Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Reply to JoSH on socialism
Message-ID: <4041@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 21:57:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.4041
Posted: Tue Oct 15 21:57:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 20:29:02 EDT
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 79

Before I start in on this article, I'd like to thank Mr. Carnes for his 
subsequent articles on the works of Arrow and Pareto, etc.  I must say that
Richard has maintained an unusually high level of scholarliness for a 
netnews discussion.


In article <210@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>A couple of months ago JoSH wrote...:
>>...  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. 
>>... 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.  
>>...  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.  ... 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 doesn't.  It is my understanding that Marx spent the vast majority
of his effort erecting a comprehensive economic/historical theory of
conditions up to and during his day, and didn't spend much effort on 
figuring out how the Communist revolution would do things better.
Indeed, as I and other respondents here have noted, what descriptions
of his utopia Marx did give, resemble "Libertaria" as much as any other
proposed system.

Richard's following logic appears to run like this:
-- My description of socialism does not match Marx.
-- I therefore do not understand Marx's basic indictment of capitalism.
-- I therefore am "grossly ignorant" of socialist thought, and
   have no "serious desire" to understand it.

As mentioned before, I don't think Marx has much to do with socialism
as practiced today.  When leading socialist thinkers such as Harrington
begin economics texts ("Twilight of Capitalism") with lame excuses for 
the Russian Communist regime ("bad weather"!!!), I will not be put
off by "but that's not what Marx said."  Socialism, to me, exists 
wherever there is State interference with voluntary economic interactions.

>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.  ...
>
>Both Marx and I believe that ultimately only the individual is
>morally relevant.  

If this is true, I do not see why you aren't a libertarian.  If you
really believe this, how can you support systematic State prior
interference with individual moral decisions?  *If only the individual
is moral, why do you believe in collective control?*

If you do not believe in collective control, please say so, explicitly.

>One commonly hears from libertarian types that
>socialists "treat people as groups,"...  I can find no support for such
>views in Marx, and much evidence to the contrary.

Current-day socialists are strongly connected with efforts to put as
much of the economy as possible under State control "for the public good."  
I am quite ready to believe that Marx was not a great supporter of this
particular style of "revolution," since he believed the State to be a tool
of the capitalists.  However, as before, theoretical Marxism is irrelevant
to modern practical socialism.

However, I seem to recall that Marx based his theory of history on
the idea of the interactions of *classes*, in distinction with then
current ideas which placed considerable weight on the actions of 
*individuals*, typically kings, generals, and religious figures.
So I would claim that Marxist thought, at its very core, treats
people as groups and not as individuals.

--JoSH