gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) (09/14/83)
rabbit!jj's comments deserve some small response: >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.) Need I mention Sweden and England? >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. Slacking off probably won't work in say, Nicaragua, where the philosophy is "Those who don't work, don't eat". (with exceptions for those unable to work for reasons beyond their control.) > The very premise of socialism requires that you >assume that the state is perfect and obey it without question. No, this is the premise of dictatorship, not socialism. You seem to have the two confused.
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (09/15/83)
I know a lot of people who left England because they thought that they were bright engineers who might invent something nifty one day, and didn't want to pay 95%+ of their income to the government. (which is what Graham Chapman has to do with his money made from Monty Python, by the way). They say that socialism is most definitely not working in England, and it is only a matter of time before a war breaks out. interestingly, most of the Irish i know are firmly convinced that the atrocities in Ireland are British training for like activities at home. Of course, I know a lot of Irishmen and even IRA recruiters, so take this with many, many grains of salt... laura creighton utcsstat!laura