Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: What is Socialism? Message-ID: <546@topaz.ARPA> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 11:47:22 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.546 Posted: Thu Feb 7 11:47:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 05:48:36 EST Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 35 This is in some sense a reply to Carnes' article on net.politics; I'm trying to move the discussion here as he suggested. Quick summary (please tell me if there is any major misrepresentation): "Socialism is not the same as collectivism. Socialism is a humane doctrine which does partake of the all-powerful State. It can be distinguished from other forms of individualism by its dislike of property. However it dislikes State-owned property as much as privately-owned property." Let me make two points. The first is procedural. I cannot accept the term "Socialist" as properly differentiating Mr. Carnes' ideas from Nazism and totalitarian Communism. As I mentioned before, too many people like to parade under that banner. (The same is true of the term "liberal", and as a result its original meaning must be referred to by the unlovely neologism "libertarian".) Thus I suggest the terms of a truce: Both Carnes and I should refrain from using the term "socialist", and use more exact terms. When I mean "totalitarian collectivism" I shall say so, and if what Carnes is referring to is "anarcho-communism" let him use that or other nomenclature of his choice. Point Two. I do not understand how a society without private property can function (in the economic sense) except by political control. It is not obvious how a society *with* private property can function without political control, but I believe that it can (and will explain it at boring length if given half a chance). I ask Mr. Carnes to explain his thoughts on this matter. I am perfectly capable of unheated discussion, and only too happy to leave the flaming to net.politics and Mr. Sevener. En Garde! --JoSH