alister air writes:
>
> At 14:05 12/06/99 +0200, Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> >Not everybody, Bill. Your countryman, alister air, agreed with the
> >definition of socialism I used from the Collins English dictionary.
>
> Don't bring me into this - I *mostly* agreed with it. This is a
> disagreement between you and Bill, and so what I may have said is not
> necessarily relevant.
But you did say: "[martin's] line is unsupportable by any definition
of the word `socialist'".
I then supported my line with a definition. The definition I used is:
The Collins English Dictionary, second edition, 1986. socialism -
1. an economic theory or system in which the means of production,
distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively,
usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use
rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence
of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government
determination of investment, prices, and production levels.
You mostly support the definition, but you don't support my line.
Since the definition does support the claim that the system comprising
the military and the people (the members of the military being people)
is a socialist system, your objection to my line must lie in the minor
part of the definition you do not support. Which part is that?
> >How's that? A system can't be contained in a system? What is a
> >subsystem then? I understand Tasmania might not have any systems that
> >are complex enough to contain subsystems, but, I asure you, in most of
> >the rest of the world, such behemoths do exist.
>
> This paragraph was the sort of pathetic cheap shot not worthy of
> this list.
Which part do you mean, my astonishment upon arriving at the
conclusion that there is no such thing as a subsystem, or my feeble
attempt at humor to expose the absurdity of it?
martin
Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|
