First, don't talk to me about 6 billion people.
1. Forming a one-world government is just not a priority for anybody.
2. If you want to redistribute your income, you can do so whenever you feel like it. And before you think "well, I just have a modest income, surely the oness is not on *me* to redistribute" then consider the fact that world GDP per capita is about $7000 dollars a year. So start writing some checks, fatcats.
3. A revolution is not anything like an election where a really unlikely candidate wins. Forget this vanguardism. Socialists can either develop a progam that a solid 30% of the population can latch onto *before* the revolution or you can forget the whole thing.
4. Having a larger percentage of property owned by the state does not make a good society. A lot of very bad societies have and have had significant state ownership. In fact, the most terrible things societies have ever done were done on and with state property. In and of itself state ownership of property gives elites more, not less power.
5. Law. You have to have a legal system. One of the biggest problems socialists have is a disrespect for law. Because some parts of the law are made to protect property rights does not mean that law as a concept should be thrown out the window. That is just silly. Concepts like burden of proof are universal to human societies and there is no reason to re-invent the wheel.
Finally, on this discussion, stop making the same mistake over and over. Clearly there are reasons that centrally-planned economies have become corrupt time and time again. There is no rational argument that all the experiments in centrally-planned economies can be somehow exceptional. "But we'll do it right this time" is not a compelling argument. You have to change the model in a significant way.
Charles Brown argues that you "keep accounts". This is not a new idea. How do you keep accounts, how do you know your accounting is correct and how do you make sure that correct accounting influences decision-making. You have to build this in to the system. You have to figure out a system that tends to keep money/resources out of bad projects and puts money/resources into good projects.
Although capitalists don't always follow this simple theory, it is pretty compelling. When judging an economic project they simply look for one where the inputs are judged in the marketplace to be significantly less valuable than the output will likely be. Therefore the project probably adds significant value. Therefore it is a good use of resources.
Under socialism, how do you make sure an economic project adds value?
boddi
On 1/8/06, Wojtek Sokolowski <wsokol52 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
> >> CB: You have a system by which you keep track of
> > costs of production. That
> > will require symbols, writing, markers , counting
> > and accounting, numbers,
> > but not private ownership of finance companies that
> > make loans ,collect
> > interest and make profits. You keep accounts and
> > measure population so that
> > all 6 billion plus people have food, housing, soap,
> > fun, clothing, air,
> > water, half have cotexes, etc.
> >
>
>
> So basically what you are arguing is abolish the
> bourgeois state whose main purpose it to protect
> capitalist property rights, and replace it with a
> socialist one whose function is to coordinate the
> operation of a compex publicly owned economy. That is
> a different argument than that the state will
> disappear altogether.
> The latter strikes me as an absurd proposition - how
> on earth can one seriously believe that 6+ bn people
> can live and interact without institutionalized norms
> of behavior, laws, institutionalized means of
> communication, etc. is beyond me.
>
> I think it would be quite useful if people on this
> list started seriously thinking about alternatives to
> the existing states. I mean, serious alternatives,
> not pie in the sky pipe dreams. The way I would
> organize such a discussion is to first identify key
> functions performed by the state, then describe how
> different actually existing states perform these
> functions, and then identify strenghts and weaknesses
> of of each of these performances, and finally come up
> with a proposal which of the these models is th ebest
> , what imporvements can be made, etc.
>
> For example: functions may include:
> Jurisdirction - who is under the jurisdiction of the
> state and who is not
> Internal organization - by region, by type of
> population, by function
> Inter-state collaboration - world government?
> Law making - how criminal and civil laws are
> promulgated
> Law enforcement - how these laws are enforced, and how
> non-compliance is sactioned
> Conflict resolution - how conflicting claims among
> individuals or groups are resolved
> Information gathering - what information about
> indviduals and groups is to be collected, by what
> means, how that is information is used and
> distributed, etc.
> Planning - which social activities are subject to
> planning, what is the range of planning, whose
> interest are taken inco account ho wthey are weighted,
> who is included in the process, in what capacity and
> with what powers
> Property rights - what kind of property is to be held
> in common, what can be individually owned
> Individual responsibilities - what contributions and
> what behavior are expected of individuals, how these
> expectations are determined and sanctioned
> Individual rights - same as above
> etc.
>
> These are just a few most obvious functions performed
> by modern state, but the list is much longer. So to
> have a serious alternative to the status quo and to
> the neo-liberal blue-prints - it is imperative to
> consider all these functions one by one, and come up
> with a socialist blue-print. Perhaps the most
> important aspect about that socialist blue print is
> that it does not re-invent the wheel but takes
> advantages of the "best practices" around the world
> (yes, that also includes some "capitalist" practices),
> perhaps improves them a bit here and there, and puts
> them together into a coherent and compelling vision.
>
> To organize such a discussion one can use the UN model
> - start with defining specific subject groups composed
> of experts and stakeholders in the respective subject
> areas, experts report on the state of knowledge in
> their areas, followed by a discussion, then the
> 'rapporteur' for that group summarizes what was said
> into a concise statement, which is discussed and
> approved by the group and made public. This can be
> done electronically, if someone would want to
> establish a forum and coordinate it.
>
>
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>