Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: socialism and such
Message-ID: <321@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Sep-84 09:02:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.321
Posted: Tue Sep 25 09:02:06 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 19:46:44 EDT
References: <4343@utzoo.UUCP>, <1123@dciem.UUCP> <4354@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 29

[This sentence is false.]

I'd like to correct Henry Spencer. BOTH Socialism and Social Democracy
are idealogies. Socialism holds that labor ought to own the means of
production, directly (workers as share-holders) or indirectly
(nationalization, the far more usual method). Social Democracy holds
that redistribution of income is a legitmate means to promote social
ends, so long as political rights are preserved. While the two MAY
overlap, they are distinct. Western European parties with either the
label "Social Democrats" or "Socialist" are almost all really Social
Democratic.  Eastern European states and most of the LDC's actually
practice Socialism.

Now for an illuminating example: "Socialist" Sweden is far less
socialistic than "Gaullist" France was. Before Mitterand, the French
government directly owned industries accounting for 16% of France's
GNP (under Mitterand, it has risen to 18%). Under Swedish "Socialism",
redistribution of wealth is practiced vigorously, though the
government operates a far smaller share of the economy.

How to tell the difference? A country is socialistic to the extent of
government ownership of the means of production as a percentage of the
GNP, while a nation is social democratic to the extent of government
spending as a percentage of the GNP.

Watch out for them Saudis! They're the Socialists!

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david