Calling Russian or Chinese Communism 'socialism' is a joke. What examples do you have in mind? The closest thing that I know of were the original Israeli kibbutzim; like Walden II, they were small communities. One might also talk about the Oneida communities, but they were short lived experiments.
It's been many years since I took economics courses in social reform (including socialism), but I believe that the term 'withering away of the state' goes back to Marx and Engels, who would have been shocked at the idea that communism as they foresaw it would have been instituted in a feudal society like Russia, which lacked the capitalism they saw as a necessary prerequisite. One difference is that Marx and Engels were talking primarily about economics; Lenin and Stalin about politics and power. On Apr 12, 2014, at 12:35 AM, Christopher Green wrote: > On Apr 11, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Paul Brandon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The problem is that there haven't been any real world examples of societies >> that met the classic definitions of socialism, in which all property is >> owned by the State. >> This was my point -- that all real world societies are hybrids. 'Socialism' may have become a Conservative (U.S. subspecies) dirty word, but it doesn't refer to anything real. > There have been many socialist societies. (And they are as authentically > socialist as the US is authentically capitalist, despite roads and bridges > being built by government.) I'm not sure which "classic" definitions of > socialism your are referring to. In the Marixst model, the state is supposed > to be abolished because the only reason for its existence is to oppress > workers. (This was later weakened by Lenin to the state "withering away" over > time.) The means of production are supposed to be owned by the proletariat > collectively, but no one (that I know of) ever said that, say, personal > clothing would be owned by the state > > Chris > ....... > Christopher D Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 > > [email protected] > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > ------------------------------------ >> >> >> On Apr 11, 2014, at 9:41 PM, Christopher Green wrote: >>> On Apr 11, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Paul Brandon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Also, while you could refer to the social structure as 'collective' in >>>> that it was a small community with a common goal, it lacked one defining >>>> feature of socialism: lack of individual ownership. >>>> >>> >>> No socialist society that I know of has ever lacked individual ownership. >>> It is restricted, so that wealth does not accumulate in individuals, but it >>> has never been lacking. >>> >>> Chris Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=36113 or send a blank email to leave-36113-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
