From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 17:18:56 MDT
In a message dated 10/24/2002 6:02:40 PM Central Standard Time,
charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: Umnh ... without a good definition, how
do you know? Were any of these countries "socialist" in any way that the
people who believe themselves to be socialists would accept?
Charles,
Of course the answer to your question is yes. For practically the
entire history of the socialist countries the world has been full of
apologists that explained the socialism of those countries and patiently
explained to the rest of us how superior these socialist countries were
despite the fact that they were highly lethal for their citizens.
Then you added, "Interestingly, many of these "socialist" groups also
had strong beliefs about private property. In some areas they were quite
competitive, and perhaps more properly described by the term "capitalist",
but again, without a good definition, it's hard to know."
Charles, you keep wanting to go off into the mists of abstraction.
You came down to Earth enough to tell me that "many of these "socialist"
groups also had strong beliefs about private property" then you wander off
into abstraction to say "but again, without a good definition, it's hard to
know." Well, which way is it? Are they socialist or not? How do you know?
When you are with friends or mentors that espouse socialism how do you know
if they know what they are talking about?
Charles, all is abstraction. We wander through every path in the
briar path but I for one don't know what you are talking about. I guess I do
know one thing, if ever we point at a socialist country that was a hell on
Earth for its inhabitants you want to define it out of the socialist camp.
I suggest you read von Hayek's Road to Serfdom and learn how all these
socialist countries are led inevitably to becoming lethal. According to him
it is all well intentioned for the most part and it is inevitable.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:46 MST