orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/21/84)
> > Can you point to a single instance of a socialist economy working better > than a capitalist economy in the same sort of conditions? Or for that > matter, of a real communist utopian state evolving out of a socialist > state, as Marx predicted? I don't know what sorts of attacks on capitalism > te origonal poster was refering to, but most of them that I have heard > involve the "social injustice" of capitalism. They seldom consider the > social injustice in socialist countries, which is certainly much greater > than in most capitalist countries. > > Wayne It all depends on what you mean by such terms as "socialist", "capitalist", and "Marxist". It also depends on how you evaluate "success" of an economic system (or particular policies). The Soviet Union has had an average growth rate over 5% for the past 20 years. This is actually better than our growth rate of about 3-4% (growth in GNP, a dubious measure anyway) Their citizens do also get certain benefits we do not: guaranteed health care, education, and food. On the other hand other consumer goods are in short supply and housing, while also guaranteed for all, is very tight. But I don't think those measures represent success. Civil liberties ARE an important thing to consider in evaluating economic success in my judgment. But is the Soviet Union the only "socialist" economy? How about Sweden which has extended the welfare state the farthest. Sweden has the highest per capita income in the world. Several years ago Sweden went ahead of the US in this category. Sweden is also far ahead of the US in some key measures of public health such as infant mortality rate. Our farm system has been enormously successful- I would argue BECAUSE of government aid and assistance. Does this mean our farm system is "socialist"? Not necessarily, obviously since it is still largely controlled by market forces, and because each farmer is a capitalist of sorts, owning her/his own means of production. I think libertarians confuse many concepts when they fanatisize about the horrors of any form of government and the wonders of the free market. On the one hand there is the theoretical argument for the efficiency of free markets when they meet key conditions. I think this argument is valid in many cases. In many other cases, (fluctuating supply of agricultural products for example, monopoly power, public goods), it is not. The free market itself also assumes a certain amount of government- like somebody to back up a universal rate of exchange (ie MONEY), somebody to enforce contracts, etc. Some libertarians seem to forget even this absolutely necessary role of government (whatever form it takes, whether it is called a government, a monarchy, a corporation, whatever) Libertarians also tend to assume that ANY government intervention or aid destroys a free market and its theoretical efficiency. This is not necessarily so. If the government breaks up monopolies which threaten to undermine the very conditions under which a free market achieves its efficiency then how is this bad? The government is trying to make the market more closely approximate a theoretical free market. tim sevener whuxl!orb