Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky |
Date: | Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:38:55 +1000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Martin William Smith wrote:
>The manufacturers aren't relevant. I said the military is a socialist
>institution, not the manufacturers. The military produces. It doesn't
>have to produce widgets to be a producing entity.
The military doesn't produce, it destroys.
> And it is owned by
>the community, which is the population of the nation.
It is owned by the state, not the community.
> A state is not
>inconsistent with socialism. Where did that requirement suddenly come
>from.
Its always been inherent Martin. Even that apologist for state socialism
Lenin only claimed it was a transition.
> Norway has some programs which are quite socialist. Norway is
>a state.
Norway is capitalist.
> Everyone in Norway is equal according to Norwegian law,
That is political equality, socialism entails economic equality.
>regardless of whether some Norwegians belong to one or more elites.
>State ownership of the means of production is the typical way
>socialist programs are implemented. If that doesn't fit your abstract
>view, too bad for you.
No, it doesn't fit my abstract view. Too bad for you it doesn't fit the
dictionary definition either. Socialism is the social ownership of the
means of production, by your definition the US is a socialist country
because it has a military. Sorry mate, but your definition and use of the
the word robs it of any meaning whatsoever.
>
>"Class distinctions, and hence the state..."? The state follows from
>class distinctions? There are always class distinctions. Everybody
>distinguishes classes. It's a fundamental function of the brain.
>States don't follow automatically.
Oh? The division of humanity into exploited and exploiter is hard wired
into the brain is it Martin? Give me a break.
[...]
>Wrong page, Bill. The military is the institution we are talking
>about, not the arms manufacturers. The military is a socialist
>institution.
You want to think about how silly that sounds and get back to me?
Time you cut your losses on this argument.
Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.
|
|
|