: The requirement for the end of the state on the W.S.M model is the end of the acquisitive society. The W.S.M. illusion is that it can all be established tomorrow, whereas the reality is that it requires people to become saner and less apt to hoard. Well, its an anrachist model that would say the state could end tommorrow, the difference between Anarchists and socialists is that we say you'd have to build the right conditions in which hoarding would end- eitehr through temporary rationing, or a production spike to cover for the inital glut. People, having pratical consciousness, and having deliberately aimed at socialiation of property, would learn the values from there. to demand an abstract change of mind-set a priori is idealist.
: Thats very reasonable. the proviso that it will not be forced upon anyone would have any proponent of this W.S.M model rigerously opposed to laws wich seek to curtial acquisitiveness via forceful re-distribution.
Indeed, all we do is abolish the money, and stop people aquiring from the labour of others over night. Some are necessarilly gonna be redistributed, for instance my house, the one rent, will cease to be my landlords, etc.
Further, the end of money would effectively mean even Bill Gates only has the same aquiring power as the rest of us- as much as he can carry.
: It doesnt where the hoarding is done for the benefit of those whom you value as part of your group. People are selective of others.
inded, but once people see shop shelves stacked up week in week out, then they just won't bother to hoarde, mean, i don't go down to my mam's kitchen and hoarde some of the food there up to my room...
: They look for food, aka things of value to human life.
Ah, Marx would say the scrabbling for food is precisely not human, its an animal thing. Only when we are not striving to simply stay alive, then are we human.
: An assumption that the same economic strength would be present without private ownership, that slums would *not* have simply existed all along. Still doesnt really adress the assertion that force results from private ownership and would vanish if it were barred.
Why would we need force, we would all have a common economic interest, and would no longer need force to impose economic interests. Further, slums result from the necessity of renting markets, and from a few being able to have land and houses while others can't afford, and that houses must stay empty in order to retain their rental/sale values while folks go homelsess.
: As with the previously mentioned model, force would vanish only when poeple voluntarily gave it up, where it gave no advantage. A post socialist revolution culture would be as vulnerable to advantage seekin users of force as any other. It is a fantasy to imagine perpetual peace.
How can a small group hope to use force against the majority of society? Why would anyone want to use force, when they have no economic interest to pursue. the only possible use of force would be counter revolution...
