carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/23/85)
Cliff Matthews, evidently addressing me, asks:
>So are you a communist or not?
Why do you want to know, Cliff? Are you keeping a list?
He's got a little list
(They'll none of them be missed)...
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of any communist party. What I
am is a communist DUPE, Cliff -- get the difference? I advise everyone to
get hold of a copy of *Masters of Deceit* by J. Edgar Hoover, the noted
political philosopher. Hoover exposes all of my fallacies, sophistries, and
outright lies. You can't be too careful with someone like me on the net.
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnescliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/26/85)
RC informs us of the importance of his posting: >Anyone who wishes to refer to socialism in net.politics and ignores the >article below (and the *Communist Manifesto*) does so at his peril. You >have been warned. RC then tells us that socialism was was considered the intermediate step between capitalism and communism. >The modern socialist movement dates from the publication in 1848 of *The >Communist Manifesto* by Marx and Engels. ... >To them [Marx and Engels] >it [Socialism] >was first and foremost a negation of capitalism which would develop its >own positive identity (communism) through a long revolutionary process in >which the proletariat would remake society and in so doing remake itself. ... >Society will then enter what Marx called "the higher stage of >communist society", under which the state will wither away, a totally >different attitude to work will prevail, and society will be able to >inscribe on its banner the motto "from each according to his ability, to >each according to his need." ... >"what is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the `first' or lower >phase of communist society", and this usage was thereafter recognized or >adopted by practically all who regard themselves as Marxists. Then he explains that people can call themselves socialist or communist without any inconsistency. He is a self professed socialist. >This explains >why individuals or parties can without any inconsistency call themselves >either socialist or communist, depending on whether they wish to emphasize >the immediate or the ultimate goal of their revolutionary endeavors. ... >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes So I ask the question the obvious question: "So are you a communist or not?" RC gets upset and stamps his feet: >Subject: No, but my favorite color is pink >Why do you want to know, Cliff? Are you keeping a list? > He's got a little list > (They'll none of them be missed)... >I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of any communist party. What I >am is a communist DUPE, Cliff -- get the difference? I advise everyone to >get hold of a copy of *Masters of Deceit* by J. Edgar Hoover, the noted >political philosopher. Hoover exposes all of my fallacies, sophistries, and >outright lies. You can't be too careful with someone like me on the net. OK. I get it. People can call themselves socialist or communist depending on what they want to emphasize. Of course if you ever ask the wrong person who is a self professed socialist whether he is a communist you can expect a petty piece of sarcasm. Why should I read *Masters of Deceit* when your original article was sufficiently enlightening? --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143