faustus (02/21/83)
What is wrong with socialism? This is not really a hard question to answer. What I think is wrong with socialism is that it assumes too much on the part of those running the state. In Marx's time, people placed a great deal of faith in so-called "scientific thought", i.e., that any problem we have can be reduced to a simple one through the straightforward application of reason. So we have his system: one in which the central government controls things in a scientific and planned manner. To be sure, ideally there need be no central government, but practically no country, socialist or not, can run without a government of some minimum size. But as we can see by the mess that the USSR is in right now, and indeed the mess that results whenever the US government attempts to run some industry, a centralized government is simply not capable of running an economy entirely. The way this works in the US is much more appropriate (or at least the way it theoretically works): each business looks out for its own interests and the government merely ensures that they don't look out for it too much. This really is the decentralization that Mr. Terribile speaks of: the thousands of small corporations run the economy far better than the government could ever hope to. Which is not to say that the government has no part in this process: rather, it has (or should have) a severly limited but quite appropriate role as general overseer and mediator. In the past I have found the idea of the economy as an organic being quite hard to accept, as this conjures up shades of the social darwinism of Spencer and William Graham Sumner, but the alternative, that of an artificial creation that must be controlled like a crude and error-prone machine, leads only to the communist system, and this has, I think, been adequately proven by experience to be an utter and dismal failure. In this light the communist system appears to be equivalent to taking a perfectly healthy human and attatching him to all sorts of life support systems that are not only unnecessary but quite badly built. We would not expect him to survive for long, or at least not to be very healthy for long. Wayne Christopher ole
harkins (02/23/83)
i claim that the problem with socialism, within whichever other *ism context, has a problem because it wants to change that fundamental part of humanity: self-interest; if there is no incentive to innovate, or excel, in a situation where all such "good results" are absorbed by a state pool, then people tend to become apathetic; from the other side, if one knows that one will be taken care of regardless of their own industry, diligence,etc., then, again a lack of interest in "work" and its results will follow; i would then claim that that becomes a doubly negative vicious circle, and that is, in short, why socialism tends to be unproductive: no incentive for anybody ernie harkins ps: glad to see a new topic
smb (02/24/83)
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to Arlan's flame -- it's so far
wrong, it's really not worth rebutting point by point. Instead, let me
give a simple justification for socialism.
Definition: "socialism" is where the *major means of production* are
owned/controlled by the government. I specifically exclude total government
control of all commerce -- which means I'm specifically excluding the USSR,
China, Eastern Europe, etc. I am specifically including most of Western
Europe. Rebuttals based on current Soviet practices will be consigned to the
bit bucket, without further ado.
My reasoning is simple: any time any person or organization has sufficient
economic power to materially affect the economy of the country (or any
significant section thereof), of its own accord -- then that organization
is capable of materially affecting my life, without my having any say
whatsoever.
That is -- if a small business or 3 decides to maximize its own profits,
without regard to anyone else, I'm probably safe -- the free market does
work at that level, at least moderately well. If an Exxon or a General
Motors makes such a decision, I have far less choice -- probably none,
since oligopolistic structures exist in the oil and automobile industries.
This is particularly true if the decision they make has profound indirect
effects -- say, increasing air pollution. Although I'm under no illusions
about the omnipotent benificence of government agencies, they are at least
capable of making decisions on a broader perspective -- such as whether or
not I'll be able to breathe in 50 years. A corporation operates in a
single metric: maximizing profit. (Note that even wrong decisions by a
large company (such as maximizing short-term profit at the expense of
long-term survival) can have profound effects. At the time of the
Chrysler bailout, it was estimated that letting the company go under would
have cost the government far more, in lost tax revenues, increased welfare
and unemployment payments, etc. And of course, there are serious
non-economic effects, such as a possible increase in the crime rate in the
affected areas.)
Laissez-faire capitalism operates under the fundamental assumption that
'n' individuals, each seeking their own good, will in effect act to
maximize the good of the entire society. Neglecting items like economic
coercion (I, and others, argued that one at great length last year in the
Great Libertarian Debate on fa.poli-sci -- and I for one have no desire to
replay it), for that assumption to work we must assume that (a) the system
will reach a steady state, rather than oscillate wildly; (b) regardless of
whether or not it does stabilize eventually, the magnitude of the
intermediate oscillations is not of itself harmful (I have in mind the
boom/bust cycle of the U.S. economy in the 19th century); and (c) that any
steady state reached is not characterized by gross disparities in means,
and thus survival ability. All of these are unproven, and -- in my
opinion -- not supported by the historical data.
One last point: the claim has been made (by Arlan, to whom I am nominally
responding, among others) that in a socialist society, one would be
deprived of the innovations by the likes of Intel, Apple, etc. Wrong! As
I stated quite explicitly at the start of this overly-long note, I'm only
interested in regulating the *large* economic powers. Anyone is free to
compete, even with a state monopoly -- until they reached a certain
critical size.
--Steve Bellovin
{rabbit,mhb5b}!smb
smb.unc@udel-relayjj (02/24/83)
I suggest that those of you who espouse socialism, AND those of you who espouse unrestrained capitalism without controls (especially considering some <much milder than the current socialistic one> labor regulation) study the effects on the individual when the individual loses control of his own destiny, and the resultant effects of that loss of control on society. For references, both in current and historical events, and in the scholastic vein, I suggest: 1) Present day Poland 2) Present day USSR economy, especially the farm system and the heavy industry system. 3) Pre- WWII Germany, and the willingness to subscribe to a nationwide psychosis. 4) Seligman, "Hopelessness", currently in print. 5) Lebanon, 1983. Please consider, when you post your idealistic solutions to the world's problems (or your own, for that matter), that the human race consists of individuals, each of whom suffers in some unique way when you take away his/her freedom to self-determination. Furthermore, please consider the historical effects of such behavior. rabbit!jj
mmt (02/27/83)
There is probably no need to reply to people who equate socialism with totalitarianism and what happens the other side of the Iron Curtain. But it would be nice if such people would keep their ignorance to themselves rather than filling up the net with it. On the other hand *** it does help the rest of us to know what these peculiar people are ``thinking''. They are the ones most likely to set up a dictatorship in North America. Martin Taylor
turner (03/01/83)
#R:ucbvax:-91700:ucbesvax:7100004:000:338
ucbesvax!turner Feb 23 21:35:00 1983
Mr. Christopher,
We seem to agree, so far. However, we do have the problem of
thousands of small enterprises being overshadowed by truly monstrous
ones. To a large extent, any state is going to depend for its
legitimacy on the survival of these monstrosities. See, for example,
the Chrysler bailout.
Mike Turnerbillp@bronze.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (09/14/83)
Mike Kelly (tty3b!mjk) writes: >>>> As to "nationalizing" you, I don't know what that means. But if there >>>> ever is socialism in the U.S., we won't need to nationalize anyone who >>>> doesn't want to benefit. They can keep screaming in the dark about their >>>> "freedoms" while everyone else realizes the benefits of universal medical >>>> care, affordable and safe housing, humanized technology and the other >>>> things that socialism is all about. I'll tell you what "nationalizing" means. It means taking everything that you or I or rabitt!jj own and worked for, killing anyone who resists, and letting the wonderful benevolent government decide on how to spend it. As for your "benefits": look at some socialist countries! Universal medical care? Sure if you want to wait years for your surgery, and then have it done by a drunk quack, who butchers you up worse than you were before. Affordable housing? Sure, if you are willing to register you newborn for an apartment, so maybe there is one available by the time s/he marries. Safe housing? Don't make me laugh! Go to ANY socialist country, and just look at those places! Humanized technology? Like yellow rain, or nuclear waste contaminating hundreds of square miles? That's what socialism is all about. Bill Pfeifer {decvax,ucbvax,zehntel,uw-beaver} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp
cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (09/15/83)
Quote from Bill Pfeifer:
Affordable housing? Sure, if you are willing to register you newborn for
an apartment, so maybe there is one available by the time s/he marries.
Safe housing? Don't make me laugh! Go to ANY socialist country, and just
look at those places!
I recently came back from a trip to Sweden where I spent a month
visiting my girlfriend's parents. They happen to live in Swedish low
cost housing. They live there because when they moved to Sweden about
2 years ago they (of course) needed to find a place to live. Being
immigrants, they didn't have the credit rating to buy anything else
(in Sweden there is very little in the way of long term renting - almost
everything is some form of condominium).
I can testify from personal experience that Swedish low cost housing
is clean, well maintained and easy to come by. The impression I got is
that it is safer to live there (this was in the suburbs of Stockholm)
than in any typical suburban or city neighborhood in the US - low cost
or high cost housing.
Now, I am not a great fan of socialism. But some aspects of some
socialist goverments' policies clearly work. Swedish low cost housing
and technology work. What this has to do with socialism, and why they
work I am willing to discuss at a future time if anyone is interested.
But it is a real shame to see people on the net rant and rave on a
subject they know nothing about. To lump all socialist countries in a
bucket, to include in this same bucket the USSR and the eastern block
countries, and then make sweeping generalizations about the whole lot
based on their theoretical form of government shows a lack of
understanding.
Cliff Shaffer
{seismo,we13,mcnc}!rlgvax!cvl!casgrunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/16/83)
#R:bronze:-74600:uiuccsb:11000023:000:804 uiuccsb!grunwald Sep 15 17:10:00 1983 Your view of socialism is extremely distorted. You seem to only see the Soviet bloc countries and what they call socialism. Of course, it's possible to mung up anything. People have a knack for screwing things up. However, my encounters with non-soviet socialism have not been terrible. My grandmother lives in denmark and lives in subsidised housing, has her medical bills payed by the state, etc etc. Her situation seems to work. She likes it, and the rest of the people I talkd to there didn't seem to mind the degree of government control that was present. Now, the government didn't control the occupations of the people, or exert any very direct control over them, but I don't think that a well thouth out socialist state would have to. dirk grunwald ihnp4 ! uiucdcs ! grunwald
pollack@uicsl.UUCP (09/16/83)
#R:bronze:-74600:uicsl:16300016:000:680 uicsl!pollack Sep 16 01:38:00 1983 sorry, but your definition of "nationalization" does not coincide with what happens under socialism, but what happens under extreme forms of "statism". Somoza WAS the government in Nicaragua. By the time of his fall, his family owned about 40% of all Nicaraguan Assets. By the time that the Shah fell, his family also owned a respectable part of Iran. (Have you ever flown "Marcos Airlines"?) These "Friendly Autocrats" killed whoever resisted, and decided how to spend their "nationalized" resources, usually on palaces. Nicaragua distributed the already-nationalized Somoza land to landless peasants in 50-acre chunks. Unfortunately, the revolution in Iran was not socialist.
mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/19/85)
This is a re-posting; the original vanished mysteriously.
By the way, in case anyone is interested, Socialist economics were
completely blown out of the water several decades ago by Ludwig Edler von Mises
(mentor to Nobel-laureat Friedrich August von Hayek). When von Mises first
presented his case, he was actually PRAISED by Socialists (one went so far as
to declare that his statue should be erected in every Socialist city), who
recognized that he had pointed out fundamental shortcomings in Socialist
theory; they expected to develop a new, stronger, and better theory in
response. But try as they might, they just couldn't do it. In fact, no such
theory COULD be developed; von Mises had struck at the very HEART of Socialism.
Some (like von Hayek) converted to Capitalism. The rest alternated between
ignoring him (abetted by the fact that von Mises, a Jewish Capitalist, lost his
academic position fleeing the Nazi take-over of Austria) and misrepresenting
his arguments.
The most exhaustive presentation of his argument is his book *Socialism*,
which can be bought in quality-paperback for about $6. If you look for it in
the library, you may have to look for it under 'Mises', 'von Mises', or
'Vonmises' (American librarians have trouble coping with surname-prefixes; and
matters are complicated because Austria outlawed use of 'von', so that some of
von Mises's works were written as 'Ludwig Mises' -- but you should see what
they do with 'Eugen Ritter von Bohm Bawerk'!).
Do I read Socialist writings? Sure; my library has various works of Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, as well as less well-known Socialists.
Do I expect our resident Socialist bombasts to read von Mises? Nah.
Constantly disgusted,
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
9120 Hawthorn Pt
Westerville, OH 43081-9605myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (01/21/85)
> Do I read Socialist writings? Sure; my library has various works of Marx, > Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, as well as less well-known Socialists. Bravo. > Do I expect our resident Socialist bombasts to read von Mises? Nah. About a year ago, some one brought up von Mises in this group. Perhaps it was you, Dan. Here's one bombast who went to the library, took it out, and paged through it for an hour or so. Wasn't overly impressed with his arguments. What socialists praised his work? Bernstein, probably. > > Constantly disgusted, > Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan Perhaps you should vary your diet. -- 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
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/22/85)
> > The most exhaustive presentation of his argument is his book *Socialism*, > which can be bought in quality-paperback for about $6. If you look for it in > the library, you may have to look for it under 'Mises', 'von Mises', or > 'Vonmises' (American librarians have trouble coping with surname-prefixes; and > matters are complicated because Austria outlawed use of 'von', so that some of > von Mises's works were written as 'Ludwig Mises' -- but you should see what > they do with 'Eugen Ritter von Bohm Bawerk'!). > Do I read Socialist writings? Sure; my library has various works of Marx, > Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, as well as less well-known Socialists. > Do I expect our resident Socialist bombasts to read von Mises? Nah. > > Constantly disgusted, > Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan > 9120 Hawthorn Pt > Westerville, OH 43081-9605 Thanks for the info! I hope to be able to find the book, I have seen references to von Mises but never seen his books in any bookstores. I have read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other such Capitalist writings. So do not be surprised to find a resident Socialist bombast reading von Mises. "Ecstasy is the Greatest Revolution" tim sevener whuxl!orb (p.s. why be constantly disgusted? seems a miserable way to live...)
jca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) (02/01/85)
A good book on socialism is Arguements for Socialism, edited by somebody (whose name I have forgotten) from statements by Tony Benn, MP. Before continuing to argue what it is and isn't, I'd advise people to read it.