>This post is an answer to two of Bill's responses. But
>first can somebody tell me how I can get Angelus Novus to DJ our parties?
>Bill Bartlett wrote:
>> On 3/7/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> It isn't free, it is coerced. However the point "Andie" is making is
>> that capitalism uses economic coercion (work for us or starve) rather
>> than political coercion (work for us or we'll shoot you).
>
>Yes, but this ignores the fact that I have repeatedly clarified that the
>force I am talking about is not necessarily applied directly to getting
>people to work, but rather in maintaining unequal property relations.
Well that's a valid way to look at it. But an equally valid way of looking at it, is that enforcement of property laws is merely a matter of the enforcing the rules which a majority of people in that society have consented to.
It all depends on your perspective. ;-) Been on the wrong side of the law a few times myself, so I can see both sides. But an important point to understand is that most people tend to by and large obey the rules protecting property rights, most of the time, without the need for constant supervision by armed cops.
And if that changes, which is to say if the overwhelming majority of people withdraw their consent and decide that a radical change in property relations is in order, then the existing ruling class will find that their cops and armies will be little protection. Cops and soldiers are also people. They aren't robots.
So fundamentally, it is a mistake to believe that existing unequal property relations are maintained by brute force. Such force is necessary to maintain some semblance of order in a chaotic dog-eat dog social system, where some people are driven to desperation and others are simply inclined to take short-cuts. As you would expect.
But this is not the basis of the system. Just a necessary part of the governance of such an unfair system.
> > If your understanding is that the capitalist class rules via physical
>> force (politically) then you are likely to be inclined towards
>> fighting the class war by taking up arms. However once you realise
>> that they rule economically, it becomes apparent that this is
>> completely the wrong strategy.
>
>Oddly, this is the exact opposite of my conclusion from the same point
>of departure. As force is not required for Socialism, thus it is mutual
>productive capacity that Socialists need to form, not the capacity for
>force.
>
>Political power is an extension of economic power, if you achieve
>economic power, political comes along with it.
If the circumstances permit. Though I believe there have been a couple of examples in Russia's recent history where people with enormous economic power have mistakenly made the same assumption. Only to discover to their great cost it it isn't necessarily true. ;-)
>Therefor my focus is on worker self-organized production and obviously,
>the question of the suitability of free exchange as a component of
>Socialism is crucial in the organization of worker-controlled enterprises.
You are being somewhat vague. Dunno what you are talking about there. Sounds promising though, don't keep the details a secret.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas