From: charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Socialism, again
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:30:56 GMT

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

#sj> Stephen Jascourt
#mp> Mike Van Pelt

#  ["From each according to ability, to each according to need".]

#mp> Socialists and Marxists of various kinds seem to think of this little for-
#mp> mula as some kind of ideal.  The more I think about it, though, the more
#mp> pernicious it seems.  What you've got is a formula for slavery. "From each
#mp> according to his ability..."  Extract the maximum work out of the slaves
#mp> that they're capable of putting out.  "... to each according to his need."
#pm> And only feed, clothe, and house them at the subsistance level.  "Needs" 
#mp> aren't "wants", and obviously nobody "needs" more than subsistance, right?

#sj> In contrast, capitalism establishes an enslaved class out of whom the 
#sj> maximum work is extracted without even enough compensation for the needs
#sj> of food, clothing, and housing.

#  Bzzznt. I wonder how ones manages to sell all these goods from these exploi-
#  ted workers when they don't earn enough to afford them. Unless one sells
#  what one has produced, it's extremely difficult to make a living.

Then why is it that unwillingness or inability to start spending again
on the part of consumers is blamed for the current recession's staying power?
Each of the last two recessions has resulted in a significant increase in
those who need to spend all their income on necessities.

A lot of working people can no longer afford to buy what they produce. It's
as simple as that. You don't need to subscribe to a label to see that.

#sj> This is happening in the U.S. 

#  Due to excessive taxes and stupid economic regulations that favor the
#  economically weak and politically powerful over the economically powerful
#  and politically weak. Did you happen to see 20/20 last week? They had a
#  story that should make your blood boil. The short version is that this
#  couple has a hair-braiding business but has been told to "cease and desist"
#  because they lack a cosmetology license. All they do is braid hair, but
#  the cosmetology licensing board (run by salon owners, what a shocker!)
#  can't compete against them, so the board dumps some crap regulations upon 
#  them. This is what's killing this country economically, rather than cap-
#  italism.

What are these salon owners then if not "capitalists?" Did they come
en masse from Eastern Europe because gov'ts there would no longer do
their bidding? How can you separate capitalism the theory from
capitalism as practiced? That's just like the other side's argument
that what was practiced in Eastern Europe wasn't really socialism.

#sh> A large percentage (I don't have figures-- somebody could post them if 
#sh> they do) are unable to earn enough for rent and food and transportation
#sh> to work--if they live in the city, where the jobs are, the rent is high,
#sh> if not, the commute adds up.

#  Why not get rid of rent control and farm subsidies first before trashing an
#  entire economic system?

Capitalism at work again. A sector of the economy decides to use it's
political clout to institute permanent advantages.

#sj> Many of the homeless have jobs of 20+ hours per week, some full time.

#  Of those 20-40 hours/week, they spend between ~10 and ~20 working just to
#  pay the taxes they're supposed to pay. What a bargain! They get to keep
#  about *half* their money! Such generosity is unbelievable!

If you're working for minimum wage, taxes don't amount to that much. Your
comment is irrelevant.

#  "Everyone" meaning "group of a few hundred or less", since this about the
#  only scale where "decentralized socialism" can work. No society is built
#  upon this idea, rather, capitalism is used for production and wealth cre-
#  ation, socialistic ideals are used for redistribution of that wealth. To
#  put it blunty, capitalism is the life, socialism the parasite.

Capitalism assumes that there is wealth without limit to be had. Even
considering adding value to resources, this simply is not true, particularly
as population increases at current rates, and resources decline. Capitalism
assumes that competition is the only moral way to assign economic AND
political rights. 

Socialism is concerned as well with the means of production. That's an
intentional understatement because Gary oversimplifies. The difference
is that the control of the means of production, and hence "wealth" is
assigned a different role. "Parasites" indeed. That term aptly applies to
a great chunk of "capitalist practice," particularly the financial
industry. It produces nothing. If anything, it distorts economic processes
by emphasizing short-term and monetary gains rather than long-term
stability.

#  Aside from the incredible advance in the quality of life on this planet,
#  and the accumulation of wealth that makes socialism possible, plus a few
#  thousand other things, has capitalism been "worth it". Other than those
#  little things, yeah, socialism is the ticket. NOT!

"Incredible advance" in quality of life on this planet? Maybe if you stopped
watching "Wayne's World" (I hate "NOT") you might reflect on exactly what
these consist of, and enlighten us. And the role capitalism has played.

CvD
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Charles van Duren - Senior Systems Analyst - Center for Distance Education |  
|      Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada T0G 0B0              |
*-------------------------------------\/-------------------------------------*
| Now Tom he claims, that a man's true joy, is in the work he likes to do    |
| And if I understand, Tom's a right joyous man...                           |
|                                             Tom Blasingame (Ian Tyson)     |
*-------------------------------------/\-------------------------------------*
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:6031 talk.politics.misc:42470 alt.activism:15577 sci.econ:7210