From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 15:54:31 MST
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 22:08, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/5/2002 11:54:55 PM Central Standard Time,
> jonkc@att.net quotes: > I am looking for a definition, and that will by
> necessity be a bit abstract, and not attached to particular instances.
>
> John,
> First, I do recognise you were quoting in order to refute that
> statement above. But, even though you refuted the statement I still want
> you to sit back and reflect on what the man is saying. He wants a
> definition that is not attached to reality for a political philosophy he
> wishes to rule by. Think about that. Wow.
> Ron h.
Rule? I am looking for a definition. That has to do with language, and what
words mean. I want to know what words mean when I use them. If you won't
share your meanings, then I can't use them.
But, the definition needs to be useable to recognize things by. The name is
not the thing. Just calling something X doesn't make it X. So one needs a
definition of the features of Xness.
In the course of this discussion I have achieved a workable definition of
Socialism in a non-governmental context. Nobody has provided a definition
that would allow me to even recognize it in a governmental context. The
closest so far is:
"tightly regulates its internal economy" (applied to India, justifying
calling is Socialist). That's a start. I'm not sure that it's an essential
feature, but it would be plausible.
Note that this is a defintion tied to recognizeable features. And I can sort
of see why this might be a feature to be expected of a Socialist nation,
assuming that all socialism is based around the factory model rather than
reaching back to earlier roots, such as whaling ships or merchant caravans
(some of them).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:59 MST