>I disagree with your main point, the need or possiblity to abolish work,
I said nothing about abolishing work. I was referring to the need to abolish the link between work and personal economic security. The "if you don't work you don't eat" nexus which is the motor of capitalist social control. If you don't see the need and the possibility to abolish that form of social control, then you aren't really a socialist or an anarchist. Many progressives who wouldn't think of themselves as socialists are realising that this is an important step, many even believe it is a necessary and possible reform of capitalism.
Greens in Australia and Europe (Britain anyhow, can't say about the continent, but I would assume so) have a guaranteed income as a plank of their election policy. The need isn't even all that controversial, among progressives. Socialists need to catch up.
> and with your defiinition of working class. In short, we agree on fundamntals.
We do need to hash this class thing out, yes.
> None the less your point is this post is one I agree with. I don't think a true socialist or anarchist community can exist within capitalism. If it exists within capitalism it is a capitalist instution - including socialist and anarchist parties. I also agree that socialist institutes cannot compete on capitalist terms - at least not in neo-liberral capitalism.
Not if they are to be genuinely socialist, I think that is merely a utopian fantasy. nevertheless, there is still a need to set up these alternative organisations. There is a lot to be learned. But in the end those organisations will always be fundamentally affected by the "if you don't work you don't eat" basis of the society in which they exist. Insecurity breeds an underlying psychology which effects everything about an organisation.
>Capitalism is the most effective predator ever invented; institutions that attempt to stay socialist within that enviromrment either stay small or are forced to act increasingly like conventional capitalists in order to grow large.
I just don't see how it is possible to be socialist for more than a few seconds though. I mean, once the organisation has abandoned all its property rights and agreed to provide its services on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay, giving away goods and services despite the fact that it must pay for the inputs, doesn't it just cease to exist?
Production for use, rather than for sale, is part of the definition of socialism. if you do that in a capitalist society you cease to exist as soon as you have given away your current stock. If you don't do that, you can't be said to be acting in a socialist way. End of story. never mind about staying small or compromising, there is no compromise.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas