Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: What is socialism?
Message-ID: <1375@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 19:03:22 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1375
Posted: Sat Feb  9 19:03:22 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 22:19:56 EST
References: 
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 56
Summary: 


>>***** 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
> 
>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).  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.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt