Michael Coghlan wrote:

>
>Reading phrases like "economic flaws of capitalism" in a discussion about
>"socialist unions" makes me wonder. Are we still entertaining notions of
>socialism being a better system than capitalism after the upheaval of the
>last ten years caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Yes. Who still entertains notions of capitalism being an economic system
which has the capacity to meet the needs of humankind for the rest of
history?

>My comments do
>not stem from a familiarity with Chomsky's theories. They are more a product
>of working with people who have fled socialist tyranny around the world and
>who scoff at any attempt to convey respect for anything socialist.

I can understand why people who flee tyranny which calls itself socialist
might be suspicious of anything calling itself socialist. But I know people
who call themselves socialists who also fled that very same tyranny. That
proves nothing either. I also know people who fled tyranny that calls
itself capitalist, NOW we are starting to see a pattern - perhaps it is not
wise to take tyrants at their word?

>These
>people are simply relieved to be in a capitalist society - with all its flaws.

Even many socialists would prefer to live in a capitalist country "with all
its flaws" than to live under a tyrannical dictatorship. It is also better
to live in a rich country than in a poor country

>
>I would have thought that it was abundantly clear - and again this is not
>from a theoretical standpoint - that socialism has failed in practice

It depends on your definition of socialism. If you accept the tyrant's
definition of socialism, as you seem to, that conclusion is difficult to
avoid. However I think you would see the logic of scepticism towards the
claims made by tyrants. The definition of socialism I lean to is a society
of human beings where the means of production are owned and controlled, not
for the private profit of a few, but by and for those who operate them.

>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.

Of course those who share my definition of socialism often reply that
socialism has never been tried. But there is a more fundamental objection
to that argument.

This is the implicit assumption that, because capitalism has shown itself
to be resilient and has improved the lives of people, it is better than
anything else. If we look to history it can be shown that feudalism was
even more resilient (lasting over a thousand years in western society, and
much longer in eastern society). It also improved the lives of its
citizens, providing them with a level of affluence earlier primitive and
slave societies could not. There are still many people who yearn to return
to the certainties and stability offered by feudalism, but there are
problems. The system doesn't really suit an industrial society, where a
free, mobile and educated workforce is more efficient than a rigid caste
system. Where the free flow of information, capital, materials and markets
are essential.

So it had to change, you couldn't really expect a rigid system of
privileged hereditary nobles, supported by indentured serfs, all owing
allegience and patronage to their various masters on the basis of birth
rather than ability, to run a modern industrial economy. But while the
capitalist system encouraged the rapid development of much more efficent
technologies, (which feudalism would have stifled) its "flaws" as you call
them, are no mere trifle, they are fundamental.

Because now, under the capitalist system, humanity has developed
technologies which have the potential, for the first time in human history,
to satisfy human needs, provide security for all, and develop the potential
of all men and women. Feudalism could do this for a tiny few, so long as
all else slaved their whole lives to support the ruling class. Capitalism
supports a much larger percentage in comfort, but because it produces goods
for PROFIT, rather than to satisfy human NEED, it always has, and always
will, fail to provide for ALL.

So for the first time in history we have accumulated technologies which can
satisfy human need, but we have a social and economic system which not only
is totally uninterested in utilising the fruits of human achievement to
satisfy human needs, but which instead halts the production line every time
more is produced than can be PROFITABLY sold, dooming humanity to hunger
and insecurity.

Is this a sane course? Obviously not. Can capitalism do it any other way?
Clearly not, because under capitalism production of goods is motivated by
profit, by your own yardstick capitalism "has failed in practice". Not
once, but time after time after time. Every time goods are produced in
excess of what can be profitably sold, we have a recession, or depression,
the production lines stop and thousands are sent home and the world goes
without basic goods and services simply because and EXCESS of goods and
services have been produced, prices have fallen and it is now unprofitable
to produce essential goods and services anymore.

I can see why you ridicule the "theoretical" arguments of socialists, let's
face it, on a "theoretical level", capitalism has failed to permit the
potential benefits of human development to be realised. It has served its
purpose, it is now a hindrance.
>
>This is not meant to denigrate the ideas put forward by Bill Bartlett, Brian
>Callahan et al, or to directly contribute to the discussion on socialist
>unions, but I'd be interested to hear people's responses on this.

As for socialism, got any better ideas?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.