in common parlance, even among many economists, "socialism" refers to any government "interference" in the so-called "free market." (For example, the economic historian Peter Temin referred to the rise of state intervention during the 1930s as "socialism in many countries.") Even some socialists see "socialism" as merely referring to state ownership of the means of production, not caring who or what owns the state.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
JKS wrote:
In that case, the Economist and Peter Drucker won't mind if we abolish the wage relationship and private appropriation of returns on capital, turning the factories and offices and farms over to the workers and farmers, who will manage them themselves and collective appropriate the entire fruits of their labor -- nothing left over for the rentiers.. After all, we're already socialist, so that woukd be an inessential tweak on the fundamental underlying structure.
Sheesh. Do these guys believe that shit, or do they expect anyone else to believe it, or to believe that they believe it? Why do they say it then?
jks
Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Drucker proclaimed the United States "the first truly
'Socialist' country," because workers, through their pension funds
"own at least 25% of its equity capital, which is more than enough
for control." In Drucker's reckoning, socialism was introduced by
then head of General Motors Charles Wilson in 1950 to "blunt union
militancy by making visible the workers' stake in company profits
and company success." Drucker, Peter F. 1976. The Unseen
Revolution: How Pension Fund Socialism Came to America (NY: Harper
and Row): p. 6.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:31:41AM -0800, Tom Walker wrote:
> Oh those proles, the lucky duckies: they own the companies, they tell the
> government what to do, they choose who rules... and they don't even have to
> pay taxes!
