>No. But whoever works on this project had better set up next to an industrial area and find some kind of DIY energy source. These poeple will be mostly on their own, unless they can talk people into helping them. The folks in most communities will be uninterested in spending their free time working in factories producing stuff to make a few hobbyists happy.
The folks in most "communities"? Here's the problem with Chuck's vision of a socialist (or anarchist in his vernacular) society. The means of production is managed not by society as a whole, but in an almost feudal way. I can't even be bothered taking the trouble to explain why that won't work.
Justin is a bit more sophisticated. He wrote:
>Now, does that mean that technical change would slow
>under socialism? Depends in part on whether the
>socialism is a market socialism. The one I advocate
>would be. In that case the incentives for technical
>change would remain ins ome ways similar to what they
>are under capitalism.
In a word, profit. And all that goes with profit. I gather in Justin's vision, the means of production would be owned socially, at least nominally. But it would continue to be operated for private purposes. There would, theoretically, be no capitalist class. Yet the condition of the working class would remain the same, forced to sell their labour to make a living.
Not a class-less society, but the ultimate paradox, a class society with only one class!
But I wonder, is Justin missing a little detail when he asserts that "incentives for technical change would remain in some ways similar to what they are under capitalism"? I fear that the great incentive under capitalism is the ability of individuals to amass capital and thus emancipate themselves from the need to sell to sell their labour. That is the great driving force - on the one hand the stick of economic insecurity, but on the other hand the carrot of maybe being able to escape from the exploited class to become an exploiter (with economic freedom and security) oneself.
Justin's 'market socialism' clearly lacks carrot. But insofar as he is to be believed in asserting that market socialism would provide economic security for all, it also lacks stick. This promise isn't to be taken seriously however, because a market economy presumably involves a properly functioning labour market, where the labour of workers is priced according to the laws of supply and demand. Economic security would clearly be a big monkey wrench in the labour market, it would really stuff up the supply side. Insecurity is an essential element of markets.
I fear there is not very much in it for anyone. At least in our two class capitalist society, we can dream of escape. Our only hope of climbing the ladder into the economic security of the capitalist class may be a lottery ticket, but such a society is still preferable to one where there was no hope at all of escaping our subjection to the market.
Market "socialism" would just be a more dreary form of capitalism. Not worth fighting for in my book.
> That is why most of you reject
>market socialism.
Its a contradiction in terms.
> What about a nonmarket socialism
>like Marx's? (or Chuck's). Stanley Moore wrotea nice
>little book, reissued under the title Marx Against
>Markets, in which he agreres with Chuck, that Marx was
>wrong to think that the productive foreces would
>develop undser nonmarket socialism. That is because
>there would be little incentive to change; besides,
>change would disrupt the plan.
The incentives would be social, not economic. I tend to agree that these incentives would be a far less powerful driving force. But there would be no economic incentive NOT to innovate, so human curiosity, the desire to impress one's peers, make a name for yourself, that is to say natural human nature, would be unhampered.
Productive forces would continue to develop, more sedately to be sure, according to perceived needs. Supported by a productive system that provided all people with a secure and comfortable life, which included access to educational infrastructure, the class-less society would still include at least the same percentage of innovative thinkers as has always existed.
The great innovations of the past have usually been the product of the elite classes, precisely because these are the only people who had access to economic freedom and security. To maintain that making these advantages universally available to all would result in social and economic stagnation, as Justin does, seems somewhat counter-intuitive.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas