Dear Aidan,

Feeling that these people should be hanged is not the same as actually wanting to hang them - since this part was addressed to Jardine, I believe he would understand what I meant...

I would be very grateful if you could tell me how socialism can be implemented without violence. What's your idea for example on how to deal with such people who refuse to be social or to participate in the social game?

I didn't claim that work itself will be scarce, but as the boom which follows the initial discovery ends, remuneration for work would decline in real terms, to a point where it's hard to make ends meet.

JKJ, my sticking to your agenda would be futile, because your arguments rely on loosely defined concepts, and until your definitions are accurately defined, you're always going to have some wiggle room to declare my arguments to be circular.

I notice you still haven't supplied a coherent definition for "rationally economise".

I regard what we disagree on as what's in issue. You haven't proved it either.

And now you're ranting on about "partial socialism". I've never used that phrase to describe the policies I support. I don't object to your doing so, but the trouble is you're using the term "socialism" to describe the policies you oppose, and therefore making stupid statements about what you wrongly think I believe, such as that productive activity's intrinsically immoral and anti-social (I've never made any statement that even suggests that; your assumption is entirely down to your own prejudice).

You claim that I think that government action presumptively makes everything fairer and more productive without any rational justification for that assumption. In reality the opposite is the case – indeed my first post in this thread criticised those with an illogical opposition to markets and those who want nationalisation for its own sake rather than for efficiency gains.

Just to make it clear: that last statement of mine doesn't mean that I always support nationalisation BECAUSE I think it will lead to efficiency gains, but rather that I support nationalisation IN CASES WHERE it's likely to result in efficiency gains.

Regarding your claim that partial socialists believe "the solution to any social problem is for government to increase its violent interventions, i.e. keep moving in the direction of full socialism", there's no logical basis for this claim and it doesn't fit the facts. Which makes me wonder firstly: are you even aware that governments are capable of non-violent intervention? And secondly, why do you think those who've rejected the idea of replacing markets with central planning want to move in that direction? (Or was my earlier assumption about what you mean by "full socialism" incorrect – in which case what do you mean?)

JKJ (continued)

As for your claim that "They never urge for the dismantling of the coercive that they or earlier generations of socialists have put up" , can't you see the obvious reason why? Democracy! When the Right get elected they quickly dismantle any excesses of the Left, so there's no further need to urge it. There's far more reason to go after the policies of the right – which are just as likely to be coercive.

"Thus although they *say* they approve of a mixed economy, they have opposed it at every step"
Can you give a real world example of this? I can't think of anyone who says they want a mixed economy but doesn't.

"and constantly urge for new and further interventions, even when they have been a complete failure or disastrous and unjust, such as their monopoly control of banking and credit"
What monopoly control of banking and credit are you referring to?

"All socialists would repeat the genocides of the 20th century all over again, and for all the same reasons"
Can you supply a definition of "socialist" for which that is true?

"For example, if all their wishes for global warming policy were granted, they would cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. "
Firstly, that's only true if you include lunatic fringe solutions. Secondly doing nothing about the problem is also likely to cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. And thirdly, just as whether someone's on the left or right on economic issues has no bearing as to whether they're authoritarian or libertarian on social issues, so too does it not correspond with their stance on environmental issues. Look at the article if you require proof – Barry York seems to be as contemptuous of the environment as you are!

Aiden
Oh I didn’t realise that everything you were suggesting was to be voluntary.

Yuyutsu
Good luck with eliminating the creation of wants. Pretty women walking down the street create wants in me I admit; but let’s don’t hang them for their crime. Obviously the negative “externalities” of the ugly ones should be punished; I suppose Aidan will tell us there must be a special tax to subsidise the pretty ones of the sake of efficiency? Wheee! This economics stuff is easy!

For myself, I don’t desire a state of wantless detachment from this material world, and don’t regard it as ideal or morally superior. Besides, even the Great Guru in the Monastery of Heavenly Bliss has to get up from meditating every now and then to get a bite to eat or satisfy various material wants; and then where is his philosophy.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Socialism can be implemented by normal democratic means. It does not require people to be social. I'm not sure what you mean by "to participate in the social game".

Why, when productivity per person has grown so much faster than population, do you think remuneration for work would decline in real terms to a point where it's hard to make ends meet?
________________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine

"Oh I didn’t realise that everything you were suggesting was to be voluntary. "
What do you mean?

Socialism doesn't remove the need for laws, but that need is there with or without socialism.

Voluntary socialism, I'd like to see that.

In the Ukrainian elections yesterday, the Communist Party is expected to poll less than 5 % of the vote. Probably what it would have got if elections had ever been held under 'socialism'.

Any better society has to be built on democracy, with all its uncertainties.

It's going to be a long road.

Joe