----------
> From: Paul E J King <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] socialist unions
> Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 11:25 AM
>
> They are not a product of an understanding either of Socialism or the
> Soviet Union, either, unfortunately. The Soviet Union was never socialist
> except in name. In fact it was a brutal tyranny ruled by a Nomenklatura
> led by a brutal, and radically undemocratic dictator. The situation since
> the collapse is about the same. The upper class in the new "capitalist"
> Russia is simply the old Nomenklatura. The plundering of the poor by
> the rich continues on as before, and the suppression of the poor is about
> the same, the poverty is the worst it has ever been even in comparison to
> the rule by the Czars and the Ukranians under Stalin during the famine.
Please excuse me, but this is a bit much, even for regurgitated propaganda.
Please quantify, particularly that last "comparison". It is my position
that you do not know WHAT the hell you are talking abiut...please prove the
contrary position.
> They are only happy to be in a country that is wealthy enough to sustain
a
> plundering of the poor by the rich while comparitively not being hard
> on the poor, assuming that they wound up in Canada or the US or some
other
> advanced industrialised country, which the Soviet Union never was. What
> these people understand as socialism was fed to them by Politburo
> propaganda. They were always "on the path" to socialism, but never there.
> In fact I am surprised you have never heard the Soviet riddle: "What is
> the next step on the path to true socialism? Answer: Alcoholism." The
> Soviets had a huge problem with alcohol abuse (a symptom of living a big
> lie, more than likely).
>
> Not only is it not abundantly clear that socialism has failed, from your
> example, it can be used as proof that it has been *highly* successful.
> First, rid your mind of any illusions that the Soviet Union was ever
> socialist in anything but name. There are other countries, such as
Sweden,
> Finland, the Netherlands, and Canada that implement socialist policies,
> and have very healthy standards of living. The proof is there. To the
> extent that social programs are being cut these days, then "socialism
has
> failed."
I have labored under the understanding that socialism required public
ownership of the means of production. How, exactly, did the "Socialism" of
Scandiavia, the Netherlands and Canada (!) square with the Royal holdings
in these countries, and, for that matter, with the holdings of
multi-nationals and small owners?
Have you ever read any of the the body property law of any of these
countries? Does your estimation of whether or not they are socialist result
from this study? If not, from what does it result?
>
> I hope that I have educated you to this end. In short, if you are looking
> for socialism, don't look to Russia, Cuba or China. Look to the
> "capitalist" economies that have "dared" to institute socialist policies.
!!!
> You will be very surprised at how civilised and well-maintained these
> countries are.
>
> > Michael Coghlan.
Michael -
I have read some ofyour posts, and often agree with your perspective, so I
hope you don't find the above offensive. However, you are making some
pretty broad statements without offering a scintilla of evidence to
substantiate them. That is, of course, your right, but it does little
except to make the search for truth a little harder for the rest of us.
- Don DeBar
>
> ====================================================================
> Paul King email: [log in to unmask]
> 309-1660 Bloor Street East Mississauga ON L4X 1R9
> ====================================================================
> Come visit my web page at: http://cgi.idirect.com/index///pking.html
|
