I agree with you up to a point.
No existing country/gov't/society will be perfect. And I have nothing against analyzing the Soviet (or other communist countries past and present) experience - recognizing what they did well and what they did poorly and trying to learn from it.
My point is: we can judge a system based on the character of its institutions. Do they foster libertarian socialist values like democratic self-management, egalitarianism, solidarity and diversity? These are the values I want a society to encourage and promote - others may differ as to what they find important - but that is fundamentally where you have to start. What values and principles do you want society to be based on? Once you've answered that question you can start making value judgements about existing societies.
The Soviet Union was ruled by a priviledged elite. This was a _structural_ problem since they had a hierarchical system of decision making, with orders coming from the top and being implemented by those on the bottom. It violates the notion of democratic self-management. Does this mean the Soviet Union wasn't really socialist? Maybe. But in any case this must be viewed as a serious flaw by anyone who believes in democratic decision making.
The libertarians you talk about are correct when they say the US doesn't practice "real" capitalism. I would argue that the problem with the libertarian vision of the "good society" is that the institutions they want to live under (private enterprise + private property) actually violate the principles they profess to hold dear, like liberty and freedom. Markets are rife with externalities, private property is always illegitimate, etc.
So I don't have a preconceived notion of exactly what an ideal society should look like. But I do know what values it needs to promote before I'll be comfortable with it. Any system can be analyzed in this way. Do people have a say in the decisions which affect their lives? To what extent? These questions can always be asked.
I realize there are varying degrees of acceptability. Not everyone has to be wearing something different in order to for there to be real diversity, and so on. People's opinions about when society has achieved something resembling the "good society" will differ. Fine. Speaking for myself, we can do a whole lot better than the Soviet Union did, or the US has done.
Brett
>> I didn't mean to imply that 1917 Russia should be a model for the US today,
>> or vice versa. But libertarian socialism can serve as a model, or at least
>> a point of comparison, for any society.
>
>It is unfair to compare a theoretical model of libertarian socialism
>with a society that really exists or did exist. Its too easy. I used to
>have this argument with right-wing libertarians in the university pub:
>"Socialism sucks"
>"But that wasn't real socialism. Capitalism really sucks."
>"But this isn't real capitalism."
>"of course it is real capitalism"
>"of course that was real socialism"
>
>This is the no true Scotsman manoever.
>1) no true Scotsman puts sugar in his oatmeal
>2) Mcguinty puts sugar in his oatmeal
>----
>3) Mcguinty is not a true Scotsman.
>
>I guess my point is that socialists should not dismiss the fSU and other
>like countries as not-socialist, end of story. Socialistscan learn a lot
>from studying these countries. Any attempt to build socialism may
>encounter the same types of problems the Bosheviks ran into.