carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/18/85)
> Let me advance another idea -- government control of everything (the > socialist plan) implies immense power for those in control of the > government. This and many other comments about socialism from various people indicate that massive confusion prevails out there in netland about the meaning of "socialism." I'll try again to explain. Taking no chances this time, I'll borrow the brain of Paul Sweezy, perhaps the most distinguished American Marxist economist, and, ignoring bourgeois copyright laws, reprint his article on socialism in *A Dictionary of Marxist Thought*, ed. Tom Bottomore. This is, of course, a Marxist perspective on socialism; not all socialists consider themselves Marxists. For those who wish to learn more about contemporary democratic socialist thought, I can highly recommend *Beyond the Welfare State*, ed. Irving Howe. (Democratic socialists may or may not consider themselves Marxists, in my experience.) Anyone who wishes to refer to socialism in net.politics and ignores the article below (and the *Communist Manifesto*) does so at his peril. You have been warned. _________________ The modern socialist movement dates from the publication in 1848 of *The Communist Manifesto* by Marx and Engels. Its historical roots go back at least two hundred years earlier to the period of the English Civil War (1642-52) which produced a radical movement (the Diggers) with a brilliant spokesman in Gerrard Winstanley whose ideas corresponded in important respects to the principal tenets of socialism as we know them today. Other outstanding forerunners were Babeuf and his Conspiracy of the Equals during the French Revolution, the great English and French Utopians (Owen, Fourier, St. Simon) of the early nineteenth century, and the English Chartists of the 1830s and 1840s who first incorporated socialist ideas of democracy, equality, and collectivism into a large-scale working-class movement. Unlike most of their predecessors, Marx and Engels saw socialism not as an ideal for which an attractive blueprint could be drawn up, but as the product of the laws of development of capitalism which the classical economists had been the first to discover and try to analyze. The form or forms which socialism might take would therefore only be revealed by an historical process which was still unfolding. Given this perspective, Marx and Engels quite logically refrained from any attempt to provide a detailed description, or even a definition, of socialism. To them it was first and foremost a negation of capitalism which would develop its own positive identity (communism) through a long revolutionary process in which the proletariat would remake society and in so doing remake itself. Marx's most important text on the subject is *The Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875) which was directed against the programme adopted by the congress at which the two branches of the German workers' movement (Lassalleans and Eisenachers) united to form the Socialist Workers Party, later renamed the Social Democratic Party of Germany. In his *Critique* Marx distinguishes between two phases of communist society. The "first phase" is the form of society which will immediately succeed capitalism. This phase will bear the marks of its origin: the workers as the new ruling class will need their own state (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") to protect them against their enemies; people's mental and spiritual horizons will be colored by bourgeois ideas and values; income, though no longer derived from the ownership of property, will have to be calculated according to work done rather than according to need. Nevertheless, society's productive forces will develop rapidly under this new order, and in the course of time the limits imposed by the capitalist past will be transcended. Society will then enter what Marx called "the higher stage of communist society", under which the state will wither away, a totally different attitude to work will prevail, and society will be able to inscribe on its banner the motto "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." *The Critique of the Gotha Programme* was not published until 1891, eight years after Marx's death, and its key place in the body of Marxist doctrine was not established until Lenin made it a central focus of his enormously influential *The State and Revolution* (1917), in which he stated that: "what is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the `first' or lower phase of communist society", and this usage was thereafter recognized or adopted by practically all who regard themselves as Marxists. This explains why individuals or parties can without any inconsistency call themselves either socialist or communist, depending on whether they wish to emphasize the immediate or the ultimate goal of their revolutionary endeavors. It also explains why there is no anomaly in a party which calls itself communist governing a country it considers to be socialist. In keeping with this theory the Soviet Union, as the society which emerged from the Russian Revolution, was officially designated socialist (the Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics). In addition, all but one or two of the countries which, since 1917, have undergone revolutions involving profound structural change have adopted or accepted the socialist label. Including the Soviet Union these countries now comprise about 30% of the world's land area and about 35% of its population. In one sense, therefore, these countries can be treated as "really existing socialism" (R. Bahro, *The Alternative in Eastern Europe*) and studied in the same way as any other historical formation like capitalism or feudalism. For Marxists, however, this is not and could not be the end of the matter. For in their theory socialism is essentially a transitional stage on the road to communism. In analyzing "really existing socialist societies", therefore, it is necessary for Marxists to pose a very specific question: are these societies showing signs of moving in the direction of communism, which for present purposes may be thought of as characterized by the elimination of classes and of certain very fundamental socioeconomic differences among groups of individuals (manual and mental workers, city and country dwellers, industrial and agricultural producers, men and women, people of different races). If they do show signs of moving in the direction of communism, they can be judged to be socialist in the sense of the Marxist theory. Otherwise they cannot be considered socialist in the Marxist meaning of the term. So far answers to this question have tended to fall into four categories: (1) Those that see "really existing socialist" societies as conforming to the Marxist theory. This is the answer of the ruling parties in the Soviet Union and its close allies. According to official Soviet doctrine, the USSR is no longer characterized by antagonistic class or social conflicts. The population consists of two harmonious classes (workers and peasants) and one stratum (the intelligentsia), and is presided over by a "state of all the people." In place of class struggle as the driving force of history, the new socialist mode of production (labelled "advanced socialism" in the Brezhnev era) is driven forward by the "scientific and technological revolution" towards the ultimate goal of communism. (2) The second category of answers holds that Soviet-type societies remain socialist in their basic structure but that progress towards communism has been interrupted by the rise of a bureaucracy which, owing to the underdeveloped state of the forces of production at the time of the revolution has been able to install itself in power and divert to its own uses a grossly disproportionate share of the social product. This bureaucracy, however, is not a ruling class, and as the forces of production develop, its position will be weakened and it will eventually be overthrown by a second, purely political, revolution. After that, progress towards communism will be resumed. There are a number of versions of this theory, all stemming originally from the writings of Trotsky [see *The Revolution Betrayed*]. (3) The third category of answers holds that capitalism has been restored in the USSR and the other countries of "really existing socialism" which acknowledge Moscow's leadership. The most prominent advocate of this view was the Communist Party of China (CPC) in the later years of the chairmanship of Mao Tse-tung. Mao believed that classes and class struggle must necessarily continue after the revolution, and that if the proletariat should fail to maintain its control over the ruling party and to pursue a consistent revolutionary line, the result would be the restoration of capitalism. The Maoists held that this had occurred in the USSR when Khrushchev came to power after Stalin's death. Others -- most notably [Charles] Bettelheim [in *Class Struggles in the USSR*] -- argued that the capitalist restoration occurred in the 1920s and 1930s. After Mao's death the leadership of the CPC abandoned this position and reverted to one which appears to be increasingly close to the official Soviet doctrine summarized above under (1). (4) The fourth category of answers is basically similar to the third but with one significant difference: it denies that capitalism has been restored in Soviet-type societies, arguing instead that these are class-exploitative societies of a new type. In the USSR itself the new ruling class formed itself in the course of intense struggles during the 1920s and 1930s. After the second world war the Soviet Union imposed similar structures on the countries liberated by the Red Army. Defining characteristics of this social formation are state ownership of the essential means of production, centralized economic planning, and the monopolization of political power through a communist party controlling a highly developed security apparatus. To those who hold this view, Soviet-type societies are obviously not in transition to communism and hence cannot be classified as socialist in the sense of the classical Marxist theory. What emerges from the foregoing is that "really existing socialism" is an extraordinarily complicated and controversial subject over which the views and theories of the worldwide Marxist movement are divided into various, often sharply conflicting, groups and subgroups. No resolution of these differences now seems to be in sight, though it remains possible that the course of history will alter the terms of the debate and perhaps lead eventually to something closer to a consensus than exists or seems possible under present circumstances. [Paul Sweezy] ___________________ Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/19/85)
So are you a communist or not? --Cliff
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/20/85)
The epitome of socialism, and a good example of a nation where the state-first, individual-last ideals of socialism were taken to their logical conclusion, is Germany under National Socialism in the '30's and '40's. --JoSH
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (01/20/85)
> The epitome of socialism, and a good example of a nation where the > state-first, individual-last ideals of socialism were taken to their > logical conclusion, is Germany under National Socialism in the '30's > and '40's. > > --JoSH Bullshit. Haven't we gone thru this before? Did you read the posting you're replying to? jeff
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/21/85)
> The epitome of socialism, and a good example of a nation where the > state-first, individual-last ideals of socialism were taken to their > logical conclusion, is Germany under National Socialism in the '30's > and '40's. > > --JoSH Turkey! Congratulations, you've just started a big argument. All the socialists will boil you in oil for this, and then all the conservatives will retaliate, and so on ad nauseum. And the whole issue has been discussed before, probably more than once. If you strongly disagree with the above statement, please reply to JoSH by mail. I know what you guys are going to say already. I anticipate a reply to this posting. Someone will say, "You could just as well object to *any* posting to net.politics for the same reasons." Ah, but this posting is ideal for generating dozens of flames: short, provocative, and not substantiated by the poster. We don't need another conservative-vs.-liberal war of words. Note: This does not mean that I am conservative or liberal. Nor does it mean that I agree or disagree with JoSH. I will say that he didn't hit the nail on the head. More like his thumb on the thumbnail. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/21/85)
> > The epitome of socialism, and a good example of a nation where the > > state-first, individual-last ideals of socialism were taken to their > > logical conclusion, is Germany under National Socialism in the '30's > > and '40's. > > > > --JoSH > > Bullshit. Haven't we gone thru this before? Did you read the posting you're > replying to? > > jeff Yes. I disagreed with its implicit premise, that Socialism can only be defined by "revolutionary" intellectuals, who may dismiss any real-world Socialists or Communists as "heretical" in some way. I don't care what the ivory tower Socialist thinks the world ought to be like; what I am concerned with is the very real mass murder that occurs every time it is put into practice. --JoSH
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/22/85)
> > ... > > --JoSH > > Turkey! Congratulations, you've just started a big argument. Gobble, gobble. Mea culpa. I've only been on the net for a month, and hadn't seen it (the big argument) before. > All the > socialists will boil you in oil for this, and then all the conservatives > will retaliate, and so on ad nauseum. Actually, that's just what I wanted (I was trying to get off of gun control, but keep the same enemies... Why are they sure to be the same ones? Answer that, my son, and you have found the beginning of wisdom...). --JoSH
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/24/85)
>The epitome of socialism, and a good example of a nation where the >state-first, individual-last ideals of socialism were taken to their >logical conclusion, is Germany under National Socialism in the '30's >and '40's. >--JoSH If you believe that the National Socialists were Socialists, then you probably also believe that the German Democratic Republic is a Democratic Republic (at least it is German, right?). In fact, the adoption of the term "Socialist" by the Nazis was done in order to cash in on the appeal the term had in the early '20s to German industrial workers. Goebbels spent much ink on explaining why only the Nazis were "Socialists", uncorrupted by "Marxian" thought, and that "Socialism" was well represented in the feudal structure of the Holy Roman Empire. And you fell for it!!! David Rubin P.S. JoSH's critically wrong assumption is that all "state-first, individual-last" philosophies are socialist. Actually, there are many varieties, some socialist, some not. The Nazis fall in the latter category.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/29/85)
> >The epitome of socialism, ... > >--JoSH > > ... Goebbels spent much ink on explaining ... > And you fell for it!!! > David Rubin Nope, I never read Goebbels. I just applied the rule of thumb, "If a government kills more than a million of its own citizens inside a ten-year period, it's probably socialist." > P.S. JoSH's critically wrong assumption is that all "state-first, > individual-last" philosophies are socialist. Actually, there are many > varieties, some socialist, some not. The Nazis fall in the latter > category. Right. I use the term as a catchall. If you want to nitpick about the various denominations of that religion, go ahead, I won't argue about it. --JoSH
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/31/85)
>> >The epitome of socialism, ... >> >--JoSH >> >> ... Goebbels spent much ink on explaining ... >> And you fell for it!!! >> David Rubin > >Nope, I never read Goebbels. I just applied the rule of thumb, >"If a government kills more than a million of its own citizens >inside a ten-year period, it's probably socialist." > >> P.S. JoSH's critically wrong assumption is that all "state-first, >> individual-last" philosophies are socialist. Actually, there are many >> varieties, some socialist, some not. The Nazis fall in the latter >> category. > >Right. I use the term as a catchall. If you want to nitpick about the >various denominations of that religion, go ahead, I won't argue about it. > >--JoSH I guess the "H" in JoSH stands for Humpty-Dumpty .... Words mean exactly what I wish them to mean, no more, no less .... It all depends who is to be master. (Sorry I can't quote exactly). Sorry, JoSH. If you want to participate in a debate, you should attempt to use key terms in a way something like the way other participants use them (which usually doesn't require strict adherance to dictionary definitions). For what it's worth: to me, a socialist cares about all the people in a society, and believes with John Donne "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." Libertarians (as self-defined on this net) care only for themselves. In the absence of any possible demonstration, no-one can refute the apparently fantastic claims of utopian life in Libertaria; neither can one refute the claims of those who argue the merits of a true socialist state. All the same, one can look at the performance of different states that tend (slightly) in one direction or the other. After accounting for the ENORMOUS natural wealth of N. America, it is astonishing that it is NOT the country in the world with the highest quality of life. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (02/02/85)
Martin Taylor says: > For what it's worth: to me, a socialist cares about all the people in > a society, and believes with John Donne "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. > It tolls for thee." Libertarians (as self-defined on this net) care > only for themselves. Not quite: socialists generally do not care about producers.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (02/02/85)
> Nope, I never read Goebbels. I just applied the rule of thumb, > "If a government kills more than a million of its own citizens > inside a ten-year period, it's probably socialist." How about Imperial Russia? The American Civil War, maybe? --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/03/85)
>> For what it's worth: to me, a socialist cares about all the people in >> a society, and believes with John Donne "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. >> It tolls for thee." Libertarians (as self-defined on this net) care >> only for themselves. > >Not quite: socialists generally do not care about producers. False. They just don't restrict their caring to producers. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/05/85)
> I guess the "H" in JoSH stands for Humpty-Dumpty .... Words mean exactly > what I wish them to mean, no more, no less .... ... > For what it's worth: to me, a socialist cares about all the people in > a society, ... Libertarians (as self-defined on this net) care > only for themselves. > Martin Taylor Well, there's nothing like castigating someone for something, and then doing the very thing yourself, as flagrantly as possible... You've got your definitions exactly backwards. Socialists care only for themselves, for the things that matter: Morality, justice, freedom, power. They put on a front of concern about material equality--hunks of matter distributed by head count--as a rationalization for their lust to control, their ivory-tower contempt for the ability of ordinary people to make their own way in life. Libertarians, on the other hand, crave an equality of justice, an equality of rights, an equality of moral personhood and responsibility. For this they are willing to put up with the uneven distribution of material goods that must result. --JoSH
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/05/85)
I'm quite disappointed in the response I've gotten from the socialists
on the net concerning my "Socialist nations kill millions of their
own citizens" contention. Replies I *have* gotten fall into two main
camps: (a) Quibbles about definitions ("those aren't *really* true
socialists"), and (b) vitriolic personal attacks. I haven't seen
anyone address the actual question--Am I to assume that socialists
consider genocidal tendencies a regrettable minor flaw in their schemes?
(a) definitions: As I stated before, I don't care to quibble about them.
However, I will point out that "socialist" is widely used as an
umbrella term by collectivists of all stripes; it has positive
connotations, especially in Europe, and everyone calls themselves
"Socialist" and rabidly denies that all the others are. I would
generally prefer the term "collectivist", but the collectivists
on the net have been calling themselves "socialists."
(b) Personalities: There is probably some benefit in this inasmuchas
it temporarily raises the level of cardiovascular activity, giving
us sedentary programmers needed exercise. As far as political
discourse is concerned, however, I am reminded of the old story
about the wise man in Athens who always watched the public debates.
His friends asked him why he did, because he did not know the language.
"No," he admitted, "but the man who screams the loudest always loses."
Genocide: I'm still at a loss why no collectivist has seriously tried
to refute the contention that the denial of individual rights, and the
ascendancy of public over private good, marks a major step on the
path to "The Final Solution". I do not say that it is sufficient,
but it is certainly necessary.
Someone who values "group rights" over individual rights *must
believe it right* to kill someone when the benefits to the group
exceed the total detriments. However psychotic his worldview,
Hitler's collectivist logic was unassailable: He believed that
the benefit of Germany as a whole was being served. I don't care
whether you call it "socialist", or "fascist", or "squat",
the collectivist ideology that denies individual rights is wrong.
--JoSHcarnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/06/85)
[IQ test for readers of net.politics: Prove that your IQ is at least 45 by posting followups to this article to net.politics.theory, where discussions on the nature of socialism belong.] Libertarians have claimed that "socialism" implies sacrificing the individual for the sake of the collectivity, again illustrating their disinclination to study socialist theory and learn something about what they are talking about. Having learned all about socialism from Ayn Rand, they need not bother reading socialist writings. I have news for JoSH and others: the ideals of democratic socialism, and of Marx and Engels, do not include trampling on the individual for the sake of society. If I thought that was the case, I would repudiate socialism. As a sample of socialist writing I have appended a passage by Henry Pachter below to save you the trouble of looking it up. I have no illusions that this article will do much good: arguing with libertarians is an exercise in futility, like arguing with children. I have so far counted exactly two libertarians out of the many on net.politics who show a capacity for rational thought: D. K. Mc Kiernan and Laura Creighton; the rest retreat to dogmatism. From Pachter: "Socialism strives to abolish exploitation and inequality. It seeks a society where merit and character are the only marks of distinction; where economic resources are controlled by public agencies, themselves under public scrutiny; where production is geared to the human needs of all and the product is distributed equitably; a society, finally, where man is no longer utilized as a means for purposes alien to him. "In practice, however, socialism has usually come to be identified with "collectivism," and two of its best known features are public ownership of the means of production and a comprehensive "plan" of production and distribution. "These are indeed characteristic of states that now call themselves "socialist," but a moment's reflection will show that they are inadequate to define socialism. Nationalization is not socialization, and a plan must have a purpose: it may be designed to enhance the development of man's potentialities or it may be the instrument of national ambitions. The Inca state and Egypt of the Pharaohs featured both public ownership and a plan, but paired with servitude and exploitation. Spartan communism subjected all citizens to equal political repression. Bismarck nationalized the railroads and the health service; Hitler's war machine was powered by a planned "command economy." Some modern states have adopted a rapid industrialization plan which -- though praiseworthy in its intention -- ruthlessly subordinates the desires of the citizens to the needs of the state. Others have abolished the market for political reasons without, however, freeing the production units from the tyranny of profit calculations that continue to keep the workers under the yoke of exploitation. "To call this "socialism" is to misuse a good word. Socialism is not a technocratic scheme designed to run the capitalist economy more efficiently, nor is it an economy that has merely been rid of capitalistic parasites. Socialists hope to emancipate people from serving goals that have been imposed on them either by arbitrary masters or by abstract laws of economic development. They aim to make people responsible for their own destiny and to give everybody a chance to fulfill his or her aspirations as a person. This dream has been expressed in the socialist literature of all times. I shall cite one source that, because it may not be guessed easily, is especially significant: In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. "In most anthologies this sentence is the conclusion of the *Communist Manifesto* for it is indeed the end of its theoretical exposition. It must be assumed that Marx and Engels worded this ending with special care, and it is therefore noteworthy that they said "association" instead of "state," and that they did not consider the development of the whole a condition for the development of each, but on the contrary "THE DEVELOPMENT OF EACH THE CONDITION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL." "I do not consider Marx and Engels oracles, but it is significant that these alleged "collectivists" placed the individual ahead of the collective. True, they proposed to abolish "private property," but not to put state property in its place. Their "association" was supposed to abolish the relationship of property between capital and worker, between dead and living labor; it was to substitute a direct, human relationship of cooperation for the mediated, material relationship of property and profitability. "Socialism has inherited this emancipatory dream from a long tradition of democratic revolutionary thinkers; as is well known, their revolutions were side-tracked and ended in capitalism -- with individualism frozen in the property relationship and opportunity confined to the class of owners. Socialism continues the movement of emancipation that was started in the eighteenth century, and it wants to spread individualism to all, removing the fetters that capitalism has clasped on the fulfillment of many human aspirations. Freedom is not a luxury to be enjoyed only by the members of a ruling elite, but a basic human aspiration that was brought to flower only in the unique development of Western civilization, and it is still waiting for full and generalized realization. Civil rights and human rights are still expanding, and their wider scope is on the agenda of socialism. FAR FROM SUBDUING THE INDIVIDUAL, SOCIALISM IS THE HIGHEST STAGE OF INDIVIDUALISM -- ITS FRUITION FOR ALL. "As an association of people, the socialist society certainly must reflect the democratic structure and behavior of its origin -- the socialist movement. Readers interested in political theory may have noticed that in the passage I cited Marx and Engels fell into the language of Rousseau, although on other occasions they were highly critical of theories that attribute the founding of the state to a "contract"; but when they wrote the *Manifesto* they still saw the socialist revolution as the direct outgrowth of the democratic spirit of that revolution, they saw "the association" as the means to mediate between the demands of society and the rights of the individual. They could not conceive of a society (much less a state) that would set itself goals other than those that the citizens themselves had made their own. "But socialism begins with the insight that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The association can envisage goals that unassociated individuals might not even be able to conceive. This is an opportunity as well as a danger. In the following pages I shall discuss problems that have arisen for socialism out of the conflict between the will of the whole and the will of the parts: how much freedom may smaller associations (the shop, the region, the profession, the ethnic or religious fraternity) reserve vis-a-vis the big association (the nation, an international authority)? How much discipline or obedience can the larger community expect from the smaller and from the individual? When does the public ethos prevail over the private conscience?" [Henry Pachter] And if you want to know Pachter's answers you will have to read the rest of his article, in *Beyond the Welfare State*, ed. I. Howe. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/07/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 8:33 pm Feb 4, 1985 >In the absence of any possible demonstration, no-one can refute the >apparently fantastic claims of utopian life in Libertaria; neither >can one refute the claims of those who argue the merits of a true >socialist state. All the same, one can look at the performance of >different states that tend (slightly) in one direction or the other. Are you willing to be convinced by your own argument? About six months ago, I published a list of countries that had been partitioned and divided into more- and less- socialist countries, along with their per-capita income. The more-socialist nations, North Korea, East Germany, People's Republic of China, all had lower per-capita income than their "other halves". More-Socialist Less-Socialist Germany 7,180 11,130 China 347 2,143 Korea 786 1,880 In all cases, the figures are in US dollars. In some cases, the figures are from slightly different years (I believe the figure for South Korea is from 1982, whereas the figure from N. Korea is from 1981). Figures are all from the Information Please Almanac. By your own argument, and where the countries involved are comparable, in the sense of starting from a common origin, the socialist nations tend to have lower per-capita incomes than the non-socialist nations. >After accounting for the ENORMOUS natural wealth of N. America, it >is astonishing that it is NOT the country in the world with the >highest quality of life. Hmmm..... The Soviet Union could give us quite a run for our money there. The energy reserves under Siberia are said to be quite large, and as I recall, the Soviet Union was not a net importer of oil, at least during the oil crisis. >-- > >Martin Taylor >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt >---------- > Nat Howard
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/08/85)
In article <topaz.516> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: >> I guess the "H" in JoSH stands for Humpty-Dumpty .... Words mean exactly >> what I wish them to mean, no more, no less .... >... >> For what it's worth: to me, a socialist cares about all the people in >> a society, ... Libertarians (as self-defined on this net) care >> only for themselves. > >> Martin Taylor > >Well, there's nothing like castigating someone for something, and >then doing the very thing yourself, as flagrantly as possible... > >You've got your definitions exactly backwards. Socialists care only >for themselves, for the things that matter: Morality, justice, >freedom, power. They put on a front of concern about material >equality--hunks of matter distributed by head count--as a rationalization >for their lust to control, their ivory-tower contempt for the >ability of ordinary people to make their own way in life. > >Libertarians, on the other hand, crave an equality of justice, an >equality of rights, an equality of moral personhood and responsibility. >For this they are willing to put up with the uneven distribution >of material goods that must result. > >--JoSH One of the remarkable things about USENET is the way in which it brings into contact people who inhabit apparently different universes. Communication is sometimes a little difficult across these boundaries, but in the world from which I hail, the foundation of Socialism has always been the concern for ALL people, not just for those with power to help themselves. It is a fundamentally UNselfish foundation for a variety of attempts to realize the philosophy. JoSH thinks that the actions of mad dictators are examples of socialism in action. There have been as many fully socialist soceities (or governments) as there have been libertarian ones. Until I started reading this net, I felt myself to be a libertarian and a socialist, and both were honorable names. Now I feel "libertarian" to be a disgusting epithet for a person whose selfishness knows no bounds and who has a trumped-up excuse for a philosophy to cover his (or her) essentially childish magical view of the world. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/08/85)
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to respond to this article at very great length, but here goes. > [...] the ideals of democratic socialism, and of Marx and Engels, do not > include trampling on the individual for the sake of society. Actually, Marx thought that socialism could not work without a totalitarian form of government. I will look for the exact reference, but I returned all the Marx writings I ever read to libraries long ago. > [...] where production is geared to the human needs of all and > the product is distributed equitably; What's 'equitably'? Who decides? If at least one component of 'equitably' doesn't reward additional productivity, intelligence, or achievement with additional 'product', then it just won't work. What's the incentive to put in extra effort if your reward is the same as with normal effort? The result is a general malaise where noone works harder than necessary to appear 'about average' - and soon the average level of output slows to whatever level the workers think they can get away with. > [...] a society, finally, where man is no > longer utilized as a means for purposes alien to him. If a person has a job he considers 'alien' or unpleasant in any way, he should quit and get another one. He may have to keep it up for a while until he acquires skills suitable for the other work he's interested in, but sooner or later he should leave. Or is this allowable in a socialist system? > "Socialism has inherited this emancipatory dream from a long tradition of > democratic revolutionary thinkers; as is well known, their revolutions were > side-tracked and ended in capitalism -- with individualism frozen in the > property relationship and opportunity confined to the class of owners. I disagree entirely. I a capitalist system, opportunity is available to anyone who can work or who has capital to invest. This doesn't include everyone to be sure. But that is why the US Constitution starts with a line which includes 'to promote the general welfare.' It is the responsibility of any fair society to support those that cannot support themselves. In our society, we have shoved this responsibility onto the government - fair enough. It is folly for ANY society to support those who can support themselves, but just don't wish to. In a socialist system, opportunity is available only to those who sit on the 'select committee to decide who does what, where, and when.' Even if these people are freely elected, there are bound to be people who don't get a fair shake. (it only takes a large minority to elect people you know. 'Prefect' democracies are a logical impossibility.) If you don't have such a committee, then all the people can do whatever work best pleases them - including no work at all. I think a lot of people would choose this last alternative. But then, who is it that produces the goods and services to support all these folks? > [...] and > that they did not consider the development of the whole a condition for the > development of each, but on the contrary "THE DEVELOPMENT OF EACH THE > CONDITION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL." ... > "But socialism begins with the insight that the whole is more than the sum of > its parts. Which of the above is it? Either the parts are more important then the whole or the other way around. You can't have both. ------- Well the main two things wrong with Pachter's preface (aside from too many run-on sentences) are the lack of personal incentive and the requirement that someone other than the individual makes the 'plan' into which the individual must fit. The first point is simple. If you provide incentive (extra food, fuel, privilages, etc.) then pretty soon those who get this extra wealth will be trading it for goods and services from his coworkers. A little underground capitalist economy will emerge. Worse than that of course is that incentives in the workplace will cause competition between coworkers, at a higher level, incentives for plant managers will cause competition between production plants, etc.. Here it is, one of socialism's most hated words - competition. This is one of the reasons that Marx came to the conclusion that socialism must be totalitarian; it lapses into capitalism otherwise. The second part is more subtile. As I pointed out, if there is NO external force on an individual which directs his choice of employment of residence, then you will have chaos and, soon, economic collapse. In a capitalist society the external force is apparent - the individual must take employment that is sufficiently profitable to support his lifestyle and that he is qualified to do. He can take any such job that best pleases him, but he must take one such job (or more). If a person has the same choice in a socialist society (to take any job he is qualified for, all jobs are paid 'equitably' so profitibility is not an issue), he will opt for the job with the best working conditions in the best part of the country. It will then be very hard to find people to take the unpleasant but necessary jobs which exist in any large economy. A capitalist system would react by offering more money for such unpleasant tasks, but that wouldn't be 'equitable' for a socialist society to do. The result is that someone (or some group) in the socialist society must decide which employment is appropriate for each person (another reason Marx decided that socialism had to be totalitarian). I don't see how this is really a big blow in the cause of individual freedom. The above points (and others) have been debated for a hundred years now and are not any nearer to resolution than they were then. Socialism has some (very few) good points to it. But a pure socialist society is not desireable or even of much interest outside the lecture hall. Note: The above statements about the opinions of Marx are not exactly as he would have stated them. Although his conclusion that totalitarian rule was necessary was quite unambiguous, I don't think he ever actually used the word itself. And his reasoning was much less straightforward. Marx was a fairly convincing writer and was careful to state his conclusions and arguements in the least inflamatory language he could. As I say, I will try to find the reference, but it's been years. End or note. J. Giles P.S. I'm not a libertarian either (as examination of my previous notes on taxation will demonstrate). Libertarians have SOME good ideas too, but a Libertarian society (whatever that is) would seem a bit too chaotic to be stable.
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (02/08/85)
> > Actually, Marx thought that socialism could not work without a totalitarian > form of government. I will look for the exact reference, but I returned > all the Marx writings I ever read to libraries long ago. > Hm. No doubt you're thinking of the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, which is the text that makes the distinction between socialism and communism. For Marx and Engels, EVERY state (government, loosely) is an agent for the dominance of classes by a dominant class. In the transition from the capitalist state to the absence of a repressive state under communism, there would be a period of transition in which the state would need to act as an agent of the working class, as long as class antagonisms remained. Note that Marx felt that this state would be LESS (not more) dictatorial and MORE (not less) democratic than the state under capitalism, in the sense that people would have more control over their individual and collective lives, including more control over government policies. It is also important to point out that the absence of a "State" under communism does not mean that there are no planning nor distribution apparatuses, but that the government no longer plays the role of agent of class oppression. Lenin coined the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in describing the state in post-capitalist revolutionary societies. This term has come to have bad connotations. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/10/85)
>>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 8:33 pm Feb 4, 1985 > >>In the absence of any possible demonstration, no-one can refute the >>apparently fantastic claims of utopian life in Libertaria; neither >>can one refute the claims of those who argue the merits of a true >>socialist state. All the same, one can look at the performance of >>different states that tend (slightly) in one direction or the other. > >Are you willing to be convinced by your own argument? > >About six months ago, I published a list of >countries that had been partitioned and divided into more- and less- >socialist countries, along with their per-capita income. The >more-socialist nations, North Korea, East Germany, People's >Republic of China, all had lower per-capita income than their >"other halves". > > > More-Socialist Less-Socialist >Germany 7,180 11,130 >China 347 2,143 >Korea 786 1,880 > >In all cases, the figures are in US dollars. In some cases, the >figures are from slightly different years (I believe the figure for >South Korea is from 1982, whereas the figure from N. Korea is from >1981). Figures are all from the Information Please Almanac. > >By your own argument, and where the countries involved are comparable, >in the sense of starting from a common origin, the socialist nations >tend to have lower per-capita incomes than the non-socialist nations. > >>After accounting for the ENORMOUS natural wealth of N. America, it >>is astonishing that it is NOT the country in the world with the >>highest quality of life. > >Hmmm..... The Soviet Union could give us quite a run for our >money there. The energy reserves under Siberia are said to be >quite large, and as I recall, the Soviet Union was not a net >importer of oil, at least during the oil crisis. Although these countries claim the name of socialist for themselves, most are simple dictatorships with a centrally planned economy. I think to be fair, you should include Sweden, W.Germany, France ... among the "more Socialist" countries (and even the UK, athough Thatcher is tearing it down as fast as she dare). It is more than passing strange to hear (from JoSH) that Hitler led a Socialist country (because his party was called National Socialist) or that Stalin did, or that Kim Il Sung does. None of these Nazi, Fascist, or Communist dictatorships approach the socialist ideals as closely as do most Western democracies. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/11/85)
> ... Now I feel "libertarian" to be a disgusting > epithet for a person whose selfishness knows no bounds and who has > a trumped-up excuse for a philosophy to cover his (or her) essentially > childish magical view of the world. > > Martin Taylor If this isn't an ad hominem argument, I don't know what is. It seems to be ok for those calling themselves "socialist" to attack the motives of those who call themselves "libertarian", but when it happens the other way they scream to high Heaven. I'll be quite frank: if you will not respect the motives of libertarians, and base your objections to the ideology on questions of fact and economic and political theory, I can hardly trust your own claim to humanitarian motives, and will confront you with the real-world results of your misbegotten philosophy at every turn. Unfortunately, I fear the libertarians on the net will continue patiently explaining their position and their motives, in muted, reasonable tones, to your (and Sevener's) deaf ears. They seem to have the patience of Job, the gift to "suffer fools gladly." I don't. --JoSH
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (02/13/85)
(dciem.1944) >>About six months ago, I published a list of >>countries that had been partitioned and divided into more- and less- >>socialist countries, along with their per-capita income. The >>more-socialist nations, North Korea, East Germany, People's >>Republic of China, all had lower per-capita income than their >>"other halves". >> >> >> More-Socialist Less-Socialist >>Germany 7,180 11,130 >>China 347 2,143 >>Korea 786 1,880 >> >>In all cases, the figures are in US dollars. In some cases, the >>figures are from slightly different years (I believe the figure for >>South Korea is from 1982, whereas the figure from N. Korea is from >>1981). Figures are all from the Information Please Almanac. >> >>By your own argument, and where the countries involved are comparable, >>in the sense of starting from a common origin, the socialist nations >>tend to have lower per-capita incomes than the non-socialist nations. >> >>>After accounting for the ENORMOUS natural wealth of N. America, it >>>is astonishing that it is NOT the country in the world with the >>>highest quality of life. >> >>Hmmm..... The Soviet Union could give us quite a run for our >>money there. The energy reserves under Siberia are said to be >>quite large, and as I recall, the Soviet Union was not a net >>importer of oil, at least during the oil crisis. > >Although these countries claim the name of socialist for themselves, >most are simple dictatorships with a centrally planned economy. I think >to be fair, you should include Sweden, W.Germany, France ... among >the "more Socialist" countries (and even the UK, athough Thatcher is >tearing it down as fast as she dare). . . . None of [the Communist >dictatorships] approach the socialist ideals as closely as do most Western >democracies. >-- > >Martin Taylor What do socialist ideals have to do with the economic performance of socialist countries? What is distinctive about socialism is the (relative) absence of private property as a means of obtaining income and/or exploiting others. Although democratic socialists may be right that a socialist economic system doesn't preclude full parliamentary democracy, it certainly doesn't require that democracy either. Capitalism also doesn't require the full Western panoply of political rights. Comparing the socialist and capitalist worlds in economic performance seems perfectly all right to me. Attacking those comparisons by reference to socialist ideals is wrong because socialist countries exist today. Why not use them as examples? Having said that, though, I don't think the specific comparisons of the Koreas, the Chinas, the Germanys, and the USSR/USA say much about socialism vs. capitalism. Additionally, per capita income isn't the right measure. North Korea was practically leveled by the Korean War, while South Korea was left (comparably) untouched. Taiwan benefited from a huge brain drain of Chinese intellectuals and businessmen who left China in fear of Communist reprisals. Neither China nor East Germany nor North Korea got the vast amounts of aid from their bloc which their counterparts received. The entire socialist set of countries (excepting East Germany and Czechoslovakia) began their industrializations at a late period in history. Finally, the leaders of the socialist bloc (East Germany, for instance) had no richer nations to emulate or compete against, as West Germany had the U.S.. The socialist economic environment is both immature and im- poverished. I went to a conference of East European experts recently, where one expert on Hungary and Yugoslavia suggested that the right nations to compare most of the East European states to were the Latin American countries, in terms of time of industrialization and dependency on larger neighbors. East European states don't look so bad compared to Brazil, or Uruguay, or Argentina. They don't have 60% unemployment rates, near bankruptcy, or inflation rates creeping close to 100%. The question is still out on whether the socialist states can advance to a post-industrial stage. I'm not sure they will, especially if they don't permit more limited markets in their economies. But they might liberalize, and more markets wouldn't change their essential status from socialist to capitalist countries. So socialism might yet succeed as an alternate economic system. Tony Wuersch amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/15/85)
>> ... Now I feel "libertarian" to be a disgusting >> epithet for a person whose selfishness knows no bounds and who has >> a trumped-up excuse for a philosophy to cover his (or her) essentially >> childish magical view of the world. >> >> Martin Taylor > >If this isn't an ad hominem argument, I don't know what is. It seems to >be ok for those calling themselves "socialist" to attack the motives >of those who call themselves "libertarian", but when it happens the >other way they scream to high Heaven. > >I'll be quite frank: if you will not respect the motives of libertarians, >and base your objections to the ideology on questions of fact and >economic and political theory, I can hardly trust your own claim >to humanitarian motives, and will confront you with the real-world >results of your misbegotten philosophy at every turn. > >Unfortunately, I fear the libertarians on the net will continue patiently >explaining their position and their motives, in muted, reasonable tones, >to your (and Sevener's) deaf ears. They seem to have the patience of Job, >the gift to "suffer fools gladly." I don't. > >--JoSH I guess you don't know what an ad hominem argument is, then. First: the section you quoted starts "Now", which in the absence of context seems to mean "as a consequence of preceding argument" whereas in the actual context of my posting it meant "since reading all the libertarian screaming (sorry, muted, reasonable discussions of Socialist genocide)." I did not impugn the arguments of anyone. In a moment of utter disgust, I allowed myself to present my personal feelings to the net, without attempting any argument whatever. So it can't be an ad hominem argument. Now, as for childish magical views, what else can you call a set of rationalizations that starts out with a view of the world as you would like it to be and then asserts without evidence that the laws of nature are such as to make the world that way? When arguments are presented to suggest that perhaps the laws of nature are not as you believe, you just reiterate that they are (in muted, reasonable tones, of course). As for deaf ears, would I have so drastically have changed my position away from what you espouse, if my (visual) ears had been deaf? I think I would probably still be calling myself a libertarian if I had not read the thousands of lines written by those who do give themselves that name. No, you are right: I don't suffer fools gladly. For what it's worth, Henry Spencer also persuaded me (rationally and correctly) that what I really espouse (my misbegotten philosophy) isn't technically Socialism either; but nothing the self-proclaimed socialists on the net have written causes me to be ashamed of having used that label. As you suggested to Carnes, perhaps we should forego the use of the labels libertarian and socialist; but it's hard when there are no other suitable labels for what you believe. My preference is to use the labels, but allow that they may have wider connotations than the technically correct ones. Don't demand that any self-proclaimed socialist be a down-the-line follower of Marx, or that a libertarian must agree with all of Ayn Rand (or whoever). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt