alister air writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> >What would you call the person who performs the general's leader job,
>
> *ELECTED* is what I'd call them under socialism, Martin. They'd be *VOTED*
> in by the rank and file. They would have no title.
How would that work? The captain gets shot, and with incoming shells
pounding the earth around you, you dash from foxhole to foxhole
collecting votes for a new captain? I don't think so. There has to
be a chain of command. Anarchy doesn't work everywhere.
> >> One might just as well say that the public service, with all its
> >> management hierarchy, is also socialist, or that universities are
> >> socialist.
> >
> >They are. Well, private universities aren't, I suppose, or at least
> >they are less so.
>
> No, they're not. I work in a University, and it's no more socialist than a
> private one. The differences are virtually zero.
What differences do you expect to be there? Increased fellowship?
Lots more natural women who wear Doc Martens and don't shave? A
public university is supported by public funds. Doesn't that make it
the slightest bit socialist? Or do you subscibe to the Bartlett
You-can't-be-a-little-bit-socialist theory?
> >I didn't say Norway was socialist. Where did you get that idea?
> >Norway's economy is capitalist. Norway has implemented solialist
> >programs.
>
> No. Norway has implemented liberal programs. Unless, of course, Norway
> has returned privately-run enterprises back to the hands of the workers, of
> course...
I thought that's what a publicly owned structure is. I include all
the people as workers, since their taxes help fund the system,
whatever it is, and help pay the salaries of the people who actually
work there. Again, you appear to be ever increasing restrictions in
the definition of what is a socialist structure so that it will always
be something that won't be widely implemented, and I am left to
conclude that your purpose is to avoid actually implementing it so you
can always enjoy the fellowship of your opposition movement.
> <<collins def which I mostly agree with snipped>>
>
> >By that definition, the system comprising the military and the people
> >(the members of the military being people) is a socialist system.
> >
> >I suppose you will back off on your "unsupportable by any definition"
>
> No, I will not back off. You are absolutely wrong when you claim that the
> troops own the guns.
The troops own the guns because they are also citizens. They own the
guns by virtue of their membership in the greater community, which
funds the military and buys the guns.
> They do not, and never ever will. The grunts in the
> army have little or no control over their lives... do you think they
> *elect* to be totally subserviant to their superior officers?
You have a low opinion of these "grunts", who are, after all, citizens
with equal standing in law if not in fortune. They should receive
higher pay.
> Furthermore, the military *can not* be isolated from everyone else.
But that is exactly the opposite of what I was doing. You are the one
who isolated them from everyone else. I have said from the beginning
that the members of the military are also citizens. As citizens they
own the military.
> They are not an economic system - they are merely a part of
> one... any more than an individual corporation is an economic system
> in and of itself.
What does that point prove?
> >claim. Or maybe you will just disparage the Collins dictionary. Both
> >tactics are predicted by the Chomsky model. You will somehow draw the
> >boundary so that you are in the clear, so that you can say are good
> >and they are bad.
>
> So, you're wrong on this one again. I neither disparage the Collins def
> nor back off from my claim. I dispute your interpretation.
Unsuccessfully.
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
If I'm not careful, I'll use up my quota of messages again. This
anarchy stuff is hard work.
|
