jbtubman@water.UUCP (Jim Tubman ) (02/05/85)
Some astounding things have been said about socialism on the net lately, often concerning lack of freedom and massacres. I wonder if the people who are giving such opinions have ever bothered to look at anything besides Nazi Germany or the Communist countries (which aren't really examples of what socialism is generally considered to be). In Canada, the socialist party is called the New Democratic Party (a perfectly meaningless name). It has never formed the national government, but it has formed governments in a number of provinces. I had the opportunity to live in the province of Saskatchewan (north of North Dakota; a kind of cold Kansas) under their rule for about 10 years. Some of the people in that administration were extremely bright and capable; the premier himself was a Rhodes scholar. The characteristics of socialism, as I experienced it, were: nationalization of foreign-owned industry (in this case, the potash industry); the confusing attitude that enterprises owned by the government were owned by "the people"; a varying amount of anti-American rhetoric; labour laws that generally favoured unions over businesses; a big emphasis on the funding of the health care system; and a general attitude that one shouldn't have to pay one's way in the world. Within the context of what they felt their social goals to be, they managed the province fairly well (with the notorious exception of the Department of Northern Saskatchewan). Budgets were usually balanced and the province enjoyed (and still enjoys) a high credit rating. The percentage of people unemployed was the lowest in the country. In 1982, the NDP was dealt a crushing defeat by the Conservative party. The Conservatives have made some changes in style and substance, but it is interesting to note that the Conservatives have retained a lot of what the NDP did, such as retaining control of the potash mines (but not buying any more), and pouring a lot of money into the health care system. Altering some of the socialist programs would be political suicide. I myself am a conservative, but I don't like seeing ridiculous lies being spread about anyone, even a socialist. Most of the ones of my acquaintance are rather good people who earnestly want to solve real problems in society, by spending other people's money. Jim Tubman University of Waterloo ...!watmath!water!jbtubman
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/07/85)
> I myself am a conservative, but I don't like seeing ridiculous lies being > spread about anyone, even a socialist. Most of the ones of my acquaintance > are rather good people who earnestly want to solve real problems in society, > by spending other people's money. > Jim Tubman This characterization of most socialists is (a) true, and (b) irrelevant. Socialism (collectivism) is an example of the "tragedy of the commons" in group moral behavior. The end result of the interaction of people under the socialist paradigm, and I'm assuming that most of them are ordinary, decent people (like Germans were--pre-Nazi Germany was the MOST liberal/tolerant country in Europe), is a collective result much worse than most of them would have imagined. --JoSH
jbtubman@water.UUCP (Jim Tubman ) (02/13/85)
> > I myself am a conservative, but I don't like seeing ridiculous lies being > > spread about anyone, even a socialist. Most of the ones of my acquaintance > > are rather good people who earnestly want to solve real problems in society, > > by spending other people's money. > > Jim Tubman > > This characterization of most socialists is (a) true, and (b) irrelevant. > Socialism (collectivism) is an example of the "tragedy of the commons" > in group moral behavior. The end result of the interaction of people > under the socialist paradigm, and I'm assuming that most of them are > ordinary, decent people (like Germans were--pre-Nazi Germany was the MOST > liberal/tolerant country in Europe), is a collective result much worse > than most of them would have imagined. > > --JoSH Hmmm, I'm familiar with the "tragedy of the commons" idea, but isn't it the wrong sort of analogy to be using in this case? The tragedy comes from everybody trying to maximize his/her personal gain in a sort of free-for-all -- not the sort of thing that socialists generally rant on about. The socialist's approach would be to have the state seize the common resource (claiming, of course, that it now belongs to "the people" (c.f. the Saskatchewan potash mines)) and erect an enormous bureaucracy to regulate its use. Another wearying layer of bureaucracy, to be sure, and the price of the buy-out might not be satisfactory, but it's hardly despotism. Consider forestry on the Canadian "Crown" lands (I'm not sure what the case is with American Federal land). I must agree that good people can be led astray, but that has been true since the days of Hammurabi. The existance of socialist governments that get elected, serve with varying degrees of competance, and leave power when they are defeated indicates that socialism does not necessarily lead to disaster. Jim Tubman University of Waterloo