billp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (04/04/84)
-----------
No, the soviet government NEVER lies. It's a matter of definitions.
We define truth:
The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality.
(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)
Socialists have a different definition, that's all.
Their definition of truth is something like:
Anything that aids the advance of socialism.
Many years back a chief propaganda writer defected from East Germany to the
West. He was shown on West German TV in a series of interviews, where
he explained this and other definitions. He emphasized that this is not
meant tongue-in-cheek, but is officially taught to those who are responsible
for managing the news and propaganda.
After many years of working with this definition, one truly believes it.
That's why the Soviets reacted so angrily to Reagan's accusations. By saying
that they lied, he accused them, to their definition of truth, of deliberately
telling stories that retarded the advance of socialism, which most certainly
is not true (by our or their definition).
Bill Pfeifer
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!billpken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/05/84)
-- >> Socialists have a different definition, that's all. >> Their definition of truth is something like: >> Anything that aids the advance of socialism. >> Bill Pfeifer You mean communists and communism, Bill, not socialists and socialism. Surely I don't have to explain the difference. Incidentally, I hope those who take it as given that the Russians always lie realize that Americans do their share. Reagan on Nicaragua is a prime example, though the next time you look at an American history text, ask yourself, "Why does American history portray the USA as (1) conceived in perfection, and (2) getting better ever since?" -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 05 Apr 84 [16 Germinal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (04/06/84)
The Soviets are interested in communism, not socialism.
Socialism is for the tiresome bourgeois bores at evening parties.
Whereas the garden-varitey socialist is desperately concerned
about equality abstractions, the communist would rather just
shoot you, thus developing a valuable reputation in the minds
of the survivors. Communists use socialists. Etc.
--
..{allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkettmyers@uwvax.ARPA (04/07/84)
>The Soviets are interested in communism, not socialism. >Socialism is for the tiresome bourgeois bores at evening parties. > >Whereas the garden-varitey socialist is desperately concerned >about equality abstractions, the communist would rather just >shoot you, thus developing a valuable reputation in the minds >of the survivors. Communists use socialists. Etc. Thank you, Mr. Plunkett. It's all clear now. You're very good at spelling "bourgeois", but you're a bit ignorant about Soviet views on Socialism. Take a look at Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Program", where he distinguishes between the "lower" and the "higher" stages of communism. In the language of Soviet orthodoxy, the "lower" stage is now termed Socialism, the "higher" stage is Communism. All societies must pass through the socialist stage on their path to communist society. Officially, the Soviet Union is a Socialist society, not having reached communism (and not particularly near it). Remember, as Gregory Bateson has written, "a name is not the thing named". -- Jeff Myers Motto: "Reactionaries are People, too." ARPA: myers@uwisc.arpa uucp: ..{seismo, ihnp4}!wisc-rsch!myers
billp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (04/09/84)
------------- > You mean communists and communism, Bill, not socialists and > socialism. Surely I don't have to explain the difference. > -- > *** *** > JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** > ****** ****** 05 Apr 84 [16 Germinal An CXCII] > ken perlow ***** ***** > (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** > ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** *** Yes, by all means, please do explain the difference. The two terms are synonyms. Karl Marx certainly never made a distinction. The "distinction" was first made by Lenin, when other countries did not join Russia in the communist revolution. Lenin called the other countries socialist, Russia communist. According to the Soviets, there is no communism yet, only socialism. (It's called 'Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics). According to their line, communism is not possible on this planet as long as capitalism survives. That's why they say capitalism must be destroyed at any cost, by any method. If you think that's just a lot of nonsense, go listen to Radio Moskow once in a while, especially to the daily rantings of Vladimir Posner. Communism is usually just used as a label for left-wing socialism. Right-wing socialism acts just the same. Just look at what the National Socialists' Ministry for People's Education and Propaganda in Germany used to crank out! Bill Pfeifer {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!billp
brahms@trwspp.UUCP (04/09/84)
[}{]
> The Soviets are interested in communism, not socialism.
> Socialism is for the tiresome bourgeois bores at evening parties.
The Soviets are NOT interested in communism. There government/society is
no where near a communist government.
By Definition (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary):
communism: 1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property.
1 b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are
available to all as needed.
This is what true communism is about. However, Lennin and the rest have
perverted it into the following:
2 a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism
and Marxism-Lennism that is the ofical ideology
of the U.S.S.R.
Its just amazing how usage of words can change and be perverted. Why
didn't they just call themselves Marxists and leave it at that?
(Maybe the just wanted some respect.)
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@USC-ECLCalan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (04/09/84)
<Afghanis are people too!>
Jeff Myers relates that Marx says that 'all societies must pass though
the socialist stage on their path to communist society.'
Why don't you tell Groucho to look at the facts. Or, better yet, look at
them yourself.
Did Russia go thru a Socialist stage? Poland? Checkoslovakia? Afghanistan?
The list goes on...
Alan Algustyniak (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!alan)
(ucbvax!ucla-vax!sdcrdcf!alan) (allegra!sdcrdcf!alan)
(decvax!trw-unix!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan)myers@uwvax.ARPA (04/11/84)
The point of my article was that the so-called "actually existing socialisms" in the world do NOT consider themselves communist societies -- just on the way there, and supposedly getting closer. Remember, the perjorative ways certain words get used in the US have very little relationship to the more technically precise forms used in high-falutin intellectual scribblings or in the orthodox positions of political parties.
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/11/84)
-- >> > You mean communists and communism, Bill, not socialists and >> > socialism. Surely I don't have to explain the difference. >> > ken perlow >> Yes, by all means, please do explain the difference... >> According to the Soviets, there is no communism yet, only socialism. >> (It's called 'Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics). >> According to their line, communism is not possible on this planet as >> long as capitalism survives. That's why they say capitalism must be >> destroyed at any cost, by any method. >> Communism is usually just used as a label for left-wing socialism. >> Right-wing socialism acts just the same. Just look at what the National >> Socialists' Ministry for People's Education and Propaganda in Germany >> used to crank out! >> Bill Pfeifer The "Moral Majority" calls itself both moral and a majority. And "creation science" calls itself science. Boy, it's sure hard to tell the players without a scorecard. Most socialist parties in existence today believe that the capitalist economic system should be superseded through democratic methods, by evolution. The communist parties believe in abrupt change, revolution, led of course by themselves. No one ever thought of the Nazis as socialists. The Nazis were capitalists through and through, as I. G. Farben or any Krupp could surely tell you. Or read Fritz Thissen's "I Paid Hitler." Socialism is what Chile tried when it elected Allende. His American- engineered assassination, though, sheds some light on why the communists believe that capitalism must be destroyed worldwide. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 11 Apr 84 [22 Germinal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/12/84)
====================
Jeff Myers relates that Marx says that 'all societies must pass though
the socialist stage on their path to communist society.'
Why don't you tell Groucho to look at the facts. Or, better yet, look at
them yourself.
Did Russia go thru a Socialist stage? Poland? Checkoslovakia? Afghanistan?
The list goes on...
Alan Algustyniak (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!alan)
====================
Sorry this wasn't marked with a ":-)". Before I started reading this net
a year or two ago, I would have naturally assumed it was a joke, but now
I'm not so sure. I might even believe that our new version of the
plunkett person really thought Groucho was intended :-), but to suggest
that the countries named have approached Marxian Communism really IS
a joke. To suggest that they want to is even more of a joke. Perhaps
he really did mean Groucho!
I guess I should apologize to Algus; his other posting about union-enforced
communism really was quite funny, and we don't have a net.politics.jokes or
net.jokes.politics.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtbillp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (04/16/84)
--------- > No one ever thought of the Nazis as socialists. > ken perlow The Socialists' aim is the effective elimination of private property. The communists do that by confiscating it, while the National Socialists (Nazis) accomplish the goal by complete state control. It doesn't matter who holds a paper of ownership, the one that controls the property owns it. The end result is the same. National Socialism is a true socialism. > The Nazis were capitalists through and through, ... Hey, you forgot a :-) after that, since this wasn't posted April 1. Capitalism is an economic system, which is guided by private decisions of free individuals. If you think that this is what happened in Germany during the National Socialists' rule, I've got this bridge that I'd like to sell you! Communists and National Socialists have always fought each other. The more similar their aims, the more they hate the other system. True capitalism would not feel threatened by either. Exercise for the student: Which system do you think is most prevalent in the US at this time? Answer that after you filled in your IRS form 1040. Bill Pfeifer {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!billp