From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 01:32:49 MST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:00:19 -0500
From: "Alexander Sheppard" <alexandersheppard@hotmail.com>
<<
Well, I say that the USSR was not socialistic, or the PRC, or Cuba, or North
Korea, or North Vietnam, or any of these places. Why? You say I am trying to
define away the evils of socialism. But are these countries socialistic?
What does socialistic mean? Well, I think there is good evidence, a long
tradition of ideas, that stretch back hundreds of years which will support
the idea that socialism was, apart from some fringe elements, always about
workers control. The state entered in, true, in some ideas of socialism, but
in this case the state was only to be a vessel for workers control. It was,
supposedly, to have no power for itself. Now, I think that is ridiculous and
unrealistic to expect-- if you give the state a lot of power, you're going
to get tyranny. But the state was never fundamental to socialism, as far as
I can tell--workers control was much more central.>>
And how does the mob (and I decline to use any other identifier)
"control" a society? It must do so via the state. If it does NOT
do so via the state, but rather by voluntary methods then I have
no issue with socialism. But frankly the high-g overachievers
simply won't play the game. Ask Rafal about this....
<Did the workers control the factories in the USSR? Did workers get to
formulate uncoerced, democratic-type methods for organizing factories,
schools, and other organizations? Well, the answer is a total and utter no.
It was all controlled from above, a complete tyranny. This is why I say that
socialism and the state are incompatible.>
If you don't have the state enforcing your society then how will
you control the dissenters?
How will you cause the last naysayer to join your democracy?
Coercion? Organized coercion? Monopolies on coercion?
Right back to the state.
<But look at the United States. We are not so much better, in fact. True, we
have basic rights which prevent massacre by the gun, and, thanks to the
welfare state, also rights which prevent death by forced starvation, but
essentially industry remains in the hands of private tyrannies. There is no
democratic structure to be had in industry. By democratic, by the way, I do
not mean the tyranny of democracy idea, I mean a loose sort of framework
which respects individual rights and lends power where it is justifiable,
not arbitrarily.>
If you feel this way why not start a "properly democratic" company?
Such an edifice would doubtless be more efficient.. it would be profitable.
Yeah right....
< Even the unions, supposedly the representatives of the
common worker, have grown bureaucratic and corrupt in many ways, largely
because people have not fought to keep them focused. The electoral system is
to a large degree a sham, a mockery of democracy constructed by a system
which has its roots in the private tyrannies I mentioned earlier. It's a sad
state of affairs, and the only way it is going to get better is for the
population to end its passivity and strike back.>>
Some of the mob can't effectively manage a burger king, to say nothing
of "exercising democratic control of organizations".Keep in mind (and
let's keep this in perspective) you are suggesting that the fellow running
the cashier at the Mickey Ds has an intrinsic right to ameliate my
tyranny over my own firm... or it sure sounds like it! The *only* workable
way I know of to get democratic control of these institutions is through
the market..which takes into account *self-interest*.
If you won't coerce us libertarians into obedience to a "stateless
socialism"
then you aren't an opponent, just a trifle mistaken.
How does the stateless socialism ENFORCE it's mandates and group
decisons? Answer me that Alex....
What's the enforcement mechanism?
(Not the market I'm assuming!)
regards,
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:52 MST