Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: What is Socialism
Message-ID: <1087@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Sep-83 02:46:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1087
Posted: Sun Sep 18 02:46:23 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Sep-83 05:55:43 EDT
References: <1823@allegra.UUCP>, <1065@utcsstat.UUCP>, <214@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 77


Mike Kelly writes:

	Laura, let's be clear on the difference between democratic
	socialism and an authoritarian one-party communism.  Unless you
	want me to demolish your ideals on capitalism based on examples
	like Chile and South Africa.

I doubt that you will demolish my ideas on capitalism. I think that you
have been doing the 'capitalism or socialism' debates too long. I dont
like capitalism. I just like it a lot better than socialism.


	No one I know considers Poland "socialist".  The socialist
	countries we're talking about really exist only in transition
	in Western Europe: countries such as Sweden and France are
	making the transition from social democracy to democratic
	socialism.  What's the difference?  Primarily in control.

Lot's of people I know consider Poland socialist. Remember, a few days
ago I posted "let us be clear whether we are talking about ideal
socialism or the ones in practice". Poland is a pretty good example of
what happens when there are severe problems in defining "the common
good". Solidarity cannot define it in a way acceptible to itself. The
government cannot define it.  The Pope cannot define it. What happens
to socialism when one cannot define "the common good"? In practice,
somebody defines it, and the ones opposed to this definition either
decide that their other ideas are wrong, or have a revolt. If you have
a very messy revolt, like they had in Poland, then people begin to say
'well, real socialism would never produce this, so Poland is not
socialist'.

However, those of us that feel that "the common good" is a lot of BS,
and that there IS NO SUCH THING and that defining a government in terms
of this non-entity is a VERY BAD IDEA which is bound to result in a
situation akin to Poland's (though perhaps not as messy) unless the
entire nation is brainwashed to believe the government CAN define the
common good. But in that case, I presume you would call that 'not
socialism' as well.

	Social democratic countries conceed that privately-owned
	corporations should make the important economic decisions and
	occupy themselves with distributing benefits of economic growth
	more equally.

Not always. Some times the assumption is that the privately owned
corporations should make the economic decisions and that any
'distribution of the benefits' will not be part of their duties -- it
will just fall naturally out of the system. Of course, this is not the
position of the person who supports a government as a 'distributer or
the wealth' via social programs and welfare and subsidised what-nots,
but these beliefs are not hold by all 'social democrats' around here.
Perhaps the should be. They word is getting awfully over-used.

	Socialist countries do not accept that any body not subject to
	public control should have any significant role to play.  The
	difference is more than just that, of course, but that's the
	gist.

This is not the gist. the gist is a philosophical difference in the
nature of responsibility, value and measurability which is reflected in
the attitudes towards bodies 'not subject to public control'. Since I
find the basic philosophy of Marxism, and all derivatives inherantly
flawed, it is not surprising that i find that all supposedly socialist
countries that I have ever visited to reflect these flaws.


	Please let's get this "I know people who say how terrible the
	USSR is and why anyone would want to live there..." BS and
	concentrate on a substantial discussion.

I hadn't mentioned the USSR at all, except in a discussion of the KAL
007, where I didn't mention the quality of life in the USSR at all.


laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura