Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <794@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-May-86 14:29:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.794
Posted: Mon May 19 14:29:36 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 22-May-86 19:57:43 EDT
References: <157@unido.UUCP> <720@ark.UUCP> <122@paisley.ac.uk>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 53
Xref: lsuc net.followup:2113 net.politics:5725

> In article <778@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >> I agreed with everything said in the article except this:
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a 
> >> >Labour Party government in England at this point can't 
> >> >be distinguished from a Communist government by any
> >> >reasonable measure.
> >> 
> >> Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that 
> >> very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no
> >> matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they
> >> confess themselves.
> >
> >Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear-
> >free zone?  Removal of US bases from Britain?  How long do you think 
> >Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election?
> >
> >Clayton E. Cramer
> 
> Unless I am mistaken the Labour Party espouses *democratic* socialism.
> I.e. they have no intention of suspending the democratic process that
> would eventually lead to their downfall (as eventually  happens with *all* 
> governments in  *all* democracies) should they gain power. In this respect
> one could not by any stretch of the imagination place them in the
> same league as the communists who not only do not believe in the
> democratic process, as best exemplified by elections, but also are willing
> to commit  even the vilest of acts in order to retain the power
> that they have so ruthlessly achieved.
> 

I'm not persuaded that the difference between "democratic socialism" and
Marxist-Leninist socialism is as dramatic as you believe it to be.  For
starters, Communists *have* participated in free elections before, and
have even won one (sort of) in Chile.  Conversely, my experiences dealing
with "democratic socialists" here in California leads to me believe that
their support of free speech is purely pragmatic.  Consider the efforts
of the various feminist groups in the U.S. to restrict pornography -- and
I understand that a Labour M.P. recently attempted to get Parliament 
to restrict papers like the _Sun_ because of their childish fascination
with bare breasts.

> PS In the interest of fostering a greater understanding of democratic
>    socialism by our neighbours to the South, I am hereby offering,
>    by the powers vested in me by no one in particular, to *give*, totally
>    free of charge, to the USA nine tenths of all of our socialists. 
>    Since the US's population is about 9 to 10 times Canada's I would deem
>    the division to be fair. However, with only a modicum of persuasion
>    I'm sure I'd been willing to let go of all of them. :-)

OK, OK, we'll stop acid rain!  There's no need for threats!

Clayton E. Cramer