Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Repost: Why socialism needs killing fields:

3 views
Skip to first unread message

James A. Donald

unread,
Jan 30, 2003, 4:08:07 PM1/30/03
to
--
Since baby_ifritah has once again attempted to argue that one
can have socialism without terror, a position I thought that
socialists had for the most part quietly conceded, I repost my
old article:

Why socialism needs killing fields:

Throughout the twentieth century the introduction of socialism
has always involved killing fields, facilities for the mass
production of murder by specialized labor.

Although this institution has been widely used throughout the
twentieth century, we did not create a word for it until close
to the end of the twentieth century, when Pol Pot organized
approximately 20 000 separate killing fields, a world record,
thanks to his firm commitment to decentralized government.

Though the word is new, the system is as old as socialism.

The basic problem of socialism is the relationship between
production and consumption. It is likely that the number seven
widget collective might want to produce fewer widgets, or a
different kind of widget, to that which certain users of
widgets desire. Furthermore some users of widgets will want
widgets for one purpose, and others for a different purpose,
and there probably will not be as many widgets as they all
desire, or the varieties that each diverse user of widgets
desires.

Now under capitalism, no problem. You want widgets? You pay
for widgets. You get the widgets you want or you refuse to buy
widgets. And if you do not want to pay, then you probably do
not need the widgets as much as the guy who is willing to pay.
And if the price is high, then making widgets must be hard, and
if it is not hard, you go into business making widgets, and you
do not have to ask anyone's permission to do that.

But under socialism, the number seven widget collective is
producing widgets for free, or at a "socially desirable price",
which usually might as well be free, since when goods are
produced at "socially desirable" prices money rapidly becomes
unspendable. So who gets to decide what widgets to produce?
Those who produce them, or those who consume them?

Well obviously "the community" must decide.

And then "the community" must impose its decision on the
producers and consumers of widgets.

Whereas in capitalism, the community can go jump in the lake.
It is nobody's business but that of a willing seller and a
willing buyer.

This means that under socialism, issues of production and
consumption have to be dealt with in the same way that
capitalists deal with issues such as a stolen handbag.

Under capitalism there is a positive incentive to produce,
since if you produce something you own it, until you trade if
for something you want more, and you cannot consume, except you
have produced something that someone else values more than what
you consume.

This of course makes it possible in capitalism for one person
to wind up owning vastly more than another due to the accidents
of luck, opportunity, ability, and ambition.

Under socialism it is necessary to use negative incentives, to
punish people for "parasitism" "hoarding", "black
marketeering", and suchlike "crimes", "crimes" which are
unknown in capitalism, or rather uniformly honored as virtues.

A socialist economy must employ negative incentives, the kind
of incentives that law abiding people apply only to muggers and
the like, in order to get light bulbs in the light sockets and
toilet paper in the toilets. Thus the entire socialist country
must be run as a prison, and all the citizens are lifers, and
the nomenclatura are merely trusties.

Needless to say, when this system is introduced, a great many
people misbehave. You cannot send them to prison, they already
are in prison.

You have to murder them.

Hence the need for efficient methods for the mass production of
murder.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
DghbC2/AFmyWWIuiJ+LhjZ2Jc+Gnq/xEZj7o/RIR
4YhR6KRqn4iia7V9DmHkmtOEY7EAjv4VDr1NnCl0H

baby_ifritah

unread,
Jan 30, 2003, 11:26:11 PM1/30/03
to
er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have said that you
consider this an appropriate response to? oh, sorry - specific thingS - i
am supposed to have done whatever i did repeatedly.

james, james, james, you tire me.

James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:oq4j3v0uk53u5hc5j...@4ax.com...

brian turner

unread,
Jan 30, 2003, 11:50:39 PM1/30/03
to
The following does not address market socialism, either theoretical or
actually existing, which has no similarity with the picture painted
below; nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy, nor mixed
ownership systems. Since there are very few who advocate Leninist
central planning (which doesn't *always* lead to killing fields
clearly, even if it often does). This critique might be worth
considering regarding a radical associative/anti-market
anarcho-socialism if the argument was that the "community" must be a
very large population. Since few socialists advocate this, this
critique is necessarily directed at tiny elements of the non-Leninist
socialist left.


James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message news:<oq4j3v0uk53u5hc5j...@4ax.com>...

Josh Dougherty

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 12:45:02 AM1/31/03
to
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:oq4j3v0uk53u5hc5j...@4ax.com...

> Whereas in capitalism, the community can go jump in the lake.

Hey! James got something right. :)

Josh


Dan Clore

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 3:44:20 AM1/31/03
to
brian turner wrote:
>
> The following does not address market socialism, either theoretical or
> actually existing, which has no similarity with the picture painted
> below; nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy, nor mixed
> ownership systems. Since there are very few who advocate Leninist
> central planning (which doesn't *always* lead to killing fields
> clearly, even if it often does). This critique might be worth
> considering regarding a radical associative/anti-market
> anarcho-socialism if the argument was that the "community" must be a
> very large population. Since few socialists advocate this, this
> critique is necessarily directed at tiny elements of the non-Leninist
> socialist left.

The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
"anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
argument against state capitalism.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro

Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith

James A. Donald

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 5:05:34 AM1/31/03
to
--
"baby_ifritah"

> er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
> said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
> sorry - specific thingS

You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
Here I explained at length why you cannot.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

ORrSUkoCnBZbnXEew07wftqg5hM2/xeqiAAkY5gg
4Qv+2SSc/OwP7I/DsAnyj47X+H8M5EXfShRhXoRdF


idlemuse

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 11:49:25 AM1/31/03
to
bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner) wrote in message news:<66dc0679.03013...@posting.google.com>...

> The following does not address market socialism, either theoretical or
> actually existing, which has no similarity with the picture painted
> below; nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy, nor mixed
> ownership systems. Since there are very few who advocate Leninist
> central planning (which doesn't *always* lead to killing fields
> clearly, even if it often does). This critique might be worth
> considering regarding a radical associative/anti-market
> anarcho-socialism if the argument was that the "community" must be a
> very large population. Since few socialists advocate this, this
> critique is necessarily directed at tiny elements of the non-Leninist
> socialist left.
>

James' case is a tad strongly worded, but I'm not sure you can so
casually dismiss it as irrelevant to other forms of socialism. I will
confess to being confused by the notion of market socialism (as I
can't quite figure out what I own, what I can exchange, what I can ask
in return for exchange), but certainly parliamentary socialism has
many of these problems. The Fabian notion, if memory serves, was to
use institutions of democracy to nationalize private property. Once
that has been accomplished, you can toss pricing signals out the
window. Without pricing, something has to interefere in the economy
to reflect demand. Isn't this just a planned economy with a different
name?

M J Carley

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 12:22:29 PM1/31/03
to
In the referenced article, jasl...@msn.com (idlemuse) writes:

>James' case is a tad strongly worded, but I'm not sure you can so
>casually dismiss it as irrelevant to other forms of socialism. I will
>confess to being confused by the notion of market socialism (as I
>can't quite figure out what I own, what I can exchange, what I can
>ask in return for exchange), but certainly parliamentary socialism
>has many of these problems. The Fabian notion, if memory serves, was
>to use institutions of democracy to nationalize private property.
>Once that has been accomplished, you can toss pricing signals out the
>window. Without pricing, something has to interefere in the economy
>to reflect demand.

It depends on what things you believe can be given a monetary value.
The idea of `market socialism' is that some things cannot be left to a
market because (a) we should not take chances with them and (b) market
systems simply do not work in many cases. Good examples would be
health and education: we can argue that you should not have to depend
on a market for either of these.

As for private companies producing better `products' than public
organizations:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,875379,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardiansociety/story/0,3605,281866,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,526000,00.html

The whole point of operating in a market is to make a profit. Unless
you believe that this will always give the `right' result (measured in
other than financial terms), you have to accept limits to a market.

>Isn't this just a planned economy with a different name?

Yes, but it doesn't involve killing fields.
--
`Al vero filosofo ogni terreno e' patria.'
BHaLC #6
No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Home page: http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/

Vladimir Kuznetsov

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 12:49:24 PM1/31/03
to
In article <H9L9LH.LH...@bath.ac.uk>,
M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
. . .

>
>It depends on what things you believe can be given a monetary value.
>The idea of `market socialism' is that some things cannot be left to a
>market because (a) we should not take chances with them and (b) market
>systems simply do not work in many cases. Good examples would be
>health and education: we can argue that you should not have to depend
>on a market for either of these.

In all countries where government administer health care
they have:
- runaway cost of health care,
- rationing of health care (you can die waiting for serious
surgery)
- stagnation of medical research.

Public education is usually infested with the time by
brainwashing of different kind. Here in US it is a 'divercity' and
'multi-calturalism'. I don't even mention falsification of history
and total absence of civic education.


>ma

Typical anti-market demagoguery and propaganda.

>The whole point of operating in a market is to make a profit. Unless
>you believe that this will always give the `right' result (measured in
>other than financial terms), you have to accept limits to a market.

As a side effect market controls prices much more efficiently
then commitee of bureaucrats ot 'good willing' citizens.
What is wrong with taking a profit?
What is wrong with controlling prices?

James A. Donald

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 1:21:22 PM1/31/03
to
--
On 30 Jan 2003 20:50:39 -0800, bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner)
wrote:

> The following does not address market socialism, either
> theoretical or actually existing, which has no similarity
> with the picture painted below;

No such thing as market socialism. Private property rights in
the means of production are the boundaries between one man's
plan and another man's plan. Since every production decision
is connected to every other, without private property rights in
the means of production there can only be one plan, whereupon
terror follows for the reasons explained at the start of this
thread.

> nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy

The article at the start of the thread explains why socialism,
fabian or otherwise, requires terror, or else economic
collapse.

The idea behind fabian socialism was that the terror was a
result of class warfare ideology, not socialism. In fact of
course, the terror was a result of socialism, and the class
warfare ideology merely a rationalization for the required
terror.

The British and several other countries tried Fabian socialism
at the end of Word War II. Without terror, it soon became
apparent their economies were collapsing, for in socialism you
need terror to get toilet paper in the toilets and light bulbs
in the ceilings. They moved towards increasingly coercive
measures, and eventually backed far enough away from socialism
to render those coercive measures unnecessary.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

eMR6INnMOf/JhlyeSaaHTOVrBUx70ENA5s9+ub6d
4exW5PatJOZ04Ygq+iBB2EdlO7TWBoX5a+dYx7vec

M J Carley

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 1:27:25 PM1/31/03
to
In the referenced article, vl...@vlad.best.vwh.net (Vladimir Kuznetsov) writes:

> In all countries where government administer health care
>they have:
> - runaway cost of health care,
> - rationing of health care (you can die waiting for serious
> surgery)
> - stagnation of medical research.

http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-0-nodirectorate-no-12-31307-0,00.html

says otherwise: from 1990 to 2000, the US spent a greater proportion
of its GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country (13% in 2000). It
was followed by Switzerland and Germany (10.7% and 10%) respectively.
Unless you are claiming that the US has more government involvement in
healthcare than other OECD countries, private healthcare is not cheap.

As for `rationing', in a purely market system, you could die because
you can't pay for the treatment.

> Public education is usually infested with the time by
>brainwashing of different kind. Here in US it is a 'divercity' and
>'multi-calturalism'. I don't even mention falsification of history
>and total absence of civic education.

`Civic education' is, surely, state indoctrination, no?

> Typical anti-market demagoguery and propaganda.

But accurate. The people writing the reports know what they are
talking about.

> As a side effect market controls prices much more efficiently
>then commitee of bureaucrats ot 'good willing' citizens.

So why does the US (a relatively private system) spend more than
other OECD countries on healthcare?

>What is wrong with taking a profit?

What is wrong with public services?

>What is wrong with controlling prices?

Controlling prices is intervention in the market.

xyz

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 1:47:30 PM1/31/03
to

"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:oq4j3v0uk53u5hc5j...@4ax.com...


Thank you for the post James. Your perspective is a logical
progression of facts.

It is interesting to notice how each and every leftist leader
talks about "social justice". Every action they take is justified
in the name of such concept, but not one of them can provide
a definition of justice that people can agree on. (But of course,
anyone that disagrees with their definition becomes the
personification of evil...)

Matt


spark

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 1:42:27 PM1/31/03
to
> > In all countries where government administer health care
> >they have:
> > - runaway cost of health care,
> > - rationing of health care (you can die waiting for serious
> > surgery)

this certainly doesn't happen in countries where its purely
private. no-one ever suffers because of lack of access to health care.

-gr

G*rd*n

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 2:17:09 PM1/31/03
to
spark <gros...@luminousvoid.net>:

Not for very long, anyway.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't

G*rd*n

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 2:25:33 PM1/31/03
to
"xyz" <x...@attglobal.net>:

| Thank you for the post James. Your perspective is a logical
| progression of facts.
|
| It is interesting to notice how each and every leftist leader
| talks about "social justice".

You must have a lot of time to watch leftist leaders if you
know what each and every one talks about. Or is this just
the top ten thousand or so?

| Every action they take is justified
| in the name of such concept, but not one of them can provide
| a definition of justice that people can agree on. (But of course,
| anyone that disagrees with their definition becomes the
| personification of evil...)

I think it's funny that you accuse some unnamed leftists of
characterizing their opponents as the personification of
evil right after your approbation of James Donald's silly,
venomous article. What's the deal -- it's okay for him to
do it, but not okay for all these unnamed leftists?

brian turner

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 3:52:57 PM1/31/03
to
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3E3A3764...@columbia-center.org>...

> The problem with [James'] essay, as usual from this sort of


> ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
> of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
> advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
> Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
> Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
> Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
> Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
> capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
> simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
> argument against state capitalism.

I disagree partly. Those like Marx, Chomsky, Kropotkin for instance,
as far as I know, didn't lay out how worker or small community
collectives would interact with each other. Instead, they spoke in
vague terms of non-market association. I think it would be a
reasonable criticism to say if this model were actually pursued, some
sort of state would inevitably arise, and inevitably require coercive
power (as do all states, liberal and authoritarian). For instance,
Chomsky cites approvingly, in 'Notes on Anarchism', and anarchist who
says "Our federal council of economy is not a political power but an
economic and administrative regulating power. It receives its
orientation from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions
of the regional and national assemblies. It is a liaison corps and
nothing else.". One could argue that would eventually take on
state-like behaviors, despite the initial intentions.

James argument, I'd suggest, is a wild exaggeration of this
observation. It *might* conceivably, under a host of not necessarily
likely assumptions, lead to Leninist despotism (and what that entails
itself would vary in intensity of repression), but the idea of a
Marxian-style deterministic march towards Leninism seems ludicrious to
me. My guess is it simply wouldn't work, rather than lead to
despotism.

The reason I favor market socialism is because it addresses the
question of how democratic collectives or cooperatives can interact
with each other in a non-utopian way, i.e. through market competition
with other collectives and small private businesses. But it wouldn't
have to be pure laissez-faire market socialism, a liberal democratic
state could pursue non-market social goals through taxation just like
now.

James A. Donald

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 3:58:51 PM1/31/03
to
--
Dan Clore:

> The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
> ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort of
> socialism (where the term refers to what has been advocated
> by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon, Proudhon,
> Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William Morris,
> Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell, Einstein,
> Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem, Chomsky,
> etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state capitalism
> and calling that "socialism".

Private property rights in the means of production are the


boundaries between one man's plan and another man's plan.

Without such private property rights, there can only be one
plan for all. Terror follows.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

GDiLCGn8Imuy2CsrBERAknBoP12YA2aoLOOvy81E
43ngX6X0bIqyiLnd9JEFFjxkIr1hM3ciqlGxd2Nu9

ActualGeek

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 6:34:58 PM1/31/03
to
In article <82463628.03013...@posting.google.com>,
jasl...@msn.com (idlemuse) wrote:


> James' case is a tad strongly worded, but I'm not sure you can so
> casually dismiss it as irrelevant to other forms of socialism. I will
> confess to being confused by the notion of market socialism (as I
> can't quite figure out what I own, what I can exchange, what I can ask
> in return for exchange), but certainly parliamentary socialism has
> many of these problems. The Fabian notion, if memory serves, was to
> use institutions of democracy to nationalize private property. Once
> that has been accomplished, you can toss pricing signals out the
> window. Without pricing, something has to interefere in the economy
> to reflect demand. Isn't this just a planned economy with a different
> name?

I think James case is strongly worded because he's cutting thru the
bullshit that socialists surround their ideas with.

IT has failed so many times that they keep trying to come up with ways
to suger coat it so that they can exploit the insecure persons desire
for "justice" while not triggering to them that they are swallowing the
ideology that will result in their, and millions of other's, death.

I've spent a fair bit of time around socialists, and I mean the ones who
call themselves socialists or communists. Some of them are really
deluded, but you can tell that what they are swallowing is the same old
socialism under different names.

People like Ron Allen are pushers of this drug of mental escape.

And I find Jame's tonic to be quite refreshing. I often get caught
trying to argue with these people myself, forgetting that at the end of
the road are slaughtering houses for people.

All the talk about "market" and "democracy" and "free" and "libertarian
socialism" is hand waving in front of good oldfashiond jackbooted
communist totalitarianism.

I certainly have fallen for the possibility that they may have a new
idea a couple times, and each time, when you put the question to them,
if they are honest enough to answer, the answer is mass death.

ActualGeek

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 6:53:24 PM1/31/03
to
In article <b1ei3l$cn1$1...@panix3.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
wrote:

> spark <gros...@luminousvoid.net>:
> | > > In all countries where government administer health care
> | > >they have:
> | > > - runaway cost of health care,
> | > > - rationing of health care (you can die waiting for serious
> | > > surgery)
> |
> | this certainly doesn't happen in countries where its purely
> | private. no-one ever suffers because of lack of access to health care.
>
> Not for very long, anyway.

Yeah, they get treated, unlike that guy in the UK who was stuck on a
gurny recently, for 77 hours-- long enough to get in the guiness book of
world records.

I've actually had the experience of taking a person who lived below the
poverty level to the richest hospital in the area when they needed
emergency care. They were treated. They're now in debt, but they were
treated.

brian turner

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 7:22:59 PM1/31/03
to
jasl...@msn.com (idlemuse) wrote in message news:<82463628.03013...@posting.google.com>...

--------

> bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner) wrote in message news:<66dc0679.03013...@posting.google.com>...
> > The following does not address market socialism, either theoretical or
> > actually existing, which has no similarity with the picture painted
> > below; nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy, nor mixed
> > ownership systems. Since there are very few who advocate Leninist
> > central planning (which doesn't *always* lead to killing fields
> > clearly, even if it often does). This critique might be worth
> > considering regarding a radical associative/anti-market
> > anarcho-socialism if the argument was that the "community" must be a
> > very large population. Since few socialists advocate this, this
> > critique is necessarily directed at tiny elements of the non-Leninist
> > socialist left.

---------

> James' case is a tad strongly worded, but I'm not sure you can so
> casually dismiss it as irrelevant to other forms of socialism. I will
> confess to being confused by the notion of market socialism (as I
> can't quite figure out what I own, what I can exchange, what I can ask
> in return for exchange), but certainly parliamentary socialism has
> many of these problems. The Fabian notion, if memory serves, was to
> use institutions of democracy to nationalize private property. Once
> that has been accomplished, you can toss pricing signals out the
> window. Without pricing, something has to interefere in the economy
> to reflect demand. Isn't this just a planned economy with a different
> name?


-------

Under a mostly market socialist system (I think there should be
diversity, definitely private small business, probably elsewhere too)
you would be a member of a cooperative of some sort which owned and
democratically managed the firm. Your co-op would be free, with no
more limits than under traditional liberal-democratic welfare state
capitalism, to sell whatever you produce to willing buyers, and free
to purchase whatever you wish from other co-ops. There are problems
with market socialism, namely, what if the co-op fails or is
failing,--can people get out?--; also how to prevent the Yugoslav
problem of worker owned firms overcapitalizing in order to minimize
hiring (to avoid having to share the proceeds wider). I don't claim
to have all the answers. But I do feel that direct worker ownership
is more likely to produce these problems than other forms of
cooperation like labor union association owned firms (which can
shuffle capital and workers around), small community or local gov't
owned firms, more fluid egalitarian participatory partnerships, etc.
Also, I think the evidence shows that for state owned enterprises,
there are ways of "hardening" the budget constraint (Kornai's well
known critique of market socialism claimed it couldn't be), and making
them act like private firms (thus, no need to junk price signals).
Lastly, even *if* the problems of market socialism I mentioned can't
be solved, one must remember that actually existing capitalism has its
own incentive problems (see Stigliz "Whither Socialism?", book about
such problems, title notwithstanding).

Incidentally, the economist John Roemer has come up with a detailed
and workable (I think) market socialist model in the book "A Future
For Socialism". But it only claims to create a more equitable
distribution of wealth, it abandons the traditional socialist goal of
industrial democracy, even indirectly. Perhaps he's right that it's
impossible, but I'm not ready to say so. Alec Nove's less detailed
model retains this goal, I think.

Publius2k

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 7:23:09 PM1/31/03
to
"James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> --
> Since baby_ifritah has once again attempted to argue that one
> can have socialism without terror, a position I thought that
> socialists had for the most part quietly conceded, I repost my
> old article:
>
> Why socialism needs killing fields:
>
> Throughout the twentieth century the introduction of socialism
> has always involved killing fields, facilities for the mass
> production of murder by specialized labor.

'Socialism' has existed for thousands of years. Just because
some tyrants sought to be bullies under the flag of socialism
doesn't disparage the concept.

Love one another as you love yourself.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

>
> Although this institution has been widely used throughout the
> twentieth century, we did not create a word for it until close
> to the end of the twentieth century, when Pol Pot organized
> approximately 20 000 separate killing fields, a world record,
> thanks to his firm commitment to decentralized government.
>
> Though the word is new, the system is as old as socialism.

Poppy cock.

Other world models did and do exist.

Notes Lewis Henry Morgan regarding the Iroquois peoples in
Ancient Society [1877]:
"Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or
police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges;
without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are
settled by the whole body of those concerned...." No killing
fields.

excerpted from:
Iroquois Confederation - Oldest Living Participatory Democracy
on Earth:
http://www.ratical.org/ratitorsCorner/11.24.96.html
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

"That, on the principle of a communion of property, small
societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and
peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as
Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can
readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various
small societies which have been constituted on that principle."
--Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822

Notes the founder of Germantown in 1685 of the "so-called
savages" in the area:

"They strive after a sincere honesty, hold strictly to
their promises, cheat and injure no one. They willingly give
shelter to others, and are both useful and loyal to their
guests. [Isn't that being 'sociable'?]
Their huts are made of young trees, twined, or bent,
together, which they know how to roof over with bark. They use
neither table nor bench, nor any other household stuff, unless
perchance a single pot in which they boil their food.
I once saw four of them take a meal together in hearty
contentment, and eat a pumpkin cooked in clear water, without
butter and spice. Their table and bench was the bare earth,
their spoons were mussle-shells, with which they dipped the warm
water, their plates were the leaves of the nearest tree, which
they did not need to wash with painstaking after a meal, nor to
keep with care for future use. I thought to myself, these
savages have never in their lives heard the teaching of Jesus
concerning temperance and contentment, yet they far excel the
Christians in carrying it out.

They are, furthermore, serious and of few words, and are amazed
when they perceive so much unnecessary chatter, as well as other
foolish behavior on the part of Christians.

***
They are very quiet and thoughtful in our gatherings, so that
I fully believe that in the future, at the great day of
judgment, they will come forth with those of Tyre and Sidon, and
put to shame many thousands of false nominal and canting
Christians.

***
They plant Indian corn and beans round about their huts, but
they take no thought for any more extensive farming and cattle
raising; they are rather astonished that we Christians take so
much trouble and thought concerning eating and drinking and also
for comfortable clothing and dwellings, as if we doubted that
God were able to care for and nourish us."

>
> The basic problem of socialism is the relationship between
> production and consumption. It is likely that the number seven
> widget collective might want to produce fewer widgets, or a
> different kind of widget, to that which certain users of
> widgets desire. Furthermore some users of widgets will want
> widgets for one purpose, and others for a different purpose,
> and there probably will not be as many widgets as they all
> desire, or the varieties that each diverse user of widgets
> desires.

Just problems based on 'wants' and 'desires' as I see it. One
of greed over need.

Such misbehaving didn't seem to be a problem in Iroquois culture
and they had no prisons, just freedoms. The problems you note
have arisen along with capitalism and loss of open lands.

>
> You have to murder them.
>
> Hence the need for efficient methods for the mass production of
> murder.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> DghbC2/AFmyWWIuiJ+LhjZ2Jc+Gnq/xEZj7o/RIR
> 4YhR6KRqn4iia7V9DmHkmtOEY7EAjv4VDr1NnCl0H

When all land is privatized and allocated, future generations
are born into bondage.

Only [lower] animals are born free in the USA. People are born
into debt and compulsory servitude.

James A. Donald

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 9:53:13 PM1/31/03
to
--
On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:23:09 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
wrote:

> 'Socialism' has existed for thousands of years. Just because
> some tyrants sought to be bullies under the flag of socialism
> doesn't disparage the concept.
>
> Love one another as you love yourself. Do unto others as you
> would have them do unto you.

Christ said give to the poor. He did not say "You are poor,
take what you need from the rich.

> Other world models did and do exist.
>
> Notes Lewis Henry Morgan regarding the Iroquois peoples in
> Ancient Society [1877]: "Everything runs smoothly without
> soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings,
> governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without
> trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole
> body of those concerned...." No killing fields.

Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had private
property and money. Contrary to the commie myth, their
constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately equal parts
democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.

The commies have invented a fictitious constitution for the
Iroquois, similar to the fictitious speech they invented for
chief Seattle.

The Iroquois were one of the "five civilized tribes", so called
because of the similarity of their political and economic
institutions to those of white people. Among those
institutions were argiculture, private property in agricultural
land, and slavery. Their constitution was more stable and
peaceful than that of the others, perhaps because it was a
mixed constitution, avoiding the oppressive inequality of many
highly aristocratic Southern tribes, or the dangerously
excessive democracy of some western tribes.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

2kZj3/V+uETytV8kWKoPOK6Q4hzuwfalPi5npmu6
4ZB4Kw2CkyMOU/lcT9W1aYIZ3mN/9kZ1qvuH1C6yM

baby_ifritah

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 11:22:44 PM1/31/03
to

James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:4gik3vs9jlepig66h...@4ax.com...

> --
> "baby_ifritah"
> > er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
> > said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
> > sorry - specific thingS
>
> You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
> Here I explained at length why you cannot.

that's a really great response. i am utterly undone.

except that you are incorrect.

i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic behaviour can occur
between free individuals. you choose to imagine that this can only occur
voluntarily within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
voluntarily between friends and community and charitable groups.

incidentally, how do you actually define a family? the nuclear family?
blood ties only, or do legal family bonds apply? extended families? how
extended? matrilineal or patrilineal? maybe spiritual families? racial
families? hmm. i feel some clarification is required here...

xx la


James A. Donald

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 1:07:16 AM2/1/03
to
--
James A. Donald

> > You have been arguing one can have socialism without
> > terror. Here I explained at length why you cannot.

baby_ifritah:


> i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic
> behaviour can occur between free individuals.

Sure sharing can happen between free individuals as every
family and every charity shows, but that is capitalism, not
socialism.

You might well get tomatoes on the table by voluntary sharing
and giving, but to get bread on the table by sharing and
giving, you are going to need compulsory sharing and giving.

Socialism is when you get bread on the table and a tractor in
the fields by sharing and giving, which is going to require
compulsory sharing and giving, which is going to require terror
and mass murder.

The voluntary sharing that occurs in every family is not
socialism. Capitalists do not think of as socialism, and
socialists do not think of it as socialism. It is only
socialism when big important things by sharing, such as bread
and tractors, things that necessarily require compulsory
sharing -- it is only socialism when baby_ifritah applies the
red hot irons to those wreckers who dare plan their own plans
inconsistent with baby_ifritah's plans, to those parasites who
fail to meet baby_ifritah's quotas, to hoarders and black
marketeers who are dissatisfied with baby_ifritah's
determination of their true needs.

I do not suggest that you visualize this with eager excitement,
though I suspect Chomsky and G*rd*n do, rather I think you
visualize a world in which everyone somehow agrees on what is
to be produced, how it is to be produced, who shall do the
work, and who may consume it, while avoiding thinking too much
about how such remarkable unanimity is to be attained.

> you choose to imagine that this can only occur voluntarily
> within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
> voluntarily between friends and community and charitable
> groups.

The scale declines with distance and time. The further away,
the less well known the beneficiaries, the less inclination to
share. Friends might well provide each other with tomatoes
communally by giving and sharing. But bread will require a
mill, and fields large enough to serve the mill, etc. On that
scale, voluntary giving and sharing is not going to work. Been
tried.

In addition to the problem of people just not caring, as
manifested by massive goofing off in the Harmony and Pilgrim
experiments, coordination becomes an even more serious problem
than goofing off, as people who actually attempt to do
something disagree on what is to be done, and how it is to be
done -- disagree on the utilization of resources that are to be
used for production, which resulted in endless quarreling and
disruptive behavior in Harmony, and a harsh theocratic
dictatorship among the pilgrims.

Analogously, the Soviet Union found itself executing far more
people for "wrecking" (having conflicting interpretations of
the general plan) than it did for "parasitism" (goofing off) or
"black marketeering and hoarding" (unauthorized consumption).

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

3u/XEQgaqtwKUq5xKWWiHURfXqUucCebUL9MwXi5
4vAC/1Sx4HjWwmziQm/KplY93iAnPxWBXBdlTqNlQ

Michael Moser

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 2:07:26 AM2/1/03
to
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3E3A3764...@columbia-center.org>...
>
> The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
> ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
> of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
> advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
> Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
> Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
> Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
> Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
> capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
> simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
> argument against state capitalism.
>

these thinkers did not have to address practical questions of
distribution.
- that's a luxury of dreaming up theories about the just society, you
don't have to address down to earth issues.

So what is happening in practice, when the community has to divide up
a limited amount of resources?
People argue, somebody is left out.
So you have to build a fence around your paradise, otherwise those who
were left out would escape.
so you have to repress them somehow.
First it is a minority, but in the end they are repressing everybody.

Any counterexamples?

Publius2k

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 2:40:36 AM2/1/03
to
"James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> --
> On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:23:09 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
> wrote:
> > 'Socialism' has existed for thousands of years. Just because
> > some tyrants sought to be bullies under the flag of socialism
> > doesn't disparage the concept.
> >
> > Love one another as you love yourself. Do unto others as you
> > would have them do unto you.
>
> Christ said give to the poor. He did not say "You are poor,
> take what you need from the rich.

"And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and
they will certainly plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.
They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will
not plant and someone else do the eating." No capitalist
exploitation by landlords and such. That is the promise.


>
> > Other world models did and do exist.
> >
> > Notes Lewis Henry Morgan regarding the Iroquois peoples in
> > Ancient Society [1877]: "Everything runs smoothly without
> > soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings,
> > governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without
> > trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole
> > body of those concerned...." No killing fields.
>
> Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had private
> property and money. Contrary to the commie myth, their
> constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately equal parts
> democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.

They held property communally, not personally. The concept of
owning the land, the earth, is a silly fiction. The earth has
been here for millions of years before us and will be here for
millions after us. It might not be very inhabitable, but it
will be here.


>
> The commies have invented a fictitious constitution for the
> Iroquois, similar to the fictitious speech they invented for
> chief Seattle.

Strange. The Iroquois Great Law of Peace was neither new nor a
fiction. It was their law before 1492 and continues to this day
for those that choose to follow the 'old way'.

>
> The Iroquois were one of the "five civilized tribes", so called
> because of the similarity of their political and economic
> institutions to those of white people.

Not so. The 5 'civilized' tribes [CHEROKEE, CHICKASAW, CHOCTAW,
CREEK, and SEMINOLE] were in the southeast. The Iroquois were
in the area of New York and Canada.

Among those
> institutions were argiculture, private property in agricultural
> land, and slavery. Their constitution was more stable and
> peaceful than that of the others, perhaps because it was a
> mixed constitution, avoiding the oppressive inequality of many
> highly aristocratic Southern tribes, or the dangerously
> excessive democracy of some western tribes.

Can there be 'excessive democracy'?

Publius2k

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 2:57:36 AM2/1/03
to


Many of the Native American tribes practiced communism,
successfully, without coercion.

Many Europeans reveled in the freedom and quality of life such
communal living offered:


"Most of the Indians who were educated by the English--some
contemporaries thought ALL of them--returned to Indian society
at the first opportunities to resume their Indian identities.
On the other hand, large numbers of Englishmen had chosen to
become Indians--by running away from colonial society to join
Indian society, by not trying to escape after being captured, or
by electing to remain with their Indian captors when treaties of
peace periodically afforded them the opportunity to return
home."

"No Arguments, no Intreaties, nor Tears of their Friends and
Relatives, could persuade many of them to leave their new Indian
friends and Acquaintances; several of them that were by the
caressings of their relatives persuaded to come Home, in a
little Time grew tired of our Manner of living, and run away
again to the Indians, and ended their days with them."
--- James Axtell in "The White Indians of Colonial America"

Unless you live with or associate with Indians, you will have a
hard time appreciating their culture of generosity and
hospitality, "the magic of being givers".


"The true Indian sets no price upon either his property or
his labor. His generosity is limited only by his strength and
ability. He regards it as an honor to be selected for difficult
or dangerous service and would think it shameful to ask for any
reward, saying rather: "Let the person I serve express his
thanks according to his own bringing up and his sense of
honor." Each soul must meet the morning sun, the new sweet
earth, and the Great Silence alone!. What is Silence? It is the
Great Mystery! The Holy Silence is His voice!

Whenever, in the course of the daily hunt, the hunter comes
upon a scene that is strikingly beautiful or sublime -- a black
thundercloud with the rainbow's arch above the mountain, a white
waterfall in the heart of a green gorge, a vast prairie tinged
with the blood-red of the sunset -- he pauses for an instant in
an attitude of worship.

He sees no need for setting apart one day in seven as a
holy day, because to him all days are God's days.

The first American mingled with his pride a singular
humility. Spiritual arrogance was foreign to his nature and
teaching. He never claimed that the power of articulate speech
was proof of superiority over the dumb creation; on the other
hand, it is to him a perilous gift.

Children must early learn the beauty of generosity. They
are taught to give what they prize most, that they may taste the
happiness of giving."

-----Ohiyesa (Dr. Charles Alexander Eastman)[Santee Sioux]

Dan Clore

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 4:02:56 AM2/1/03
to
Michael Moser wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3E3A3764...@columbia-center.org>...

> > The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
> > ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> > "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
> > of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
> > advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
> > Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
> > Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
> > Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
> > Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
> > capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
> > simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
> > argument against state capitalism.
> >
> these thinkers did not have to address practical questions of
> distribution.
> - that's a luxury of dreaming up theories about the just society, you
> don't have to address down to earth issues.

Nonetheless, plenty of them have presented possible schemes
for such societies, addressing down to earth issues.

> So what is happening in practice, when the community has to divide up
> a limited amount of resources?
> People argue, somebody is left out.
> So you have to build a fence around your paradise, otherwise those who
> were left out would escape.
> so you have to repress them somehow.
> First it is a minority, but in the end they are repressing everybody.

This argument would apply to any system that allows any
degree of private property or individual possession. In
particular, it would especially apply to any form of
capitalism. It would apply more and more strongly the more
capitalist the system, as the more capitalist, the greater
the degree of inequality in the division of limited
resources. Notably enough, it is the state-capitalist
regimes (which the original poster had labeled "socialist")
to which it applies most strongly.

Michael Moser

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 11:18:57 AM2/1/03
to
mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser) wrote in message news:<d70280fc.03013...@posting.google.com>...

i would add that Real Socialism (tm) starts with a fence and ends in killin fields.

G*rd*n

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 11:50:54 AM2/1/03
to
| > Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3E3A3764...@columbia-center.org>...
| > >
| > > The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
| > > ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
| > > "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
| > > of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
| > > advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
| > > Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
| > > Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
| > > Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
| > > Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
| > > capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
| > > simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
| > > argument against state capitalism.

mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser):


| > these thinkers did not have to address practical questions of
| > distribution.
| > - that's a luxury of dreaming up theories about the just society, you
| > don't have to address down to earth issues.
| >
| > So what is happening in practice, when the community has to divide up
| > a limited amount of resources?
| > People argue, somebody is left out.
| > So you have to build a fence around your paradise, otherwise those who
| > were left out would escape.
| > so you have to repress them somehow.
| > First it is a minority, but in the end they are repressing everybody.
| >
| > Any counterexamples?
|
| i would add that Real Socialism (tm) starts with a fence and ends in killin fields.

And what is it about the ownership or control of the means
of production by the workers or the people that brings this
about, do you think? And why is it that the capitalist
class is immune from the pathology, whatever it is?

gavnook

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 12:28:13 PM2/1/03
to
Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in
news:URK_9.197$%m6...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:


> Can there be 'excessive democracy'?


Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this whenever a
majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a minority.

James A. Donald

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 12:43:10 PM2/1/03
to
--
"James A. Donald":

> > Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had
> > private property and money. Contrary to the commie myth,
> > their constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately
> > equal parts democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.

Publius2k


> They held property communally, not personally.

Commie myth.

The numerous black slaves they purchased at white slave markets
would be startled to hear this.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

6j+OcuqIb/kXMubFGiPPd8BPO4Ads8vP5FAaeRxU
4e82luws7x29rtJap2LUHQLqOy9BF2LIC4Hr2KGB5

G*rd*n

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 12:59:00 PM2/1/03
to
Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in
| > Can there be 'excessive democracy'?

gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:


| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this whenever a
| majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a minority.

And who allows, or does not allow, the majority to do this
or that?

James A. Donald

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 1:19:24 PM2/1/03
to
--
On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 07:57:36 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
wrote:

> Many of the Native American tribes practiced communism,
> successfully, without coercion.

Commie fantasy.

The five civilized tribes had an economic order very similar to
that of the white people.

Different tribes had different economic orders, some of which
where vicious caste societies with large numbers of slaves and
a few absolute rulers.

Hunter gatherers were generally anarchic, and had little in the
way of property, and shared what they had. You can call that
communism, or you can call that not having much. Or you could
call it anarcho capitalism. When people do not have much
property, their society does not tell us much about what
institutions of property are feasible.

Among primitive peoples that practiced agriculture, and
therefore had large amounts of property, very few practiced
communism, and those that practiced communism employed the
familiar methods of mass murder, terror, and absolute rulers
surrounded by a cult of personality.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

9IHOz+CK0nGFPRo1ST0cAgnGn4jbhQzocI1sKYNp
4nv+fsZhIwT5yRlvSM1ObKQGjZ4hINXWcCFuhx9ha

Gabrielle Rapagnetta

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 1:11:12 PM2/1/03
to

"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message

> Hunter gatherers were generally anarchic, and had little in the


> way of property, and shared what they had. You can call that
> communism, or you can call that not having much. Or you could
> call it anarcho capitalism. When people do not have much
> property, their society does not tell us much about what
> institutions of property are feasible.

Well, if you actually ask them they'll tell you alot.

Chief Sealth:
"The president in Washington sends words that he wishes to buy our land. But
how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we
do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can
you buy them?. . . We are part of the earth and it is part of us. . . . This
we know: the earth does not be- long to man, man belongs to the earth."

I would like to see you try to convince Sealth that he was not a free man
because he didn't own private property. I think he would pity you.

Vladimir Kuznetsov

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 3:25:55 PM2/1/03
to
In article <3e3b4af4$0$7812$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,

baby_ifritah <lkgie...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>news:4gik3vs9jlepig66h...@4ax.com...
>> --
>> "baby_ifritah"
>> > er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
>> > said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
>> > sorry - specific thingS
>>
>> You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
>> Here I explained at length why you cannot.
>
>that's a really great response. i am utterly undone.
>
>except that you are incorrect.
>
>i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic behaviour can occur
>between free individuals. you choose to imagine that this can only occur
>voluntarily within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
>voluntarily between friends and community and charitable groups.
>

You are confusing apple and oranges. Relation structure
essential for the family cannot be extended for the whole
society. Questions like: "How much to spend?" and "How much to
produce?" can be easily and directly resolved inside the family.
On a society level you need beurocracy to resolve these issues.
As soon as beurocracy is created, it takes life of its own.
So the killing field become a reality. James is right.

vlad

G*rd*n

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 4:18:10 PM2/1/03
to
"baby_ifritah"
| >> > er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
| >> > said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
| >> > sorry - specific thingS

James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message


| >> You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
| >> Here I explained at length why you cannot.

baby_ifritah <lkgie...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
| >that's a really great response. i am utterly undone.
| >
| >except that you are incorrect.
| >
| >i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic behaviour can occur
| >between free individuals. you choose to imagine that this can only occur
| >voluntarily within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
| >voluntarily between friends and community and charitable groups.

vl...@vlad.best.vwh.net (Vladimir Kuznetsov):


| You are confusing apple and oranges. Relation structure
| essential for the family cannot be extended for the whole
| society. Questions like: "How much to spend?" and "How much to
| produce?" can be easily and directly resolved inside the family.
| On a society level you need beurocracy to resolve these issues.
| As soon as beurocracy is created, it takes life of its own.
| So the killing field become a reality. James is right.

I think one of the mistakes you are making here is that you
assume that all resources have to be fully committed at all
times in order to maximize production. Hence, the need for
a quasi-military governance of those resources, including
labor, and of the distribution of the products, whose
consumption must also be maximized.

This order of things -- power first, desire last -- arises
in slavery. The labor of the slaves and the soldiers and
police through whom they are controlled must be maximized to
ensure the power of the state in its inevitable conflicts
with other states and with rebels and criminals. The slave
state has been transformed by capitalism and other forces,
but it retains the institutionalized need to maximize
production. And the states which arose in the 20th century
professing socialism nevertheless did not depart from this
principle, for a variety of reasons. That being the case,
they had to practice either capitalist-style coercion ("wage
slavery") or fall back on older and more unpleasant modes of
coercion. And this is what we must expect given the general
principle at work.

However, if a community did not attempt to maximize production
but rather the pursuit and satisfaction of desire (and here
I am speaking of authentic desire, not consumerism) it would
not be driven to the quasi-military organization required of
communities which maximize power.

James A. Donald

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 5:13:36 PM2/1/03
to
--
mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser): | i would add that Real

Socialism (tm) starts with a fence and ends in killin fields.

On 1 Feb 2003 11:50:54 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> And what is it about the ownership or control of the means of
> production by the workers or the people that brings this
> about,

I already explained that repeatedly, most recently in my post


"Why socialism needs killing fields"

If all "the people" own all the stuff, rather than particular
individual people owning particular parts of the means of
production, then "the people" are going to have to start
torturing and murdering particular individual people, for
reasons I have explained time after time.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

elSzXOZAHgKzXSoHjUO5gkyVzyBeGRigUHJeswMn
4eh/U9f4gBrOS9sdBwYFqCuuRHjm9nJEU/WX5epxU

James A. Donald

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 5:54:38 PM2/1/03
to
--
James A. Donald

> > Hunter gatherers were generally anarchic, and had little in
> > the way of property, and shared what they had. You can
> > call that communism, or you can call that not having much.
> > Or you could call it anarcho capitalism. When people do
> > not have much property, their society does not tell us much
> > about what institutions of property are feasible.

Gabrielle Rapagnetta


> Well, if you actually ask them they'll tell you alot.
>
> Chief Sealth: "The president in Washington sends words that
> he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the
> sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own
> the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how
> can you buy them?. . . We are part of the earth and it is
> part of us. . . . This we know: the earth does not be- long
> to man, man belongs to the earth."

Commie lie. Chief Seattle said nothing of the kind

For what Chief Seattle actually said, as translated at the
time, and printed up in the paper at the time.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html. That web page
also gives links the many different fraudulent speeches that
have been attributed to Chief Seattle

Here is a fragment from that web page, about buying land:
: : The great, and I presume -- good, White Chief sends
: : us word that he wishes to buy our land but is
: : willing to allow us enough to live comfortably.
: : This indeed appears just, even generous, for the
: : Red Man no longer has rights that he need respect,
: : and the offer may be wise, also, as we are no
: : longer in need of an extensive country.
: :
: : There was a time when our people covered the land
: : as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea cover its
: : shell-paved floor, but that time long since passed
: : away with the greatness of tribes that are now but
: : a mournful memory. I will not dwell on, nor mourn
: : over, our untimely decay

Needless to say, he proceeds to dwell on their untimely decay,
and implies that the great and good white chief is not in fact
good, but rather a liar and treaty breaker, but there is
nothing in any way socialist in that speech, nor any suggestion
that the idea of buying and selling land is any way strange to
him or his people.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

CH8PGQFJFw7CGDYw5VQxwfxJERQRJdpo86PcjJ91
4Dujl0BmQU8CJfNPcmdDpUViM10IJ1N7JorHEurOy

George Stewart

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 5:55:37 PM2/1/03
to

That's Chief Seattle, only it wasn't. That famous quote was made up
by a white newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s, I believe.


- George Stewart

***************************************************

"To wake up is to wake the world up" - D.E. Harding

G*rd*n

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 6:25:40 PM2/1/03
to
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com>:
| >> Hunter gatherers were generally anarchic, and had little in the
| >> way of property, and shared what they had. You can call that
| >> communism, or you can call that not having much. Or you could
| >> call it anarcho capitalism. When people do not have much
| >> property, their society does not tell us much about what
| >> institutions of property are feasible.

"Gabrielle Rapagnetta"


| >Well, if you actually ask them they'll tell you alot.
| >
| >Chief Sealth:
| >"The president in Washington sends words that he wishes to buy our land. But
| >how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we
| >do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can
| >you buy them?. . . We are part of the earth and it is part of us. . . . This
| >we know: the earth does not be- long to man, man belongs to the earth."
| >
| >I would like to see you try to convince Sealth that he was not a free man
| >because he didn't own private property. I think he would pity you.

George Stewart <geo...@sugarland.clara.co.uk>:


| That's Chief Seattle, only it wasn't. That famous quote was made up
| by a white newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s, I believe.

Or else someone made up a story that the story was made up by
a White newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s. Debunking is a
funny game.

Vladimir Kuznetsov

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 6:35:49 PM2/1/03
to
In article <b1hdii$37k$1...@panix3.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
. . .

>vl...@vlad.best.vwh.net (Vladimir Kuznetsov):
>| You are confusing apple and oranges. Relation structure
>| essential for the family cannot be extended for the whole
>| society. Questions like: "How much to spend?" and "How much to
>| produce?" can be easily and directly resolved inside the family.
>| On a society level you need beurocracy to resolve these issues.
>| As soon as beurocracy is created, it takes life of its own.
>| So the killing field become a reality. James is right.
>
>I think one of the mistakes you are making here is that you
>assume that all resources have to be fully committed at all
>times in order to maximize production.

Where did I say about maximising production?
In a real life examples of socialist societies that I observed
by my own eyes or read about maximising production was not an issue,
providing basic needs of population was.

>Hence, the need for
>a quasi-military governance of those resources, including
>labor, and of the distribution of the products, whose
>consumption must also be maximized.

You are abolutely right about "quasi-military governance" -
here you agree with James. About consumption you don't have to worry
usually people consume just fine. They do not need "military
governance" for that.

. . .


>
>However, if a community did not attempt to maximize production
>but rather the pursuit and satisfaction of desire (and here
>I am speaking of authentic desire, not consumerism) it would
>not be driven to the quasi-military organization required of
>communities which maximize power.
>

I have a desire for three Mersedes's S600 in my garage and
black caviar at the table at dinner each evening. Is this desire
authentic or consumerism? Do we need another layer of beureocracy
to decide that?

James is right.

Vlad

James A. Donald

unread,
Feb 2, 2003, 1:03:06 AM2/2/03
to
--

George Stewart <geo...@sugarland.clara.co.uk>:
> > That's Chief Seattle, only it wasn't. That famous quote
> > was made up
> > by a white newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s, I believe.

On 1 Feb 2003 18:25:40 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Or else someone made up a story that the story was made up by
> a White newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s. Debunking is a
> funny game.

There are four, count em, four fake speeches attributed to
Chief Seattle, each one more obviously addressed to twentieth
century events than the last.

The one that Gabrielle cited has him talking about buffallo.
There were of course no buffalo anywhere near his hunting
grounds.

In any case, if you read the speech that Gabrielle attributed
to Chief Seattle, it is quite obviously a recent forgery --
seventies, rather than sixties.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

9MmvW44RJob46nYOHdkGAboNeX7QKgw58kzpvrK
46V53AT7mSs0uDSrV2YD3Z8ZqX8vNNjk/acf2Yh4N

gavnook

unread,
Feb 2, 2003, 1:13:24 AM2/2/03
to
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote in news:b1h1t4$jjd$1...@panix1.panix.com:

> Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in
>| > Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
>
> gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
>| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this whenever a
>| majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a minority.
>
> And who allows, or does not allow, the majority to do this
> or that?

Government.