By the way, by his definition, a total monarchy would be socialist.
-----Original Message-----
From: alister air <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Bombs and the ad campaign, and bomb those socialists


>At 11:12 9/06/99 +0200, Martin William Smith wrote:
>
>
>>The means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the
>>community collectively through the state.  The means of production are
>>the weapons.  The means of distribution are the vehicles.  The means
>>of exchange are the uses of the military, whether they be in war or a
>>sa deterrent.  The whole thing is publicly funded and is produced for
>>use rather than for profit.  It is not required to compete
>>economically.  It just has to perform its social function.  The
>>government determines what the level of investment in the military
>>will be.
>
>I see.  Your definition does not apply to the military.  The means of
>production are not owned by the community, even if you assume the community
>to only be the military.  The means of production are owned by the
>government which is in no way representative of that community.  The
>vehicles are also not owned by that community.  The power does not lie with
>the rank and file of the military.
>
>The entire of the military establishment is produced for profit - just not
>for the military's profit.  Private companies make very very large amounts
>of money out of the military, and part of this money is used in turn for
>lobbying purposes to ensure that the cash cow continues.
>
>You're confusing socialism with fascism.  Fascism shares some
>characteristics of socialism, while ensuring power is not shared.
>
>Alister
>