brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (02/28/87)
>From: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) > Dave Brewer has now equated "socialism" (read social democracy) >in Sweden with "socialism" (read Communism) in China. To me this is >laughable. There is about as much distance between Communism and >social democracy as there is between Fascism and social democracy. China is generally called a communist state and so my passing reference to it as socialist was wrong; a faux pas introduced not from ignorance but from carelessness. And I did NOT equate socialism with communism or Sweden with China. I merely provided two examples from different countries to illustrate a point. The point being made was that socialist/communist/left of liberal states around the world are gradually realizing that personal initiative is an essential part of a productive economy. Does Jamie wish to debate this point, or are there other frivolities to dispense with first ? Not that it proves anything but from a 1978 Random House Dictionary: communism : a theory of social organization based on common ownership of property. fascism : a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. socialism : a theory of social organization that advocates ownership of industry, capital, and land by the community as a whole. One of these things is not like the others. Can we get Jamie to tell us which one is not the same ? Let's take France as an example of our "socialist democratic" state. Let's take Poland and Hungary as examples of our communist state. Let's take Syria and Chile as examples of our fascist state. Let's list ways that France is similar/different from Poland/Hungary. Let's list ways that France is similar/different from Syria/Chile. What would we as amatuer observers conclude ?? What do respected organizations who have invested a large amount of time and effort in such observation (perhaps UN or Amnesty International) routinely conclude ?? >"Socialism" has been used, in its time, to mean so many different >things that very few people use it as a stand-alone term now. Socialism has got a "bad name" so very few leftists use it as a stand alone term now; instead they prefer to use the doublethink phrase social democracy, which travels well in conversation because by the time people stop and realize that it doesn't mean anything a new topic has come up. " Please amend page 1, International News section, of August 7, 1995, Toronto Star, from 'chocolate production was up 10% in the socialist countries' to read 'chocolate production was down 5% in the social democratic countries'. " Perhaps Jamie would care to explain what a social democracy is ?? >The main people who use it in this way are people who want to equate >anything left of the Liberals with communism, for their own purposes. Or people who truly believe that anything left of the Liberals really isn't all that far from communism. "Their own purposes" thereby being presenting the situation as they interpret it. >On the other hand, Brewer's postings are usually so muddled that >I may just have been confused by his latest postings. If my postings are so muddled as to be confusing and I don't get my ideas across then I'm wasting everyones time. Help me resolve this quandary by sending me your vote as per below and I will summarize : 1) Brewer's postings are so muddled as to be confusing. 2) Jamie is being obtuse, either by nature or intentionally. 3) Both 1 and 2 above. 4) None of the above. Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein