chris@hound.UUCP (C.FLORES) (11/07/84)
LIBERALISM, N. D. (1933-1984): After a long illness, to Reaganomics, Star Wars, jelly beans, yuppies, and preppies. The end came quietly on Nov. 6, 1984 at the National Election in the US of A. Mourned by few. No funeral services will be held. Close friends should buy the next ticket to New Zealand.
6912ar04@sjuvax.UUCP (rowley) (11/16/84)
(here,bug...here,bug....suppertime!)
It's a damn shame that liberalism died out; now all you more-right-wing-than-
the-Nazi types won't have anyone to malign when your man Der Reagan botches
up miserably or starts World Wars III & IV (remember the SLBM's!!) :-)
"Hello,FTD? I'd like to send a funerary wreath..."
A. J. Rowley
--
There is no dark side of the moon really; as a matter of fact, it's all dark...
-"Eclipse", Pink Floydmwm@ea.UUCP (11/21/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / sjuvax!6912ar04 / 8:05 am Nov 19, 1984 */
It's a damn shame that liberalism died out; now all you more-right-wing-than-
the-Nazi types won't have anyone to malign when your man Der Reagan botches
up miserably or starts World Wars III & IV (remember the SLBM's!!) :-)
A. J. Rowley
/* ---------- */
Sigh. How many times does it have to be said. The Nazis (National
Socialists) were *left* wing radicals. It says so right there on the label.
Not really very left, anymore. The comparison you wanted was
"more-right-wing-than-the-fascist types".
Then again, maybe you *did* want "more-right-wing-than-the-Nazi types."
After all, that describes the entire Republican Party, most of the
Democratic Party, most of the Libertarian Party, and almost everybody else
right of the "Democratic Socialism" parties in Europe.
<mikeken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/27/84)
-- >> Sigh. How many times does it have to be said. The Nazis (National >> Socialists) were *left* wing radicals. It says so right there on the >> label. Not really very left, anymore. The comparison you wanted was >> "more-right-wing-than-the-fascist types". >> Then again, maybe you *did* want "more-right-wing-than-the-Nazi types." >> After all, that describes the entire Republican Party, most of the >> Democratic Party, most of the Libertarian Party, and almost everybody >> else right of the "Democratic Socialism" parties in Europe. >> <mike Sigh, indeed. I've been through this rather often myself. Yes, they *called* themselves "socialist", but that doesn't mean they were. Are the "Scientific Creationists" scientific because they say so? Socialists believe in state control of the means of production. The Nazis never believed this, and of course, not only left the capitalists' empires untouched, but even provided them slave labor. It was rich industrialists like Fritz Thissen and I.G. Farben who bankrolled the Nazi party through its leaner years. Some of them have been doing uninterrupted "business as usual" even up to this day. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 26 Nov 84 [6 Frimaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (11/28/84)
> Sigh. How many times does it have to be said. The Nazis (National > Socialists) were *left* wing radicals. It says so right there on the label. > Not really very left, anymore. The comparison you wanted was > "more-right-wing-than-the-fascist types". > <mike (mwm@ea) Sorry, but this won't fly. The name may be "National Socialists," but that doesn't make them socialists. Judge them by their ideas and actions, which were definitly fascist, which is very far right on the traditional left-right political spectrum. (When I say "fascist", I am of course referring to the original meaning of the word. "Fascist" now only means "bad," and is reserved for those things not so liberal as the speaker.) Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (11/29/84)
<6203@mcvax.UUCP> cancelled from rn.
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/01/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / ihuxq!ken / 11:41 pm Nov 26, 1984 */
Sigh, indeed. I've been through this rather often myself. Yes,
they *called* themselves "socialist", but that doesn't mean they were.
Are the "Scientific Creationists" scientific because they say so?
Socialists believe in state control of the means of production.
The Nazis never believed this, and of course, not only left the
capitalists' empires untouched, but even provided them slave labor.
It was rich industrialists like Fritz Thissen and I.G. Farben who
bankrolled the Nazi party through its leaner years. Some of
them have been doing uninterrupted "business as usual" even up to
this day.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 26 Nov 84 [6 Frimaire An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7188 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
/* ---------- */
Wait a minute. IG Farben (et. al.) bankrolled the Nazis, and in return the
Nazis let them decide what to do with the (state-run) production
facilities. They even force people to work in them. Sounds typical of
where socialism will wind up unless everybody agrees with everybody else.
I have a confession to make. Every time somebody on the left pokes at the
Nazis (and it's always the left, never the right. Wonder if that means
anything?), I put up that facade. The invariable reaction is "they did bad
things, and everybody admits it, so they can't be one of us." The reason
is, I want to know how to recognize a socialist state *from the outside*.
I'll concede that the Nazis and the Soviets are socialist. So how do I
tell if a state is socialist?
The current offering is: "Socialists believe in state control of the means
of production." Sounds like *any* totalitarian state would qualify,
including the Soviets and the Nazis. Care to try again?
"You may be right, I may be crazy.
But I'm just the lunatic you're looking for."
<mikebiep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (12/03/84)
In article <29200166@uiucdcs.UUCP> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: >(When I say "fascist", I am of course referring to the original meaning >of the word. "Fascist" now only means "bad," and is reserved for those >things not so liberal as the speaker.) Originally, "fascist" meant "wanting to bring back the old greatness of Rome". The word comes from "fascis", a Roman sign of magistratal power. (a bunch of rods with an axe.) -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (12/06/84)
In article <22400050@ea.UUCP> mwm@ea.UUCP writes: >I have a confession to make. Every time somebody on the left pokes at the >Nazis (and it's always the left, never the right. Wonder if that means >anything?), I put up that facade. The invariable reaction is "they did bad >things, and everybody admits it, so they can't be one of us." The reason >is, I want to know how to recognize a socialist state *from the outside*. >I'll concede that the Nazis and the Soviets are socialist. So how do I >tell if a state is socialist? > >The current offering is: "Socialists believe in state control of the means >of production." Sounds like *any* totalitarian state would qualify, >including the Soviets and the Nazis. Care to try again? > Socialists believe in state ownership in the name of the people. Facists be- lieve in state ownership as a means of protecting property for those who run the government. "Remember, wherever you happen to be -- you're already there" Frank Adrian ___ /- -\ \ - / uucp: {decvax,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!teklds!franka CSnet: franka@tek ARPAnet: franka.tek@rand-relay
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/11/84)
I missed mwm's commentary on his original posting. i can tell you the difference between fascism and socialism, though. Socialism espouses government *ownership* and *control* of resources (supposedly for the sake of the collective). Fascism espouses private *ownership* and government *control* of resources (for a whole host of reasons, but generally involving either the good of the state or ``national security''). Robert Nozick has an interesting scenario which he uses, and which can be used to represent the difference. What Nozick wants to talk about is the problems with ``patterned redistribution'', but it works for this as well. It goes like this. Assume, to begin with that all teh wealth that there is was divided among all the people in whatever manner you would find most fair. (you don't have to say what this manner is, or how this is to be done -- assume it works by magic.) Okay, on the day that this happens, Wilt Chamberlain makes up a bunch of posters and sticks them on the doors of basketball stadiums everywhere. They read ``if you think that your enjoyment of the game was significantly a result of my presence, please deposit a dime into this can.'' There are suitable cans. Months pass. Thousands of basketball fans watch basketball and pay their dimes. At the end of the year, Wilt Chamberlain has made hundreds of thousands of dollars this way. Nozick's question is: Is this fair? After all, Wilt Chamberlain has lots more money than he did on day one (when the wealth was distributed according to your lights) and a lot of basketball fans are many dimes lighter. If your conclusion is that this is unfair, then you have to admit that you are against voluntary trade arrangements between consenting and uncoerced individuals (or work very hard to show where the coercion set in -- remember that nobody was forced to pay the dimes). Both Socialists and Fascists would be likely to say that this is not fair. A Socialist solution would be to make Basketball playing a state run activity where people like Wilt Chamberlain could not make side-profits. A Fascist solution would be, not to nationalise the basketball industry, but to restrict how people can dispose of theier wealth (money) by making such side-profits illegal. (In practice it would be easier to make it illegal for Chamberlain to collect than for the people to spend, but the opposite regulation would be equally fascist.) The great question is, of course, ``is this distinction not highly artificial''? What can it mean to ``own'' property if I do not also have the rights of disposal on it? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/13/84)
In response to my question about how to recognize a socialist state from the outside, Frank Adrian writes: /***** ea:net.politics / hercules!franka / 6:39 pm Dec 10, 1984 */ Socialists believe in state ownership in the name of the people. Facists be- lieve in state ownership as a means of protecting property for those who run the government. Frank Adrian uucp: {decvax,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!teklds!franka /* ---------- */ Sounds to me like a socialist is someone who does what you approve of with the state property, whereas fascists do something that you don't approve of with the property. If I were one of the "people", it would seem that that distinction was right by definition. However, I'm on the outside (and presumably can't ask the people what they think), so that doesn't apply - and I *still* have no means of telling the difference. Laura, on the other hand, writes: /***** ea:net.politics / utzoo!laura / 1:06 pm Dec 11, 1984 */ I missed mwm's commentary on his original posting. i can tell you the difference between fascism and socialism, though. Socialism espouses government *ownership* and *control* of resources (supposedly for the sake of the collective). Fascism espouses private *ownership* and government *control* of resources (for a whole host of reasons, but generally involving either the good of the state or ``national security''). Laura Creighton utzoo!laura /* ---------- */ This definition I can use from the outside: A Fascist state will maintain a facade that property is privately owned. Laura, unfortunately, isn't a socialist, and I have a suspicion that no socialist will concur with her definition (though a few fascists might :-). Does any socialist care to step in and fill the void? This also raises another question. Consider the following array: Ownership State Private ----------------------- State | Socialist Fascist Control | Private | ????? Libertarian (There are other names that could go in the Libertarian slot, but leave it for now). The question is, what name fills the "?????" slot? I've been thinking of such a state as a "Libertarian Socialist" (A.K.A. "Communitarianist") state. Is there a name that I don't know that better fills it? <mike
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (12/14/84)
-- [Laura Creighton posits that socialism implies state ownership and control of all property, then hypothesizes about a basketball player asking for donations and becoming very wealthy] >> Both Socialists and Fascists would be likely to say that this is >> not fair. A Socialist solution would be to make Basketball >> playing a state run activity where people like Wilt Chamberlain >> could not make side-profits. A Fascist solution would be, not to >> nationalise the basketball industry, but to restrict how people >> can dispose of theier wealth (money) by making such side-profits >> illegal. (In practice it would be easier to make it illegal for >> Chamberlain to collect than for the people to spend, but the >> opposite regulation would be equally fascist.) >> The great question is, of course, ``is this distinction not >> highly artificial''? What can it mean to ``own'' property if I do >> not also have the rights of disposal on it? >> Laura Creighton That may be the way fascism works, but not socialism. Not even the most utopian of socialist theorists ever suggested that a violin virtuoso would have to play on a communally-used, state-owned Strad. The ownership and control is *ONLY* over the proverbial "means of production", the physical plants and resources that generate wealth. By exercising this authority, the state can theoretically guarantee an equitable distribution of essentials and of opportunity. Artistic geniuses are free to use their talents as they see fit. Citizens under scientific socialism may buy and sell houses, cars, whatever, but not the means of production. Nor, of course, may they exercise the initiative to create or destroy such instruments, as to do so is to make a decision about the economy which is reserved for some committee (at some level or other) because it affects the general welfare. The line between generating wealth and merely transferring it (like Wilt's doing in the example) is, however, rather poorly defined. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 13 Dec 84 [23 Frimaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***