As co-host of this list I concur with Sally. I don't think we need to get
into a pushing and shoving match over the merits of capitalism vs. any
other ism. This territory has been gone over many times. Other lists may
be the appropriate place for this discussion.
A negative outcome of the sort of discussion you are proposing is,
invevitably, labelling, naming and, finally, name calling.
Thanx for being a good netizen and going along with the wishes of your
cyber-hosts.
arthur cordell
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, charles mueller wrote:
> 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
>
> ********************.
>
>
