Please excuse me for repeating the string - it's not too long, and it was
easier to do it this way on this one.

- Don DeBar

----------
> From: Harry Veeder <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] socialist unions
> Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 2:33 PM
>
> On Sat, 17 May 1997, Michael Coghlan wrote:
>
> > I would have thought that it was abundantly clear - and again this is
not
> > from a theoretical standpoint - that socialism has failed in practice
and
> > that capitalist societies have shown themselves to be remarkably
resilient
> > in providing comparatively better lives for their citizens. People can
> > debate the advantages of one against the other on a theoretical level,
but
> > in practice the answer is clear. Socialism has failed.

What has been demonstrated is that a country or bloc, regardless of it's
composition or mode of social, economic, or political organization, can be
successfully frozen out of the world economy and, if the material base of
the said country or bloc is devastated by invasion and occupation, and
reconstruction is forced to occur under the threat of atomic, and then
nuclear, annihilation and in such isolation, a decisive advantage can be
had.

> What went on in Russia for 70 years wasn't real socialism! It was really
> state capitalism.

I have heard this claim many times, yet have never really been given the
definition of "state capitalism"  required to evaluate the veracity or
accuracy thereof. Please provide one...

> In a competitive world state capitalism will always
> fail. That is all that has been demonstrated.

?!!

> Capitalism tends to measure "success" according to external
> criteria, ie. the failure of OTHERS. Capitalist communities have
difficulty
> confronting and admitting internal failure.
>
>
> Socialism, as a philosophy, is just the right of the worker, to
> have some say in the decision making over his choosen vocation.

If  I am not mistaken, Socialism is an economic system distinguished by
advanced development and the public, or social, ownership of the means of
production. "Socialism, as a philosophy...", then, is a philosophy that
sheds illumination on the subject and/or it's implications for the
development of humanity.

>  Contrary to popular belief, socialism can be intertwined with capitalism
without
> canceling capitalism.

I don't know WHAT you are talking about here...

> That is the challenge facing today's unionism.

I disagree. Look at the history of the trade union movement here and in the
west, particularly in the UK.

> Harry