Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:04:47 +1000 (EST)
From: billbartlett-AT-vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett)
Subject: RE: AUT: Neo-conservatism and workers


steve.devos wrote:

>I'm getting confused by these discussions about ownership.

Hey Steve, its hardly rocket science
>
>Does this not mean that the moon or one of the lagrange points in space,
>because they are socially owned cannot be used unless everyone agrees with
>the proposal?

An interesting example. There are two uses the moon that come to mind -
indirect (exploiting tidal or gravitational forces) and direct (mining,
colonisation or some such theoretical possibility

> Or is it that a judicial process is required to enable the
>use of a place or 'thing'? If so what constitutes the judicial process being
>proposed.

In simple terms, the process required is democratic decision making. Taking
your example - use of the moon - it would require  substantial investment
of labour and finite resources to *directly* "use" the moon, this amounts
to a large-scale decision about priorities that everyone, not just the
workers at the Kennedy Space Centre, should have a say in.

But harnessing tidal energy is a different matter I guess. Still a decision
for all those who require the energy as well as all those who would need to
contribute the resources needed to set up the infrastructure, but hardly a
matter the whole world would have a direct interest in. Unless someone
wants to slap it in the middle of a World Heritage area perhaps.

The "judicial" process required for the use of socially-owned things is
that those things be socially-controlled. This much is intuitive. That
requires a decision-making process, though not a political decision-making
process as in a class society. In class society we have a political
decision-making process, government of people. But in a socialist society
we would need a process for making decisions about how socially-owned
resources and the means of production are used.

This would be the reverse of the current system in the advanced western
economies, where people are governed (democratically) and the the economy
is subject to the anarchy of private ownership. People would be subject to
no government, but the economy would be governed democratically. People can
do what they like, but not with the socially owned means of production on
which we all depend.

I think perhaps that even some natural resources, such as oil reserves (in
Harald's example) or the Moon (in yours) should not necessarily be
socially-owned. I'm not sure about this, is it necessary? After all, if the
means of production are subject to social control, then privately
appropriating North Sea Oil would be very difficult.

But this is perhaps a question that needs to be discussed in the context of
a definition of "socially necessary means of production". Would that
definition be taken to include natural resources? Land is a natural
resource, agricultural land is an essential component of the means of
production. Perhaps the same can be said for oil and gas reserves, to the
extent that these are an essential ingredient in the means of production.

It is quite an interesting subject, one I'm not too clear on to be honest.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---