henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/23/84)
> ....................... If West Germany is not to be considered an > example of socialism because it is capitalist, but China is although > it proclaims itself to be Communist, then where should we use the term? When I call China's economy "socialist", I am referring to the way the economy really *is*, not to the terms the government uses to describe it. Note that the USSR at least is honest about it: the second "S" stands for "Socialist". > Another net correspondent has taken me to task for not distinguishing > between socialists and Social Democrats. For the life of me, I can't > see the difference there... Last I heard, socialism was a economic system and the Social Democrats were a political party. Again, one must distinguish between the map (what things are called) and the territory. I am vaguely aware that there may be a specific economic approach known as "social democracy", but I very much doubt that most Social Democrats even know what it is. > we still need > something to describe the moderate welfare state with limited nationalisation > that lies between your preferred total free enterprise and the Communist > totally planned economy. What shall we call it, if not socialist? How about "semi-socialist"? Note that true socialism *is* a totally planned economy, as found (to a first approximation) in the USSR and China. The differences beween socialism and communism (note the small "c"; again I am talking economic systems, not names or political parties) are a bit more subtle, but both are centrally-controlled economies. The tendency of semi-socialist political parties to call themselves "Socialists" comes from several causes, but mostly it's a question of watering down a specific economic doctrine (socialism) to make it more middle-of-the-road and hence (supposedly) more appealing to the voters. Some "Socialist" parties have done this for so long that they've forgotten what socialism really is; some never really knew in the first place, and just picked the name because it pointed vaguely in the right direction. And some still want real socialism, but have toned down their short-term plans so as to have a better chance of getting votes. Please, let us be precise about terms. Small-s socialism is (roughly speaking) the government as the sole employer, with the net result being central planning of all economic activity. Small-c communism is a bit harder to characterize, and I'm not up on the fine points myself, but it is roughly a utopian "contribute what you can, and take what you need" approach. Sort of socialism without the detailed bookkeeping imposed by money or its equivalent. So far as I know, there has never been a workable long-term example of real small-c communism on a national scale. It can work quite well for small groups, especially if they share some common goal or belief that the members see as being more important than the individual (note that it is important that the individual members really *believe* this). In fact, informal examples of small-c communism are very common, because tightly-knit groups with common goals almost always operate this way to a large extent. "Let's pool our resources, and all pull together, to accomplish X, which we all agree is highly desirable." But it breaks down when numbers get large and the shared vision is lost. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (09/25/84)
[This sentence is false.]
I'd like to correct Henry Spencer. BOTH Socialism and Social Democracy
are idealogies. Socialism holds that labor ought to own the means of
production, directly (workers as share-holders) or indirectly
(nationalization, the far more usual method). Social Democracy holds
that redistribution of income is a legitmate means to promote social
ends, so long as political rights are preserved. While the two MAY
overlap, they are distinct. Western European parties with either the
label "Social Democrats" or "Socialist" are almost all really Social
Democratic. Eastern European states and most of the LDC's actually
practice Socialism.
Now for an illuminating example: "Socialist" Sweden is far less
socialistic than "Gaullist" France was. Before Mitterand, the French
government directly owned industries accounting for 16% of France's
GNP (under Mitterand, it has risen to 18%). Under Swedish "Socialism",
redistribution of wealth is practiced vigorously, though the
government operates a far smaller share of the economy.
How to tell the difference? A country is socialistic to the extent of
government ownership of the means of production as a percentage of the
GNP, while a nation is social democratic to the extent of government
spending as a percentage of the GNP.
Watch out for them Saudis! They're the Socialists!
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david