Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Reagan and Alternatives:re to jj Message-ID: <623@kontron.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Mar-86 16:20:56 EST Article-I.D.: kontron.623 Posted: Tue Mar 18 16:20:56 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Mar-86 18:09:45 EST References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA Lines: 86 > In article <703@mtuxn.UUCP> gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: > >as they have tried to do to so many others. But the PEOPLE, that's > >right, the PEOPLE of this country hate and fear Communism. And it is > >a well-founded and proper hate and fear. That is the normal reaction > >to evil. > > > >Guy > > > Communism is evil? I hear this kind of rhetoric all over, and I've > never really understood it. Communism is an economic system. It is not > necessarily totalitarian - any more or less than capitalism is. So, Guy, > please enlighten me - how is communism "evil". Remember to restrict > yourself to communism - not to totalitarianism - they are separate issues, > and evil totalitarian governments are quite common amongst non-commies, > too. > > It seems to me that communism is just an economic system - and > an inferior one at that. In a non-biased comparison with capitalism, it > loses every time in just about every respect. If it were not supported > by a totalitarian government, it would have died out amongst developed > nations long ago. It seems to me that the only people *really* interested Communism is tied to totalitarianism for the following reasons: 1. Marx taught that "a dictatorship of the proletariat" would bring about Communism. Does this sound non-totalitarian? 2. In a communist society, all the means of production are owned by the people. In a socialist society, all the means of production are owned by the state. A printing press is definitely a means of production. So are movie cameras, and radio stations, and television stations. So are places where people live or meet to discuss their differences with the rest of the society. Would you care to tell me how a political opposition movement can express its standpoint, can hold meetings, in fact, can do ANYTHING AT ALL in a society where the People or the State control or own everything necessary to dissent? Where all jobs are given out by one institution? The collective ownership makes totalitarianism possible -- the fear of change makes it inevitable. > in communism are poor people who have been continually screwed by the > upper classes. I don't think we need to fight communism - we just need to If they only people interested in communism are poor people, why are all the communists I've ever met in this country from the upper classes? Without exception, every one has been from a home that I would consider wealthy. I remember talking to a guy several years ago, who had just graduated from college. He mentioned that his older brother was involved in one of the communist party groups (RCP, I think). I said, "Your father must be very wealthy." This guy's response was, "How did you know that?" > hold it up next to capitalism and let people judge. (I was just watching > a Russian TV program on PBS - they were celebrating the manufacture of > the 4 millionth refrigerator in the USSR. The only reason they were so > proud of it was that they didn't know how many refrigerators *we* have > produced.) > > It is totalitarianism and censorship that we need to fight. I > can't really even see the USSR as communist - the just have different > Czars now, but it's still a pretty aristocratic place. When people > like Reagan make the implicit assumption that we must fight communism, > I wonder two things: 1) why? what if the Nicaraguans *want* to be > communists? Who are we to tell them what form of government they can > choose for themselves? Does their embrace of communism necessarily mean Totalitarian states don't allow this choice -- and the repression of the press in Nicaragua shows that the Sandinistas don't trust the population to agree with them. > that they are a threat to us, or are allied with Moscow? Why can't we > deal with them in whatever form of government they choose? and 2) does > he *mean* communism, or does he mean totalitarianism. Unfortunately, I > think he usually means totalitarianism, but only of the commie type - the > other type is just fine. > Totalitarianism of any sort is wrong -- totalitarianism allied with the Soviet Union is both wrong and a national security problem for the U.S. I don't think that Reagan thinks non-communist thugs are OK -- just not a threat to the U.S. Clayton E. Cramer "A new way of thinking -- beyond gravity."