Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Socialism & libertarianism
Message-ID: <553@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 05:20:13 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.553
Posted: Wed Dec 19 05:20:13 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 01:19:10 EST
References: <252@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 175

> ---
>  don't claim to be an authority but I'll try to answer.
> 
> First let's clear away some rubbish.  SOCIALISM DOES NOT, REPEAT NOT, MEAN
> GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.  Americans seem
> to absorb this concept of socialism with their mother's milk, but please try
> to resist the force of habit for a while at least.  
>
> So what is socialism?  As the Industrial Revolution developed it became
> apparent to many that the working class, those who are hired by others to
> work for wages, were getting the short end of the stick in many ways.  They
> were systematically excluded from a life of dignity and satisfaction (they
> still are).  In response to this situation a movement arose for the
> self-emancipation of the working class from its chains.  That, in essence,
> is all that socialism means:  the historical movement of the working class
> to improve its own situation.  All other meanings of the term socialism are
> derived from this primary meaning.  

Socialism DOES mean "the system of of the ownership and operation of the means
of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by
private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in
the work and the products."  This is from Webster's New Universal Unabridged
Dictionary, not my favorite arbitrator, but it is sitting next to the terminal.
You are quite full of it when you claim that, in essence, "the historical
movement of the working class to imrove its own situation" is all that socialism
means.  If the working class chose to improve its own situation by voting on
each and every aspect of government it would not be socialism, it would be
democracy.  If a government consists of a body of lawmakers representing the
people it is known as a republic.  The intent of a group of people, "the working
class" or others, does not determine which form of government they desire, vote
for or live under.  I am a member of the working class and my movements to
improve the situation of every U.S. citizen are directed towards libertarianism.
You do not need to be an expert to state a definition.  I am not an expert
about chemistry, yet given a periodic table I can tell you the atomic weight
of most atoms.  When writing for people who are apt not to hold similar views
it is useful to cite references.  You know where to find my definition of
socialism, tell me please, where did you come up with yours?  I do agree that
the definition quoted in UPPER-CASE is not the same as the definition in
Webster's, as the former is a special-case of the latter.

> Various socialists have emphasized different elements in the new society
> which they desire to create.  But since the situation of the working class
> is a product of capitalism, socialists agree that capitalism has to go.
> This does not mean that all traces of a market economy will be done away
> with.  It does mean doing away with the division of society into those who
> own the means of production and those who do not and hence must sell their
> capacity for labor to the other class in order to make a living.  
> 
> How do you tell if a society is socialist?  It is socialist if the society
> is run by the workers.  Industry will be run by the mass of workers in each
> plant rather than by a few fat cats in the boardroom as at present.  Let's
> see, is the USSR a socialist society?  Well, the Soviet Union is run by the
> Communist Party which claims to rule in the name of the workers.  Sorry,
> that's not good enough -- the workers must actually have control over their
> own lives.  So the USSR isn't a socialist society, even though the means of
> production are government-owned.  Let's call that type of society
> "bureaucratic collectivism" (that has a sufficiently nasty sound).
> Democratic socialism, in contrast to Leninist socialism, means truly
> democratic control of the means of production, an extension of democracy
> into the economic realm.  

For fun with socialism, read "Big Beat vs. Big Brother" in The New Republic,
Dec. 17, 1984 by Josef Skvorecky.  It is really fun, even though it doesn't
have *too* much to do with your ideas of socialism.  It is interesting that
Czechoslovakia now defines itself its government as "really existing social-
ism."  Which leads to my next point...  There unfortunately are no socialist
countries just as there are no libertarian countries.  I do not claim that
there is no way to compare the two ideals.  For socialism, look at anything
designed by committee, for libertarianism, look at anything "designed" by
evolution.  Neither is quite as clean as what could be produced by the work
of a single genius, but with evolution things keep getting more optimal,
with committing things go down the tubes fast.  Of course "evolution in
action" doesn't necessarily imply that the individuals involved have more
fun, just that the net result either works or perishes.  If you believe in
evolution then you believe libertarianism works.  Whether it is "fair" or
not is another issue (surprise, surprise, it is fair also).

> So that's a brief description of socialism.  Let's have some discussion of
> democratic socialism on the net.  I enjoy reading the discussions of
> libertarianism, but I don't understand why so large a percentage of the
> articles are devoted to it.  Libertarianism is a shallow ideology which
> defends private privilege, not public liberty.

I am inspired by your unbiased investigation of libertarianism.  Do you give
lessons?  I suspect the large number of articles devoted to it can be
ascribed to two reasons.  The Libertarian Party is the third largest party
in the U.S.; it is the fastest growing party.  The new is frequently discussed
more than the old (not that the principles are new, just the party).  In
addition, its adherants/proponents are fairly vocal and its opponents are
numerous.  So someone brings up a libertarian idea and five people shout it
down.  Those five messages are replied to by two or three people leaving 10
or more articles...  I enjoy hearing many sides of political issues and before
my school work started getting hairy I had a subscription to "The Progressive,"
"The New Republic," "Inquiry," (rip), "The American Spectator," "U.S. News &
World Report," and "Reason."  I kept the middle of the road: Reason, USnooze,
and TNR and occasionally pick up the others (then of course there is the
Whole Earth Review atrocity...).

> I invite all libertarians to
> buy a one-way ticket to Bhopal, India, where they will not have to deal with
> OSHA or EPA which are destroying our precious freedom in the USA.  I have
> been following the discussion of libertarianism for several months, and I
> haven't seen any trace of awareness on the part of libertarians of the
> questions Marx raised about our society in his profound analysis of
> capitalism.  Nor do I recall seeing any answers to the following questions,
> although I'm sure they've been asked before.

And why don't you buy a ticket to Poland you commie! :-) Seriously, there are
many issues raised by the Bhopal incident, but since it did not occur in our
country it might be hard to get some facts.  Can you name a source of power
that was pushed heavily by the government in the 50's that has potential for
serious damages not just by its use, but from the byproducts it leaves behind?
Did you know that it would have been very hard to get such an industry started
in a Libertarian society because of the necessity of insurance and other
liability requirements?  Give me a break.  OSHA and EPA do not have anything
to do with socialism.  What stops the workers in control from operating
plants that can be injurious to entire communities?  Isn't there a bit of
trouble over in England where some "dirty coal mines" can't be closed down
even though the coal isn't needed because a socialist is leading the labor
unions to strike?  You haven't convinced me that mining unneeded coal is good
for the environment.

> Libertarians seem to believe that that society is best in which coercion is
> minimized.  So far I haven't seen any arguments as to why we should accept
> this assertion.  What about other values:  democracy, order, stability,
> communal harmony, caring for one's fellow man or woman, fulfilment of
> human potential, equal opportunity?  Do they have a place in the good
> society?
> 
> Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of
> coercion.  But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power
> to effect one's will.  A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, even
> though he isn't coerced.  A poor man is less free than a rich man to do what
> he wants because he lacks means.  Does it ever occur to libertarians that
> taking some of the rich man's wealth and giving it the poor man can increase
> the poor man's freedom and result in a net increase in freedom?  I doubt it,
> because libertarianism is a defense not of freedom but of capitalist
> privilege.  True freedom also implies knowledge.  In our society most
> people's political opinions are formed to a great extent through a process
> of indoctrination.  Their beliefs, habits, and preferences are shaped by
> outside influences.  The fact that people are not threatened by physical
> force does not make them free.

Yow!  Remember all the spelling flames of years past?  My next few statements
may evoke some more spontaneous combustion.  Your diction is horrible.  You
are deliberately misusing words.  Again I quote Webster's:

"freedom n.
 1. the state or quality of being free; especially,
    (a) exemption or liberation from the control of some other person or
        some arbitrary power; liberty; independence;"

A totally paralyzed man may not have much ability, but he is not inherantly
lacking freedom.  Neither is the poor person less free than the rich.  Freedom
does not imply knowledge in the least.  Rather than assuming I know what you
mean by "true freedom implies knowledge," I will let you explain it to me and
the net.  While you are doing that you can also prove the lemma that a poor
man is less free than a rich one.

> Socialism aims to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power
> over another simply because he possesses property.
> 
> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

Think carefully about the meaning of the word arbitrary.  Libertarianism aims
to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power over another simply
because he possesses property.  In addition, libertarianism aims to establish
a society in which no entity (government included) has ARBITRARY power over
another for any reason.

	--Cliff [Matthews]
	{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
	{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
	4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque  NM  87108 - (505) 265-9143