From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Were Nazis socialist?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:40:28 GMT

In article <Btnv1G.KqD@well.sf.ca.us>, rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:

|>In article <1992Aug26.205548.11856@dscomsf.desy.de>,
|> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>  [quoting someone else -- attribution lost, sorry]
|>>|>> Even worse, to lump the Nazis in as examples of socialists simply
|>because
|>>|>> it was appropriated by the NSDAP as part of the name indicates a woeful
|>>|>> ignorance of European history. 
|>>|>
|>>|>This view of European history is shared by a number of people including
|>>|>the late Friedrich Hayek (_The Road to Serfdom_) and Paul Johnson (_Modern
|>>|>Times_). 
|>>
|>>Quoting extreeme right wing loonies views on socialism is a bit rich. I
|>>suppose the poster would concur with Tony Benn's views on capitalism?
|>
|>I have to admit I don't recognize the name "Paul Johnson" or the name
|>of his book, so perhaps he is a "right wing loonie".  But Hayek was a
|>world-famous economist, won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974, and
|>was quite definitely *not* any kind of loonie, right-wing or otherwise.
|>His views on socialism in general and the problems of managing a
|>planned economy in particular are some of the premier economic writings
|>of this century.  Maybe you should read a few of them.

Winning Nobel Prizes is more politics and luck than anything else. The Nobel
prize for ecconomics has nothing to do with the other Nobel Prizes, it is a
recent invention and is primarily a political endorsement.

Besides, one of the greatest ecconomists of the 19th century was Marx who
radicaly changed the way that we view ecconomics. He was the first to see it as
primarily as applied politics and produced what is one of the best contemporary
social analyses of his times. All this didn't stop him being wrong on practicaly
everything connected with a practical alternative to 19th Century Capitalism.

Hayek similarly demonstrated that certain features of a planned ecconomy were
unsustainable, that detailed control could not work. In his later work he did
what Einstein did, he got absorbed in the consequences of his earlier work to
the extent that he could never move beyond their boundaries.

|>The remainder of your posting essentially revolves around the
|>different definitions and usages of the word "socialism" in Europe
|>and in the USA, although you don't seem to realize that you're
|>fighting a definitional problem.

1) I am posting from Europe. That's what .de means. Socialism was invented here,
it's our word.

2) The definitional problem is due to Mcarthy. He managed to create a witch hunt
in the 50s which effectively deamonized the principles of Socialism. Instead of
arguing the merits or demerits of socialism it was sufficient to claim that the
USSR showed what an appauling system it was. Despite the success of Mcarthys
campaign to confuse socialism with communism the confusion was wrong then and is
wrong now.


|>  To most people outside of Europe,
|>the idea of socialism refers to a powerful central government which
|>controls and manages the economy.

To most people in the USA it has this meaning. The Canadians, Mexicans, Israelis
and most of the rest of the world are better informed. The few exceptions tend
to be the places where there is a Communist government, the people in these
places often have a difficulty distinguishing capitalism from communism. This is
understandable since there is little distinguish communist dictatorship from
military dictatorship.


|>  Europeans appear to have some sort
|>of warm-and-fuzzy meaning which, as near as I can tell, simply refers
|>to the ideals of compassion and charity in a society.

They are anything but fuzzy: to secure for the workers by hand or brain the full
fruits of their labour by means of common ownership of the means of production
distribution and exchange. Nowadays we are starting to realise that state
ownership is not a particularly efficient form of common ownership, cooperative
models may provide an alternative. The problem is that unfettered capitalism is
not without problems either. Personaly I base my politics on a synthesis of the
free market and planned ecconomy where the free market is allowed to perform the
short term optimisations that it is best at while a central planning structure
provides long term support. Since this is in practice what every successful
ecconomy does anyway the differences are more of emphasis than anything else.


|> Left unanswered
|>(usually) is the question of whether force will be used in the process
|>of achieving those lofty (if ill-defined) goals.

Not at all. The Labour party is a party of constitutional government. No
socialist party advocating (or using) force or coertion would be allowed in the
international socialist organisation. There are some fringe groups which do
advocate Trotskyite or Stalinist methods, however membership of such an
organisation is against Labour party rules and results in members being expelled
(eg Derek Hatton). This fringe is no more part of the general socialist movement
than the Libertarians and Birchers are the mainstream of the Republican party.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42836 alt.politics.elections:11955