From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 14:28:12 MDT
Alexander Sheppard wrote:
> ...
> So, what is the commonly accepted definition of socialism? Well, when
> most people talk about socialism today, they seem to be talking about
> societies which are reminiscent of, say, Stalinist USSR, or Maoist
> China, or North Korea today, or Cuba. In short, when talking about
> socialism, people seem to choose the most brutal sort of tyrannies
> ever to exist, and then label that socialism. This is unfortunate
> because these horrible social systems bear no resemblance to the type
> of socialism that was advocated (and is advocated) before the word
> became what is, as far as I can see, a tool of propaganda. Now, some
> people do try to attach some selective meaning to the word, and I
> think one person here mentioned that China was simply a continuation
> of the old imperial system, not anything new. And that, I think, is a
> positive development, it is certainly better than the other, but still
> unfortunately it assumes that it is possible to have such a thing as a
> socialist dictatorship. I don't think that makes any sense, I think
> that is a bit like talking about a Christian Atheist.
> ...
The problem is that saying "Socialism is a system like that of country
X" isn't a well-defined definition. It "sort of " points you in the
right area, but if I abstract feature A, while you are abstracting
feature B, we will be thinking very different things, and when we try to
decide whether another country is, or is not, socialist we will come to
different answers. It's that kind of definition that's "probably better
than nothing", but is really more useful for advertising and propaganda
than it is for serious analysis of political/economic systems.
Unfortunately, it seems to be as good a definition as is available. If
we were to say something like "It's a social system based on 'from each
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'." we would
have neatly eliminated all social systems that have ever existed. Some
claimed to operate on a theory like that, but no one that I have
examined reports of actually did so.
I will propose a general law of human (and probably other) societies:
"Those who have the power, make decisions that they believe will
further their own ends."
I hope that isn't seen as too cynical, but it seems to be true of every
social group that I've examined.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:46 MST