Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <1971@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Feb-85 01:08:55 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1971 Posted: Sun Feb 17 01:08:55 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 06:11:26 EST Lines: 86 Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-137500:inmet:7800303:177600:4282 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Feb 15 12:22:00 1985 >>> Martin Taylor >> Nat Howard > Martin Taylor Nat Howard >***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 11:26 am Feb 13, 1985 > >>>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 8:33 pm Feb 4, 1985 >> >>>In the absence of any possible demonstration, no-one can refute the >>>apparently fantastic claims of utopian life in Libertaria; neither >>>can one refute the claims of those who argue the merits of a true >>>socialist state. All the same, one can look at the performance of >>>different states that tend (slightly) in one direction or the other. >> >>Are you willing to be convinced by your own argument? >> >>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 >> > >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). It is more than passing strange >to hear (from JoSH) that Hitler led a Socialist country (because his >party was called National Socialist) or that Stalin did, or that >Kim Il Sung does. None of these Nazi, Fascist, or Communist dictatorships >approach the socialist ideals as closely as do most Western democracies. Hmmm..... It is true that I made no attempt to judge whether these countries were "really" socialist. I know of no inarguable way to do this. I posted the table because you suggested the comparison between countries which "tended (slightly)" one way or the other -- not between countries which "were" one or the other. It would certainly not be worthwhile to do that because of the obvious difficulty of getting certain socialists to agree that obviously evil or corrupt countries or organizations were socialist, and because of an analogous bias on the part of certain non-socialists. In particular, your saying that Western Democracies approach the ideals of socialism more closely than (say) the People's republic of China strikes me as shaky (after all, wealth, freedom, and relative happiness could be part of those ideals), but I'm certainly willing to concede that one must define socialist ideals before one can argue the point. I am curious, however, by what measure West Germany may be termed more socialist than East Germany, and similarly for Korea and China. You may recall that this discussion began with the difficulty of appraising the merits of Libertaria -- a hypothetical country characterized by little or no government control. If I may shift my ground slightly, I point out that the "more socialist" countries are noted for their high degree of government control, compared to the "less socialist" countries. Whether this is done in the name of socialism is probably not as important (given the difficulty of measuring whether something is "really" socialist). As for your suggestion that I look at Sweden, W. Germany, France, and the UK, consider: of these countries, only W. Germany has, as I understand it, a "twin" that may be used for comparison. That is, of course, East Germany. Am I incorrect in my understanding that East Germany is more socialist than West Germany? Of course, one COULD stretch a point and argue that the US was once part of the UK. In which case: More socialist Less socialist UK 6,191 8,980 :-) The point of my article was that there was a fairly restricted set of pairs countries that one could compare; we seem to be agreed that when one makes the comparison the degree of central control correlates well (inversely) with the per-capita income. I'd be very interested in a correlation of the degree of wealth with the degree of government-permitted inequality of wealth, but I don't have the figures to do it.