Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Socialism & libertarianism - (nf)
Message-ID: <566@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Dec-84 16:41:40 EST
Article-I.D.: tty3b.566
Posted: Thu Dec 27 16:41:40 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Dec-84 05:50:24 EST
References: <252@gargoyle.UUCP>, <22400069@ea.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 43


 >From: mwm@ea.UUCP
 >Hmm, looks like you have two tests here. The first one "a society is
 >socialist if it is run by the workers." If administrators/managers are
 >workers, then every society is socialist. If they aren't, then worker
 >actually means producer. So, in a truly socialist society, there are no
 >managers - every worker takes time out to manage a little. 
 >
 >The second test is "industry will be run by the mass of workers ...". In
 >other words, to "own" part of a production plant, you must work in it. Fair
 >enough - I think I could tell such a system from the outside. However, it
 >will still leave a class distinction between those who own part of the
 >means of production (workers) and those who don't. The lower class now gets
 >to starve, without the option of trading their labor for food. It *does
 >not* keep people from starving, as has been claimed several times on the
 >net.  This test also suffers from the workers/managers dichotomy, so once
 >again there are no socialist states (yet).
 >

I would define socialism differently.  It is democracy and
humanism extended to the economic
sphere.  Thus, everyone affected by an economic decision has the opportunity to
have some say in that decision.  There are still managers, they are just subject
to some democratic control.  As for your argument about the poor, socialism must
teach social solidarity.  It must say that all suffer if anyone is downtrodden,
all must rise together.  

There are many possible models for implementing socialism.  One is being tried
by the Swedes.   There special funds have been established (called "wage-earner
funds") that gain capital from two sources: a tax on wage increases and a surtax
on "excess profits" (defined as above 20% or so).  These funds are administered
by locally-elected bodies for the purpose of buying stock and providing seed
capital to new industries.  The economist who developed the idea predicts that
within twenty years, the wage-earner funds will own the majority of stock in all
Swedish firms.  The effect of this is not necessarily to stiffle innovation or
impose bureaucracy on corporations, but to provide some democratic input into
investment decisions.  The establishment of the seed capital pool (something like
3% of the total holdings of the funds are earmarked for investment in new industries
and higher-risk stocks) can provide transition to new industries in Sweden -- but
provide it with some long-range view and popular support.  Bottom-up, as it were,
rather that the top-down approach so much in favor in the U.S.

Mike Kelly