cliff@unmvax.UUCP (12/19/84)
> --- > <mike (mike-moving-to-the-left?) asks for a definition of socialism. I > don't claim to be an authority but I'll try to answer. > > First let's clear away some rubbish. SOCIALISM DOES NOT, REPEAT NOT, MEAN > GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Americans seem > to absorb this concept of socialism with their mother's milk, but please try > to resist the force of habit for a while at least. > > So what is socialism? As the Industrial Revolution developed it became > apparent to many that the working class, those who are hired by others to > work for wages, were getting the short end of the stick in many ways. They > were systematically excluded from a life of dignity and satisfaction (they > still are). In response to this situation a movement arose for the > self-emancipation of the working class from its chains. That, in essence, > is all that socialism means: the historical movement of the working class > to improve its own situation. All other meanings of the term socialism are > derived from this primary meaning. Socialism DOES mean "the system of of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products." This is from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, not my favorite arbitrator, but it is sitting next to the terminal. You are quite full of it when you claim that, in essence, "the historical movement of the working class to imrove its own situation" is all that socialism means. If the working class chose to improve its own situation by voting on each and every aspect of government it would not be socialism, it would be democracy. If a government consists of a body of lawmakers representing the people it is known as a republic. The intent of a group of people, "the working class" or others, does not determine which form of government they desire, vote for or live under. I am a member of the working class and my movements to improve the situation of every U.S. citizen are directed towards libertarianism. You do not need to be an expert to state a definition. I am not an expert about chemistry, yet given a periodic table I can tell you the atomic weight of most atoms. When writing for people who are apt not to hold similar views it is useful to cite references. You know where to find my definition of socialism, tell me please, where did you come up with yours? I do agree that the definition quoted in UPPER-CASE is not the same as the definition in Webster's, as the former is a special-case of the latter. > Various socialists have emphasized different elements in the new society > which they desire to create. But since the situation of the working class > is a product of capitalism, socialists agree that capitalism has to go. > This does not mean that all traces of a market economy will be done away > with. It does mean doing away with the division of society into those who > own the means of production and those who do not and hence must sell their > capacity for labor to the other class in order to make a living. > > How do you tell if a society is socialist? It is socialist if the society > is run by the workers. Industry will be run by the mass of workers in each > plant rather than by a few fat cats in the boardroom as at present. Let's > see, is the USSR a socialist society? Well, the Soviet Union is run by the > Communist Party which claims to rule in the name of the workers. Sorry, > that's not good enough -- the workers must actually have control over their > own lives. So the USSR isn't a socialist society, even though the means of > production are government-owned. Let's call that type of society > "bureaucratic collectivism" (that has a sufficiently nasty sound). > Democratic socialism, in contrast to Leninist socialism, means truly > democratic control of the means of production, an extension of democracy > into the economic realm. For fun with socialism, read "Big Beat vs. Big Brother" in The New Republic, Dec. 17, 1984 by Josef Skvorecky. It is really fun, even though it doesn't have *too* much to do with your ideas of socialism. It is interesting that Czechoslovakia now defines itself its government as "really existing social- ism." Which leads to my next point... There unfortunately are no socialist countries just as there are no libertarian countries. I do not claim that there is no way to compare the two ideals. For socialism, look at anything designed by committee, for libertarianism, look at anything "designed" by evolution. Neither is quite as clean as what could be produced by the work of a single genius, but with evolution things keep getting more optimal, with committing things go down the tubes fast. Of course "evolution in action" doesn't necessarily imply that the individuals involved have more fun, just that the net result either works or perishes. If you believe in evolution then you believe libertarianism works. Whether it is "fair" or not is another issue (surprise, surprise, it is fair also). > So that's a brief description of socialism. Let's have some discussion of > democratic socialism on the net. I enjoy reading the discussions of > libertarianism, but I don't understand why so large a percentage of the > articles are devoted to it. Libertarianism is a shallow ideology which > defends private privilege, not public liberty. I am inspired by your unbiased investigation of libertarianism. Do you give lessons? I suspect the large number of articles devoted to it can be ascribed to two reasons. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S.; it is the fastest growing party. The new is frequently discussed more than the old (not that the principles are new, just the party). In addition, its adherants/proponents are fairly vocal and its opponents are numerous. So someone brings up a libertarian idea and five people shout it down. Those five messages are replied to by two or three people leaving 10 or more articles... I enjoy hearing many sides of political issues and before my school work started getting hairy I had a subscription to "The Progressive," "The New Republic," "Inquiry," (rip), "The American Spectator," "U.S. News & World Report," and "Reason." I kept the middle of the road: Reason, USnooze, and TNR and occasionally pick up the others (then of course there is the Whole Earth Review atrocity...). > I invite all libertarians to > buy a one-way ticket to Bhopal, India, where they will not have to deal with > OSHA or EPA which are destroying our precious freedom in the USA. I have > been following the discussion of libertarianism for several months, and I > haven't seen any trace of awareness on the part of libertarians of the > questions Marx raised about our society in his profound analysis of > capitalism. Nor do I recall seeing any answers to the following questions, > although I'm sure they've been asked before. And why don't you buy a ticket to Poland you commie! :-) Seriously, there are many issues raised by the Bhopal incident, but since it did not occur in our country it might be hard to get some facts. Can you name a source of power that was pushed heavily by the government in the 50's that has potential for serious damages not just by its use, but from the byproducts it leaves behind? Did you know that it would have been very hard to get such an industry started in a Libertarian society because of the necessity of insurance and other liability requirements? Give me a break. OSHA and EPA do not have anything to do with socialism. What stops the workers in control from operating plants that can be injurious to entire communities? Isn't there a bit of trouble over in England where some "dirty coal mines" can't be closed down even though the coal isn't needed because a socialist is leading the labor unions to strike? You haven't convinced me that mining unneeded coal is good for the environment. > Libertarians seem to believe that that society is best in which coercion is > minimized. So far I haven't seen any arguments as to why we should accept > this assertion. What about other values: democracy, order, stability, > communal harmony, caring for one's fellow man or woman, fulfilment of > human potential, equal opportunity? Do they have a place in the good > society? > > Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of > coercion. But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power > to effect one's will. A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, even > though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man to do what > he wants because he lacks means. Does it ever occur to libertarians that > taking some of the rich man's wealth and giving it the poor man can increase > the poor man's freedom and result in a net increase in freedom? I doubt it, > because libertarianism is a defense not of freedom but of capitalist > privilege. True freedom also implies knowledge. In our society most > people's political opinions are formed to a great extent through a process > of indoctrination. Their beliefs, habits, and preferences are shaped by > outside influences. The fact that people are not threatened by physical > force does not make them free. Yow! Remember all the spelling flames of years past? My next few statements may evoke some more spontaneous combustion. Your diction is horrible. You are deliberately misusing words. Again I quote Webster's: "freedom n. 1. the state or quality of being free; especially, (a) exemption or liberation from the control of some other person or some arbitrary power; liberty; independence;" A totally paralyzed man may not have much ability, but he is not inherantly lacking freedom. Neither is the poor person less free than the rich. Freedom does not imply knowledge in the least. Rather than assuming I know what you mean by "true freedom implies knowledge," I will let you explain it to me and the net. While you are doing that you can also prove the lemma that a poor man is less free than a rich one. > Socialism aims to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power > over another simply because he possesses property. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Think carefully about the meaning of the word arbitrary. Libertarianism aims to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power over another simply because he possesses property. In addition, libertarianism aims to establish a society in which no entity (government included) has ARBITRARY power over another for any reason. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/19/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / gargoyle!carnes / 2:28 am Dec 17, 1984 */ > <mike (mike-moving-to-the-left?) asks for a definition of socialism. I > don't claim to be an authority but I'll try to answer. First, "<mike" derives from the period lo these many years ago when electronic signatures where discussed on the net (ARPA, that is). I use it to distinguish me from all the other "Mike"'s and "Mike Meyer"'s (yes, that *is* my name :-) out there on the net. It should be read as if it were part of a Unix command line: "input from mike." As for moving to the left, I've always been somewhat left-leaning (except on defense, and that recently changed). Why I still like free enterprise is a long story. Drop me a line if you want to hear it. Finally, I didn't ask for a definition of socialism per se. I've got one that strikes me as correct: "The means of production are run for the benefit of the populace." What I want is a way to tell if a state is socialist from the outside. > First let's clear away some rubbish. SOCIALISM DOES NOT, REPEAT NOT, MEAN > GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Americans seem > to absorb this concept of socialism with their mother's milk, but please try > to resist the force of habit for a while at least. I did so absorb it. Now, I'm trying to find something to replace it. > How do you tell if a society is socialist? It is socialist if the society > is run by the workers. Industry will be run by the mass of workers in each > plant rather than by a few fat cats in the boardroom as at present. Hmm, looks like you have two tests here. The first one "a society is socialist if it is run by the workers." If administrators/managers are workers, then every society is socialist. If they aren't, then worker actually means producer. So, in a truly socialist society, there are no managers - every worker takes time out to manage a little. I know of no society that qualifies; they all have some "leader" or another. So flaming about "the failure of socialism" is ridiculous. It hasn't existed, so it can't have failed. The second test is "industry will be run by the mass of workers ...". In other words, to "own" part of a production plant, you must work in it. Fair enough - I think I could tell such a system from the outside. However, it will still leave a class distinction between those who own part of the means of production (workers) and those who don't. The lower class now gets to starve, without the option of trading their labor for food. It *does not* keep people from starving, as has been claimed several times on the net. This test also suffers from the workers/managers dichotomy, so once again there are no socialist states (yet). Most of the comments on libertarianism have already been answered. However, I want to note one: > I doubt it, > because libertarianism is a defense not of freedom but of capitalist > privilege. This is just flat false. Libertarianism does include the notion of private property. It has to - you can't be free without being able to control what you own. Likewise, you can't be free if you don't own anything. However, there is nothing fundamental in libertarianism to prevent the government from owning property - including factories, etcetera, and running them as in a democratic socialism. Unlike statist socialist state, an individual in a libertarian state *always* has the right to compete with the state. This, of course, makes him a capitalist. > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes <mike
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/23/84)
--- <mike (mike-moving-to-the-left?) asks for a definition of socialism. I don't claim to be an authority but I'll try to answer. First let's clear away some rubbish. SOCIALISM DOES NOT, REPEAT NOT, MEAN GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Americans seem to absorb this concept of socialism with their mother's milk, but please try to resist the force of habit for a while at least. So what is socialism? As the Industrial Revolution developed it became apparent to many that the working class, those who are hired by others to work for wages, were getting the short end of the stick in many ways. They were systematically excluded from a life of dignity and satisfaction (they still are). In response to this situation a movement arose for the self-emancipation of the working class from its chains. That, in essence, is all that socialism means: the historical movement of the working class to improve its own situation. All other meanings of the term socialism are derived from this primary meaning. Various socialists have emphasized different elements in the new society which they desire to create. But since the situation of the working class is a product of capitalism, socialists agree that capitalism has to go. This does not mean that all traces of a market economy will be done away with. It does mean doing away with the division of society into those who own the means of production and those who do not and hence must sell their capacity for labor to the other class in order to make a living. How do you tell if a society is socialist? It is socialist if the society is run by the workers. Industry will be run by the mass of workers in each plant rather than by a few fat cats in the boardroom as at present. Let's see, is the USSR a socialist society? Well, the Soviet Union is run by the Communist Party which claims to rule in the name of the workers. Sorry, that's not good enough -- the workers must actually have control over their own lives. So the USSR isn't a socialist society, even though the means of production are government-owned. Let's call that type of society "bureaucratic collectivism" (that has a sufficiently nasty sound). Democratic socialism, in contrast to Leninist socialism, means truly democratic control of the means of production, an extension of democracy into the economic realm. So that's a brief description of socialism. Let's have some discussion of democratic socialism on the net. I enjoy reading the discussions of libertarianism, but I don't understand why so large a percentage of the articles are devoted to it. Libertarianism is a shallow ideology which defends private privilege, not public liberty. I invite all libertarians to buy a one-way ticket to Bhopal, India, where they will not have to deal with OSHA or EPA which are destroying our precious freedom in the USA. I have been following the discussion of libertarianism for several months, and I haven't seen any trace of awareness on the part of libertarians of the questions Marx raised about our society in his profound analysis of capitalism. Nor do I recall seeing any answers to the following questions, although I'm sure they've been asked before. Libertarians seem to believe that that society is best in which coercion is minimized. So far I haven't seen any arguments as to why we should accept this assertion. What about other values: democracy, order, stability, communal harmony, caring for one's fellow man or woman, fulfilment of human potential, equal opportunity? Do they have a place in the good society? Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of coercion. But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power to effect one's will. A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man to do what he wants because he lacks means. Does it ever occur to libertarians that taking some of the rich man's wealth and giving it the poor man can increase the poor man's freedom and result in a net increase in freedom? I doubt it, because libertarianism is a defense not of freedom but of capitalist privilege. True freedom also implies knowledge. In our society most people's political opinions are formed to a great extent through a process of indoctrination. Their beliefs, habits, and preferences are shaped by outside influences. The fact that people are not threatened by physical force does not make them free. Socialism aims to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power over another simply because he possesses property. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (12/28/84)
>From: mwm@ea.UUCP >Hmm, looks like you have two tests here. The first one "a society is >socialist if it is run by the workers." If administrators/managers are >workers, then every society is socialist. If they aren't, then worker >actually means producer. So, in a truly socialist society, there are no >managers - every worker takes time out to manage a little. > >The second test is "industry will be run by the mass of workers ...". In >other words, to "own" part of a production plant, you must work in it. Fair >enough - I think I could tell such a system from the outside. However, it >will still leave a class distinction between those who own part of the >means of production (workers) and those who don't. The lower class now gets >to starve, without the option of trading their labor for food. It *does >not* keep people from starving, as has been claimed several times on the >net. This test also suffers from the workers/managers dichotomy, so once >again there are no socialist states (yet). > I would define socialism differently. It is democracy and humanism extended to the economic sphere. Thus, everyone affected by an economic decision has the opportunity to have some say in that decision. There are still managers, they are just subject to some democratic control. As for your argument about the poor, socialism must teach social solidarity. It must say that all suffer if anyone is downtrodden, all must rise together. There are many possible models for implementing socialism. One is being tried by the Swedes. There special funds have been established (called "wage-earner funds") that gain capital from two sources: a tax on wage increases and a surtax on "excess profits" (defined as above 20% or so). These funds are administered by locally-elected bodies for the purpose of buying stock and providing seed capital to new industries. The economist who developed the idea predicts that within twenty years, the wage-earner funds will own the majority of stock in all Swedish firms. The effect of this is not necessarily to stiffle innovation or impose bureaucracy on corporations, but to provide some democratic input into investment decisions. The establishment of the seed capital pool (something like 3% of the total holdings of the funds are earmarked for investment in new industries and higher-risk stocks) can provide transition to new industries in Sweden -- but provide it with some long-range view and popular support. Bottom-up, as it were, rather that the top-down approach so much in favor in the U.S. Mike Kelly