Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!riccb!ihopa!ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Reagan and Alternatives:re to jj Message-ID: <657@mmm.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 11:24:56 EST Article-I.D.: mmm.657 Posted: Tue Mar 25 11:24:56 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:29:09 EST References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP> Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) Organization: none Lines: 152 Summary: In article <623@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> 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, > >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? > Sounds kind of democratic, depending on how you define "proletariat". >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? The fact that US schools are owned by the government does not mean that those schools are not used for political meetings by people who disagree with official government policies. In a democratic government, abuses of power (such as denying dissent) can be rectified by not re-electing the offenders. I will agree, though, that if the government does not allow dissenters to meet, they will have a hard time organizing enough to pull it off. But the ownership of means of dissent does not necessarily imply the denial of the use of those means by dissenters. >Where all jobs are given out by >one institution? The collective ownership makes totalitarianism possible -- >the fear of change makes it inevitable. Yes, I think communism, by its centralized nature, *does* lend itself to authoritarianism and repression, but it does not necessarily guarantee it. The state controls the means of production, so the question then becomes: who controls the state. I think it is entirely possible that the means of production can be controlled centrally, as long as the controlling body is pluralistic. An example (although perhaps not the best for my argument :-)) is public utilities in the US - they control all of the means of energy production, but their governing boards are pluralistic and responsive (sometimes) to the will of the people. Your cynical assertion that centralized power leads to repression may be correct, and I often think it is, but I remain not totally convinced. > >> 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? Guilt complexes - they usually think that they will be doing the downtrodden poor a favor by promoting communism. Besides, American communists are a joke - the only way you really get a communist revolution is when the proletariat revolt. >> 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. > But they already made the choice - that's what the Sandinista revolution was about. I keep hearing from people who have visited Nicaragua recently that the Sandinistas have the overwhelming support of their population. You know, even in the USA, there are those who think the world would be better off if we didn't have to put up with certain groups expressing their ideas. For example, Jerry Falwell thinks that gays should not express their reasons for their lifestyle on TV, and the fact that they have been allowed to do so has contributed to the decay of the moral fabric of US society, ultimately to lead to the destruction of all of us. I disagree strongly with him, but that's just my opinion. I believe that the open expression of ideas will lead to the people being able to weigh those ideas based upon their merit, and ultimately the best course will be followed. But that is the American way, and while I think it is the best way, I'm not sure it can be forced upon people, it has to be the will of the people. But if the will of the people is to entrust a small group with the power to run the country and keep the peace, it is beyond our rights to over-rule them. I think that they will eventually find out that it is a bad idea, but they have to learn that lesson for themselves. We are trying to spare them some of the nasty problems we encountered as we learned those lessons, and that is a noble cause. I question, however, that it will work. It's like a parent trying to teach his kid a lesson through words, many times the kid just has to make the mistakes personally to learn the lessons. Our present form of government has been reached after thousands of years of cultural development in this direction. Democracy requires tolerance of other peoples' ideas and a responsibility of the people to make informed decisions. I often think that the US has only just barely matured to the point where democracy can survive - I'm not at all convinced that any third world countries' cultures have the required characteristics. There are many countries where a strong government that makes all the decisions for the populace is required - a democracy simply won't work because the people have not developed the sophistication to make the decisions for themselves. >> 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 agree 100%. >I don't think that Reagan thinks non-communist thugs are OK -- just not >a threat to the U.S. That's where I disagree - I think they *are* a threat by virtue of the fact that they provide fertile ground for communist revolution. When the US backs a cruel dictator that the people try to overthrow, we should not be surprised when the opposition turns to the only other source of weapons and support - the USSR. We inadvertently support anti-US revolutions by allying ourselves with evil dictators like the Shah, Marcos (boy were we lucky - for once I think Reagan played it right), Pinochet, Diem, Somoza, etc. The people hate the dictators, not the US, but because we support the dictators, we become the peoples' enemy. Perhaps what we should be doing in Nicaragua is *helping* the government to be more responsive to the needs of its people and disapproving of its repressive aspects rather than trying outright to overthrow it and therefore guaranteeing the animosity of its people. > >Clayton E. Cramer > -- --MKR "The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." - Albert Einstein