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
lloyd (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.