[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Mar 29 05:11:17 UTC 2002


On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> At 04:43 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> 
> >On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > > I believe you are confusing communism with socialism.
> >
> >I believe you are confusing socialism with fascism.
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> "Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the 
> nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other 
> loyalties." (http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html)
> 
> Nowhere in my definitions is there anything to do with race, country, or 
> any sort of fanaticism.

Here's Fascism in Mousilini's words:
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character,
its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in
comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be
conceived of in their relation to the State."

Fascism is a belief in the all-powerful and all-purposeful state.  The
state controls because the state is all that matters.

What is the word, then, for what you describe?  It's not socialism because
it ignores the vital element of control of the people (the "social" in
"socialism", if you will) and replaces it with a "government" or "state"
of (apparently) irrelevant composition.

> > > This is common, as many people believe the folks in the former USSR
> > > were communists. They were not. They never made it to communism (as
> > > Marx and Stalin claimed to want.) from socialism. This is why they
> > > were called, "United Soviet Socialists Republic" or USSR.
> >
> >What we call Soviet-style Socialism wasn't really socialist at all because
> >power never resided in the hands of the proletariat.
> 
> So you are also saying that the US style "social" programs are not
> socialist?

No.  I didn't mention the United States or their programs.

> > > In communism, everyone owns everything, and everyone has access to
> > > all goods and services.
> > > That's a good enough definition, sure.  I would refine it just a
> > > little to say that no party can control the
> 
> means of meeting human needs.
> 
> And that (again) is where it will fail. Just as anarchy will fail. It
> relies on people being "good". People are greedy.

Again, it doesn't matter if people are greedy if there is PLENTY.  Take
and take and there's still enough for others, so your greed doesn't
matter.  Communism is not an attainable goal, but an ideal to work toward.

Now, setting that aside, I have to ask this:

If greediness isn't "good", then why would you support a system that uses
greed as its only rewarded motivator?

> > > In socialism, the state owns everything, and the state decides what
> > > you get or don't get.
> >
> >That's only half of it.  Socialism also has the requirement that the state
> >be run by the workers.
> 
> Not according to
> http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/pc/1957/3-2socialism.html.

Let me amend my statement slightly, "Socialism also has the requirement
that the state be run by the workers, if the state is in control of the
means of production." since it is possible to have a socialist system in
which the state is not involved as a party (hence, the "collective OR
governmental" in the definition you cited).

How else do you interpret the phrase "and democratic management"?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list