jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/09/83)
OK, boys and girls, lets move all this Nicaraguan flaming into net.flame, where the real flamers can get ahold of it. I don't think that any of the readers of net.politics are getting any new viewpoints from the repeated screaming of non-factual facts <oxymoron time, again>. Its amazing at the number of people who automatically side with the opposition in this country, almost like we're about to have a communist revolution ourselves. <We can't have a socialist revolution, we're already committed to that path.> I think I'll move to the hills of North Carolina. Maybe there I'll be a bit difficult to nationalize.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (09/10/83)
Anyone who can look at the U.S. political scene in comparison with just about every other major industrialized country and claim, as rabbit!jj does, that "we're already committed to that path [socialism]" is hard to understand. That's not an ideological issue: it's an issue of simple fact. Believe me, I wish it were true, but it takes more than wishin'. As to "nationalizing" you, I don't know what that means. But if there ever is socialism in the U.S., we won't need to nationalize anyone who doesn't want to benefit. They can keep screaming in the dark about their "freedoms" while everyone else realizes the benefits of universal medical care, affordable and safe housing, humanized technology and the other things that socialism is all about. Sorry, jj, but if anyone should move to net.flame, it's you. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/13/83)
Well, here's where it belongs, at last! Well, Mike, you manage to not mention one fact. <Yes, fact.> Every government that has tried socialism has failed in one way or another. Either they have turned into a dictatorship (via one of several paths, some 'socialist' places never were, no doubt) or they have failed by violent revolution. <Some, alas, with help from the USSR or the US.) 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. <Of course, capitalism suffers from a like problem. Then again, so does any form of government. I sometimes think tha the only necessary function of government is controlling ambitious <What? Julius?> and ill-intended individuals. How to decide who qualifies for control isn't easy!> The US is certainly a socialist country, in that the same fallacy is used day in/day out as a philosophy of government. While the major political party that espouses such actions does not use the label socialism (for a good reason, given the emotional reaction to the word), their platform and actions are directly socialistic. <And have all the anti-social effects of socialism, by the way.> The fact that it's not called socialism <social security?> doesn't detract from the facts. You mention the free housing/food/medical care in a socialist society. What you don't mention is the utter lack of freedom in chosing what sort of food/housing/medical care you receive under such a government. Perhaps you are naive enough to think that the 'government' always does right if it's socialist, but a lot of us know better. Socialists are no less human than anyone else, they just insist on forcing everyone to make the same mistakes the leadership makes. See Great Britain <another 'non-socialist' country> for an example of where we're headed. <If the North Sea runs dry, they're finished.> Look at France (sure, it's a success. Now start telling the whole story.), Cuba (the bankruptcy case of the USSR. Arguing that Cuba is successful is one of the most astonishing lies I've ever heard. Of course, Cuba is not very socialistic, when you get down to it, the socialist fallacy has assured that.), and any "Eastern Block" country. <Again, not socialist or communist any more, since the system failed for the usual reason, this time becoming terroristic dictatorship. (build or I shoot!)> Perhaps you want to live in a world where all innovation/creativity is stifled in the name of the common good. I don't. Just because my government makes a mistake, I don't want to be forced to obey it. The very premise of socialism requires that you assume that the state is perfect and obey it without question. Among the things that a socialist state would reject would be your behavior in criticising the state. Your article belongs in net.flame, where I don't have to be polite when ripping into it. One of the delightful effects of flaming is that I don't have to examine your sophistry point by point, I can just ridicule it for what it is. rabbit!jj
myers@uwvax.ARPA (Jeff Myers) (09/15/83)
In his article on the self-evident "problems" of socialism, rabbit!jj makes the common mistake of conflating socialist economics with "actually existing" socialist states. First he says, "Gee whiz, the heart of socialism is that it encourages everyone to be lazy. That's what it's like in the US today, so the US is ipso facto Socialist." Earlier in the article he says that no socialist country has ever been successful, that there is always a coup, a war, etc. Jj has the habit of decrying socialism for inherently being incompatible with "freedom", broadly defined. Gosh, the US is socialist, yet we have lots of freedom -- ain't there some kinda contradiction here? Part of what "true" socialism is all about is extending immensely important "bourgeouis freedoms" by adding economic freedoms as well; real people with a real say in what their society chooses to produce and how it is to be produced. Jj rants about his opponents railing... Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone. He cries, "none of those lefties out there ever give us any facts!", yet nearly never says anything of substance with substantive evidence himself. How's that for a calm flame? Burning a cool orange, Jeff myers@uwvax
jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/16/83)
Gosh, Jeff, why should I act any better than my esteemed opponents, like you? I didn't say that the heart of socialism is that it espouses lazyness, I said that the lack of a reward system encourage slack. <Should be good for sub-genuises, eh?> You complain that calling the US socialist and then accusing all socialist countries of lacking freedom is a contradiction, since the US has freedoms. If you READ and UNDERSTOOD the article that you are so unhappy about, you would know that there is no contradiction. The lack of freedom is not inevetably associated with the socialist state, it is associated with the inevetiable breakup of the socialist state, by whatever methods. I also notice that you think I meant violence when I said 'failing'. That(s not my problem, that's yours. I meant that the socialist system breaks down in some important way. Revolutions have that effect. So do changes made from within the system. Don't trouble me becuase you can't imagine a non-violent way to make changes in a society. You say that in a socialist system, everyone will have a say in how the government does things. How do you then account for personal differences? How do you avoid the tyranny of the majority? How do you introduce changes of a magnitude that the majority of the population fails to understand them? How do you support scientific research, since most people just won't care? <Thank you Sweden, for that one!> How do you support massive changes (when necessary) from the status quo? Big dislocations always bother most of the people because they have to give something up. How do you support the idea of a peacetime army? Nobody likes an army. I really shouldn't give you the chance to answer all of these questions, since anyone can come up with non-practical solutions. a I suspect that if all people were equally intellegent and well informed, socialism would work. It's clear, however, that such assumptions are absolutely absurd. <Note that the whole world would have to be equally well informed, etc, or you would run into the violence problem.> rabbit!<yawn>jj