From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 17:46:21 MST
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 16:34, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/5/2002 5:18:32 PM Central Standard Time,
> charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: I don't think that anyone considers
> communism to be a from of socialism. Most countries that have tried it
> haave swiftly swung into an absolist form of despotism. Communism, despite
> it's claims, is basically a centralist doctrine, where socialism seems
> rather agnostic on centralism.
>
> Charles,
> I think you are simply trying to argue from the abstract and ignore
> the concrete. Of course communism is a form of socialism and always has
> been. As you say socialism is agnostic on centralism. There fore
> communist and national socialisms centralism is prefectly within theory and
> very much within the lessons of observed history. The only times your
> socialists have not turned to centralism is when you could never get the
> requisite power to do so and hold power. Sometimes you have been thrown
> out, sometimes you have be voted out and sometimes you have had the wit to
> keep quiet and act nice-nice. But, every time you had the requisite power
> you went centralist and totalitarian.
> Ron h.
To an extent you are correct. I am looking for a definition, and that will by
necessity be a bit abstract, and not attached to particular instances. OTOH,
the definition must be concrete enough to enable one to look at the
definition, and some particular entity and determine whether or not the
definition fits the entity.
So far the only viable definition proposed ended up with socialism being a
form of corporatism or partnership where the ownership was divided among
those working there. (I presume that some provision would be made for those
who had retired, but none was specified. Also not discussed was whether or
not they could sell their stock.)
I am willing to entertain other definitions, as that one doesn't seem to mean
all of the things that I have commonly heard socialism used to mean. But I
can't propose any, as I don't have any clear and definite idea.
But that definition is clearly one of the meanings for which I have heard the
term socialism used in other than pieces of propaganda.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:58 MST