Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Reply to JoSH on socialism
Message-ID: <210@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 22:16:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.210
Posted: Wed Oct  9 22:16:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 15:36:59 EDT
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 79

A couple of months ago JoSH wrote an article in which he explained
what he saw as the difference between socialist and libertarian
points of view.  He wrote:

>This may come as a shock to you, but I flatter myself that I *do*
>understand the socialist point of view, and I can even tell you what
>is wrong with it in a very few words.  Socialists view the people of
>the world, and their economic interactions, as a great machine or
>system, and see things that are wrong, and want to fix them.  (Please
>note that I'm assuming here that the socialists are both
>well-intentioned *and* competent!)  Now when you go to fix a machine,
>there are two points to the process that I must point out.  First,
>you change parts or modify the design of the machine without any
>consideration for the well-being of the parts in and of themselves,
>but only to make sure they properly serve the function they were
>intended for.  If they are misshapen you throw them away.  (Consider
>the purges that are a hallmark of the nations that embrace Marxism
>thoroughgoingly.)  Libertarians believe that consideration of the
>individual is foremost, that the rights of people are primary and
>those of groups only derivative.

Who would you say is the most influential socialist thinker, to whom
most socialists appeal as their inspiration?  Most people would agree
that it is Karl Marx.  The fact that Stalin believed in advancing the
cause of the proletariat over their dead bodies does not make this a
defining element of socialist belief, any more than the fact that
some "Christians" have persecuted Jews and heretics make this a part
of "what all Christians believe in."  I suggest we look at the
intellectual father of socialism to see whether Marx's point of view
matches the description given above by JoSH.

It is precisely Marx's most fundamental criticism of capitalism that
it results in the general progress of the collectivity "humanity" at
the expense of individuals.  This has two aspects:  it prevents
many people from realizing their potential for a fulfilling life
(alienation), and it enriches some by the exploitation of others.
Whether Marx was right or wrong, it is indisputable that this is the
core of his indictment of capitalism, evident on even a casual
knowledge of his writings, and anyone who misses this point has not
understood a word of Marx.

>(Consider the purges that are a hallmark of the nations that embrace
>Marxism thoroughgoingly.)

This seems to imply that belief in Marxism implies belief in purges,
which is obvious nonsense.  Show me a passage (there must be dozens
of them) where Marx declares that a large segment of the population
should be exterminated "for the good of society."  

Both Marx and I believe that ultimately only the individual is
morally relevant.  One commonly hears from libertarian types that
socialists "treat people as groups," believe that it is just fine to
sacrifice the individual for the sake of society, or believe that
something other than the individual counts morally.  It is important
to see what utter nonsense this is.  I can find no support for such
views in Marx, and much evidence to the contrary.  In the Manifesto
Marx and Engels describe their ideal as "an association in which the
free development of each is the condition for the free development of
all."  

JoSH's description above as society as a huge machine is exactly how
Marx described the factory system under capitalism, in which the
worker becomes a replaceable cog in a machine, becoming "an appendage
of the machine," to be thrown away (unemployed) when no longer needed
by the great capital-generating and -accumulating machine.  His basic
indictment was that men and women, individuals, were compelled to
serve the purposes of this great wealth-generating engine, rather
than the system's serving the purposes and needs of individuals.  I
am perfectly happy to read thoughtful rebuttals to Marx, if you
believe he was wrong in his charges against capitalism (I think a
great deal of what he said was wrong).  But when libertarians show
that they do not even understand the basic charge made by Marx
against capitalism, I am tempted to conclude that they are grossly
ignorant of socialist thought and to question whether they seriously
desire to understand the views of people who disagree with them.

To be continued.
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes