From: "David B. Shemano" CB: What kind of winning and losing are you talking about in "our >> socialist democratic system" ?
I don't know. ^^^^ CB: Are you saying you don't know what you are talking about when you ask me: "in your "socialist democratic" system? How will the institutional structures be more likely to lead to allocating resources to the potential winners and not the potential losers relative to our present government decision-making? " ^^^ How would you define winners and losers in your system? ^^^^ CB: I don't know that we would be spending a lot of time trying to define and decide who were winners and losers. The goal ultimately would be "to each according to need", although technically this would be after the state had whithered away, and so it wouldn't be a "democracy". At the stage of democracy, we would be trying to meet everybody's basic physiological needs and their "higher" needs. We would fail to the extent that we didn't meet somebody's needs. ^^^^^ Jim Devine's post is intriguingly definitional: if a 51% majority in a socialist democracy vote on a decision, the decision is necessarily a "winner." Jim suggests that in socialist democratic decision-making "an effort would be made to measure the true costs and benefits," but he provides no reason why an individual voter in a socialist democractic decision-making process would be better equipped or motivated to "measure the true costs and benefits" or to vote in the manner consistent with the true costs and benefits as opposed to the individual's personal interest. ^^^^^ CB: I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out how to meet every last person's basic needs given the material abundance possible with modern technology, although there are looming problems with the fossil fuel base of our current technological regime. The reason an individual voter in a socialist democratic decision making process would be better equipped and motivated to "measure the true costs and benefits" , etc. is that they would be secure in the meeting of their basic needs, food, shelter, clothing, education, health care, free of the threat of war, and unalienated from the "system". ^^^^^^^ Let's imagine in our socialist system that there is a wired phone system. A citizen thinks it woud be a great idea for a wireless phone system using satellites. The satellite system will require a significant capital investment and a huge reallocation of resources from the wire system. Let's further imagine the idea develops to a stage where it is presented to decision-makers. I have some sense how the decision would be handled in a laissez affaire capitalist economy. I have some sense how the decision would be made in our present hybrid bailout economy (see Chrysler decision). I want to think about how such a decision would be made in a socialist economy. ^^^^^^^ CB: Based on a thorough examination and analysis of the facts by everybody makign the decision. I don't know that the republican/representational principle wouldn't still operate, though more of the big decisions might be made by direct democracy, especially give the capabilities of computer technology for voting and examination of the evidence. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
