A year ago I would have thought that an Internet discussion
comparing the relative merits of socialism versus capitalism was at best a
waste of time. Now, after considerable experience with a number of lists,
I'm no longer so sure. Any kind of reform requires a cadre of advocates, a
group of people with a deep emotional distaste for injustice. This is not,
alas, a universal or even common sentiment. When one encounters an
individual or group that is keen on justice--however peculiar one might
think the proposed remedies--congratulations are in order on that first
basis alone.
This list had, the last time I checked, 538 members. I have no idea
how many of them are, like Eva Durant, Marxists. The objective of the
members, though--if I understand their postings over the past months--is a
luminous one, a society that is prosperous, nurturing of the environment,
and just, i.e., one with a fair distribution of its income and wealth. I
suspect, then, that each of our 538 members is trying to answer a key
question: What 'system'--socialism, capitalism, or other alternative-- has
the PRACTICAL potential to most closely approximate that ideal society we're
all seeking?
Notice the term 'practical potential.'
Communism/socialism/collectivism has a tragic history--one that continues
unabated in such countries as Castro's Cuba and North Korea--as I emphasized
in my last post here. But is that terrible track record of the first
historical test of collective ownership of the means of production just an
error of judgment on the part of its first practitioners, a small mistake in
the locus of management control? Eva Durant says yes. 'State monopolies
that are not controlled directly by the EMPLOYEES have nothing to do with
the Marxist principles, whether they are based on collective or on private
property relations. THAT'S why they were a failure.' Control, she tells
us, should also reside in 'the whole community democratically,' thereby
motivating all to 'participate and innovate.'
Her bottom line is this: 'With safeguards for democracy, built from
the bottom with universal democratic control, SOCIALISM would be more viable
and the NEXT logical step.' She 'knows where socialism WENT WRONG in the
past and, with safeguards for democracy,' it can be fixed.
So what exactly is Eva's case, her cure for what has been wrought so
far by Marx's followers, e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al? 'Employee'
control, the 'whole community democratically,' and 'safeguards for
democracy' can make socialism an effective engine for prosperity,
environmental integrity, and economic equality in the world's 200 countries?
In my view, it's an illusion. If I'm welcome here, I'll be happy to
present the case for COMPETITIVE capitalism.
I've been told, though, that I'm no longer welcome to post to this
group (below) . I hope Sally Lerner and her colleagues will reconsider.
Charles Mueller, Editor
ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
********************
Charles - Can I ask you once again to stop posting to the Futurework lists.
Your interests are important, but just not that relevant to our
subscribers
Sally Lerner
********************.
