zrm (02/18/83)
That one's life is not one's own under socialism hits the nail right on the head. The best argument for this position skips over the never ending theoretical debates on political systems and looks at the fact of the matter in the world today: Socialist countries are the least free, the most oppressive, and the most imperialistic in the world today. The abysmal record of the Comecon countries in both human rights and economic developement is topped only in certain instances by the "unaligned" socialist countries of the third world. On the other hand, citizens of the "capitalist", or mixed-economy OECD countries live in a paradise of civil liberties and economic opportunities. Centrally planned economies wind up being centrally planned disaters because they have taken away control from the shopkeepers, labourers, and small factory owners that are best able to react to economic change. These people no longer own the means of their livelihood or even their homes. Their lives are not their own in all material respects. And to maintain this hold over their people most socialist states wind up abandoning democracy and taking away from their people even more control over their lives. In other words succesful socialism is the tyranny of the many over the individual, and most socialism in practice is just plain tyranny. Furthermore, most Americans DO NOT have a vast ignorance of other political systems. They just know what they like, and they don't like the Gov'mint telling them what to do. Like it says on the licence plates: "Live free or die!" Cheers, Zig
mmt (02/20/83)
It's pretty hard on Socialism to equate it to what the Comecon countries do. They don't run Communism either. Socialism has its place, as does Capitalism, and neither is suited for dealing with EVERYTHING in a country. Remember, the Government is US in a democracy. Socialism is US doing together what we can't do individually. Do you want individuals to fund our highway system? I want a good road all the way to my door, not just past my house. I can't do that for myself; it needs cooperation. There are lots of cases like that. As for the planning aspect of Socialism, the economy is too complex to plan entirely in the absence of both theory and data. We would all probably do better if good forecasting and planning were possible, but it isn't. So, the best bet in many cases is to let people individually do what they think will be best. Overall, it probably gives a better result for most people, since the health of those who got it right will tend to drag upwards the lot of those who didn't. But there has also to be a safety net to support the ones who otherwise would be a drag on everyone. As I wrote to Tom Craver (who then put it on the net), it is in everyone's own self-interest to support the undeserving poor, because that provides an environment with the best possibilities for mutual success. So -- Socialism when it's best that we combine and plan for the future, Capitalism to take advantage of opportunities. Lets have the best of both worlds, and not damn either out of hand. Martin Taylor
ka (02/21/83)
I think that Zig is confusing the difference between capitalism and socialism with the difference between democracy and totali- tarianism. "One's life is not one's own ..." describes the difference between the latter two ideas, not the former two. The best argument for this [Zig's] position skips over the never ending theoretical debates on political systems and looks at the fact of the matter in the world today: Socialist countries are the least free, the most oppres- sive, and the most imperialistic in the world today. "The fact of the matter" is that many countries are oppressive, some of them socialist and some of them not. Russia is imperial- istic (and was before it became communist), but how many other imperialistic countries are socialist? Making accurate comparis- ons between socialist and nonsocialist countries as groups re- quires a lot more work than I am willing to put into the task. If anyone wants to rate each country on a scale as to how social- istic it is and how oppressive it is, I would certainly like to see it. Even that would only show the existance of a correla- tion, rather than proving cause and effect. ... people no longer own the means of their livelihood or even their homes. Their lives are not their own in all material respects. How many people own the means of their livelihood in the United States today? Many people do own their own homes, but that is at least partially due mortage rates artificially lowered by the government--the sort of government intervention in the economy which conservatives are supposed to despise. More to the point, what really is the great advantage of owning your own home rather than renting it? And to maintain this hold over their people most social- ist states wind up abandoning democracy and taking away from their people even more control over their lives. I cannot think of a single example. Off the top of may head, I can think of two cases where democracies have been replaces by dictatorships: the current government of Argentina, and Hitler in Germany. Both these were non-communist--in Reagan's terms, merely authoritarian rather that totalitarian. In other words succesful socialism is the tyranny of the many over the individual... That's a good definition of pure democracy, not of socialism. Replace the word tyranny with a less loaded word, and you accu- rately describe definition of the social contract theory of government that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence. ... and most socialism in practice is just plain tyranny. If you have a dictatorship, you probably have tyranny no matter what philosophy the government nominally follows. Do you think that thing such as laws granting unions the right to strike, or the social security system (both bona-fide socialist programs which were in the platform of the American communist party) are examples of tyranny? Kenneth Almquist
mat (02/21/83)
Kenneth Almquist cites Social Security and the right of unions to strike as two socialist policies which are good and which are not tyrranical. Regarding S.S. all you have to do is look at back articles on this group and in net.misc . Regarding the right of a union to strike, I would contend that the stucture of labor organizations in this nation is indeed tyrranical. Most unions have the power to cripple a whole industry, or a whole municipality. They can take the investments of hundreds of stockholders, or the well--beeing of millions of residents and use these as hostages with which to bargsin. Now if you are abandoning private property, investments don't amount to buffalo chip. So what is the problem? The fundamental problem is this: Under capitalism, If I choose to use some of my earned wealth (read that my labor, or my time) to build or purchase some other means of production, then I can do so, and what I have built or bought is MINE. I have that freedom. If I have ability, perserverence, and luck, then I have got the right to build a new niche in the economic system. This is forbidden under socialism. That prohibition is both immoral (slavery and confiscation) and foolhardy, because if what I am doing is not harmful to the society (and it presuambly isn'T, or it would be illegal, and we are, I hope talking about remaining within the law) and is is profitable, someone else will benefit. If this activity is useful to many, it may grow and be imitated. This is how an economy grows. Without growth, and improvement in productivity and the rest, an economy will almost inevitably stagnate and die. Look at what happens to protected industries around the world. Socialism assumes that committees and beaurocrats can do a better job of managing an enterprise than someone on the spot who has something to gain by doing it well. Both socialism and big labor are guilty of the following: Arguing over who's going to get what part of yesterday's economic pie (chart) instead of baking today's (bigger) pie or gathering the materials and the know--how to build tommorrows economic pie. We in the computer sciences should look at the most successful and most complex machine of all time: the telephone system. Because it is distributed, and not wedded to control by a central node, it is almost immune to large scale, massive failure. It is probably the most complex system ever built by man, and it performs with extraordinary reliability. It can do this because the system's parts are reasonably autonomous, even though they are highly integrated. How about an end run around the whole socialist/capitalist question -- a corporate structure wherein employees, over time, gain stock in the organization, and one in which the stockholder's meeting takes on the appearence of the New England town meeting. This invalidates the premise of socialism that ``the worker NO LONGER'' owns the means of production. He DOES own the means of production. A tough labor union won't help him, because money that lands in his pocket as a salaried worker isn't available to him as a stockholder -- and if the wage demand of a labor organization were to drive the corporation bankrupt, he would lose the value of his stock in the firm. Yes, there are some companies with this much participation. Read the LAST chapter of ``A Few Minutes with Andy Rooney'' Mark (The Capitalist) Terribile -hou5e!mat
mmt (02/22/83)
Mark (The Capitalist) Terrible's idea about what capitalism should be (worker-shareholders) is actually what SOCIALIST Sweden does. (And other West European countries with good economic records and frequent Socialist Governments). Socialism isn't mind control; it isn't Communism; it doesn't prevent you being an entrepreneur if you want. At least in Canada, the Socialist party seems to be the one best in tune with both the economic and the social needs of the country most of the time. The German Wirtschaftwunder occurred under both Christian Democrat (Right-wing) and Social Democrat (Left wing) governments, and both of those parties would be considered radical socialists by many Republicans. People don't seem repressed in most of Western Europe; some of them are rich, but few are starving. Lots of them go to the Riviera or Spain for holidays (try driving in France in August). It might be better to look at what Socialism does rather than flame at theoretical hobgoblins. (I don't think of myself as a Socialist, because I disagree with lots of what they want, but I don't think of them as devils either. They are just the best of what we have on offer. Perhaps I am a Libertarian Socialist at heart.) Martin Taylor P.S. Taxes that are too high on the rich can be devastating, as in Sweden, but that's not a function of Socialism alone. Incidentally, it is in part because of attitudes like those of Mark Terrible that Europeans get so thoroughly browned off with the US from time to time.
zrm (02/22/83)
Mr. Almquist believes I am confusing the "Socialist" governments of, say Austria, where I lived for 1.5 years, with the socialist (their terminology) Comecon countries. Well, living a half hour's drive from Eastern Europe itself, I don't think that I ever foirgot which side of that border I was on. The SPOe has been in power in Austria since the Soviet Union gave up its occupation in the fifties. The government owns most of the big heavy industry concerns and ALL the banks in the country. It does not own most consumer goods ventures and most of the "sunrise" enterprises in electronics and such. This is a mixed economy, and the concept of private property is firmly embedded in the constitution and laws. Half an hour east is Hungary, probably the most livable of the Comecon countries. There all major enterprise from department stores to distilleries to almost all factories are state owned. One could quibble without end as to the differences between these two countries, but the drive from Vienna to Budapest, the foci of the Austro-Hungarian empire, would make it clear in anyone's mind that Austria embraces "capitalism", and Hungary has had "socialism" forced upon it. I don't think I could confuse the two. Cheers, Zig
turner (02/24/83)
#N:ucbesvax:7100002:000:7634
ucbesvax!turner Feb 21 17:05:00 1983
Oh, Ziggy, here you go again:
The best argument for this position [anti-socialist] skips over
the never ending theoretical debates on political systems and
looks at the fact of the matter in the world today: Socialist
countries are the least free, the most oppressive, and the most
imperialistic in the world today.
I can make an argument against socialism that doesn't make reference
to this "fact of the matter," but I'll save it for later. I'd rather
get into this so-called fact. Here, taken from your note, is a hierarchy
of evil as measured in terms of human rights abuses.
worst: certain "unaligned" socialist countries
2nd worst: Comecon countries
best: "capitalist" or mixed-economy OECD - which are
"paradises of civil liberties and economic
opportunities."
Of course, there are a few trifling ommisions from this attempt
at a comprehensive list: South Korea, South Africa, Indonesia, the
Philipines, Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Haiti, among others.
Now compare these with those in your "worst" list. Using the
best available figures (and I think Amnesty International does a good
job on all counts, including ther Commmunist countries), we find that,
perhaps Kampuchea and Vietnam compare with some of the worst, but
by and large, the situation in "unaligned" socialist countries (say,
Cuba or Yugoslavia) is not one where people are being randomly murdered
and whole villages being wiped out.
Now look at the economic systems in these countries. By and large,
you might have some state-owned sectors (Oil, for example), but for
the most part, they are "capitalist". So it would seem that there
isn't much relation between basic freedoms and economic systems.
(Obviously, I hold the right to live regardless of one's beliefs to be
more basic than any economic rights. You, Ziggy, may object, saying in
your dogmatic way that when we lose THOSE rights, we automatically lose
the right to life. But look again at that list.)
Well, what IS the most common factor in THIS list of human-rights
violators? Barring some obvious cases (Iran, for example, which is
as bad or worse than before), the common element is that they all
have as a central economic policy the encouragement of investment on
the part of the capitalist "paradise" countries. Another common element
is the presence of U.S. aid to police and armed forces, except where
the disgust of U.S. congress (or its constituencies) has barred this
sort of aid.
How is this aid used? Quite frequently, to prevent people from
exercising an economic right which even you, Ziggy, would have to
grudgingly admit is inalienable: the right of workers to collectively
and freely bargain with their employers over issues of pay and control.
That is, the right to sell one's own labor under the best possible
conditions one can obtain. Yes, even as Alexander Haig wept crocodile
tears over the military crackdown on Solidarity and the detainment of
Lech Walesa, he was renegotiating aid to Turkey and Brazil, where labor
leaders of Walesa's prominence are shot in the streets without
judgement or trial. Note that Lech Walesa is now back on the streets,
without a job, but getting his full electrician's pay. Not to argue
for the Polish generals, but they do seem to know how to handle the
population better than some of the dictators propped up in the U.S.
sphere of influence!
And how does the suppression of this economic right to organize
a workplace serve American interests to the extent of the aid given?
Or does it, ultimately? In the short run, of course, people in the
U.S. and other "capitalist paradises" win out: they can buy commodities
which were "fabricated" in the <blank-out> countries at much lower
prices. Labor that would cost 5$/hour here might cost $5/day over there.
But this discount is gained at the real expense of the life and liberty,
of the people who work in <blank-out> countries. But then Marxist
revolutionary comes around and says: it doesn't have to be this way.
And what do they do? Ziggy, what would YOU do? With your younger
children not eating, your older children in jail, getting paid less
each year in real income?
How else is this clout used? In many of the <blank-out> countries,
we find the left-overs of feudalism of the former colonizers. The
economy is largely agrarian and impoverished, with some very wealthy
people at the top who have inherited their positions. (Or, at least,
were the local mafia until the client state - France, Britain, the U.S. -
decided that the old feudal lords were too soft and installed these
crooks. This is what happened in VietNam. Read "The Politics of Heroin
in South-East Asia.") Large foreign agribusiness concerns come into these
countries and help erect farming systems which squeeze the marginal
peasant populations off their land. The governments are basically their
paid gun-men. The large-scale graft networks of United Fruit in Guatemala
is a prime example of this strategy. Former small land-owners fall prey
to much larger ones backed by troops, and end up as peons with no homes,
no rights, and less than they had before.
But you would summarize socialism to these people as follows:
In other words succesful socialism is the tyranny of the many
over the individual, and most socialism in practice is just
plain tyranny.
Not very persuasive, though, if you have lived under the tyranny of
the very many by the very few, is it? But this is what goes on in the
<blank-out> countries. And who benefits from this? The "capitalist
paradises". And would THEY change it? No, because they
...just know what they like, and they don't like the Gov'mint
telling them what to do.
Right. The Gov'mint can tell the <blank-out> countries what to do,
but not us, who are getting fat on those police-states. THAT's not
your vaunted free enterprise, now is it?
Well, just drop me a line the next time you want to skip over some
never-ending debates on political systems and go straight to the
real evidence. I might save you some embarassment.
[Entering Confession Mode:]
Hey, Ziggy, listen: I was once a Libertarian hard-liner. No wait!
come back! It's true! I read Ayn Rand when I was thirteen, and it took
me a decade to get self-deprogrammed. I'm serious. It took me 10 years
to become disillusioned with laissez-faire capitalism. If the world were
already pretty straightened out (i.e., approximate equality of nations,
or no nations at all and equality of people) it might be a great idea.
But it is not the one true answer to all the world's problems. Especially
if it blinds you to what the world's problems really are, which is what
it did to me. Capitalism imposed at gun-point is no better than Communism
at gun-point.
Equally seriously: I'm grateful that I was a Libertarian. It
means that I can stand up to doctrinaire socialists (and there's a lot
of 'em in Berkeley) with the reasons why THEY are full of shit. My
view of the ideal society is, I think, closer to yours than theirs.
But you'll have to shed some illusions and do some reading before we
can really talk.
My Last Flame at You (I Promise!)
Michael Turnerlloyd (02/26/83)
I have a basic problem with this "discussion" of socialism; it appears to consist primarily of opinions formed from stories about the ism, rather than actual experience. In this sense the articles provide as much new information as Reader's Digest. so flamed I talk quite often with a woman from China (yes, she is in this country for advanced education; no, I do not accept the current superiority of some of this countries institutions as any statement about all of same). I also have friends from Iran, Israel, Greece, Italy, etc...., and based on their experiences can honestly say that the system of government used is less important to the commoner (as I count myself) than the purpose to which that government is directed.