From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 12:57:35 MDT
On Saturday 26 October 2002 10:05, Charlie Stross wrote:
> ...
> it so distorts the meaning of the term "socialism" as to render it
> meaningless. The more common definitions include "a state wherein the
> workers own the means of production" -- what, in your comment about
> the power of arbitrary life or death, bears on the ownership of the
> means of production?
Isn't that syndicalist anarchism? I'm not sure, but it sounds like it to me.
Socialism always seems to assume that there is some large government to take
care of things. I *think* that both sides agree on that.
>
> ...
> You also need to bear in mind the divergence between theory and practice.
> In theory, the free market should be the most equitable and ideal way of
> reconciling the production of wealth and the requirements of individual
> liberty. In practice, the "free market" system we've got today kills
> thousands of children each day by starvation and disease. It's as big a
> split as the split between the theories of socialism and its implementation
> in, say, the Soviet Union under Stalin.
I have a problem with this. To me if theory and practice don't match, then
the theory doesn't apply to the situation, and you need a different one to
cover that area. That said, I'm not convinced that the "free market" ever
yields optimal results, though in many circumstances it's better than most
other methods. The problem is that the only place one ever sees a free
market is in unregulated areas of commerce. Neighbors exchanging favors for
a cup of sugar, etc. Once significant amounts of money get involved, the
monopoly powers take steps to ensure that it ceases being free. This applies
to drug lords as well as national governments. They get their rake-off by
favoring certain parties at the expense of others, and taking a share from
each transaction.
>
> > Surely as educated men and women in the 21st century we can aspire
> > to something more than that.
Education and capital don't affect the essential desires and goals of a
person. It primarily affects the tools that are available to achieve them.
Attila was quite successful with only a slight technical advantage (and a
huge morale advantage). But that doesn't stop certain modern leaders from
endeavoring to achieve similar goals. (I.e., to turn the world into a
pasture for their horses to graze on ... updated appropriately.)
>
> What we can aspire to is a very interesting question, and one that deserves
> consideration. But I don't think we can discuss it effectively if we can't
> agree to use the language and terminology so that words mean the same
> things each time we use them. "Words mean what I want them to mean" may
> have been fine for Humpty-Dumpty, but it's a lousy foundation for
> scholarship.
That's glory for you. Actually, I don't believe that you should take the
surface meaning here. Glory is cognate to gory, and when he translate
"That's glory for you" as "That's a nice knock-down argument" he was perhaps
being more cynical than arbitrary.
>
>
>
> -- Charlie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:48 MST