: 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. Neither do we, we undrstand that humans are social animals, and that within that society is capable of organizing itself. The aim is to abolish the distinction between individual and society, not set up a better contract. the 'control' you speak of comes through social interaction, and a willingness to co-operate in scoeity, rather than through an external forces, the does the controling for society...
: establish socialism, everyone will have free access, only those that wish to retain property and exploitation will find themselves denied.
No, they will have access to it as well, only they will be denied to the 'right' to deny others access to anything. And then only if they wish to horde something that is necessary, if tehy want to piss off to a back-woods ranch and play emporer of teh known unverse, let them...
: 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.'
We go on producing them, and place them in such a way as we can monitor our use and distriibution thereof. We do not, nor cannot set a programme for how it si to be done, because it is the job of the working class at teh time of revolution to decide how, based on material conditions they wish to bring this about...
: '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?
Well, we offer teh vast majority a chance to get living conditions that they are denied, we offer security, a control over ones life, and end to poverty, a sense of belonging and society....
: We couldnšt agree less.
But it cannot be 'enforced' by a controling agent, it cannot be rammed down folks throats, because they won't want it that way, and will work against it, thus necessitating a state (and division of labour...)...etc..
: : : '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)
: 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!
However, since Marx in the German ideology saw the division of Labour as at the heart of ideology, of the existence of the state, and of class struggle, I cannot believe that he saw it as a necessary part of communism...further, that could mean, since the extract is torn from its context, that otehr economic systems, than that of capitalism, can use the division of labour. Again, I have to put it, in a system of volunatry co-operation, without enforcing wages, hwo can one have a system of divission of lavbour, byond the voluntary necessity of getting a task done quickly...?
: 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!
1:Altruism implies self sacrifice, there is no talk of self sacrifice, rather everyone taking what they desire, and doing so much work as they are willing to do (for the sake of needing it done, and for its own enjoymement). It is not looking to make teh social a rplacement ofr self interest, but merely recognises that social and slef interst are related mutually defining things...its called co-operation, collectivism...
2:How could a minority withstand the vast ,majority simply carrying out their desire to establish socialism, espcially if denied access to military or other violent monopolies of teh current ruling class?
3:That it could work on a gloabal scale is obvious- capitalism is a global thing now, it involves taking teh structures and means of capitalism, and using them for ourselves. I think the greens have a slogan 'act locally, think globally' which isn't a bad idea.
: 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?
Well, people recognize that the building needs to be kept clean, and so someone will have to do it, its up to them to define how that happens. try reading William Morris's 'News From nowhere'- he certainly wasn't a blend of marxism and anarchism.
: : 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.
I've known people work in such, and come back mor determined in teh cuase of the SPGb- a body, that collects data and gives out advice is certainly very different from a state, lacking teh co-ercive measures, teh repressive measures to inflict its will, merely to advise and help. The central bodies are only tehre to co-ordinate,a nd provide a place for different communities to come together, and co-operate and plan. no quasi legalistic contract will help them do that. No one can set up a plan for socialism now, it can only form throuhg the practical implementation of socialism. you do not need contracts, merely the will for each person to want to live in that sort of society, and co-operate with otehrs over achieving their desires, democratically...
: 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.'
And world socialism will co-ordinate on teh local regional, whatever level is practical to ensure the goods of teh earth are fairly useed and distributed...
