Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: reply to Henry Spencer {socialism and such}
Message-ID: <962@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 25-Sep-84 12:20:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.962
Posted: Tue Sep 25 12:20:02 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 03:37:59 EDT
References: <2769@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 18

One more comment on Henry Spencer's assertion that small-s socialism
stands for the government as sole employer: even when socialism does
advocate central coordination of economic life etc., it doesn't nec-
essarily mean state control.  The "utopian socialist" Charles Fourier
envisaged large factory-centered communities that would be effectively
or actually (can't recall for sure) self-governing.  What  categorizes
this scheme as socialist is coordination of the whole economy for a 
communal purpose; the "political" means for doing this could conceivably
range from direct democracy to representation to committees.

What seemed to distinguish Fourier from contemporaries that were given
or adopted the label small-c communism is the smaller scale and greater
intimacy and demands of the communistic societies.  The socialists
had a more public and impersonal interest in administration: they were
promoting schemes for the organization of entire nations; the communists
were primarily interested in small communities and the character of daily
life and personal relations.