1) Prisons are not means of production by definition, although they may be used for that. 2) No society has yet existed which did not need protection from those of its members who engage in stealing, violence, or other crimes against others, by separating the criminals from society. If you have the space, you can exile them within your own borders. Otherwise they have to be incarcerated. The nature of incarceration is another matter. Bill Mandel StewA@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/4/1 9:04:42 AM, wmmmandel@earthlink.net writes: > > << Jerry: The point is that Stew and you have different definitions of > socialism. I think Stew understands it in the classical sense of an end to > private ownership of the means of production. You understand it as any > reforms that take the sharp edges off capitalism. >> > > Bill - I actually look at it more from the point of view of why production is > taking place - is it mostly for profit or is it to serve the needs of the > community. Ownership can be governmental, cooperative and yes private but it > must serve the communal need (to be socialist) - and of course (to protect it > from corruption) the community must decide this for itself - ie democracy. I > don't regard every bit of state ownership as a bit of socialism. For instance > most prisons are still owned by the state and provide their services to > inmates for free (like they always did to me in Santa Rita) and yet I can not > bring myself to portray this as socialism.--Stew - http://hometown.aol > .com/stewa/stew.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/05/01 EST