mjk@tty3b.UUCP (06/25/83)
Tom Craver seems to have come up with a version of (U.S.
United Nations Ambassador) Jeane Kirkpatrick's authoritarian
vs. totalitarian non-distinction. Ms. Kirkpatrick has developed
a very academic theory supposedly justifying the differences in
Reagan policy towards South Africa, Chile, Argentina, etc. and
Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
Now Tom Craver (in his "Is technology good or bad" submission)
writes:
hat would be the differences ... in, say
Russia (totalitarian), China (communist), France (socialist),
the U.S. (mixed economy) ..."
This seems like one of those aptitude questions: "Find the term
which doesn't belong." Communism, Socialism and a Mixed Economy
are ways of organizing the economy. Totalitarian doesn't fall
in that class; it's a form of political organization.
And by the way, I have friends in France who would certainly
disagree with your description of their country as "socialist".
Mitterand seems to use the same remedies as Reagan when the chips
are down. Of course, it helps to find a country in the worst
economic shape and tsk-tsk about `the effects of socialism'. Why
not look at Sweden or Yugoslavia, both better examples of
socialist countries?
Anyway, I know I'm missing the main point of your submission. But
I'm preparing a response to that, too.
Mike Kelly
tty3b!mjkzrm@mit-eddi.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (06/29/83)
Yugoslavia is an example of the wonders of Socialism?! Yow! Yugoslavia is worse off than Hungary. Which leaves us with the highly homogeneous Scandinavian countries that prove, if anything, that culture has more to do with prosperity than whatever happens in the capitol. Cheers, Zig
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (06/29/83)
From Ziggy: Yugoslavia is an example of the wonders of Socialism?! Yow! Yugoslavia is worse off than Hungary. Which leaves us with the highly homogeneous Scandinavian countries that prove, if anything, that culture has more to do with prosperity than whatever happens in the capitol. Do you honestly believe that the median happiness (whatever that is) is signifigantly less in yugoslavia than it is in the U.S.A. My experience has been that rich and poor, in absolute terms of wealth, are equally unhappy. It is the side effects of poverty that are the problem. What makes yugoslavia good is that the things about poverty that CAN make people unhappy (gross inequality withing a society, lack of self-determination in the workplace, lack of medical facilities, lack of decent shelter) are lessened there thanks to the govt. Yugoslavia is the only communist country where people can travell abroad freely. There is no mass exodus. What do you mean that yugoslavia is a disaster financially. What developing nation isn't these days. Its hard all around. -- Larry Kolodney (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai
trc@houti.UUCP (06/30/83)
Response to Mike Kelly on totalitarianism: If you prefer to use Sweden in your examples, go ahead. The major trend in France is towards more socialism. Anything major new problem, such as a vast change in the economic structure, would certainly be handled in a socialistic manner. From the point of view that is important to this discussion, it wont make much difference whether we discuss France or Sweden. I was not trying to give a rigorous definition of the types of government - nor to limit discussion to particular countries. I *was* trying to characterize the fundamentals of the nation, however. Russia can scarcely be said to be mainly communist or socialist, since those particular ideologies are supposed to be ruled by the will of the masses. In Russia, everything - *including* the economy - is "totally" controlled or able to be controlled by the government. Anything that is not controlled is "free" only by allowance of the government. Though China is also totalitarian, it appears to have been more concerned than Russia with trying to achieve "pure" communism. (Which is not to say that it is somehow better.) Finally, the comment on Ms. Kirkpatrick's "authoritarian vs. totalitarian non- distinction", appears to me to have little to do with my note - except that it has to do with totalitarianism and with making distinctions. This seems like an attempt at condemning me by association. I do *not* think that either government form is much better (morally) than the other. At best, one might be a slightly lesser evil, but only by default. Tom Craver houti!trc
zrm@mit-eddi.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (07/02/83)
Do I believe people are massively unhappy in Yogoslavia? Yes. Especially the ones that get to travel to Austria and see what it's like outside. My impression, from desciptions of Yugoslavia and from firsthand experience in Hungary, is that Yugoslavia is rather bleak. My point is that socialism can even ruin a condition of relative freedom. Cheers, Zig