Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1m.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihu1m!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Obituary
Message-ID: <156@ihu1m.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 20:19:43 EST
Article-I.D.: ihu1m.156
Posted: Thu Dec 13 20:19:43 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 07:24:22 EST
References: <658@sjuvax.UUCP> <22400050@ea.UUCP>, <343@hercules.UUCP>, <4760@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 43

--
[Laura Creighton posits that socialism implies state ownership
and control of all property, then hypothesizes about a basketball
player asking for donations and becoming very wealthy]

>> Both Socialists and Fascists would be likely to say that this is
>> not fair. A Socialist solution would be to make Basketball
>> playing a state run activity where people like Wilt Chamberlain
>> could not make side-profits. A Fascist solution would be, not to
>> nationalise the basketball industry, but to restrict how people
>> can dispose of theier wealth (money) by making such side-profits
>> illegal. (In practice it would be easier to make it illegal for
>> Chamberlain to collect than for the people to spend, but the
>> opposite regulation would be equally fascist.)

>> The great question is, of course, ``is this distinction not
>> highly artificial''? What can it mean to ``own'' property if I do
>> not also have the rights of disposal on it?

>> Laura Creighton

That may be the way fascism works, but not socialism.  Not even
the most utopian of socialist theorists ever suggested that a violin
virtuoso would have to play on a communally-used, state-owned
Strad.  The ownership and control is *ONLY* over the proverbial "means
of production", the physical plants and resources that generate wealth.
By exercising this authority, the state can theoretically guarantee
an equitable distribution of essentials and of opportunity.  Artistic
geniuses are free to use their talents as they see fit.  Citizens
under scientific socialism may buy and sell houses, cars, whatever, but
not the means of production.  Nor, of course, may they exercise the
initiative to create or destroy such instruments, as to do so is to
make a decision about the economy which is reserved for some committee
(at some level or other) because it affects the general welfare.
The line between generating wealth and merely transferring it (like
Wilt's doing in the example) is, however, rather poorly defined.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  13 Dec 84 [23 Frimaire An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7188     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***