Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!billp
From: billp@bronze.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Socialism
Message-ID: <785@bronze.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Oct-83 00:05:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: bronze.785
Posted: Tue Oct  4 00:05:54 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Sep-83 20:53:49 EDT
Lines: 62

>>...And how can people continue to point at the USSR every time
>>they hear the word socialist.

Well, it's just natural that one picks the best example.  The USSR is
much more socialist than Sweden or England.  If one were to discuss the
effects of lots of rain on plant growth, one would point at Oregon rather
than Arizona.

>>In the perspective of history, all western countries are socialist.

It's a matter of degree.  A better way would be to say that "all western
countries are afflicted to some degree with socialism".  Pure socialism
cannot work, it needs some capitalism to survive.

>>Socialism means that the SOCIETY (that means you and me and those people
>>standing at the bus-stop) joins together in their goverment to work for the
>>common good of all people.

WRONG!  Socialism means that the STATE (that means the politicians and party
bigwigs) joins together to work for what it feels is necessary to assure
their survival and expansion of the system.

>>It is possible to have democratic socialism (eg. Sweeden) as well as
>>capitalist dictatorships (eg. several South American countries).

"Capitalist Dictatorships"????    That's like using the phrase "free slaves".
Either free individuals make the decisions about what to do with the
products of their work, or a dictator does.  The former is capitalism,
while the latter is a dictatorship, which is often "fascist", or more properly,
national socialist.  The two are mutually exclusive.

IF IT INVOLVES COERCION, IT CAN'T BE CAPITALISM!

Capitalism is based on FREE individuals, while socialism on a large scale
(there are exceptions in small-scale experiments of volunteers) cannot
work without coercion.  There are always some individuals that do not wish
to surrender their hard-earned property to the state.  The state must be
willing to kill them if they don't, or socialism will collapse.
Granted, in most semi-socialist countries you don't have to kill too many
people, as long as they know that you will never hesitate to do so, and they
all behave and toe the line.  The larger the proportion of socialism in a
system, the more ruthless the treatment of anything that does not fit the ideal.
For the most recent example of socialism in its so far purest form, look at
Pol Pot's Cambodia, where people's noses were closely inspected for the little
dents made by wearing glasses, which implied an education and meant death.
Roughly one third of Cambodia's population perished in that madness.

>>There is nothing wrong with poeple working together for some motive other
>>than money.  

How true!  "Profit" does NOT mean only money.  Assume that you mow the lawn
of your elderly neighbor for just a "thank you".  If you like the warm
feeling that you get from this, that's your profit from the transaction.
The point is that it has to be to be voluntary.  If someone forces you, or
robs your money to have the lawn mowed for "the good of your neighbor",
that's socialism.

Capitalism is the philosophy of life, profit and freedom.
Socialism is the philosophy of death, plunder and despair.

	Bill Pfeifer
{decvax,ucbvax,zehntel,uw-beaver} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp