Society without property?

I can't give you a detailed description of how economies should be implemented. I am a biologist and not an economist.But i can describe what I think is the basis of any decent economic system.1. The economic system is made by human beings. It isn't a part of nature and it isn't a God-given thing. We can choose from a variety of economic systems and each one is practicable to the extent that it meets the desires of human beings who live under it. If we don't like the system, we can change it.2. The economic system is based on principles of human dignity. This means that that the human being is the centre of the economy. Individual human beings should dominate the economy, not vice versa. If the economy says that human beings should starve to death, but the human beings would rather go on living, then it is the economy that should change and not the desires of the human beings.3. The economy should be equitable. There should be neither extreme riches nor extreme poverty. This does not mean that some people can't be rich. But it means that some people can't be poor. The amount of differentiation between rich and poor should be supported by the resources available in nature and by the consent of members of the economy, according to a baseline of income that guarantees human dignity. If Bill Gates is a billionaire while one individual is starving to death, then we should take money from Bill Gates until starvation doesn't exist. If Bill Gates is a billionaire while a music student can't afford a new violin, then we will take money from Bill Gates until all music students can afford decent violins. We will have to decide what is the minimum level of income that accords with our view of human dignity, but I think any individual who requests food and a violin is making a reasonable request that is consistent with my view of human dignity.That's about it for me. If this economy can be accomplished by capitalism, the so be it. If it can be accomplished by the Communisty Party, then I'll sign up.I have a great deal of respect for theorists who put the human being at the centre of their view of the ideal economy.People on the extreme left might believe that human beings are basically nice, and that without the pernicious influences of culture and capitalist economy, we could have a workable economy based on alliances of groups with different interests but working together to ensure that as many interests are satisfied such that the dignity of a single human being is not damaged. I am thinking of somebody radical like Kropotkin, for example.People at the centre of politics might believe that human beings are basically reasonable, and that a consensus can be achieved based on rationality and education that would pragmatically satisfy the interests of as many people as possible, but leave some interests unsatisfied. These are people who subscribe to the view of "the greatest good to the greatest number" as the best kind of economy, given human imperfection. I am thinking of somebody radical like Rawls, for example.People on the extreme right might believe that the self-fulfilment available to individuals under capitalism is a social good, and that if capitalism is tempered by meritocracy and charitable acts then we can have a decent and vibrant society. I am thinking of somebody radical like Hayek, for example.I have a lot of time for Rawls, Kropotkin and Hayek, despite the fact that their viewpoints are from utterly different parts of the political spectrum. I have time for them because they put the fulfillment of the human individual at the centre of their view of the economy. They believe that human beings rule the economy and not vice versa. They believe that human beings can exert their power on economic affairs and change the economic world according to their desires.I have no time whatsover for the "liberal consensus" (amongst whom i include virtually all political parties in the first world) who despise human individuals. People who believe that capitalism as practised in the US at the beginning of the 21st century is the be all and end all of human achievement. People who believe that the economy is real and external to the human beings who create it. People who have no concept of human dignity. People who have forgotten that human beings even exist.mickedited by mick, to make John Rawls a centrist rather than a hard line left winger.This message has been edited by mick, 04-12-2005 03:34 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 04-12-2005 03:46 PM

quote:

---

I'm open to serious suggestions on what systems would be better, why they would be better, and how they could be implemented.

---

That would depend -- what should the "system" be doing?If one believes that an ideal society is one where everyone lives like middle class Americans, then I don't think that it is possible.If one believes that an ideal society would allow some people to live like middle class Americans, perhaps at the expense of the well-being of others, then that is what we already have, clearly.I believe that an ideal society is one that provides everyone with at least the basic necessities of life, including meeting the social needs of its members, and allowing everyone the oppurtunity to provide for their own maintenance. To go further, I would also stress equality and personal autonomy. I also believe that that is possible to achieve but not under a capitalist society.How do we implement the ideal society? We decide what we think this society would be like, and start moving in that direction. Since I am a socialist, I would institute programs that would encourage worker owned businesses, housing co-ops, and other means of shared resources. As a communist, I would find means of ensuring that people have access to their basic needs independent of their ability to acquire and hold property -- like national health insurance, for a start, and a stronger social welfare safety net. As an anarchist, I would start decentralizing -- have regional, state, and local boards, for example, determine how to implement some of these programs.Then we see how this works out, and we proceed as we learn what is possible, and what it is that we really want and expect.I am not a utopian. I have no idea what the perfect society would look like (other than it would be organized along communist principles), nor do I feel that I or anyone else has the right to determine what the ideal society should be, or that I or anyone else should force society in any particular direction.

kinda reminds me of my situation at safeway. I started out making $4.50 an hour 15 years ago. Now, maxed at $15.66 which is still hardly a decent wage to provide for a family. The CEO's keep making millions of dollars while advocating hiring cheaper ($7.75 labor and slowly promoting them up to $10.00) The haves and the have-nots are growing. I protest that this society is splitting in half and I am in the middle being pushed down or pulled down by those wanting jobs.

Yours is a very good post Troy! (Btw, were you Lam before?)I have argued with a few of my friends who are rabid fans of pure capitalism that socialist policies really are in the best interests of economic stability. The Gilded Age is a good example. But I think most people underestimate the wealth created by modern (regulated) capitalism. Sure the movies suck and McD's makes you fat, but it takes free enterprise to build and maintain a middle class.Would you consider, say Sweeden or France to be a post-industrialist society, organized in a semi-Marxist fashion?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

I don't know about France, but Sweden seems to be getting there. The problem that I see is that an industrialist society tend to be agressive (just look at Britain and the States). Unless there is some kind of worldwide change, I just don't see any country being able to become a post-industrialist society and stay that way for long.

quote:

---

I was wondering how long it would take you to poison the well.

---

Pointing out that posting silly soundbites is does not make a rational discussion is not poisoning the well.--

quote:

---

May I point out that on average, a single member of a hunter-gatherer society needs something like ten or twenty times as large an area of land to support their livelihood than does a member of an agriculturally advanced, capitalistic society.

---

I'm not advocating a hunter-gather society. I was merely pointing out how silly your comment was.And if you were to actually read the posts in this thread before jumping in and writing silliness, you would see that I am not advocating a return to a hunter gatherer lifestyle.What is more, if you would have read the posts in this thread before jumping in, you would have read that I find over 6 billion people on this planet problematic, and any solutions to the problem would have to involve decreasing the population.--

quote:

---

I would also be interested to know: what exactly is keeping the "majority of the world's population that live in povert under global capitalism" from assuming a hunter-gatherer type existence? Evil capitalists, whomever or wherever they may be?

---

Pretty much. Remember what happened to the Mossadegh government of Iran, the Arbenz government in Guatamala, or the Allende government of Chile -- overthrown by coups orchestrated by the US government and replaced by brutal pro-US dictatorships.And the Sandanistas in Nicaragua -- the US bankrolled a violent insurgency by people who had no support among the Nicaraguans (except the wealthy) until the Nicaraguans gave up and elected the candidates favored by the US government.And let us keep track what happens to the Chavez government in Venezuela.--

quote:

---

Your post is a good example of the well-intentioned nonsense that characterizes modern socialism.

---

Actually, your post is a good example of the willfull ignorance that characterizes American nationalism. But are these snide comments really going to help further the debate?

Interesting. I wouldn't pin the problems of post-industrialist nations on aggressiveness (although in the case of the U.S. that might be true). I tend to see long-term economic stagnation as the biggest menace to quasi-socialist countries. What happens when universal social programs fail because there is simply not enough production to support them?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Depends on what kind of production we are talking about.

According to my geography prof, the world pop is going to exceed 7G pretty soon. It's going to double by the time I have my kid is in high school.Unfortunately, the trend seem to indicate that the poorer you are the more kids you have. What have been puzzling me is how the heck do we try to solve the pop problem in the near future? No government on Earth would want another country to tell them what to do, especially something like curbing the population. China seems to be doing well with their pop control but at the cost of one of their most cherished traditions. But other countries who are having with pop can't seem to take such radical measures like China. India's pop is still rising rapidly and may one day exceed China's. Africa can't seem to run out of starving people (whenever they a person is starved to death, 2 more is born).

Why are you confused as to who the evil capitalists might be?They are human beings who eat shit and piss just like you and me. They have names and addresses. There is a list of 691 of them at the Forbes Rich List (2004).edited by mick to correct URL leading to rich listThis message has been edited by mick, 04-12-2005 04:46 PM

quote:

---

No, it was a "that's all the land would support without technology and/or farming" problem. Early societies were always scrambling around for food and lived nomadically. It wasn't until they started farming that they stayed in one spot and started creating civilizations.

---

That is correct - that is whay I said it was a problem related to a low level of technology, not a problem related to their social organisation and the absence of private property.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about communism and what you define as property under communism.

---

Communism is a mode of production (which is bigger than a system of government) in which the necessities of sustenance production are owned collectively and exploited collectively. A typical example is shared pasturage and activities like transhumance.

quote:

---

Again I have never said that the US has the best society. I do think capitalism (being reinbursed for what you do according to your contribution) works better than communism ( get what you need (maybe) no matter what your contribution is to society) as long as capitalism is regulated so that it doesn't trod too heavily on the working class.

---

But the priblem is that is NOT how capitalism works. People are NOT rewarded according to their contribution - they are remunerated according to how hard they are to replace. Thats why capitalism does not do what it says on the tin. By contrast, given the meeting of needs, all EXCESs production can easily be rewarded directly without compromising anyone elses survival. Hence, communism actually does what capitalism only claims to do.

quote:

---

That said, if those problems were dealt with, we still have to figure out how to motivate people without giving them anything in return except for the basics. This would work for some truly altruistic people, but the majority would want an extra chicken in the pot, or even better another big SUV in the driveway if they toil harder than their neighbor.

---

But WHY do we have to figure that out when that is NOT how communism works?You see, for the umpteenth time, what you are attacking is a straw man. You are NOT attacking communism at all - you are attacking a systematic MISREPRESENTATION of communism. Communism explicitly DOES reward according to ability - thats is abundantly clear in the original document, Capital.If you are going to criticise communism, please criticise communism, not the straw man.

quote:

---

You would have to almost have one world government staffed only with altruistic people to truly provide for everyone. Not sure this is possible.

---

Of course its totally impossible,. But becuase this is a system that does NOT depend on altruism in any respect, the proposition is irrelevant.

quote:

---

A lot of starving people are living under despots and totarian governments who may sell off a countries assets for their own personal gain.

---

And exactly the same thing happens under capitalism, and we call it Good. The scenario arises when, say, a given manufacturing plant can be moved to the third world where wages are lower. So, the original host countries productive assets are moved or sold for the personal gain of the owning capitalist - and Wall Street cheers and slaps them on the back for their sound business decision. It IS a sound decision from their personal perspective, but it is a disaster for ordinary workers depending on employment.

quote:

---

I think a change would have to be made in the political sphere to really make any change.

---

Politics and economics are essentially the same endeavour.

quote:

---

There have in the past been plenty of despost bankrolled by communist countries.

---

True of course - but that merely begs the question, were they communist countries? Is the concept of a "communist country" even valid in the first place?It's entirely contradictory to communism that there can be a communist "state". Communism, as I said, is a mode of PRODUCTION not a methodology of governance. There have been no communist countries at all - there have instead been state capitalisms, and they certainly did bankroll despots. But that is indeed symptomatic of capitalism, which treats people only as an input to production.

quote:

---

You seem intent an blaming all the worlds ills on only one cause, and that is those evil capitalists. The world and it's problems are not that simple.

---

Nonsense - has anyone claimed capitalism causes the common cold? These criticisms are specific, targeted, and methodical. The problems in capitalism are inherent to its structure. Capitalism does manufacture misery, because misery is profitable. Simply denying that there is anything wrong is simplisitic.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-13-2005 05:12 AM