This is kind of a redux, but I figured I'd start fresh for those who weren't around for the first article.

When I was younger, I was a pretty die hard socialist. For many years I counted among my friends one J. Quinn Brisben, the 1992 Socialist Party USA candidate for president. In fact, my three year old son was named after Quinn, who taught me a lot about the labor history of the United States.

As I've grown older, I've come to eschew the state socialism of the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, but as I have done so the beliefs and principles that guided my beliefs have not gone away. If anything, they have become more entrenched. I've come to embrace a policy of microsocialism, however, while at the same time having nothing good to say about the macrosocialism that many have come to embrace.

But going further would require a clearer definition.

Macrosocialism is what we call state socialism. Its characteristics are that it is forced, it is run by the state, and that it places demands on individuals that are anathema to the principles of democracy and liberty. Macrosocialism is largely inefficient and unnatural, and as such is an unsustainable state. Examples can be seen in China and the Soviet Union of the Cold War era (less so in both states now; even China is embracing more free market principles). Because of the power of the state, free speech is the enemy to a macrosocialist state.

Microsocialism, however, differs in that it is voluntary, privately run, and it focuses on the contributions of individuals rather than place demands on them. Microsocialism functions best in a free market environment, for reasons I will discuss later, and examples can be seen in Amish and Amana communities in the United States, in the kibbutzes of Israel, and, to some degree, in the history of the early LDS church in the US (a practice that can still be seen in some of the les dysfunctional wards today). Microsocialism is not only compatible with the free market, it is, in my opinion, a healthy and vital part of such a market.

Microsocialism works well within the free market because it substitutes the power of individual dollars with the power of collective bargaining. In a capitalist society, the free market of goods and services is the guiding principle, and thus, as cynics are wont to say, "he who has the gold, makes the rules". This is no less true with microsocialist organizations functioning within a free market environment.

Say you walk into a car dealership ready to buy a car. You will haggle with the dealer, but ultimately you will end up paying a price that the dealer thinks is fair. At every point in the negotiations, the dealer is in control, and any "control" he gives you is purely illusory.

Now, say you are part of a collective group that has committed to buy cars for all of its members. As a representative of the group, you walk in and speak with the dealer. You control the purchasing power of, say, 50 car buyers, and the dealer will get all of the contracts, or he will get none. Suddenly the balance of power has shifted, and you are in control. The dealer still has to make money, true, but he is going to be willing to accept a much smaller profit margin on each individual vehicle because he is selling 50 vehicles at once.

This is not theory, it is reality, and it is put into practice every day by various co-ops within the United States. One user recently detailed her experience with Angel Food Ministries, which is one such co-op. Basically, they sell $50-75 worth of groceries for $25 because they've used the collective bargaining power to obtain the best price possible.

Now imagine a competitor to WalMart guided by these principles. WalMart has long used the fact that it has more money than anybody else to secure the lowest purchasing price on several items. The result is lower prices, but equally lower quality. If a store opened using these same purchasing principles as a cooperative, they would be able to purchase at a lower price, but because they have less overhead, they could sell at a price competitive with the big box stores. The WalMarts of the world only survive because they can purchase in greater quantity than anyone else. Imagine the car buying scenario, now imagine a contract for 5,000 cars. The dealer's markup would get even lower.

And this is why it is not only helpful, but essential, for a microsocialist organization to operate within a free market economy. Having used their purchasing power to purchase items, the cooperative can now obtain the best price for them. In some cases, this could mean substantial markups. Put simply, the system doesn't work unless there is a place to SELL the items one has obtained.

Microsocialism can be applied to all objects, not just cars and consumer goods. In fact, it may be the best solution for our dysfunctional health care system. Create co-ops that can purchase more, essentially, with less, and it will be easier to insure the uninsured who want and in many cases, need, insurance.

Those who read me consistently will know that I have long advocated for "New Deal" type solutions implemented within communities as a solution to our current problems. Bring back the victory gardens, explore the successes (and failures) of New Deal communities like Dyess, Arkansas to learn what to do and what not to do to give people access to the tools to bring themselves out of poverty. Create communities that are truly common at the local level, and put fewer controls at the state and federal level, controls that effectively restrict the action of these communities. Let the federal government revert to doing the duties outlined for it in the Constitution, and give communities greater autonomy to make choices that guide their direction. Some of these communities will choose microsocialist principles, others will not. In the end, though, I'm willing to bet most will adopt a mixed economy, as it will be hard for those who adopt an individualist mindset to compete with those who realize the power of cooperation.