(That from a Marxist!)Utopia 2000 does promote a (contract) view of society. As behaviorists, we agree with Skinneršs axiom that '[t]o refuse control is to leave control not to the person himself, but to other parts of the social and nonsocial environments.' As long as food, shelter, and social goods remain reinforcing, there will be a need to mediate reinforcements between individuals pooling their physical and intellectual resources to meet their needs and to satisfy their wants.
: [O]nce the vast majority (finicking about exact numbers is pointless) have decided to
establish socialism, everyone will have free access, only those that wish to retain property and exploitation will find themselves denied.
Needs, presumably, are like wants in that they are finite. A program calling for 'a system of free access to important and vital resources' will obviously be popular, but it says little about how to go about creating 'free access to important and vital resources.'
'Those that wish to retain property and exploitation' are presently the majority of the people! To offer the working class abundance over what capitalism has provided (inequitably) is to face this question: if you offer people in India living standards as high as those in America, what then do you offer Americans?
: : Furthermore: can global socialism be voluntary?
: Yes.
We couldnšt agree less.
: : 'Th[e] division of labor is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labor.'(Marx)
: Note: commodities, not goods...
I think you misread the phrase, Red. What Marx is saying is that commodity production does not (necessarily) create division of labor, that division of labor is outside of capitalism (and often outside his critique of capitalism). What Utopia 2000 is dedicated to is putting the issue of division of labor back on the ideological negotiating table!
: [W]e do not want equality of wage, or any sort of administration of
access to societies goods, people work as much as they want, and take as much as they need, self defined need...As I say, there would be no wages, people would take what they want...I'll repeat it a thousand times: people take what they need and
give what they can, so perhaps someone who works hard may not get more than someone who cannot, but that person who cannot needs more, perhaps...there is to be no set distribution, free access to the goods of society...
You are more 'utopian' than Utopia 2000. You offer no tangible evidence that this freedom is realistic (on a global scale) whatsoever. You are expecting self-interest to become secondary to doing the 'altruistic' thing---despite a (presumably) adversarial minority 'wish[ing] to retain property and exploitation...find[ing] themselves denied.' Without a state apparatus, no less!
Utopia 2000 has a firm program (contract) to offer so people know what it is they will be getting involved in...The role of our contract is to establish the same contingencies for everyone so everyone's self-interest will lead them to behavior that is best for the collective. Equal wages and job rotation are an important part of these equalizing contingencies. You say that 'people will only be janitors if they want to be'---what will your mutant hybrid of Anarchism and (putative) Marxism do when no one wants to be a janitor?
: : Again, the questions: (a) how can the needs of an economically diverse global population be mediated without the centralized leadership that a planned economy would require?, and (b) can a global socialism be voluntary?
: a) Of course there will be central bodies, but they can be advisory, and would not have coercive power.
b)I think it can, it can't happen any other way...
'Central bodies'---but a repudiation of the state. As Ernest Mandel said a generation ago: changing the words doesn't change the situation! If therešs going to be 'central bodies,' then it is only honest to offer the plan, the 'blueprint.' Anyone can criticize capitalism (hell, even some capitalists do!), and anyone can offer indeterminate scenarios in which a person only works however much they wish, yet accesses as much of the material and social goods as they want. Visit a commune sometime, Red---youšll see that if there is to be no centralized leadership, then there must be an (initial) social contract governing behavior.
The larger society becomes, the more deferred individuals' responsibilities become; the more a centralized body is needed, the less contingent relationships between people become.** As E.F. Schumacher said: 'Small is beautiful.'
* See Skinner's 'What Is Wrong with Daily Life in the Western World,' Upon Further Reflection (Prentice-Hall, 1987), pp. 18-20.
