I agree with Charles Mueller that if you are
talking about the future, you should consider what
system would survive to that future before you
dive into details.
Perhaps for others the argument from the Marxist
point of view is irrelevant, but I have not yet received
convincing response for
1. a promising capitalist future
2. a fault with my reasoning.
I usually get the strawman of stalinism,
I get the argument that "we all think so, so it must be right",
or personal attacks, which thankfully did not happen here.
mine is not a particularily pleasant task, give me good reason
and I join the pack. I do believe, that especially in the US,
due to an (also) malfunctioning democracy, very few people had the chance to
hear the arguments I put forward.
>
> 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.
we already have enough self-congratulationary stuff here...
>
> 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?
I hope so, too.
>
> 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.
I have not said "an error of judgement" anywhere. It is more to
do with the historical circumstances that meant usually low
industrial development, illiteracy, no experiment in democracy and
the inheritance of burocratic/military castes from before - not
to mention the foreign invasions, wars, isolation etc.
At no point have I called it a "small mistake", it is a major
point of the tragedy; deformation was the only possible outcome
based on such insufficient initial conditions.
Most of these conditions do not exist presently
1. we have more experience of some democracy worldwide,
2. we have factors more capacity for the production of
all necessities that now include more than the bare basics,
for all the present and projected population if it
manages to level out in 50 years..
3. We have technology that could enable direct democracy,
based on all freely available information to function.
> '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?
>
By jove, he's got it!!!! It is easy really if you try...
> In my view, it's an illusion. If I'm welcome here, I'll be happy to
> present the case for COMPETITIVE capitalism.
>
I'll listen, in private post if I have to. We had competitive
capitalism for ages causing wars, environmental destruction,
human alianation, etc, , but we never had democratic socialism
yet. It is not an illusion. It is more practical to try something
new, than to repeat something old.
> 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.
>
I think they just fed up with the long posts about the law-case
etc. Ask people who are interested to mail you privately for details.
I haven't been told off yet - probably because my postings tend to be
short. Except this one - I had to include some quotes, usually I cut
them short.
Eva
> 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
>
> ********************.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
