He could share those techniques with others.
Why do you assume he would want to?
Socialism, like capitalism, is an entire system of production. Except it's based on collective ownership and democratic control of the means of living and the natural resources. But also like capitalism (and any other mode of production), it will produce a surplus. This surplus, too, is collectively owned either becoming social or personal property.
The system of production will accumulate surplus which is shared collectively. If there's a bit (or a lot) more left over all good. Bear in mind that no-one has truly derived power from having too many apples; they had to disposes others.
I know all that. You don't need to give me the definition of socialism.
I am asking about what if an individual produced twice the average of other individual and from you answer I understand is that it won't be his/hers but will be owned collectively. Is that right?
If there's a state whose role that is it will constitute a ruling class who actually own the wealth. In other words state-ownership - capitalism, again (or worse).
That's why such an institution is incompatible with socialism.
Socialism like anarchism involves the absence of money, classes, and state-governments.
I know that panoptic. I'm not asking, I'm arguing against the concept that socialism and anarchy are compatible.
I believe that socialism (i.e the collective ownership and management of means of production) must be enforced and secured. I'm not necessarily saying there must be a strong state. A minimal state restricted to law enforcement and judiciary is essential for abolishing private property and implementing collective ownership.
Food, shelter, water, medicine, transportation, communications etc..
Just because a relative minority of the world have in recent times been told constantly through propaganda they want those things all the time, and often seek them, doesn't mean that's what they need, that people always have, and always will want them. Anyway, I think there are already enough cars, computers and telephones around for everyone to have access to them. As long as there's farming of any kind there will be alcohol. Vintage wine is over-rated, anyway.
I mean, really! I don't think there are many people around the world who would prefer a new television to free food, water, shelter, medicine etc.. all at the point of need.
While I agree with the nobility of your aim, I think you underrate the associated compromise.
People (at least some of them) will not be able to produce what the want, to do the kinda of work they like, or consume what they want.
I asked you this in another thread. If instead of private property we had collective ownership, how can anyone establish a business if all those who work in it own it collectively? and why would they? what is the incentive for anyone to establish a football club? a hotel? a radio talk show? a tattoo parlor? a strip club? a tanning saloon? a restaurant? a record label company? a car dealership? a pedicure spa? a cinema? or even make a movie?
Who would run them? who would own them? and most importantly, who decides they are necessary/essential?
Also, who decides which job goes to whom?
Of course. Money and exchange values of any kind are incompatible with real socialism. No private ownership = no money.
IOW, nobody would be remunerated, right?
Everyone will go to work and at the end of the week they will not get a wage. Instead they are guaranteed food, shelter, health care, transportation, communications and other things
that the majority of the people deem necessary/required. Is that what you're saying?
Both aim towards a stateless, classless society.
Sure but that doesn't mean they are compatible. See my reply to panoptic above.
You're missing the point and looking at it from the point view of an economy that revolves around scarcity. In a post-scarcity world, there would be absolutely no reason for the farmer not to share his produce and technology with everyone else, because no matter how much he shares, the amount available to him would not be reduced.
Is our world atm a post-scarcity world? (I'm not talking about just food and essentials.)
Currency, exchange and wealth accumulation would be useless, because there'd be an abundance of everything to the point where anyone can take anything and everything would still be available for everyone else. People would produce things because they'd want to, and they'd want to share their products with everyone else. Think of a music band, it releases an album and puts it online. Because everything the band needs and wants exists in so much abundance that it's free, the band would have absolutely no reason to charge for the album. It gives it away for free. And it'd want as many people to have it as possible, because it takes pride in its product and wants everyone to listen to it.
Let's take the example of the music band. Where would they get their instruments? will there be and abundance of instruments? or will somebody decide who gets to get them?
Simply put, the conflict of interest between individuals and society would cease to exist. There would be absolutely no force necessary for people to share their work.
But how can you be sure we achieve abundance of everything?
Poll
1 (2.8%)
Topic: The 2010 UK election - who will you vote for?