=====================================================================

Message-ID: #17222.pnet51.misc/politics 7634 chars. (152 more)
From: steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Rethinking US foreign policy (was: U.S. Invades Panama)
Date: 8 Feb 90 22:58:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 132

In article <7240@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ahw@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (-rb-) writes:
#>In article <1990Feb7.235918.2843@agate.berkeley.edu> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes:
#>
#>>I find the assertion that German or Italian fascism (in other
#>>postings) had anything in common with socialism pretty ludicrous.
#>
#>    This all depends on how you define socialism. If it is control of
#>    the economy by the government, then that is what they did.
#>
#>>In both cases, Mussolini and Hitler were about saving capitalism,
#>>not undermining it. Once again, state intervention in or
#>
#>    No, I think they were about saving their countries. Todo that they
#>    wanted large industrial foundations. To do that they supported the
#>    ownership of a lot of capital. People who own capital *are* called
#>    capitalists. So I guess this holds.
#>
#>>ownership of part of even all of the capital economy is not
#>>evidence of socialism. Socialism is a system of both production
#>
#>    It isn't evidence? I thought socialism was government
#>    control/direction of the economy?

What you thought is not the issue. Socialism as a concept and a
word has a long history. Marx, for instance, distinguished
between utopian socialism and scientific socialism, but the
distinction was more in how you get there than in where you
are going. The origin of the word socialism is from a broad
historical analysis of human society, which in an oversimplified
and Eurocentric way proceeded from primitive communism (clans and
tribes) through slavery and feudalism to capitalism. Each form of
society (these are not simply economic systems but political,
social, and economic systems--that's why Marxists refer to
political economy rather than economics) has distinctive
features and each is based on a previous form and contains
the seeds of the next. What is in common between primitive
communism and socialism (and the later form of modern or
future communism) is that production and distribution of
human needs are social, i.e., they are done cooperatively
in groups, with group benefit the foremost consideration.

In primitive society, a clan or tribe would typically hunt
or farm together and share the catch or harvest together (not
necessarily equally--a full-grown hunter gets more food than
an infant and no inequity is necessarily involved). Under
slavery, humans were property to be bought and sold and the
entire productive output of a slave belonged to the slaveowner,
who, in his own interest, maintained the health of the slave.
Slaves, however, cannot be used in very sophisticated forms
of production because they have the habit of sabotaging machinery
from which they get no benefit.

Under feudalism, peasants produced on land belonging to the
feudal lord (note that I am speaking of European feudalism;
feudalism in Yemen, for instance, had significantly different
features) and gave a percentage of the production to the lord.
Peasants could not leave the land voluntarily.

Under capitalism, individuals and groups own capital (which
means primarily the machinery of production and money to hire
laborers). Industrialization transforms production from
production down by individuals (often in their homes) to
social production. But the distribution of profits is not
social; it remains individual. The owner of the capital
controls the profits which result from social production.
(Note that the state can intervene in this process without
changing the essential nature of the society because it is
control of the profits which is crucial and not legal
ownership. Historically, there is lots of state intervention
under capitalism. Generally, the state intervenes to save
the system as a whole or to take over vital sectors which
are not profitable for private capital to run.)

What characterizes socialism is that distribution of production
(what is known technically as the mode of acquisition) is
socialized. In other words, the productive output belongs
to society as a whole and is distributed with social interests
primary rather than at the whim of individuals who happen to
control capital. It means that individuals or private groups
cannot control capital. (Capital still exists, since there are
still machines and wages, but it cannot be privately owned or
controlled.)

Nothing about socialism demands that it be highly centralized
or tightly controlled, the so-called command economy developed
in the Soviet Union and other countries. Decisions can
certainly be decentralized so long as there are mechanisms
to prevent significant inequities (for instance, a much better
living standard for people who live in a fertile area or in
a large city). Indeed, it is expected that inequities will
exist under socialism, but that the social system should
gradually minimize or eliminate them. When they are eliminated
(when distribution is according to need), social classes can
be said to have disappeared and the need for a state apparatus
(standing army, huge police force, etc.) is also expected to
disappear, or "wither away." When that happens, socialists
generally call that social system communism.

The transition to socialism and then the transition from
socialism to communism are considered to be long historical
epochs, perhaps not taking the centuries it took to move from
feudalism to capitalism, but certainly taking generations.

#>>production that is crucial; it's the control, which implies
#>>control of distribution and thus acquisition as well.
#>
#>    Well, I guess you're saying the same thing I am, socialism is
#>    control not ownership. But when the the legal accuiring of
#>    ownership is done with government force, this is socialism.

No. If the government acquires all private capital and uses it
in the interests of the society as a whole, it could be said
to be socialism. But you haven't dealt with the issue of who
controls the government and in whose benefit it acts. In
capitalist societies, no matter what electoral or other
mechanisms exist, the state operates in the interest of
private capital. (Obviously, we can point to examples where
individual private capitalists are hurt by state action.
That's not the point. Generally (the exceptions are usually
errors), the state acts in the interest of all capitalists
or of the largest ones. Since they, like the rest of us, have
to breathe air and have other common needs to survive, the
state sometimes acts for public benefit against sectors of
private capital. But acting in the public benefit isn't
its raison d'etre or its main activity. So acquisition of
ownership of capital by the government is never sufficient
evidence of socialism. By the same token, socialism, as a
transitional form of society, may be able to tolerate
a significant sector of private capital. Nicaragua is
experimenting with such a mixed economy.

Steve Goldfield