>>Joe R. Golowka wrote:
>>
>>> >Market Socialism was in Yugoslavia after WW2. It didn't seem to collapse.
>>
>>If you say so. Looks pretty collapsed to me.
>It surely did, but what's your point? Planned socialism has also
>collapsed. Capitalism hasn't. Thererfore we should switch sides and
>be pro-capitalist?
My point was simply that this particular example of market socialism, if that is what it was, cannot be said to have succeeded. Rumours of it's survival have been greatly exaggerated.
As you say, the "planned socialism" of the Soviet Union has suffered the same fate. I mentioned the flaw inherent to both these systems in my earlier post. At the first opportunity, the people jumped at the chance to abandon the security of life as a "beast of burden", in favour of a great deal less security, but some hope of individual escape.
Why you would accuse me of switching sides just because I have no faith in these failed experiments is a mystery. Surely I have made it clear that I favour another alternative? I would be tempted to abandon the socialist objective only if there seemed any chance of making it compatible with social justice. But try as I might, this doesn't appear possible.
As I explained, people consistently prefer the insecurity of capitalism to the security of life as a beast of burden. So socialism has to offer what people aspire to. People do want economic security, but given the choice between this and freedom, or even the faint hope of freedom, they choose freedom.
You are implying that if I reject the economic security of life as a beast of burden, I have no alternative to capitalism. But I have clearly rejected this. I have explained how we can have both economic security AND universal freedom.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas