To ROG and DMB:
> ROG:
> Marx advocated "annihilating" such "reactionary races " as "Croats,
> Pandurs, Czechs and similar scum." Lenin and Stalin and Mao killed a hell
> of a lot more socialists within their own countries than did Hitler or
> Mussolini in their struggles for the pinnacle of socialist
> authoritarianism.
>
> DMB:
> They were both rabidly authoritarian,
> anti-democratic, anti-pluralistic and pre-modern in their beliefs. For a
> more realistic and fair-minded view of socialism I think we have to look at
> counties like France, the Netherlands or Canada. Real socialism is
> democratic, egalitarian, pluralistic and respects human rights. Just like
> our own Constitution, socialism is a product of the Enlightenment. Fascism
> is a rejection of those ideals, a reaction against those ideals.
>
> ROG:
> Where do you make this stuff up at? In exactly what part of violent,
> revolutionary class struggle do we find democracy? In what part of seizing
> political power to expropriate property and create a "dictatorship of the
> proletariat" do we find this fair minded pluralism?
I wonder if David and other socialists on this site will be good enough
tell us what part or parts of the Communist Manifesto they oppose.
> You are correct that socialism eventually adopted a democratic flair as
> popularized in Great Britain, France and other places after WWII. You
> choose to call this the real socialism, but you supply no argument to
> support your case.
Yes, I too wonder what is "real socialism" Is it Sweden's welfare state?
> DMB:
> And when we give roughly equal weight to ALL the statements Pirsig made on
> the topic its easy to see that the best ecomonic system would be a kind of
> socialism that does NOT close the door on DQ. That system would be superior
> in terms of both intellectual static quality and in terms of Dynamic
> Quality.
David, perhaps you'll explain the economic system you envision that
combines socialism but doesn't close the door on DQ. Is there a model
out there somewhere? Do you want the U.S. to become like Canada?
> See, the thing is that we're all really after the same things. I'm rabidly
> anti-authoritarian too. That's the real reason you both tend to reject the
> left, but authoritarians who called themselves socialists, did so only for
> the sake of gaining more authority. Real socialism rejects authoritarianism
> every bit as much as you do. And when you see it that way, you'll find that
> you don't need to disagree with Pirsig at all on this. Or with me.
Real socialism rejects authoritarianism? How then do socialists propose
to redistribute income in the name of "social justice" and "fairness"
(which I assume is a prime objective of David and all who lean left)?
David claims (in another post) that "real socialism is democratic" but
also says that "convential wisdom" about socialism is "total shit." Since
democracy reflects current conventional wisdom, I see a rather
frightening disconnect between the two statements. Couple this with
another statement David made: "We're not just talking about a few nutty
bible thumpers. It's big. We're talking about the medieval dorks who
direct the military and enforce our laws. And a giant chunk of the
population is perfectly happy about all this. 87% don't mind pledging
allegiance to this nation UNDER GOD." If that attitude reflects the claim
that "real socialism is democratic" we all better run for our lives.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST