dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (09/14/83)
rabbit!jj declares that socialism has never worked anywhere: >>>Why did they fail? The simple reason is the fundamental >>>fallacy of socialism, namely that all people will act in an >>>'enlightened' manner, and continue to produce/act responsibly >>>when they can slack off. What about Israel? While free enterprise is certainly encouraged, Israel has always had socialist governments (until 1977). The nature of a kibbutz, the backbone of the modern Jewish settlement of the land, is socialist. Even with a more conservative government in power for the last 6 years, the basic socialist elements of the society (free medicare for all, cheap food, etc.) are still held to. And while the economy isn't in the greatest shape, the country's still going strong. -- {cornell,decvax,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver,watmath}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/14/83)
If rabbitt!jj and Bill Pfeifer have ever left the USA to see what socialist countries can be like, it isn't evident in their paranoid submissions. Consider, as Dave Sherman points out, Israel. Consider most European countries at various times since 1920 or so. Sure, eventually all political entities change and can be said to die. The nation-states of Germany are "dead" in that sense, as are the provinces of France and the Empire of Denmark. In the end, you will be able to "prove" that any country that ever adopts socialist governments will "die". So will any country that doesn't. I think generally speaking that socialist governments tend to be more humane than anti-socialist ones (I don't say non-socialist ones). They may or may not be more effective economically. I think that depends on factors other than their socialist leanings. Where on earth do ideas come from such as ====== I'll tell you what "nationalizing" means. It means taking everything that you or I or rabitt!jj own and worked for, killing anyone who resists, and letting the wonderful benevolent government decide on how to spend it. (Bill Pfeifer) ====== Wierd!!! If you are going to rant on about this thing you label socialism, please use another name, such as "fantasism" or something. It doesn't refer to anything in this world, outside your imagination, now does it? Lots of people who understand socialism disagree with it as an ideal, lots agree. There are intelligent and well-meaning people on both sides of that fence. The assumption that supporters of socialism are either murderous or larcenous or stupid won't wash. Martin Taylor
kfl@5941ux.UUCP (09/15/83)
On almost every "quality of life" scale that I have seen, Sweeden (a socialist country) is ranked first. Other popular socialist countries include Denmark, (and most of Northern Europe), England (although they are presently suffering from over-population), and quite a few others. One important thing to note, however, is that the economic system really shouldn't have much to do with personal happiness, although it can shape the institutions in the country. A much more important factor to look at is the type of government (eg. democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, etc.). It is possible to have democratic socialism (eg. Sweeden) as well as capitalist dictatorships (eg. several South American countries). Ken Lee 5941ux!kfl
jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/16/83)
You know, Martin, I like the way that you imply that everyone who writes articles you don't agree with is an idiot. Perhaps you ought to consider what that means about your political views? Your argument that all governments fail is specious. You don't discuss the endurance of governments using various principles. You don't address the flaws in the Israeli economy. You don't address the idea of outside support. In short, you don't address any of the questions I brought up, you only address the ones YOU brought up to shoot down. Glad this in net.flame! I don't mind heated discussion, but evading the questions that you can't answer and substuting others is merely offensive.
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (09/16/83)
I hate to break it to all you rabid "socialists", but just
calling yourself "socialist", heardly means that you are one.
Even Hitler called himself a socialist.
So please don't bring up misleading examples of "socialist"
governments that have existed -- you are mixing up terms.
There are only governments run by parties calling themselves "socialist".
Whether the government is democratic or not is a different issue,
there are no real socialist countries.
This is because the basic premise of socialism is untenible, except
when every member of the group has an intense interest in making
it work. Marrage is the only case of real socialism that exists
in modern society (and even THAT "government" breaks down quite often).
Perhaps the reason why "socialism" appeals to so many people is because
it so resembles the social structure of tribal clans (an idealized version
of course); socialism is sort of cultural back to the womb movement.
Steven Maurer