[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Fri Mar 29 17:48:48 UTC 2002


On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 20:53, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > socialism. A political and economic theory of social organization based on
> collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the
> essential means of the production and distribution of goods; . . .
> 
> Note that it says "AND democratic management".  That means control of the
> government by the people.

So you are saying that welfare in this country isn't a socialist program
because the people don't control it? 

> > >Marx worked under the idea that it would become so effortless to provide
> > >for the needs of the public, that it would become impossible for any
> > >person or group of people to totally control those means of production.
> > 
> > And that's where he failed. You still have to have a plant manager,
> > and he's going to have more power than the workers.
> 
> Haven't you ever worked in either a non-hierarchical or a worker-managed
> organization?

No, I haven't. Between the restaurants I washed dishes in, gas station I
pumped gas at, the USAF, the mills I worked in, the auto-parts stores,
and the software companies, all of them were pretty hierarchical.

> A "manager" isn't a manager of people, but a manager of projects and
> expectations in this kind of organization.

Sounds like a wonderful dream. What happens if someone gets sexually
harassed? Whom does one complain to? 

> The power is in the
> workers doing the work.

And you believe this? So no one could fire you? Was there a contract
that said you could only be fired for just reasons, or was your work "at
will"? If there wasn't any work, how would you have power?

> 
> > As long as one person has to expect more effort than another, you'll
> > have hierarchy, and that's why communism won't work.
> 
> But what is more effort and who expects it?

Sorry, my misspelling... that should have been expend, not expect.

> If you think effort is what dictates power, then I think you should have a
> look around and think again.  Power exists primarily to defer effort.

Um, you just said the power was with the workers, but their expending
the most effort. 

> 
> > That is ALSO why capitalism DOES work. People who work with the
> > system, move up.
> 
> Heh... "work with the system".  In other words, the system is exploitable
> and is based on "working with it", rather than actually advancing
> anything.

No, working with the system is not exploiting it. Working with the
system is following the systems rules and guidelines. Exploiting the
system would be finding holes in the system to circumvent it.

> > People who don't either don't move, or move down. Welfare begets
> > welfare.
> 
> I don't see how that last bit follows from what you were writing before.

My dig at welfare. It's a known fact that families on welfare tend to
stay on welfare and never become productive members of society. 

> But I don't think I worked particularly hard to get where I am.  Life is
> hard for everyone and effort is relative.

So you are working with the system to better yourself. Many folks claim
it's not possible to move up. Sounds like you did. 

> We can swap anecdotes all day long, but that's not going to make it true
> that the wealthy deserve power over the poor.

They only have power if you let them. 

My point, getting back to your original argument, is that most folks
will move up, if they try. If they expend effort, they will be rewarded.
If they sit around, waiting for a handout, then no, they aren't going to
move. 

My ex-wife has been told by various welfare offices around the country
(California and Florida to be specific) that she should NOT go look for
a job, because they will give her what she needs.

> And in this country, you are poor and powerless... but you have lots of
> nice things because the entire third world is slaving away to provide it
> for you.

What am I powerless of? What power do I not have that I should? 

> 
> > >Power is derived from the control of value and value is derived from
> > >scarcity.  When scarcity is destroyed, there is either no value or no
> > >control and therefore no power.
> > 
> > So, you would say that we'd have to have many plants, churning out
> > processors, so that there's no shortage. How does this work if you
> > have to buy raw materials from outside of your utopian area?
> 
> What outside?  You assume too much.

I assume that the whole world is not united, and that your Utopian area
does not have all of the natural resources to produce everything you
need. I don't think that's assuming too much, that's being a realist.
 
> We're talking about fundamental changes in human society as a whole.  

So you are speaking of the whole world. 

> While some nations are
> industrialized and others are not, the ones that are use their extraneous
> wealth and leisure to enslave the nations that have nothing.

"extraneous wealth and leisure". You do realize that prior to
industrialization, it took about 10% of a persons time to sustain
himself. Now, it takes nearly 50%. What leisure?







More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list