oil and socialism (socialist "value scales")

[Mikalac Norman S NSSC <MikalacNS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i don't see why the "value scale" conclusions envisioned below need occur
under a particular socialist economy if you allow my old schoolboy
definition of socialism: a pure socialist economy is one where the producer
goods and services are publicly owned and where the consumer goods and
services are privately owned (in pure capitalism, all goods and services are
privately owned and in pure communism all goods and services are publicly
owned).

let us then assume, further, that this is a democratic socialism with a
legislature, executive and judiciary.  (i.e., not a dictatorial socialism
where the dictator decides all.)  then the citizens decide the "value
scales" of their consumer goods and services and those values are codified
into laws through their democratically elected legislatures.

the producer goods, although owned publicly, will be made under the
executive branch to satisfy the laws that codified the consumer wants as
determined by the citizens.  likewise, scientific, organizational, financial
and technical innovations are funded in accordance with their prospective
impacts on the consumer goods and services production plans and their
underlying producer goods and services production plans.

note: the judiciary would arbitrate conflicts in the laws and the executive
regulations made from the laws.

under this scenario, who can tell what "value scales" will result with
health care, environmental care, labor laws, civil rights, or anything else?
if the "consumer is king" under socialism, then why do democratic-socialist
theoreticians assume that societal "value scales" will match their own?

if the consumer is not king, then who is?

norm



-----Original Message-----
From: ALI KADRI [mailto:akadri_00@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:46 AM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:4687] Re: Re: oil and socialism


Socialism is about organizing man and nature as
opposed to capital which undermines man and nature -
anarchy in production. That is the theme Arthur K.
Davis used to repeat in his seminars. So, a different
energy dependency strategy/non-fossil fuels, one which
squeezes profits in order to safeguard nature, would,
among other things, save many lives in the middle
east. This of course will never happen in this system,
i.e. capitalism. It also cannot happen in one country
socialism that is  in direct competition with
capitalism since it must maintain a high rate of
exploitation cum capital accumulation to keep pace
with the industrial world, now imagine if that
socialism had the lesser technology the environmental
consequences are all too well known. An Environment
friendly energy strategy, i.e. allowing for undeterred
entry of energy saving means into the market, erodes
profits and devalorizes the economy at a much higher
frequency under capitalism. Thus, and this may be a
surmised result, socialism as a world system is better
equipped under its "value" scale to deal with
ecological questions. In fact, socialism may also
represent the system that is more innovative in
environmental technology because profit considerations
or return on investment rank lower than public health
issues. Had the US adopted a fossil fuel independent
strategy, many wars would have been unlikely, unless
wars happen for the fun of it which is never the case.