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