Yuyutsu

I think it is inevitable that after a socialist revolution, a large minority will be opposed to it. Except perhaps during some temporary transition period, they will not be permitted to set up capitalist enterprises. They will lose their wealth and would not be given access to finance. Even attempts by individuals to pool their savings and issue shares or loans would need to be discouraged and we would certainly not provide the legal framework that private businesses require.

This may be seen as restricting people's options but if the social revolution is ultimately successful there will be no one around who wants to be a capitalist or an employee of a capitalist. The new arrangements will be freer and more productive.

It is a bit like the way that nobody wants to go back to feudalism. I think people prefer to be capitalists rather than barons and anyway they would have trouble finding willing serfs, and kidnapping people for the purpose would be illegal.

Dear David,

After a socialist revolution, I would regret that ebola hasn't taken me earlier: even declaring that "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger" is a more humane option.

In fact, even feudalism, though far from ideal, would be more humane and many, myself included, would rather become the serfs of one baron than the serfs of a socialist regime. Under a feudal baron we would have to work hard all day, but at least the night would be ours to sleep with a clear head.

The opposite of socialism is not capitalism: the opposite of socialism is freedom from society.

In fact, capitalism and socialism are close siblings, children of greed and materialism. Capitalism was merely a tragic accident that occurred on the West's road to freedom, where greed met the false lights of "progress", hijacked the budding process and took mankind from one form of slavery to another. Now you offer me a third variation on slavery: thanks, but no thanks!

Dear Barry,

I acknowledge that at least your version of socialism, or social-democracy, is more humane then David's.

In fact, this version is essentially with us already - not through revolution, but has quietly crawled on us.
You may not agree, considering the difference huge, but as I see it, all the changes you suggest are only minor peripheral tweaking which matters little to most ordinary people.

Both the current system and yours:

- have progress and economic growth in mind.
- have a global outlook.
- are human-centred.
- legitimise the huge territorial state and its right to control the lives of everyone within a huge given area for no other reason than they happen to live there.
- hail the fig-leaf of democracy, whereby a majority of some arbitrary group of people whom you don't know and probably never accepted or identified with, has the power to dictate how you live your life.

Having claimed yourself that "progress cannot be reversed", why punish irreversibly those poor two billion fellow humans, replacing their innocent-poverty with the anguish of spiralling material desires?

Yuyustu, By your own logic, the two billion of our fellow human beings who live in acute poverty should have the freedom to decide whether they want your version of "innocent-poverty" or what you describe as "the anguish of spiralling material desire" (and what I would call the noble goal of 'Abundance for all!')

You have quite a nerve. Presumably you are not one of the starving, you have secure shelter, and your life expectancy will be the same as others lucky enough to live in advanced industrial societies.

As for your attempt to portray me as a social-democrat - 'thanks' but no thanks. The absence of real progress and economic growth are a major reason why I think capitalism in the developed world is reactionary and needs overthrowing. So no comparison there.

A 'global outlook'? Well, yes, you're right to an extent there - except for those insular national capitalists like Dick Smith who believe in protectionism.

Human-centred? Yes, guilty as charged. But can it be said that capitalism is really human-centred? Does it encourage or constrain our growth as individuals? Or to put it another way: ever been a wage-slave?

The point about the "territorial state" cannot apply to me, as I'm for 'open borders'. I even reckon that there's no such thing as a 'foreign worker'; yet another thing putting me at odds with the pseudo-left.

As for democracy, it's not perfect but infinitely better than dictatorship. I want it extended in ways that social-democrats don't.

Hi Barry,

Capitalism needs overthrowing to be replaced with what ? Social fascism, dressed up as 'socialism' ? Do you think anybody is ever going to fall for that again ?

No. Once this current war against Islamo-fascism has been fought and hopefully won (that's not a foregone conclusion) hopefully we can get back to trying to ameliorate (yawn ! how boring ! how un-revolutionary !) the negative impacts of capitalism. I don't see any other pathways to the future.

Sorry.

Joe

Dear Barry,

As you claim that you are not a social-democrat (socialist-yes, democrat-yes, but somehow not the combination), then I am more than interested to learn about the differences between your ideas and theirs, particularly in the areas that matter to me - who knows, perhaps your system is relatively better than the corruption we experience today...

But please bear with me, because your article addresses a different audience, which sees the world from an industrial Western perspective, thus it doesn't address my questions and concerns at all.

Whether production, for example, is concentrated in the hands of a few capitalist pigs, or in the hands of government - or as we have it now, in the hands of the collusion of both, makes little difference to me because the basic assumption is the same: that more and centralised production is good.

You support open borders - God bless you for that, but does it mean that the already gigantic state is going to be even bigger and encompass the whole world? Today, if one can no longer bear the oppression of their own state, then they can at least try to immigrate to another (I did just that myself), but if the whole world becomes one country - then where could one run away to?

Democracy versus dictatorship pertains to the details of how a particular society is organised from within, which only matters once an individual willingly accepted to be a member of that society. Enforcing membership and the values of a society on the unwilling is always a dictatorship, even if one gets a symbolic vote.

As silly as I think it is, I have no right to ask you to refrain from your dream of holidaying in the moon and beyond. If you want my cooperation and support, then you need to demonstrate to me that similarly, as much as perhaps you consider my own dreams as silly, your system will not stand in my way either.

(continued...)

(...continued)

What I am asking is for freedom from society.

This doesn't mean that one must live alone, nor does it mean that one may live on the fringe of societies and suck their goods and services: it plainly means that association with others must be voluntary, that one should be allowed to freely choose whom they associate with, obviously through mutual agreement - and that one should similarly be allowed to choose whom they don't want to be bothered by.

I am asking for tolerance to smaller groups or societies, of any number, even if they do not share the goals and values of broader society, such as increasing production, science and economic activity; prosperity; education; democracy; or internationalism. I am asking that such smaller societies be left in peace and not be made subject to the laws of broader society which do not reflect their values. I am also asking that the fruits of their labour not be confiscated in the pursuit of goals they do not share, such as holidaying the moon and beyond.

Note, however, that I am not asking for the ridiculous, that broader society should refrain from protecting itself from smaller rogue societies. Of course it should do what is reasonably necessary, but it should do so as honest self-defence rather than under the pretext of keeping the law.

Am I asking too much? Is what I'm asking for compatible with your ideals?

---

Industrialisation indeed often prolongs life expectancy, provides a secure shelter and prevents physical hunger, but it comes at a heavy spiritual price. You said that it's irreversible and I agree that it's extremely difficult to reverse, once the addiction to comfort has set in. Never mind crying over spilt milk, but it is my wish at least to stop and freeze the level of industrialisation at that which we are used to, then lean in the direction of taking it back, but extremely slowly and gradually as it should be exciting rather than painful.