-Caveat Lector-
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard R. Davis III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I did not ask for you to expound on your "Games Hypothesis". I asked
> you for your definition of the word "socialism" since you have disagreed
> with that given the word by others (though you did not specify what
> their definition was or how it differs from yours). If you can't do so,
> or do not wish to, please just say so.
>
> Ric Carter wrote:
> > From: Howard R. Davis III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > So what IS your definition of "socialism"? There does not seem to be
> > > a clear definition in the web site mentioned and there is none that I
> > > can find in the following two messages.
> >
> > As with all human Games, religious/political/economic/artistic belief-
> > systems, 'socialism' means whatever the speaker WISHES it to mean.
My definition: Socialism is a Game, a belief system held by those who
call themselves Socialists. Just as any who wish to style themselves
Christians or Republicans or Nudists may do so, so anyone is free to
label themselves a Socialist - and is also free to merrily bludgeon,
and be bludgeoned by, anyone else who disagrees with their label,
their beliefs or their looks. Arguing over the finer points of just
what constitutes Socialism holds no interest for me. But I note that
power structures self-styled as Socialist have not fared too well in
open competition with more flexible, adaptive systems.
Now, let's say that Socialism entails some degree of community control
or ownership of... whatever. Endless arguments can ensue over just what
degree of ownership/control, and just what is being owned/controlled,
qualify a system as Socialism, but this seems like a basic principle -
not everything in a realm is owned/run by private forces. Experience
shows that with too MUCH community ownership/control over too GREAT a
range of institutions in a society, the society is stifled, and more
flexible societies stomp its butt. Likewise, with too LITTLE community
control/ownership over too SMALL a range of institutions, the society
becomes a kleptocracy, easy meat for more disciplined competitors.
So IMHO the vital question isn't, Is any given social/political/belief
system Socialism, but, Can a given society/nation adapt to meet the
competitive challenges of a rapidly-evolving world? Those states that
called themselves Socialist have generally flunked that test; but those
states that're soi-dissant Capitalist have found it incumbent to adopt
numerous items from Socialist agendas, for the sake of their survival
and growth. Community sponsorship of health/education/other programs
have resulted in healthier and more productive populaces. Are public
schools, public health systems/standards, public lands, 'Socialist'?
Does the label matter, as long as society and its members benefit?
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
