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