Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!imprint
From: imprint@watmath.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Ok, so what is socialism? Re: Down with Democracy!
Message-ID: <5527@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Mar-87 11:40:15 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.5527
Posted: Sun Mar  1 11:40:15 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Mar-87 04:34:34 EST
References: <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <4197@utcsri.UUCP> <3059@watdcsu.UUCP> <5471@watmath.UUCP> <630@sask.UUCP> <747@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: imprint@watmath.UUCP (U of Waterloo Student Newspaper)
Followup-To: Brad Templeton
Distribution: can
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 71

If "theft" is, as Brad Templeton argues, "taking a person's
property against his will", then every kind of community is
guilty, since the objectives of the whole, in any definition
of community, sometimes have priority over those of the
individual. Public works often involves expropriation, the
taking of property against the will of somebody.

If property is extended to include the possession of life
and freedom of action, all military ideas, including all
military action involve "theft", since military ideas
involve forcing people against their will, usually forcing
them to die, or give up property, or give up freedom.

I sympathize with Brad's idealization of individual human
self-determination. Ideally, no one should ever be forced to
do anything against his/her will. But realistically, in a
society of persons where the will of some will always be in
opposition to the will of others, some system of mediation
(which can result in the violation of one person's will) has
to exist. This is not necessarily socialism or communism.
Feudalism and capitalism have lots of means whereby a
community can force some of its members to do things against
their will, or to surrender property against their will.
Communities cease to exist in the absence of some means
whereby the community can assert a pre-eminence over the
individual.

Social responsibility has to do with recognizing when one's
own will is contrary to that of the community. Acceptance
in a community seems to have to do with the willingness to
surrender one's own will on the community's behalf from time
to time.

We live in communities. We have to live in communties, and
most of us want to live in communities. This implies a
sacrifice of narrow self-interest for the interest of the
whole from time to time. While socialism may limit the ways
in which individuals can abuse their societies, such
sacrifices are a part of all human communities.

Can anyone think of a community where participation does not
require that one accept that the community will "steal" from
you from time to time? (i.e. that you accept that the
community has some claim on your time, money, property,
life, behaviour, etc.???)

The problem is not socialism vs. capitalism (or any other
system) the problem is, how do we get along with each other in
such a way that the benefits of cooperation are optimized?

Stated differently, the problem is how do we get along with
each other so that interference with the individual is
minimized? 

Here we see the difference between socialism and capitalism,
perhaps. The problem is the same, the statements are very
different and lead to very different answers. Is the
objective to minimize interference, or maximize benefit?

Doug Thompson (these opinions are mine, not my employer's)

-------------------------------Imprint--------------------------------
|  CSNet: imprint@math.waterloo.edu          Campus Centre Rm. 140   |
|   uucp: {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utzoo}       University of Waterloo  |
|            !watmath!imprint                Waterloo, Ontario       |
| CDNnet: imprint@math.waterloo.cdn          N2L 3G1                 |
|   arpa: imprint%math.waterloo.edu@         (519) 885-1211 x 2332   |
|            csnet-relay.arpa                (519) 888-4048          |
------------------------University of Waterloo------------------------

  Imprint is the student newspaper of the University of Waterloo.