Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is socialism?
Message-ID: <21248@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 23:40:09 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.21248
Posted: Thu Feb 7 23:40:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 05:25:38 EST
References: <325@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 124
Xref: watmath net.politics:7486 net.politics.theory:43
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to respond to this article at very
great length, but here goes.
> [...] the ideals of democratic socialism, and of Marx and Engels, do not
> include trampling on the individual for the sake of society.
Actually, Marx thought that socialism could not work without a totalitarian
form of government. I will look for the exact reference, but I returned
all the Marx writings I ever read to libraries long ago.
> [...] where production is geared to the human needs of all and
> the product is distributed equitably;
What's 'equitably'? Who decides? If at least one component of 'equitably'
doesn't reward additional productivity, intelligence, or achievement with
additional 'product', then it just won't work. What's the incentive to put
in extra effort if your reward is the same as with normal effort? The result
is a general malaise where noone works harder than necessary to appear
'about average' - and soon the average level of output slows to whatever
level the workers think they can get away with.
> [...] a society, finally, where man is no
> longer utilized as a means for purposes alien to him.
If a person has a job he considers 'alien' or unpleasant in any way, he
should quit and get another one. He may have to keep it up for a while
until he acquires skills suitable for the other work he's interested in,
but sooner or later he should leave. Or is this allowable in a socialist
system?
> "Socialism has inherited this emancipatory dream from a long tradition of
> democratic revolutionary thinkers; as is well known, their revolutions were
> side-tracked and ended in capitalism -- with individualism frozen in the
> property relationship and opportunity confined to the class of owners.
I disagree entirely. I a capitalist system, opportunity is available to
anyone who can work or who has capital to invest. This doesn't include
everyone to be sure. But that is why the US Constitution starts with
a line which includes 'to promote the general welfare.' It is the
responsibility of any fair society to support those that cannot support
themselves. In our society, we have shoved this responsibility onto the
government - fair enough. It is folly for ANY society to support those
who can support themselves, but just don't wish to.
In a socialist system, opportunity is available only to those who sit on
the 'select committee to decide who does what, where, and when.' Even if
these people are freely elected, there are bound to be people who don't get
a fair shake. (it only takes a large minority to elect people you know.
'Prefect' democracies are a logical impossibility.) If you don't have such
a committee, then all the people can do whatever work best pleases them -
including no work at all. I think a lot of people would choose this last
alternative. But then, who is it that produces the goods and services to
support all these folks?
> [...] and
> that they did not consider the development of the whole a condition for the
> development of each, but on the contrary "THE DEVELOPMENT OF EACH THE
> CONDITION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL."
...
> "But socialism begins with the insight that the whole is more than the sum of
> its parts.
Which of the above is it? Either the parts are more important then the whole
or the other way around. You can't have both.
-------
Well the main two things wrong with Pachter's preface (aside from too many
run-on sentences) are the lack of personal incentive and the requirement
that someone other than the individual makes the 'plan' into which the
individual must fit.
The first point is simple. If you provide incentive (extra food, fuel,
privilages, etc.) then pretty soon those who get this extra wealth will be
trading it for goods and services from his coworkers. A little underground
capitalist economy will emerge. Worse than that of course is that
incentives in the workplace will cause competition between coworkers, at a
higher level, incentives for plant managers will cause competition between
production plants, etc.. Here it is, one of socialism's most hated words -
competition. This is one of the reasons that Marx came to the conclusion
that socialism must be totalitarian; it lapses into capitalism otherwise.
The second part is more subtile. As I pointed out, if there is NO external
force on an individual which directs his choice of employment of residence,
then you will have chaos and, soon, economic collapse. In a capitalist
society the external force is apparent - the individual must take
employment that is sufficiently profitable to support his lifestyle and
that he is qualified to do. He can take any such job that best pleases
him, but he must take one such job (or more). If a person has the same
choice in a socialist society (to take any job he is qualified for, all
jobs are paid 'equitably' so profitibility is not an issue), he will opt
for the job with the best working conditions in the best part of the
country. It will then be very hard to find people to take the unpleasant
but necessary jobs which exist in any large economy. A capitalist system
would react by offering more money for such unpleasant tasks, but that
wouldn't be 'equitable' for a socialist society to do. The result is that
someone (or some group) in the socialist society must decide which
employment is appropriate for each person (another reason Marx decided
that socialism had to be totalitarian). I don't see how this is really
a big blow in the cause of individual freedom.
The above points (and others) have been debated for a hundred years now
and are not any nearer to resolution than they were then. Socialism has
some (very few) good points to it. But a pure socialist society is not
desireable or even of much interest outside the lecture hall.
Note: The above statements about the opinions of Marx are not exactly as
he would have stated them. Although his conclusion that totalitarian
rule was necessary was quite unambiguous, I don't think he ever
actually used the word itself. And his reasoning was much less
straightforward. Marx was a fairly convincing writer and was careful
to state his conclusions and arguements in the least inflamatory
language he could. As I say, I will try to find the reference, but
it's been years.
End or note.
J. Giles
P.S. I'm not a libertarian either (as examination of my previous notes on
taxation will demonstrate). Libertarians have SOME good ideas too,
but a Libertarian society (whatever that is) would seem a bit too
chaotic to be stable.