Free Socialism

2005-11-20 14:02:00

Larry writes:

"It's not socialism that bothers me for I believe in socialism."

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary we have these definitions of socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So, do you support the above? Do you support these ideas?

1. The means of production and distribution should be owned (or "administered by" which means the same thing as "own") by the state?

2. A system without private property.

Sorry to scare you Larry but I was not thinking of any of those definitions where the "state" has control. Where the state controls then "forced socialism" exists and the freedom to develop any social program that works and is efficient disappears.

The problem with anything forced is that it is inefficient. The last I heard was that it costs us $1.50 to give away $1.00 of welfare. That's outrageous and would not happen where free enterprise is involved.

My Random House Dictionary gives a definition much closer to what I was thinking:

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital and land by the community as a whole."

Here is the definition I would give when applying it to my own philosophy:

Free Socialism: The free will cooperation of individuals to create and maintain an organization wherein assets are shared for the benefit of all.

By this standard a corporation that is employee owned is socialistic as well as the Molecular Business model I present.

The great part about free socialism is that it can be very efficient and money making.

For example the Albertsons grocery chain is one of the largest in the world and was started here in Boise and has its world headquarters here.

During the Eighties and Nineties it seemed that they had decided to completely dominate the grocery market in their home town even if they had to take a loss. Their prices were so low and their stores so numerous that every other major grocer went out of business. Afterwards their prices climbed.

For a while the only competition was a couple small locally owned markets. No one here liked the idea that we had no where else to go. Were we stick forever we wondered?

Finally a new local enterprise emerged called WINCO. A number of employees from a previous enterprise banded together and created several super grocery stores in the area. The idea behind them was employee ownership and input with generous employee benefits. These stores were bare bones warehouses where you bagged your own groceries. They had lots of bulk stuff and the greatest part was many of their prices were about a whopping 25% lower than Albertsons. As you went in there were two shopping carts containing the same items. One had a sign of what it would cost at Albertson and the other at WINCO. A typical one might read, Albertsons $152.42 WINCO $109.55

Guess what I and many others did? We switched to WINCO. My only complaint at WINCO was the lines were so long that it took a while to get through because of their success.

Now some time has passed we have lots of competition again with lower prices everywhere and lots of variety.

My point here is that all socialism is not bad. If people are allowed to experiment with true free cooperative effort then successful enterprises can be created. The Molecular Business of which I wrote a treatise is socialistic, but a plan that works with free will and not force.

If social programs and plans are allowed to develop in a free environment then some will emerge that are very efficient and beneficial that people will join because they want to rather than being forced to. If overhead can be reduced from 60 cents on the dollar to 10 cents or less, and maximum freedom maintained, then some social programs can become quite attractive.

It is the wretchedness of being rich that you have to live with rich people. Logan Pearsall Smith (1865 - 1946)