At 10:25 17/05/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, 17 May 1997, 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? My comments do
>> not stem from a familiarity with Chomsky's theories.
>
Paul King wrote:

>They are not a product of an understanding either of Socialism or the
>Soviet Union, either, unfortunately.

I am no fool! As I pointed out in a previous posting, I used the Soviet
Union merely as an example of what has unfortunately been typically thought
of by many as a socialist state. The problem is that this miscomprehension
by the masses does not only apply to the former Soviet Union. It also
happens to apply to countless other states that called themselves socialist
and where poverty, coercion, and corruption were the norm.

The Soviet Union was never socialist
>except in name. In fact it was a brutal tyranny ruled by a Nomenklatura
>led by a brutal, and radically undemocratic dictator. The situation since
>the collapse is about the same. The upper class in the new "capitalist"
>Russia is simply the old Nomenklatura. The plundering of the poor by
>the rich continues on as before, and the suppression of the poor is about
>the same, the poverty is the worst it has ever been even in comparison to
>the rule by the Czars and the Ukranians under Stalin during the famine.
>
>> 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. These
>> people are simply relieved to be in a capitalist society - with all its
flaws.
>
>They are only happy to be in a country that is wealthy enough to sustain a
>plundering of the poor by the rich while comparitively not being hard
>on the poor, assuming that they wound up in Canada or the US or some other
>advanced industrialised country, which the Soviet Union never was. What
>these people understand as socialism was fed to them by Politburo
>propaganda. They were always "on the path" to socialism, but never there.
>In fact I am surprised you have never heard the Soviet riddle: "What is
>the next step on the path to true socialism? Answer: Alcoholism." The
>Soviets had a huge problem with alcohol abuse (a symptom of living a big
>lie, more than likely).
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Not only is it not abundantly clear that socialism has failed, from your
>example, it can be used as proof that it has been *highly* successful.
>First, rid your mind of any illusions that the Soviet Union was ever
>socialist in anything but name. There are other countries, such as Sweden,
>Finland, the Netherlands, and Canada that implement socialist policies,
>and have very healthy standards of living. The proof is there. To the
>extent that social programs are being cut these days,  then "socialism has
>failed."

The same could be said of Australia (where I live). I have also lived in the
Netherlands. Both of these countries obviously enjoy high standards of
living. (That's why people want to migrate to these countries!) But neither
of these countries could be labelled socialist by any stretch of the
imagination. Just because they happen to throw in a few enlightened
socialist policies doesn't mean they're not classic market driven capitalist
economies.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>I hope that I have educated you to this end.

I'm sorry. You haven't told me anything I didn't already know. And I think
you have misinterpreted the tenor of my original posting.

In short, if you are looking
>for socialism, don't look to Russia, Cuba or China. Look to the
>"capitalist" economies that have "dared" to institute socialist policies.
>You will be very surprised at how civilised and well-maintained these
>countries are.
>
Not really - since I already live in one!

Michael Coghlan.