Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!ism780!jim
From: jim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Modern Socialism
Message-ID: <39@ism780.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Sep-83 18:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780.39
Posted: Mon Sep 19 18:28:00 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Sep-83 21:04:59 EDT
Lines: 126

There are many Amerinds living in houses built of uranium tailings (normal
by-product of the mining process) here in the U.S.  I don't have any way of
knowing, but I strongly suspect that tailings are the primary source of the
Polish radioactive building materials too, rather than Laura's rather
fanciful (and ideologically motivated) explanation
"Russia just wants so much enriched uranium,
and we produced lots more -- this will look bad, so dump it back
into the mine, where there is gravel that is later used to make the
bricks that go into the housing materials."

I think, Laura, that for you to bring up this practice, which occurs
in both the U.S. and Poland, in the course of a discussion about the
availability of housing in socialist countries, severely cuts into your
credibility as an objective analyst who wants to seriously discuss the
viability of socialism as a potential political system.  Most Socialists
in the West (that is, those operating in nations, such as the U.S., which
provide them with a significant amount of intellectual freedom) do not
consider Poland to be a socialist nation, as even the slightest review of
their writings would reveal.  And pointing out specific practices of
specific nations without discussing how the origin of the practices is an
outgrowth of the political system you are criticizing contributes nothing.
I suggest that such practices are a expectable result of depending upon
either an "invisible hand" or a centralized bureaucracy for making decisions;
the necessary feedback and controls are lacking.  Building working social
systems is hard work; to believe that after a mere two centuries of modern
political development, "capitalism is a terrible system but it is the best we
have" (forgive me, Winston) is in any way conclusive is an insult to the
creative spirit of humanity.

I agree with you that it is important to distinguish between
Socialism as an ideal and those governments which claim to be Socialist
(I would avoid the phrase "Socialism in practice" because it helps to obscure
the distinction).  So, to help us know the enemy, I quote from
the Encyclopedia Americana:

SOCIALISM, a term used to describe a cooperative social order which millions
of men and women throughout the world have long been seeking to obtain.
It has been likewise used to designate a certain philosophy of historical
development and a method of analyzing and interpreting social phenomena.

The Goal of Modern Socialism.--As a proposed cooperative social order,
socialism may be defined as a social system under which the principal means
of production and distribution are socially owned and democratically managed
for the common good within the framework of a democratic political structure.

Public, Cooperative, and Private Industry under Socialism.--One of the most
authoritative statements made in modern times concerning the goal of
socialism was that adopted by the Socialist International in 1951.  It reads
in part as follows:

   "Socialism seeks to replace capitalism by a system in which the public
interest takes precedence over the interest of private profit.  The immediate
economic aims of socialist policy are full employment, higher production, a
rising standard of life, social security and a fair distribution of incomes
and property.
   "In order to achieve these ends production must be planned in the interest
of the people as a whole.
   "Such planning is incompatible with the concentration of economic power in
the hands of a few.  It requires effective democratic control of the economy.
   "Democratic Socialism therefore stands in sharp contradiction both to
capitalist planing and to every form of totalitarian planning; these exclude
public control of production and a fair distribution of its results.
   "Socialist planning can be achieved by various means.  The structure of
the country concerned must decide the extent of public ownership and the
forms of planning to apply.
   "Public ownership can take the form of the nationalization of existing
private concerns or the creation of new public concerns, municipal or
regional enterprise, consumers' or producers' cooperatives.
   "These various forms of public ownership should be regarded not as ends in
themselves but as means of controlling basic industries and services on which
the economic life and welfare of the community depend, of rationalizing
inefficient industries or of preventing private monopolies and cartels from
exploiting the public.
   "Socialist planning does not presuppose public ownership of all the means
of production.  It is compatible with the existence of private ownership in
important fields, for instance in agriculture, handicraft, retail trade and
small and middle-sized industries.  The state must prevent private owners
from abusing their powers.  It can and should assist them to contribute
towards increased production and well-being within the framework of a planned
economy."

   Under socialism, therefore, as envisaged by the International Socialist
movement, while key industries would be owned and operated by local, state,
regional and federal governmental agencies, the title and management of a
considerable sector of the economy would be in the hands of voluntary
cooperative organizations and private businesses under such public regulation
as is necessary for the protection of the consumer, worker, and the general
public.  Public industry would not be regarded as an end to itself, but as a
means to an end--welfare, happiness, and the cultural development of all the
people.

Socialism and Democracy.--The Socialist International pronouncement
maintained that socialism was impossible without democracy and that it was a
misnomer to call an economic order a socialist society if it functioned in a
totalitarian or dictatorial state.
   As a means of promoting democracy in the operation of industry under
socialism, and of avoiding the bureaucratic abuses, Socialists, as the
International Manifesto declared, urge the strengthening of trade union and
consumer organizations and the democratic association of the workers with the
directors of industry.

Socialism and Internationalism.--The Socialist International also insists
that "the new world society for which Socialists strive can develop
fruitfully in peace only if it is based on voluntary cooperation between
nations.  Democracy must, therefore, be established on an international
scale under an international rule of law which guarantees national freedom
and the rights of man . . . Democratic Socialism rejects every form of
imperialism.  It fights the oppression or exploitation of any people."

Socialism and Communism.--Modern Socialists contrast their social goal
sharply with that found in states dominated by Russian Communists.

   "Communism falsely claims a share in the Socialist tradition (asserts the
manifesto of the Socialist International).  In fact it has distorted that
tradition beyond recognition.  It has built up a rigid theology which is
incompatible with the critical spirit of Marxism.  Where Socialists aim to
achieve freedom and justice by removing the exploitation which divides men
under capitalism, communists seek to sharpen those class divisions only in
order to establish the dictatorship of a single party."

. . .


Jim Balter (decvax!yale-co!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp

--------