myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (05/09/85)
> > To have PROPERTY in something, one must have the right to bring-about or > prevent changes in that thing. > Socialism is a social order in which, rather than allowing private > property and markets, decisions about the use of resources are made by > administrative institution (whether it be a bureaucracy or democratic > assembly). Well, this is a rather Stalinist view of what socialism is. My view (and that of many others) is that large clumps of means of production cannot be privately owned, but that small holdings are fine. Many are also convinced that the market process is necessary in a Socialist system in order to help ensure that production fits demand. > Under Fascism, individuals retain POSSESSION of resources, but decisions > about HOW these resources are USED are made by a system of government > institutions. Thus, the possessors do NOT actually have PROPERTY in the > resources. Fascism is a veiled form of Socialism. It's also a veiled form of capitalism: capitalists were still free to enjoy their profits, at least until the war came home to Germany. > It is quite true that most Leftists are horrified by German National > Socialism, and honestly don't recognize it as a true Socialism; but this is > rather like failing to recognize a degenerate cousin spawned by a branch > of the family which inbreeds in Appalachia. I take offense here, being from Appalachia myself. Surely you could have picked a different comparison. Perhaps orcs being degenerate cousins of elves (read your Tolkien)? > Daniel Kian McKiernan -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at MACCWISC
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (05/10/85)
>> [Daniel Kian McKiernan] >> >> Socialism is a social order in which, rather than allowing private >> property and markets, decisions about the use of resources are made by >> administrative institution (whether it be a bureaucracy or democratic >> assembly). > >[Jeff Myers] > >Well, this is a rather Stalinist view of what socialism is. My view (and that >of many others) is that large clumps of means of production cannot be privately >owned, but that small holdings are fine. Where exactly is the threshold between small and large holdings? For example, suppose Harry Fnord owns a dry cleaning shop, which initially contains one machine. If he buys another machine, does he have a large holding yet? How many does he have to own before the Almighty State decides that he has too many and takes one or more away from him? Who decides where this threshold is? What right does the State have to enforce this threshold? How is everyone else to know that this threshold has been set at the correct level? > Many are also convinced that the >market process is necessary in a Socialist system in order to help ensure that >production fits demand. How can Harry Fnord be sure that he will be able to own enough dry cleaning machines to meet the demand for their services, when a bureaucrat from the Almighty State can wander in and take one or more "excess" machines when ever "someone" (Who? Blank out!) decides there is an "excess"?! -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]