From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhb5c!mhb5b!smb
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Socialism
Article-I.D.: mhb5b.136
Posted: Thu Feb 24 01:49:54 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 07:00:57 1983
References: mhuxt.1125 <262@inuxd.UUCP>

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to Arlan's flame -- it's so far
wrong, it's really not worth rebutting point by point.  Instead, let me
give a simple justification for socialism.

Definition:  "socialism" is where the *major means of production* are
owned/controlled by the government.  I specifically exclude total government
control of all commerce -- which means I'm specifically excluding the USSR,
China, Eastern Europe, etc.  I am specifically including most of Western
Europe.  Rebuttals based on current Soviet practices will be consigned to the
bit bucket, without further ado.

My reasoning is simple:  any time any person or organization has sufficient
economic power to materially affect the economy of the country (or any
significant section thereof), of its own accord -- then that organization
is capable of materially affecting my life, without my having any say
whatsoever.

That is -- if a small business or 3 decides to maximize its own profits,
without regard to anyone else, I'm probably safe -- the free market does
work at that level, at least moderately well.  If an Exxon or a General
Motors makes such a decision, I have far less choice -- probably none,
since oligopolistic structures exist in the oil and automobile industries.
This is particularly true if the decision they make has profound indirect
effects -- say, increasing air pollution.  Although I'm under no illusions
about the omnipotent benificence of government agencies, they are at least
capable of making decisions on a broader perspective -- such as whether or
not I'll be able to breathe in 50 years.  A corporation operates in a
single metric:  maximizing profit.  (Note that even wrong decisions by a
large company (such as maximizing short-term profit at the expense of
long-term survival) can have profound effects.  At the time of the
Chrysler bailout, it was estimated that letting the company go under would
have cost the government far more, in lost tax revenues, increased welfare
and unemployment payments, etc.  And of course, there are serious
non-economic effects, such as a possible increase in the crime rate in the
affected areas.)

Laissez-faire capitalism operates under the fundamental assumption that
'n' individuals, each seeking their own good, will in effect act to
maximize the good of the entire society.  Neglecting items like economic
coercion (I, and others, argued that one at great length last year in the
Great Libertarian Debate on fa.poli-sci -- and I for one have no desire to
replay it), for that assumption to work we must assume that (a) the system
will reach a steady state, rather than oscillate wildly; (b) regardless of
whether or not it does stabilize eventually, the magnitude of the
intermediate oscillations is not of itself harmful (I have in mind the
boom/bust cycle of the U.S. economy in the 19th century); and (c) that any
steady state reached is not characterized by gross disparities in means,
and thus survival ability.  All of these are unproven, and -- in my
opinion -- not supported by the historical data.

One last point:  the claim has been made (by Arlan, to whom I am nominally
responding, among others) that in a socialist society, one would be
deprived of the innovations by the likes of Intel, Apple, etc.  Wrong!  As
I stated quite explicitly at the start of this overly-long note, I'm only
interested in regulating the *large* economic powers.  Anyone is free to
compete, even with a state monopoly -- until they reached a certain
critical size.


		--Steve Bellovin
		{rabbit,mhb5b}!smb
		smb.unc@udel-relay