod:
>> If they release smart-matter viruses their neighbours will object
>> violently. Apart from that and the usual constraints against murder,
>> rape and robbery they can do whatever the fuck they like.
>
>If they do whatever the fuck they like they are "non cooperators", and
>"non cooperators" are excluded from the Solar Union, which controls
>all the resources and all the technology, and almost all the means of
>production.
>
The non-cos aren't people who do whatever the fuck they like. They're
people who don't want to be in the Union. If they want means of
production they can work hard and save up.
There are non-co space settlements.
>> Apart from the people in the Division, the only people in the Union that
>> we see as individuals are the South African woman and the photographer
>> at the party, and Suze, and the Solar Union delegate. None of them are
>> intended to sound, or act, like they aren't free.
>
>The low status woman that the narrator encounters while she is going
>to pick up the scientist from England sounded to me like a docile
>brainwashed slave. Again, I had assumed that was intentional.
>
It was intentional that she was naive and that she believed in the
society.
But this supposed slave can travel wherever she wants, follow her
intellectual interest in capitalism despite most people's distaste or
disapproval, acts with initiative in a sticky situation and gets on
board a Division ship - indeed, actually volunteers herself into the
Division - and nobody can stop her.
--
Ken MacLeod
Ken MacLeod
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
>
>I hate attending meetings. Everyone I know hates attending meetings.
>The idea that lots of meetings will make society more democratic and
>free is simply laughable.
>
I hate meetings. I've attended lots, business and political.
The point is not that there are more meetings in the Solar Union, but
that there are no secret decisions. Which is why the protagonist has to
keep her decisions secret, even from most of her colleagues.
But that's the last I have to say on this, for now.
Another deadline looms: another year, another novel set in anarcho-
capitalism. C'est la vie.
--
Ken MacLeod
David Stevens
> ...
>
> I hate meetings. I've attended lots, business and political.
>
> The point is not that there are more meetings in the Solar Union, but
> that there are no secret decisions. Which is why the protagonist has to
> keep her decisions secret, even from most of her colleagues.
>
> But that's the last I have to say on this, for now.
>
> Another deadline looms: another year, another novel set in anarcho-
> capitalism. C'est la vie.
James Donald's remarks show IMHO how deep ideological brainwashing
can be. He's an intelligent and literate person ... who ultimately
seems incapable of making the stretch _politically_ to understand
the novel universe MacLeod created.
But I found Ken's dialogue about _The Cassini Division_ enriching.
Many authors might say, perhaps justifiably, "My Art speaks for
itself," but the experience is a subjective one for the reader.
Challenging as it was to me, I'm sure I understood the novel
better than Mr. Donald ... and I can't help but think that
I also _enjoyed_ it more than James did.
Constantinople
<38F50656...@slip.net>:
> James Donald's remarks show IMHO how deep ideological
> brainwashing
>can be.
OK, so who exactly brainwashed James Donald? Was it me? Was it
David Friedman?
I'd like to see you get the balls to contradict an author about
the meaning of his novel.
James A. Donald
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:57:33 +0100, Ken MacLeod
<k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The point is not that there are more meetings in the Solar Union, but
> that there are no secret decisions.
Yet we are shown secret decisions all the time, or at least decisions
where no one shows any interest in, or awareness of, the possible
reaction of the masses. No one took political postures for
publication, no one issued statements, no one drew up a ten point
program to be broadcast. No one played to the gallery, no gallery was
ever visible, nor did anyone ever compose statements for publication
to the masses. In reading the book I assumed that such trivial and
inconsequential material was composed by a very junior clerk in the
ministry of propaganda, a clerk with similar status and duties as the
narrator of 1984.
We are told that this society is very democratic and open, but we do
not see any openness. First the narrator, and now you yourself tell
us that this society is really nice and free and democratic, yet we
saw none of that, nor did we see any of the kinds of activities that
would take place if it was democratic and free.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4HvwfRS1I12E6NgN10cdFcFAIOySor6w0kJwRAJ8
47VVgYRCUgzolF42FSJyIpiYXqnlUiPhoD9W4vHWA
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Face it. You cannot show ordinary people in an anarcho socialist
> > utopia because they are just boring little slaves and have no power or
> > authority to do anything interesting.
Kevin McLeod:
> I've just seen a TV adaptation of Flaubert's novel _Madame Bovary_.
>
> It's about Emma Bovary's life-long faithful and happy marriage to a
> provincial physician, his uniformly successful practice and her wise
> household management.
And a happy marriage is not anarcho socialism. In a happy marriage,
some decisions are shared between two people, and some are made by one
and some by another.
In anarcho socialism, you get 0.001% of all decisions about your life,
not fifty percent, and anyone who goes along with such an arrangement
is bound to look like a boring subhuman.
No one has managed to write a science fiction story where any
substantial action takes place in a favoragly represented anarcho
socialist society, not Ursula LeGuinn, and not you.
To write such a story, you would have to imagine lots of concrete
details, and show your hero making significant decisions himself. If
he is one of the nomenclatura, your society is going to look like the
Soviet Union, as did "the Cassini Division". If he is just an
ordinary member, not one of the nomenclatura, as in "the
dispossessed", this will automatically put him in conflict with
"society", and this conflict will necessarily manifest in his
interaction with the nomnclatura, who will necessarily look bad.
Pretty soon your anarcho socialist Utopia is going to look like
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and your hero is going to develop a
resemblance to the revolutionary in "The moon is a harsh mistress",
with a story line of "Man against the System", and the only way you
can prevent the story line from running off in a direction quite
different from that which you intended is to what Ursula did, and pull
him out of the anarcho socialist society and send him off somewhere
else.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
MNEdhAPVP+1xQ3f2rM6NrCLe7hAFjduyk1Qnvpwq
4niJFwLAlOKqZD20RUuDVOvaPO453SRl/bG7E8NRx
James A. Donald
> > a story about a happy subject of an anarcho socialist collective than
> > one can write a story about a sheep in a flock.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:32:24 +0200, "Michiel Buddingh'"
<aj...@dds.microsoft.nl> wrote:
> Hmm... I have read `exciting' stories written by survivors of the Auschwitch
> concentration camp, about their life there,
But such stories fail to reflect well on Auschwitz.
My point is that authors have been unable to present an anarcho
socialist utopia from the view of an ordinary member of the masses and
have the utopia look utopian.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BZsjf66Swr+2A1zQVH7B8rWIGxMjw8DPDvCfjjyY
4xx3Am976qmT1VvenzC3yUQ0nLMq/cyV2w9xkyEKb
James A. Donald
> > but in order to have any story, she has to first put him in conflict
> > with the society, and then get him out of there to a capitalist
> > society so that interesting things can happen.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:58:51 GMT, "mikel evins" <mi...@reactivity.com>
wrote:
> Your reading of _The Dispossessed_ is very different from mine. I think that
> the most interesting stuff happens on Anarres, and that the main point of
> the story is that, given a society that is supposed to have eliminated all
> possessions and institutionalized authority, you still don't automatically
> get freedom. The way I read it, much of what it's about is that Shevek is
> oppressed by people who supposedly have no power to oppress him, people who
> use the rhetoric of solidarity to try to control him.
>
> I don't think Shevek had to leave Anarres in order for anything interesting
> to happen. Rather, I think Urras was a device used to clarify Anarres by way
> of contrast. I can easily imagine a version of the story without an Urras.
I also, can imagine such a story, and it would become "The moon is a
harsh mistress". The anarcho socialist society would have been seen
as worse and worse. My suggestion was that Ursula moved him out
because any character development and any events made anarcho
socialism look worse and worse.
James A. Donald
> > The narrator's Solar Union had a leading role for the ideology of
> > "true knowledge". The permanently elected establishment with a
> > permanent ideology, an establishment that is the sole source of
> > information, sounds very like a party with a leading role.
Ken MacLeod
> Three hundred years from now, almost everybody is a humanist. Yawn. More
> experienced immortals tend to get re-elected. Yawn.
Still resembles the Soviet Union.
Ken MacLeod
> > > No
> > > restrictions on reporting or publication?
James A. Donald:
> > The narrator's Solar Union was the sole source of reporting and
> > publication, which strikes me as a rather severe restraint.
Ken MacLeod:
> If by this you mean that the elected decision-making bodies of the Union
> have any control over what is said about them or who says it, this is
> explicitly stated not to be the case.
If Ann says to Bob, "I think Carol is a lousy representative", this
was permitted. If Ann wants a microphone that addresses ten thousand
people, that it a community resource, and Carol has charge of
community resources. People hear socially constructive news, what is
good for them to hear.
James A. Donald:
> > Recall
> > your criticism, and the narrator's criticism, of the capitalist press,
> > which she contrasted not with a free press of small zines, but with
> > the silence that she was accustomed to.
Ken MacLeod:
> The silence is radio silence, not absence of news reporting or debate,
> both of which are mentioned in the same context.
I refer to the narrators encounter with the press on the capitalist
planet, where the medium of transmission was irrelevant, and not
specified in the story, not to her objection to private radio
transmissions on the socialist planet for defence reasons.
James A. Donald:
> > > > And even if you regard the Solar Union as democratic, it certainly is
> > > > not anarchic.
> > > >
> > > > In the book, the narrator believes that people are free, and
> > > > continually assures us that they are free, yet they did not sound free
> > > > or act free. I had assumed that was, in part, intentional.
Ken MacLeod:
> > > Apart from the people in the Division, the only people in the Union that
> > > we see as individuals are the South African woman and the photographer
> > > at the party, and Suze, and the Solar Union delegate. None of them are
> > > intended to sound, or act, like they aren't free.
James A. Donald:
> > The low status woman that the narrator encounters while she is going
> > to pick up the scientist from England sounded to me like a docile
> > brainwashed slave. Again, I had assumed that was intentional.
Ken MacLeod:
> It was intentional that she was naive and that she believed in the
> society.
All your characters that are real characters are either nomenclatura,
or hostile to socialism. Any low status socialists are mere icons of
the masses, cardboard potemkin cutouts, like socialist realist art
rendered into a novel, serving no function other than to reassure us
that the nomenclatura were good and wise, and their system almost
universally loved. You were unable to create a realistic character
that was a good socialist and of low status. The low status character
only gets to make the decision to volunteer to assist the high status
character. A good low status socialist in your novel does not make
decisions, except which of the plans of her betters she shall
contribute to. They do not feel like real people.
mikel evins
jam...@echeque.com wrote on 4/12/00 8:06 PM:
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:38f422f6...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>>> Ursula Guinn shows an ordinary person in an anarcho socialist society,
>>> but in order to have any story, she has to first put him in conflict
>>> with the society, and then get him out of there to a capitalist
>>> society so that interesting things can happen.
>
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:58:51 GMT, "mikel evins" <mi...@reactivity.com>
> wrote:
>> Your reading of _The Dispossessed_ is very different from mine. I think that
>> the most interesting stuff happens on Anarres, and that the main point of
>> the story is that, given a society that is supposed to have eliminated all
>> possessions and institutionalized authority, you still don't automatically
>> get freedom. The way I read it, much of what it's about is that Shevek is
>> oppressed by people who supposedly have no power to oppress him, people who
>> use the rhetoric of solidarity to try to control him.
>>
>> I don't think Shevek had to leave Anarres in order for anything interesting
>> to happen. Rather, I think Urras was a device used to clarify Anarres by way
>> of contrast. I can easily imagine a version of the story without an Urras.
>
> I also, can imagine such a story, and it would become "The moon is a
> harsh mistress". The anarcho socialist society would have been seen
> as worse and worse. My suggestion was that Ursula moved him out
> because any character development and any events made anarcho
> socialism look worse and worse.
I don't see why. Life on Anarres is already half the book; I don't see why
doubling it would have made Anarres seem so much worse. And I don't see how
that turns it into "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress." In fact, if you just
ripped out all the events on Urras you'd still have a pretty decent novella
about an individual's struggle to maintain his independence in the face of
social pressure to conform. Le Guin was critical of the Anarristi --
remember that one of Shevek's childhood friends got chased into a loony bin
for no better reason than being 'different.'
The more I think about it the less I agree with your assessment of it.
But I did like "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress." :-)
--
mikel evins
mi...@reactivity.com
David Stevens
[on _The Dispossesed_, by Ursula LeGuin]:
> ...
>
> I don't see why. Life on Anarres is already half the book; I don't see why
> doubling it would have made Anarres seem so much worse. And I don't see how
> that turns it into "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress." In fact, if you just
> ripped out all the events on Urras you'd still have a pretty decent novella
> about an individual's struggle to maintain his independence in the face of
> social pressure to conform.
That was the part I liked best.
> Le Guin was critical of the Anarristi --
> remember that one of Shevek's childhood friends got chased
> into a loony bin for no better reason than being 'different.'
As a Marxist, I was fascinated by the problems faced by a
society (a) lacking in material abundance (b) with not even
a vestigial State apparatus but (c) despite technical anarchism,
an entrenched bureaucracy capable of suppressing new ideas.
It gave me a _lot_ to chew on.
> The more I think about it the less I agree with your assessment of it.
Likewise ... but thank you for making me think about it.
> But I did like "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress." :-)
Hey, I even liked _Starship Troopers_ except for its
silly straw man arguments against the Labor Theory of Value
[the old mudpie redefinition-of-terms]. I liked _Moon_
a lot better, of course, but Reds like me have to answer
the 'arguments' in Starship Troopers, too.
Except for those LTV mudpies. ;-|
Michiel Buddingh'
38fb398b...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> --
> James A. Donald <jam...@echec.com> wrote:
> > > One can no more write
> > > a story about a happy subject of an anarcho socialist collective than
> > > one can write a story about a sheep in a flock.
>
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:32:24 +0200, "Michiel Buddingh'"
> <aj...@dds.microsoft.nl> wrote:
> > Hmm... I have read `exciting' stories written by survivors of the
Auschwitch
> > concentration camp, about their life there,
>
> But such stories fail to reflect well on Auschwitz.
>
> My point is that authors have been unable to present an anarcho
> socialist utopia from the view of an ordinary member of the masses and
> have the utopia look utopian.
And my point was that utopias, as a general rule, aren't a good
basis for exciting stories, whereas distopias...........
mikel evins
"David Stevens" <drsyou...@slip.net> wrote in message
news:38F58ADE...@slip.net...
> Mikel Evins replied to Mr. James Donald
> [on _The Dispossesed_, by Ursula LeGuin]:
> > ...
>
> Hey, I even liked _Starship Troopers_ except for its
> silly straw man arguments against the Labor Theory of Value
> [the old mudpie redefinition-of-terms
Perhaps you could explain in more detail why you think Heinlein's
characterization was a strawman. If I recall correctly, the main point was
that in order to establish value you need not only the seller's assessment
of what he wants to get for his product, but also the buyer's assessment of
what he's willing to give. Do you feel that there is a formulation of the
labor theory of value that takes both into account, or, alternatively, do
you think that there is a way to dispense with one or the other?
--
mikel evins
mi...@reactivity.com
Constantinople
says...
According to one author I read, the labor theory of value
dispenses with both, and is not really a theory of anything that
you or I would recognize as value. Near as I can figure, if you
assume market equilibrium (i.e., assume people aren't digging
ditches and then filling them up - this does away with socially
useless labor), then the labor-value of something is the total
man- hours that it took to create the thing, regardless of the
seller's price. The difference between skilled and unskilled
labor is the amount of education involved in getting the worker
skilled, which involves labor on the part of student and teacher,
so that a medical doctor's assistance may be worth (in the labor-
value sense) much more than what one might guess just considering
the hours he spent with the particular patient.
What about people who are born smart? I don't know how the theory
deals with that.
The theory completely ignores time, which is how you get the idea
that capitalists are exploiting workers. A capitalist's return on
investment is based on the fact that people generally prefer to
have things now rather than later. The labor theory has no way of
incorporating this difference, because 10 hours worked in 1970 is
the same number of hours as 10 hours worked in 1990. Whereas two
free people making an exchange in the same kind of labor worked
in 1970 versus 1990 would likely exchange something like 10 hours
of labor in 1970 for maybe 40 hours of labor in 1990 (I think
interest approximately doubles one's investment every 10
years...?) According to the labor theory, that's 30 hours of
exploitation.
What about supply? Suppose that something takes no labor to
produce, but is nevertheless available in very limited
quantities. I think according to the theory that must have zero
labor-value.
There may be some consistent theory in there - for most things, I
imagine one can trace back to some extent how much total labor
went into producing those particular things, disregarding time,
disregarding inborn skill, disregarding supply, disregarding
demand. But having found this quantity, what does one do with it?
To me the quantity thereby arrived at is not much more useful for
understanding the economy than mass or volume or color. The
existence of interest is completely unaccounted for, for
instance. The failure of the theory to treat interest internally
causes it to treat interest as something like an evil plot
imposed on good people by malevolent outsiders.
--
"The most important function of economics as a discipline is its
didactic role in explaining the principle of spontaneous order."
-- Buchanan
Ilja Schmelzer
> There may be some consistent theory in there - for most things, I
> imagine one can trace back to some extent how much total labor went
> into producing those particular things, disregarding time,
> disregarding inborn skill, disregarding supply, disregarding
> demand. But having found this quantity, what does one do with it?
> To me the quantity thereby arrived at is not much more useful for
> understanding the economy than mass or volume or color.
Indeed.
The point of Marx's value is, of course, the related theory of
exploitation - only the worker creates new value, therefore, is
exploited. This sounds reasonable because it is named "value",
not volume or mass, but nonetheless nonsense.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <schm...@wias-berlin.de>, http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer