Communism

[Justin Schwartz]

> >What people decide democratically is what rules to adopt. Also they do it 
>_according to_ rules of democratic procedure.
>
>Yes. We disagree what the basic constitution of a socialist society should 
>be though. Simply put, you advocate that society should be able to make and 
>enforce political rules governing how people must behave. I say the only 
>legitimate function of government in a socialist society is democratic 
>management of the socially-owned means of production. There is no need and 
>it has no business telling people how to live their lives.

So what is it that people decide democartically when they get together? That 
machines should do thus and so? Machines,a las, won't do anything just 
because you tell them. But if the people direct, democratically, that people 
should use machines thus and so, they are directing people how to live their 
lives at least in that respect.


>
>What is significant is that this form of economic democracy would not 
>require any violent methods of enforcement, the means of production is an 
>interdependent web of supply and demand. Even if a group of people 
>attempted to take control of parts of the system, to monopolise them for 
>their private ends, it would be possible to prevent them with non-violent 
>means. Merely by disconnecting the renegade plant from the supply chain.

Well, you don't want to cops to have guns, then? I don't have strong 
feelings about this, It strikes me as the sort of Owenite micromanagement of 
the future that helped maked Marx allergic to utopian socialism. But there 
has to be an enforcement mechanism. If the people decide that we are to 
build so many hospitals, but some folk divert resources to other ends--not 
necessarily selfish ones, maybe ones that they honestly albeit 
undemocratically think would be socially better--there has to be a means a 
means to stopping that behavior. In our society, a nonviolent court order 
usually does the trick. The court ulatimately has the power to call in the 
marshals or the sheriff, but it's extremely rare to use it. In four years on 
the appeals and district court, I've seen it used once. (A witness refused 
to show up and testiofy, and we had to have her arrested and produced.)

>
>The corrupting influence of a police force with special coercive powers 
>would be unnecessary to defend the socially-necessary means of production 
>from being usurped into private hands.

Well, maybe. But suppose someone decided to privately appropriate property?

>
>I believe it is important to avoid creating such political power if the aim 
>is a truly free society. There risks of totalitarian power outweigh the 
>supposed benefits.

Uh, who's talking about totalitaian powerr? I advocate democratic power.

>Though obviously there would be nothing to prevent local communities or 
>other groups from organising however they saw necessary.  But they would 
>have no way of using economic coercion to build a power structure, only 
>free association.

Yeah, right. So the Randroids set up a little capitalist community. You 
don't use the economic coercion of a boycott to destroy their experiment. 
You don't have cops to shut them down. What do you do?

>BTW, have you got an answer to me legal question about whether private 
>prosecutions of criminal offenses is permitted in the US?
>

Yes I have an answer. It is abolutely not permitted in the US, or any other 
modern society as far as I know. I actually had to cite this principle in a 
case I drafted recently.

jks


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx