In below we see the familiar syndrome: socialism is great but any
manifestation of it NEVER fits the definition, so not to worry.
wcm
>
> Bill Bartlett writes:
> > Martin William Smith wrote:
> > >Allister writes:
> > >> Perhaps your definition of the word "socialist" needs explaining.  It
> > >> appears to not sit anywhere near mine.
> > >
> > >The means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the
> > >community collectively through the state.
> >
> > Even if the arm manufacturers were government-owned, the state is
> > not the community, the state is an instrument of class rule. State
> > ownership of the means of production is not socialism. Class
> > distinctions, and hence the state, is inconsistent with socialism.
>
> 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.  And it is owned by
> the community, which is the population of the nation.  A state is not
> inconsistent with socialism.  Where did that requirement suddenly come
> from.  Norway has some programs which are quite socialist.  Norway is
> a state.  Everyone in Norway is equal according to Norwegian law,
> 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.
>
> "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.
>
> > But in any case, the arm manufacturers are privately owned, so what the
> > hell are you on about man?
>
> Nothing to do with arms manufacturers.  I didn't mention them.
>
> > >The means of production are
> > >the weapons.
> >
> > Weapons are not means of production you ratbag! Your arguments are so
> > flimsy that I feel like a dill for bothering to rebut them.
>
> Weapons are the means of production of the military, not that which is
> produced.  Try to stop thinking of production as manufacturing.
> Production refers to that which is produced.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Think again Martin, weapons are produced for profit, they aren't
> > *used* for profit (necessarily), but those producing them, the arm
> > manufacturers, are motivated by profit alone. They don't give a
> > flying fuck for their use value, only their commodity value.
>
> Wrong page, Bill.  The military is the institution we are talking
> about, not the arms manufacturers.  The military is a socialist
> institution.
>
> > Frankly I am worried that your grasp of the English language is
> > deteriorating Martin. You might want to come back to Australia, the
> > only place in the world it is spoken right, ay.
>
> I intend to come back, but I don't think it will help my English.
>
> 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
>