P
Pete
Guest
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If you're thinking about pretty much any rule-by-force country which
>> at the moment has 'socialist' in the name, then that is simply the
>> local dictator trying to look good internationally and has no
>> relation to his policies, same way that countries with 'democratic'
>> in the name virtually always aren't.
>
> You know, just as I was about to start a list you printed that.
> That's the trouble with socialists. If you point out the blood
> thirsty bastards you simply claim that they weren't "real" socialists.
There's a lot of democratically elected socialist parties around now -
I think someone posted such a list recently. You could start running
through those looking for examples of how socialism is bad.
I could post a list of dictatorships with 'republic' in the name and
claim that somehow the US Republican party has something to do with
them; that'd make about as much sense as you listing the dictatorships
with 'socialist' in the name, i.e. none.
> And of course there's no sense in mentioning the National Socialists
> Party. You say they weren't socialists despite the fact that they were
> voted in as Socialists.
The Nazis were voted in on a lot of promises. Yes, they started out
appealing to the poor end of German society (which was lots of people
at the time) with vaguely socialist policies. They appealed to mass
emotion by producing scapegoats for all of the things that weren't
working. They appealed to big business by promising to break up the
trades unions (and they did that, and I'm sure you won't claim that
was a Socialist act!). Then once they were voted in they only did the
things that would help rebuild Germany's military. I suppose you could
claim that employing everyone by putting the economy on an emergency
war setting through the 1930s counts as socialist, but that's about
it.
Any government which produces basically socialist legislation I will
call socialist. If it doesn't produce socialist legislation, I don't
care what the name is, it's not socialist. Same way I won't call it
chocolate unless it contains a decent amount of cocoa bean, whatever
the name on the packet is.
Pete
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If you're thinking about pretty much any rule-by-force country which
>> at the moment has 'socialist' in the name, then that is simply the
>> local dictator trying to look good internationally and has no
>> relation to his policies, same way that countries with 'democratic'
>> in the name virtually always aren't.
>
> You know, just as I was about to start a list you printed that.
> That's the trouble with socialists. If you point out the blood
> thirsty bastards you simply claim that they weren't "real" socialists.
There's a lot of democratically elected socialist parties around now -
I think someone posted such a list recently. You could start running
through those looking for examples of how socialism is bad.
I could post a list of dictatorships with 'republic' in the name and
claim that somehow the US Republican party has something to do with
them; that'd make about as much sense as you listing the dictatorships
with 'socialist' in the name, i.e. none.
> And of course there's no sense in mentioning the National Socialists
> Party. You say they weren't socialists despite the fact that they were
> voted in as Socialists.
The Nazis were voted in on a lot of promises. Yes, they started out
appealing to the poor end of German society (which was lots of people
at the time) with vaguely socialist policies. They appealed to mass
emotion by producing scapegoats for all of the things that weren't
working. They appealed to big business by promising to break up the
trades unions (and they did that, and I'm sure you won't claim that
was a Socialist act!). Then once they were voted in they only did the
things that would help rebuild Germany's military. I suppose you could
claim that employing everyone by putting the economy on an emergency
war setting through the 1930s counts as socialist, but that's about
it.
Any government which produces basically socialist legislation I will
call socialist. If it doesn't produce socialist legislation, I don't
care what the name is, it's not socialist. Same way I won't call it
chocolate unless it contains a decent amount of cocoa bean, whatever
the name on the packet is.
Pete