Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: What is socialism? Message-ID: <191@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 15:38:59 EST Article-I.D.: ubvax.191 Posted: Wed Feb 13 15:38:59 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 05:34:10 EST References: , <1375@dciem.UUCP> Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 90 (dciem.1944) >>About six months ago, I published a list of >>countries that had been partitioned and divided into more- and less- >>socialist countries, along with their per-capita income. The >>more-socialist nations, North Korea, East Germany, People's >>Republic of China, all had lower per-capita income than their >>"other halves". >> >> >> More-Socialist Less-Socialist >>Germany 7,180 11,130 >>China 347 2,143 >>Korea 786 1,880 >> >>In all cases, the figures are in US dollars. In some cases, the >>figures are from slightly different years (I believe the figure for >>South Korea is from 1982, whereas the figure from N. Korea is from >>1981). Figures are all from the Information Please Almanac. >> >>By your own argument, and where the countries involved are comparable, >>in the sense of starting from a common origin, the socialist nations >>tend to have lower per-capita incomes than the non-socialist nations. >> >>>After accounting for the ENORMOUS natural wealth of N. America, it >>>is astonishing that it is NOT the country in the world with the >>>highest quality of life. >> >>Hmmm..... The Soviet Union could give us quite a run for our >>money there. The energy reserves under Siberia are said to be >>quite large, and as I recall, the Soviet Union was not a net >>importer of oil, at least during the oil crisis. > >Although these countries claim the name of socialist for themselves, >most are simple dictatorships with a centrally planned economy. I think >to be fair, you should include Sweden, W.Germany, France ... among >the "more Socialist" countries (and even the UK, athough Thatcher is >tearing it down as fast as she dare). . . . None of [the Communist >dictatorships] approach the socialist ideals as closely as do most Western >democracies. >-- > >Martin Taylor What do socialist ideals have to do with the economic performance of socialist countries? What is distinctive about socialism is the (relative) absence of private property as a means of obtaining income and/or exploiting others. Although democratic socialists may be right that a socialist economic system doesn't preclude full parliamentary democracy, it certainly doesn't require that democracy either. Capitalism also doesn't require the full Western panoply of political rights. Comparing the socialist and capitalist worlds in economic performance seems perfectly all right to me. Attacking those comparisons by reference to socialist ideals is wrong because socialist countries exist today. Why not use them as examples? Having said that, though, I don't think the specific comparisons of the Koreas, the Chinas, the Germanys, and the USSR/USA say much about socialism vs. capitalism. Additionally, per capita income isn't the right measure. North Korea was practically leveled by the Korean War, while South Korea was left (comparably) untouched. Taiwan benefited from a huge brain drain of Chinese intellectuals and businessmen who left China in fear of Communist reprisals. Neither China nor East Germany nor North Korea got the vast amounts of aid from their bloc which their counterparts received. The entire socialist set of countries (excepting East Germany and Czechoslovakia) began their industrializations at a late period in history. Finally, the leaders of the socialist bloc (East Germany, for instance) had no richer nations to emulate or compete against, as West Germany had the U.S.. The socialist economic environment is both immature and im- poverished. I went to a conference of East European experts recently, where one expert on Hungary and Yugoslavia suggested that the right nations to compare most of the East European states to were the Latin American countries, in terms of time of industrialization and dependency on larger neighbors. East European states don't look so bad compared to Brazil, or Uruguay, or Argentina. They don't have 60% unemployment rates, near bankruptcy, or inflation rates creeping close to 100%. The question is still out on whether the socialist states can advance to a post-industrial stage. I'm not sure they will, especially if they don't permit more limited markets in their economies. But they might liberalize, and more markets wouldn't change their essential status from socialist to capitalist countries. So socialism might yet succeed as an alternate economic system. Tony Wuersch amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw