Michael Perelman writes:
>> Capitalism has had centuries to try to get it right. No country has
>> ever really instituted socialism, which began in poor countries with
>> serious external threats. Even so, the growth in the USSR and China was
>> impressive.
>>
>> Marx said that he did not write cookbooks. He could not determine how
>> things should be done. I am not sure that Jim D's 51% is the way to go.
Utter copout. Why am I more interested in the mechanics of socialism than you
are?
Let's me ask a related question which I kind of danced around in the prior
posts. In your view, Is "socialism" a process of governance ("one person, one
vote"), or is it a description of a state of affairs ("peace, clean air and
water, and social and economic equality"). If it is a process, what if the
voters vote to permit private property relations, or inequality, or NASCAR
racing? Must the voters vote in a certain way for the society to retain the
"socialist" label? And if it is a state of affairs, what if the state of
affairs is achieved through centralization and/or authoritarian rule? Can a
society retain the "socialist" label if the decision-makers are an enlightened
elite?
David Shemano
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
