From: Charlie Stross (charlie@antipope.org)
Date: Sun Oct 27 2002 - 02:08:45 MST
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 03:51:33PM -0400, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/26/2002 2:11:45 PM Central Standard Time,
> charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: I have a problem with this. To me if
> theory and practice don't match, then the theory doesn't apply to the
> situation, and you need a different one to cover that area.
>
> Yes, Charles,
> That is my problem. Socialism or what I hear called socialism has a
> 200 year history of failure usually turned deadly.
Er, no. Firstly, you missed the deadly side-effects of its predecessor,
the ideology of the divine right of kings. If you want to criticise 200
year old events, you can't ignore the context in which they took place,
a context in which the standard form of government was "l'estat, c'est
moi". Secondly, the phrase "what I hear called socialism" -- emanating
from your direction -- smells somewhat. "Hear called socialism" -- by
whom? Rush Limbaugh? You need to analyse your sources cricially.
> However I can't find any
> socialist willing to either recognise their long history of miserable failure
> or to offer a solution explaining why they won't have another murderous
> failure upon the next attempt.
Then you haven't looked very far. Nor have you looked at those socialist
states that are successful. (Like, say, the UK. Where the workers -- or
their pension funds -- own about 80% of the assets on the stock market.
Or like Finland, rated *way* above your own country on metrics such as
freedom of speech. Or Canada, for example.)
> You (socialists plural) are attempting to convince me that you have a
> good idea that I should buy into.
I'm not, because I'm not a socialist. What I *am* is trying to get you
to open your eyes, do some basic research, and use the same language as
the rest of us for discussing phenomena.
> All I see is various totalitarian
> governments resulting from your past attempts.
Having missed the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden,
the Netherlands, Japan ...
Basically, all developed nations today (including the USA, to a lesser
extent than most) are "socialist" nations by the standards of the mid-
nineteenth century, let alone the mid-eighteenth. To that extent, the
socialist agenda needs to be deemed a success. (The same cannot be said
of the communist agenda, and especially the Leninist totalitarian
tendency.)
-- Charlie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:48 MST