gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) (04/01/89)
This is a difficult message for me to send to the peoples of the
world, but recent events in the Soviet People's Republics and elsewhere
have made it something that can no longer be avoided.
For some time it has been apparent that Socialism is a dismal
failure. I am convinced that the fundamental internal contradiction of
Socialism lies in Marx's famous dictum "From each according to his
abilities, to each according to his need." So simple. So humane
sounding.
And so fundamentally evil.
Let me explain.
What this dictum accomplishes is to turn all standards of human
worth and dignity upside down. Ability, competence, diligence, skill,
intelligence: All of these are made into liabilities for their
possessor. After all, greater skill does not increase one's need for
food or housing, does it? Of course not. But since the standard is
"From each according to his ability", more is demanded of such a
person. More productivity, more work -- but no incentive, no
compensation for it.
Worse, the other side of this tarnished coin, "To each according to
his need" makes need -- real or feigned -- into an asset. The
combination of the two has proved deadly. Such a system penalizes
skill and intelligence, and rewards fecklessness and incompetence.
And we have thus, in the 72 years since The Revolution, reaped the
bitter weed that must inevitably spring from the bad seed of Marx's
flawed thought. What was supposed to be a classless society is instead
a system of class privilege even more exploitive of the working people
than the regime of the Czars.
Accordingly, in the wake of The People's Counterrevolution of this
past week, I have taken the following steps:
The Soviet State shall divest itself of all properties held by
collective farms. The land will be sold at auction to the residents.
Members of the Communist Party will not be eligible to bid.
The Soviet State shall divest itself of all factories and other
means of production. These shall also be sold at auction, and again,
Party members are not eligible to participate.
All forces of the Soviet Union will be withdrawn from areas outside
of Russia. The Warsaw Pact countries are encouraged to follow our
example, but whether they do or not is entirely their own decision.
Secretary General of the Soviet Union
Mikhail Gorbachevkaldis@topaz.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) (04/01/89)
Yes, boys and girls, April Fool's Day is upon us once again. But this
year, instead of being presented with an ingenious and clever forgery
as we were last year (so clever that it was virtually undiscernable
from the ramblings of the author which it copied), we now have an
amusing but incisive message, reflecting the putative musings of a
head of state. Brilliant insights -- and I certainly hope we see more
of this by its author (whoever he may be).
So Mike, this was you who wrote this, right?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis | "Perhaps we may
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- | frighten away
email: kaldis@topaz.rutgers.edu | the ghost of so
UUCP: {...}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!kaldis | many years ago
U.S. Snail: P.O. Box #1212, Woodbridge, NJ 07095 | with a little
ex-Ma Bell: (201) 283-4855 (voice) | illumination . . ."lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (04/02/89)
In article <Apr.1.08.22.12.1989.11446@topaz.rutgers.edu} kaldis@topaz.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: }Yes, boys and girls, April Fool's Day is upon us once again. But this }year, instead of being presented with an ingenious and clever forgery }as we were last year (so clever that it was virtually undiscernable }from the ramblings of the author which it copied), we now have an }amusing but incisive message, reflecting the putative musings of a }head of state. Brilliant insights -- and I certainly hope we see more }of this by its author (whoever he may be). }So Mike, this was you who wrote this, right? I wish I could claim credit - it was well written and echoed many of my views, but I didn't do it. Small arms fire can bridge the gaps that divide |||Mike Friedman the different peoples of the world on many issues. |||quoting Anthony Lovell
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (04/02/89)
In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) writes: >All forces of the Soviet Union will be withdrawn from areas outside >of Russia. Egads! Will other states of USSR be left defenceless then? -- William Swan ..!grace.apl.washington.edu!sigma!bill Innocent but in prison in Washington State for 13.5 years: Debbie Runyan: incarcerated 01/1989, scheduled release 07/2002. In now: 0 years, 2 months, 1 week, 5 days.
dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) (04/03/89)
In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) writes: (Not really. This was an April fools message that I didn't find humorous) > > For some time it has been apparent that Socialism is a dismal >failure. I am convinced that the fundamental internal contradiction of >Socialism lies in Marx's famous dictum "From each according to his >abilities, to each according to his need." So simple. So humane >sounding. > And so fundamentally evil. > This is a dictum of communism not socialism. Communism does not exist in the USSR (and the USSR emphatically denies its existence both today and in the past). This dictum has not been followed in the USSR (except perhaps under conditions of War-Communism during the Civil War). Almost the entire remainder of the "gorby" posting was based on this false premise (that the Soviet system has been based on "From each according to he abilities ...). This statement by Marx is an abberation since Marx generally restricted his efforts to criticizing capitalism rather than proposing a communist system.
wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) (04/03/89)
In article <1658@orion.cf.uci.edu>, dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes:
< In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev)
< writes: (Not really. This was an April fools message that I didn't
< find humorous)
< >
< > For some time it has been apparent that Socialism is a dismal
< >failure. I am convinced that the fundamental internal contradiction of
< >Socialism lies in Marx's famous dictum "From each according to his
< >abilities, to each according to his need." So simple. So humane
< >sounding.
< > And so fundamentally evil.
< >
< This is a dictum of communism not socialism. Communism does not exist
< in the USSR (and the USSR emphatically denies its existence both today
< and in the past). This dictum has not been followed in the USSR
< (except perhaps under conditions of War-Communism during the Civil
< War). Almost the entire remainder of the "gorby" posting was based on
< this false premise (that the Soviet system has been based on "From each
< according to he abilities ...).
Would it be too much to ask for a source? I'd even settle for some
authoritative spokesman for the USSR :-)
m woodinglevin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (04/03/89)
Well, I mean, how obvious can a (4/1) forgery get? After all, no one
misspells imporant words in their permanent header fields, right?
->Reply-To: gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev)
->Organization: Soyuz Sovietskaya Socialistika Respublik
^^^ ^
...Sovietskikh Socialesticheskikh... (broadly mixing
transcription rules)gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (04/04/89)
/ news.misc / levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) / Apr 3, 1989 /
->Reply-To: gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev)
->Organization: Soyuz Sovietskaya Socialistika Respublik
^^^ ^
...Sovietskikh Socialesticheskikh... (broadly mixing
transcription rules)
----------
Hey, give them a break. It must have been the shock of converting to
domain names :-)
Jacob
P.S. The machine's real name is "Gosevmplantrestkremvax"jamesm@sco.COM (James M. Moore) (04/04/89)
In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) writes:
**> Organization: Soyuz Sovietskaya Socialistika Respublik
Priviet, Mike. Funny how you can't get the case and number right for
the name of the country you grew up in. (To the original poster -
'Respublik' is the genative plural of the word "Respublika", and the
adjectives should end in 'ix.' And even if 'Respublik' were the nominative
form, the adjectives would end with ii'.)
Poka,
--
** James Moore **
** Internet: jamesm@sco.com **
** uucp: {decvax!microsoft | uunet | ucbvax!ucscc | amd}!sco!jamesm **
** Nil clu no suim ar bith ag SCO ceard a bhfuil me ag scriobh anois. **raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) (04/04/89)
In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) writes: > Organization: Soyuz Sovietskaya Socialistika Respublik Mikey, Mikey. We can forgive Brezhnev for not speaking Russian well, after all, he was Georgian. The plural, genitive, feminine form does not end either with "aya" or "a". should read: Soyuz Sovietskikh Sozialisticheskikh Respublik no big deal. Take this in the spirit in which the original posting was intended. and remember, Nyet Nichevo Radostnyeye Truda. (for true transliteration purists, please forgive me, this is only an approximation, but I think this carries the pronunciation) -Raymond Shaw
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (04/04/89)
In article <1658@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes: "From each acording to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -- Marx >> >This is a dictum of communism not socialism. Communism does not exist >in the USSR (and the USSR emphatically denies its existence both today >and in the past). This dictum has not been followed in the USSR.... Ah dear. The what exactly is Communism debate. If say a microbiologist were to suggest a genetic engineering project that failed every time previously and in fact produced a disease that subsequently killed millions, I doubt very much that he'd get support anywhere for it, even if he promised all sorts of miracle cures as a result. Even if it were tried, the public would insist on the very best safe guards available and there would always be grave suspision of the biologist's abilities/methods. Yet when the scientist is a "political scientist" he is not asked to follow any moral guidelines. A dam can't be built in this country without an environmental impact statement. But a politician can promote a program which will kill 1 Meg people and there will be some who won't bat an eye. This of course applies to all sorts of political philosophies. The point with Marxism is that for fully 1/4 of the world's population (ie those under Marxist rule) the very term "communism" makes them break out in hives. There's no point explaining that country X isn't really "communist" becuase it's a term as with as much loaded connotation as "nuclear" or "radiation." If you wish "save" communism (or the idea) then do what Madison Ave always does ... give it a less contraversial name. Repackage it (and please while you do it, take out the class struggle and the subsequent Killing fields). Just as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island will always be associated with nuclear power, the Gulag will always be associated with communism. dennis
sergei@JERUSALEM.MT.CS.CMU.EDU (Sergei Nirenburg) (04/05/89)
In article <1989Apr3.195354.18038@utpsych.toronto.edu> raymond@psych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes: >Mikey, Mikey. We can forgive Brezhnev for not speaking Russian well, >after all, he was Georgian. I always thought he was the son of a Bulgarian immigrant. The sound of the name supports it. He is definitely not Georgian, and his accent was heavily Ukrainian. >Nyet Nichevo Radostnyeye Truda. You omitted the crucial continuation: vo blago otchizny! >-Raymond Shaw Sergei Nirenburg --
mathon@tekbspa.UUCP (John D. Mathon ) (04/05/89)
In article <16287@oberon.USC.EDU>, kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: : In article <1658@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes: : : "From each acording to his abilities, to each according to his needs." : : -- Marx : The point with Marxism is that for fully 1/4 of the world's population (ie : those under Marxist rule) the very term "communism" makes them break out in : hives. There's no point explaining that country X isn't really "communist" : becuase it's a term as with as much loaded connotation as "nuclear" or : "radiation." : : If you wish "save" communism (or the idea) then do what Madison Ave always : does ... give it a less contraversial name. Repackage it (and please while : you do it, take out the class struggle and the subsequent Killing fields). : : Just as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island will always be associated with : nuclear power, the Gulag will always be associated with communism. Good points, Dennis. However, repackaging communism without removing the state ownership of everything, the centralized control of all life and adding the notions of competing parties with a free private press and freedom of speech and right to a speedy trial with charges is unacceptable to me. If somebody can put that all into a new "commufreeism" then I might buy it, other than that it still looks like bitter poison no matter what you call it: i.e. socialism, democratic way, new-left, etc... They all have the stink of death and prison. Of course if you do make all the changes above, seems like you're really just renaming democratic capitalism.
ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) (04/05/89)
In article <1658@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes: : : "From each acording to his abilities, to each according to his needs." : -- Marx Just to be fussy, Marx used the above quotation in his _Critique of the Gotha Program_, but he was quoting the french socialist Louis Blanc. NICHAEL ------------------------------------------------------------ | Nichael Lynn Cramer | Pull down, | | -- Nichael@BBN.Com | Tear Up. | | -- NCramer@BBN.Com | -- Don Martin | ------------------------------------------------------------
noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (04/05/89)
In article <2250@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: >In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) writes: >>All forces of the Soviet Union will be withdrawn from areas outside >>of Russia. > >Egads! Will other states of USSR be left defenceless then? > Rumor has it that they have petitioned Congress for admission to the union, and are considering adopting a constitution similar to that of Massachusetts. After all, its right down their alley... Massachusetts after all is a Common_wealth B-) Noel -- Noel B. Del More | {decvax|harvard}!zinn!ubbs-nh!noel 17 Meredith Drive | noel@ubbs-nh.mv.com Nashua, New Hampshire 03063 | It's unix me son! `taint spozed tah make cents
spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (04/05/89)
Please remove "news.misc" from the newsgroups line for any future
postings on this topic.
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafkriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (04/05/89)
Lets kick one more tenant of Marxism while we're at it. The view that Marx
somehow invented socialism or the idea of communism is also a crock.
Throughout history there have been many traditions/movements which were
communal in nature ...
Anyone who's heard of the "Tolstoyan farm" knows this to be so. The philosophy
behind it, first put forward by Tolstoy and later expounded heavily upon by
Gandhi. It blends the thoughts of Thorough, Tolstoy and Gandhi into an
approach to simple communal living. The book by Shumacher "Small is Beautiful"
can probably be considered a prodigy of this tradition.
The Kibbutzes in Israel are cummunal, as was Qum Ran (the ancient community
which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls).
The early Christian communities (when they were being fed to the lions) were
communal. Even today, there have got to be thousands of communal/semicommunal
homes being run by Christian groups in this country alone... and that excludes
the most obvious (the monastaries/convents).
There are also probably thousands of humanist based operations of the same type
too.
The point of all this is that communal living is not something that Marx
dreamed up. Every society has always been at least partially communal. The
difference is ... is that these communities were always small and almost
always voluntary.
So communal homes and communities will almost certainly continue to exist
in bliss... with or without Marxist dogma. But this is not some victory
for Marx ... because it's always been that way ... and in a free society
there's no one telling people that they can't organize their lives together
if they want.
dennisraymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) (04/06/89)
In article <4643@pt.cs.cmu.edu> sergei@JERUSALEM.MT.CS.CMU.EDU (Sergei Nirenburg) writes: >In article <1989Apr3.195354.18038@utpsych.toronto.edu> raymond@psych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes: >>Mikey, Mikey. We can forgive Brezhnev for not speaking Russian well, >>after all, he was Georgian. > >I always thought he was the son of a Bulgarian immigrant. The sound of the >name supports it. He is definitely not Georgian, and his accent was heavily >Ukrainian. > My sincere apologies to any Georgians or others who may have been offended. In fact, my apologies to any one else who may have been offended by the claim that Brezhnev was a Georgian. I was operating on an obviously fuzzy memory, and had no evidence to back up my claim. Thank you for your correction, Sergei. -Raymond Shaw
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (04/07/89)
In article <298@ubbs-nh.MV.COM>, noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: > In article <2250@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: > >In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) writes: > >>All forces of the Soviet Union will be withdrawn from areas outside > >>of Russia. > Rumor has it that they have petitioned Congress for admission to the > union, and are considering adopting a constitution similar to that of > Massachusetts. The way *I* heard it, Massachusetts had petitioned to become a Soviet Republic, with some other rumors floating around that the present Governor was insisting he be allowed to adopt the title "President" under the new government he would form. I'm so relieved to find out that these allegations, reasonable though they seemed to me at the time, are wholely unfounded. Now we won't have to redesign the flag yet again. Bud Hovell :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : USENET: {attmail! | tektronix!percival! | pacbell!safari!} whizz!bbh : : TELEX: 152258436 (Whizz/Bud Hovell) VOICE: +1 503-636-3000 : : PAPER: Overture Systems Corp, PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, Oregon USA 97035 : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "You may not be interested in strategy - but strategy is interested in you."
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (04/07/89)
In article <2884@daisy.UUCP>, wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes: > In article <1658@orion.cf.uci.edu>, dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes: > < In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) > < This is a dictum of communism not socialism. Communism does not exist > < in the USSR (and the USSR emphatically denies its existence both today > < and in the past). This dictum has not been followed in the USSR True. "Communism" was the ultimate condition to be achieved when the State had withered away (by magic, evidently, since I am not aware that Marx ever did really explain this one). "Socialism" has been the form of state government that was to bridge the transition until the glorius arrival of the millennium. In more recent history, this advertised aim was rudely abandoned as unrealistic pap (another "opiate of the masses", you might say) and socialism *is* (and has been) the name attached by Soviet authorities to the present form of government. ^^^ > < (except perhaps under conditions of War-Communism during the Civil > < War). Almost the entire remainder of the "gorby" posting was based on > < this false premise (that the Soviet system has been based on "From each > < according to he abilities ...). Yes. The current operating premise is: "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his work." Which is to say, you get paid based on your contribution. > > Would it be too much to ask for a source? I'd even settle for some > authoritative spokesman for the USSR :-) Not at all. I don't know who you would accept as "authoritative", but... Actually, words of this nature fell directly out of the mouth of Gorbochev himself, as quoted in an issue of Soviet Life (house organ of the Soviet Embassy in the US). I believe it was in the text of an official speech to the Supreme Soviet, but hardly recall at this point, some months later, since official public pronouncements are frequently published therin. Bud Hovell :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : USENET: {attmail! | tektronix!percival! | pacbell!safari!} whizz!bbh : : TELEX: 152258436 (Whizz/Bud Hovell) VOICE: +1 503-636-3000 : : PAPER: Overture Systems Corp, PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, Oregon USA 97035 : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "You may not be interested in strategy - but strategy is interested in you."
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (04/07/89)
In article <298@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: #In article <2250@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: #>Egads! Will other states of USSR be left defenceless then? # #Rumor has it that they have petitioned Congress for admission to the #union, and are considering adopting a constitution similar to that of #Massachusetts. # #After all, its right down their alley... Massachusetts after all is a # Common_wealth B-) Sorry, you're too far away. They're going to join up with the rest of Europe. We're going to expand the European Comunity. Actually I'm not really joking - a Russian spokesman on BBC radio this morning (I didn't catch who it was), during an interview on Gorby's visit to the UK, said that Russia was a European country, and talked about Russia and the other Warsaw Pact countries seeing their natural future as being part of a democratic European community. I've also heard that 'Solidarity' policy includes Poland joining the EEC - and remember that they're a legal political party in Poland now. I don't know how wide support for such moves is here, but I feel it is the mood of the times. Certainly it is a popular idea in my own party (Social & Liberal Democrats). Needless to say, the above is a long term goal - democracy is such a recent event in modern Russia and its satellites that we need to allow a lot of time for it to take firm root and become safely established before we can really treat those countries as "more of us", but even starting down that long path will help the process of democracy and perestroika. Of course thay could always join the *original* Commonwealth (no, only :-) ) (And there's even talk of the Queen visiting Russia). P.S. Sorry to continue to fill news.misc with non net-news politics, but such a good discussion topic has come out of the original joke that I could not resist. Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in the good will of the Government and the generosity of civil servants.
tarvaine@tukki.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) (04/08/89)
In article <582@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: >In article <2884@daisy.UUCP>, wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes: >> In article <1658@orion.cf.uci.edu>, dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes: >> < In article <3982@kremvax.mosc.cccp> gorby@kremvax.mosc.cccp (Mikhail Gorbachev) [...] >"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his work." Which >is to say, you get paid based on your contribution. > >> >> Would it be too much to ask for a source? I'd even settle for some >> authoritative spokesman for the USSR :-) 'On this point we want to be perfectly clear: socialism has nothing to do with equalizing. Socialism cannot ensure conditions of life and consumption in accordance with the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This will be under communism. Socialism has a different criterion for distributing social benefits: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."' Mikhail Gorbachev: Perestroika p. 100 in Fontana/Collins paperback edition, 1988 -- Tapani Tarvainen BitNet: tarvainen@finjyu Internet: tarvainen@jylk.jyu.fi -- OR -- tarvaine@tukki.jyu.fi
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/08/89)
In article <582@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: > True. "Communism" was the ultimate condition to be achieved when the > State had withered away (by magic, evidently, since I am not aware that Marx > ever did really explain this one). He's not the only one with this blind spot. I recently read a book by Murray Rothbard in which he described how the Libertarian millenium was to come about. He'd built up to a pre-libertarian ideal in which libertaria was protected from authoritarians by a feudal cabal of insurance companies. Then he made the wholly remarkable observation that after the fall of authoritaria the cabal would, "now that their purpose was served, disband". No explanation of why they would give up their power or anything. Just a flat statement. Rather ruined the rest of the plan for me, it did. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) (04/10/89)
In article <566@tukki.jyu.fi> tarvaine@tukki.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes: >with equalizing. Socialism cannot ensure conditions of life and >consumption in accordance with the principle "From each according to his >ability, to each according to his needs." This will be under communism. >Socialism has a different criterion for distributing social benefits: >"From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."' > >Mikhail Gorbachev: Perestroika >p. 100 in Fontana/Collins paperback edition, 1988 I trust that nobody thinks Gorby is saying anything new here. Lenin changed the word 'needs` to 'work` many years ago. Perhaps it is indicative of the new order that Gorby doesn't credit Lenin with it. I wonder how many other ideas within Perestroika and Glasnost have such a noble pedigree :-) Oh well, I suppose we'd better give the boy a chance. Nick Taylor.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/11/89)
In article <3764@ficc.uu.net#, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: # In article <582@whizz.uucp#, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: # # True. "Communism" was the ultimate condition to be achieved when the # # State had withered away (by magic, evidently, since I am not aware that Marx # # ever did really explain this one). # # He's not the only one with this blind spot. I recently read a book by Murray # Rothbard in which he described how the Libertarian millenium was to come # about. He'd built up to a pre-libertarian ideal in which libertaria was # protected from authoritarians by a feudal cabal of insurance companies. Then # he made the wholly remarkable observation that after the fall of authoritaria # the cabal would, "now that their purpose was served, disband". # # No explanation of why they would give up their power or anything. Just a flat # statement. Rather ruined the rest of the plan for me, it did. # -- # Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. As well it should. There is no utopia possible, because people are involved. Unfortunately, there are libertarian utopians (like Rothbard) who have delusions about human nature. Fortunately, most libertarians know better. (Of course, that's because most libertarians aren't college professors, like Rothbard). -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Abandon all hopes of utopia -- there are people involved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) (04/11/89)
Well, I see they have gone well beyond "Perestroika" in Georga.
It seems that there is a very short leash on what is and it not
permitted.
To paraphrase: "They talk the talk, but do they walk the walk?"
--
_____
/ \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com
| \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong
\____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261mathon@tekbspa.UUCP (John D. Mathon ) (04/13/89)
In article <551@cvman.UUCP>, gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes: > Well, I see they have gone well beyond "Perestroika" in Georga. > > It seems that there is a very short leash on what is and it not > permitted. > > To paraphrase: "They talk the talk, but do they walk the walk?" Gary, very funny and appropriate. Still only 16 dead and the fact that the demonstration happened at all implies a lot. In the old days, the people would have been so frightened that 1/2 of them would be dead or in jails that the fact that the demonstration happened at all is evidence of significant improvement. The question is to what extent do these demonstrations make the entrenched powers want to crush the reforms and the rebellions. I hope that the road we are on with the SU can proceed to fruition. I believe that if the SU and China can be democratized, then the rest of the world will have to follow suit. If the SU and China can be democratized by 2000, then the petty dictators will either be gone by then or could be destroyed in short order.