Captain - She's Gonna Blow!

Leopold Stotch wrote:
kT wrote:
DR SMITH wrote:
"Leopold Stotch" wrote in message
news:wXMnk.292629$yE1.257837@attbi_s21...
Actually no. Both of the major fascist movements of the 20th
century were grounded on the left. Mussolini was a dedicated
communist before founding the Italian fascist movement which
retained most important facets of Communism/Socialism. Mussolini
was in fact well respected by Lenin. The only major difference
between the two was that Mussolini envisioned communism married with
nationalism while Lenin believed that communism was an international
movement that would supplant nationalism entirely.

The name Nazi is of course a contraction of Nationalsozialismus
(National Socialism). The Nazi party was rooted in the Socialist
movement that was sweeping Europe at the time and was viewed by
contemporaries as the logical extension of the German social
contract started by Bismark, which is commonly remembered as one of
the hallmarks of the progressive movement. The Nazi party was
initially profoundly anti-business and preached a social contract
that would look familiar to the New Dealers that were to follow in a
few short years. In fact, many New Dealers publicly praised the
Nazi movement before they began their military adventures. They
were virulently anti-communist, but this reflected their extreme
nationalist and racial ideology, not their objection to communist
economic policy. Hitler basically took what Mussolini started and
added an extreme racial superiority component.

Extremly well put. Due to the state of our educations system of the
last few decades, the only people who know this information are those
that took it upon themselves to read or research. Thanks to the bias
media many believe that the the great dictators of the past few
hundred years were conservatives. Dictators are often referred to as
'right wing'or 'hard line conservatives' in news stories. Libreal
ideas are the one that often revolve around citizens serving the
state for 'the greater good', mostly by treating the funds and
resources earned by the citizen as borrowed from others, and thus
having to be returned through high income taxes, estate taxes, death
taxes, windfall taxes, etc. These taxes are always framed as 'paying
your fair share. This is a generalization, but you get the point.

Fascist and conservative schemes always fail, progressive liberal
schemes always thrive. You choose. Oops, I mean you already chose :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Yer ****ed. You may now barrage us with explanations that it isn't
your fault, it's all the commie librus's fault for wanting social
justice and health and prosperity for all, especially in an era of
cheap natural resources, wealth and energy. Intelligent people can see
right through the nonsense and death that you spew in the name of
'political science'.

Well, since I consider myself a classical liberal (as the Europeans
would understand this term) then you and I should be on the same page. I
favor maximal personal liberties and limited government that intrudes
into the private lives of its citizens as little as possible. I don't
want a government that can peer into anyone's bedrooms or their private
business and I certainly don't want a government that can limit anyone's
political speech. I believe in a government of limited enumerated
powers where the state can interfere with the liberty of the individual
only in the most extreme circumstances. I hope you would agree with me
on these points.

"Conservative" is a term that gets bandied about and is almost
meaningless unless understood in context. For example, when the old
Soviet Union was in the process of imploding, the old guard communists
were routinely referred to as "Conservative elements" or "Hard Line
Conservatives" by the media of the day. This was in and of itself was a
true statement. They were indeed attempting to conserve the status quo,
i.e. the old communist system.

So, "Conservative" in general means those in society who seek to
conserve the traditions of a particular culture or society.

Given this definition, what do U.S. "Conservatives" wish to conserve? In
general, they are attempting to conserve the classically liberal
tradition that this country was founded upon (individual liberty,
limited government, free speech, and a democratically elected
representative republic). So, a "Conservative" American of the late
1980's had nothing in common with Russian "Conservatives" of the same
era who were trying to roll back the clock and maintain the Soviet
empire which was in the process of collapsing, even though the media of
the day used the word "Conservative" to describe both.

So, whenever you hear the word "Conservative" you must understand what
is being proposed to be conserved.

Now, I will not attempt to pretend that everyone in the American
Conservative moment is a agent of goodness and light. All movements
have their bad apples and the "Conservative Right" is no different (as
is the case with the American "Liberals" (more accurately called
Neo-Liberals) or "Progressives" who have no shortage of skeletons in
their closet - both past and present).

Now, this has all been very interesting but I'm not sure what it has to
do with space history, policy, the Shuttle program, or the ISS.

To the intelligent progressive liberal with even a modicum of scientific
training and experience, the relationship would be intuitively obvious.

Intelligent progressive liberal scientists understand the importance of
outer space development and colonization to the future of civilization.

kT wrote:
Leopold Stotch wrote:
kT wrote:
DR SMITH wrote:
"Leopold Stotch" wrote in message
news:wXMnk.292629$yE1.257837@attbi_s21...
Actually no. Both of the major fascist movements of the 20th
century were grounded on the left. Mussolini was a dedicated
communist before founding the Italian fascist movement which
retained most important facets of Communism/Socialism. Mussolini
was in fact well respected by Lenin. The only major difference
between the two was that Mussolini envisioned communism married
with nationalism while Lenin believed that communism was an
international movement that would supplant nationalism entirely.

The name Nazi is of course a contraction of Nationalsozialismus
(National Socialism). The Nazi party was rooted in the Socialist
movement that was sweeping Europe at the time and was viewed by
contemporaries as the logical extension of the German social
contract started by Bismark, which is commonly remembered as one of
the hallmarks of the progressive movement. The Nazi party was
initially profoundly anti-business and preached a social contract
that would look familiar to the New Dealers that were to follow in
a few short years. In fact, many New Dealers publicly praised the
Nazi movement before they began their military adventures. They
were virulently anti-communist, but this reflected their extreme
nationalist and racial ideology, not their objection to communist
economic policy. Hitler basically took what Mussolini started and
added an extreme racial superiority component.

Extremly well put. Due to the state of our educations system of the
last few decades, the only people who know this information are
those that took it upon themselves to read or research. Thanks to
the bias media many believe that the the great dictators of the past
few hundred years were conservatives. Dictators are often referred
to as 'right wing'or 'hard line conservatives' in news stories.
Libreal ideas are the one that often revolve around citizens serving
the state for 'the greater good', mostly by treating the funds and
resources earned by the citizen as borrowed from others, and thus
having to be returned through high income taxes, estate taxes, death
taxes, windfall taxes, etc. These taxes are always framed as
'paying your fair share. This is a generalization, but you get the
point.

Fascist and conservative schemes always fail, progressive liberal
schemes always thrive. You choose. Oops, I mean you already chose :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Yer ****ed. You may now barrage us with explanations that it isn't
your fault, it's all the commie librus's fault for wanting social
justice and health and prosperity for all, especially in an era of
cheap natural resources, wealth and energy. Intelligent people can
see right through the nonsense and death that you spew in the name of
'political science'.

Well, since I consider myself a classical liberal (as the Europeans
would understand this term) then you and I should be on the same page.
I favor maximal personal liberties and limited government that
intrudes into the private lives of its citizens as little as possible.
I don't want a government that can peer into anyone's bedrooms or
their private business and I certainly don't want a government that
can limit anyone's political speech. I believe in a government of
limited enumerated powers where the state can interfere with the
liberty of the individual only in the most extreme circumstances. I
hope you would agree with me on these points.

"Conservative" is a term that gets bandied about and is almost
meaningless unless understood in context. For example, when the old
Soviet Union was in the process of imploding, the old guard communists
were routinely referred to as "Conservative elements" or "Hard Line
Conservatives" by the media of the day. This was in and of itself was
a true statement. They were indeed attempting to conserve the status
quo, i.e. the old communist system.

So, "Conservative" in general means those in society who seek to
conserve the traditions of a particular culture or society.

Given this definition, what do U.S. "Conservatives" wish to conserve?
In general, they are attempting to conserve the classically liberal
tradition that this country was founded upon (individual liberty,
limited government, free speech, and a democratically elected
representative republic). So, a "Conservative" American of the late
1980's had nothing in common with Russian "Conservatives" of the same
era who were trying to roll back the clock and maintain the Soviet
empire which was in the process of collapsing, even though the media
of the day used the word "Conservative" to describe both.

So, whenever you hear the word "Conservative" you must understand what
is being proposed to be conserved.

Now, I will not attempt to pretend that everyone in the American
Conservative moment is a agent of goodness and light. All movements
have their bad apples and the "Conservative Right" is no different (as
is the case with the American "Liberals" (more accurately called
Neo-Liberals) or "Progressives" who have no shortage of skeletons in
their closet - both past and present).

Now, this has all been very interesting but I'm not sure what it has
to do with space history, policy, the Shuttle program, or the ISS.

To the intelligent progressive liberal with even a modicum of scientific
training and experience, the relationship would be intuitively obvious.

Intelligent progressive liberal scientists understand the importance of
outer space development and colonization to the future of civilization.

Dunno KT, I've always found the "intelligent progressive liberal" to be
a bit of an oxymoron, or at least a mythical beast never to be verified
with hard evidence. Much like the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster.

You do seem to have a habit of patting yourself on the head and
congratulating yourself on what a forward thinking, intelligent person
you are. It has been my experience that truly intelligent, forward
thinking people rarely do this. Whatever gets you through the night I
suppose.

I will agree with you however that becoming a space faring species is
crucial to the long term survival of mankind. Perhaps we can build on
our common ground rather than fixate on our differences.

Leopold Stotch wrote:

Actually no. Both of the major fascist movements of the 20th century
were grounded on the left. Mussolini was a dedicated communist before
founding the Italian fascist movement which retained most important
facets of Communism/Socialism. Mussolini was in fact well respected
by Lenin. The only major difference between the two was that
Mussolini envisioned communism married with nationalism while Lenin
believed that communism was an international movement that would
supplant nationalism entirely.

The name Nazi is of course a contraction of Nationalsozialismus
(National Socialism). The Nazi party was rooted in the Socialist
movement that was sweeping Europe at the time and was viewed by
contemporaries as the logical extension of the German social contract
started by Bismark, which is commonly remembered as one of the
hallmarks of the progressive movement. The Nazi party was initially
profoundly anti-business and preached a social contract that would
look familiar to the New Dealers that were to follow in a few short
years. In fact, many New Dealers publicly praised the Nazi movement
before they began their military adventures. They were virulently
anti-communist, but this reflected their extreme nationalist and
racial ideology, not their objection to communist economic policy.
Hitler basically took what Mussolini started and added an extreme
racial superiority component.

One difference though. At least theoretically socialism and communism
aren't the same thing.
Under socialism all power is held by the government with the intention
of improving people's live via central planning, wage and price
controls, and numerous government run programs guaranteeing all citizens
a reasonable standard of living while using heavy taxes to keep a few
from developing great wealth at the expense of the many.
Ideally, pretty much everyone ends up as middle class with no rich or poor.
Under communism, the central government was supposed to "wither away" to
be replaced by a decentralized form of government based on small-scale
groups of workers and farmers voting at the lowest levels and sending
representatives into higher and higher level voting forms (what makes
that odd is that you can see libertarians coming up with something along
these lines, though the communist system would operate within a fixed
set of laws and controls that all had to obey) - rather like if all the
union members in a industry shot the bosses one day, burned all the
stock certificates, and took the whole industry over for themselves -
with all of its profits being theoretically split evenly among the workers.
The Soviet Union never claimed to be communist, as its name Union Of
Soviet _Socialist_ Republics indicates.
Socialism was seen as a transitional phase between capitalism and true
communism (or in Russia between feudalism and communism) necessary until
things got worked out into their final worker's paradise form.
Under Mussolini and Hitler the socialist phase was seen as the desired
end in itself; and that became the de-facto case in Russia also,
especially after Stalin rose to power.
What the Soviet Union under Trotsky would have been like would make a
fascinating alternative history speculation.
Pretty chaotic for starters, as laws would have constantly been
rewritten to reflect the current stage of "evolving society" under the
concept of "permanent revolution* "; and there would have been a far
larger push to spread the Marxist-Leninist gospel abroad than Stalin's
"socialism in one country" approach.

* I always thought that the Mexican "Institutional Revolutionary Party"
sounded like something Trotsky would have come up with. :-)

Pat

DR SMITH wrote:
Extremly well put. Due to the state of our educations system of the last
few decades, the only people who know this information are those that took
it upon themselves to read or research. Thanks to the bias media many
believe that the the great dictators of the past few hundred years were
conservatives. Dictators are often referred to as 'right wing'or 'hard line
conservatives' in news stories.

If one of the precepts of conservatism is that a particular society has
gone to hell and needs to return to a purer form that it had in earlier
days, then Hitler's call to return to the purity of the Germanic past
and Mussolini's desire to recreate the glories of the Roman Empire
certainly count as conservative ideas, and pretty severe ones at that.
Churchill dreamed of the grand old days of the British Empire, but he
didn't take it to the point of wanting to kill all the members of the
House Of Commons for treason against the crown...at least I don't think
he did, but he gets pretty far out in the last couple of chapters of his
"History Of The English-Speaking Peoples" and you can see that he
definitely expects America to wake up from its sad delusion and join the
the inevitable rebirth of the British Empire when that golden day
arrives. :-)

Libreal ideas are the one that often
revolve around citizens serving the state for 'the greater good', mostly by
treating the funds and resources earned by the citizen as borrowed from
others, and thus having to be returned through high income taxes, estate
taxes, death taxes, windfall taxes, etc. These taxes are always framed as
'paying your fair share. This is a generalization, but you get the point.


Of course the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" and "right"
and "left" evolved so much during the 20th century that political
ideologues of 1908 would be baffled by their present incarnations.
Remember when conservatives were isolationists that kept us out of
foreign wars, unlike those meddling liberal internationalists?
That sure changed, didn't it? :-D

Pat

Leopold Stotch wrote:


So, whenever you hear the word "Conservative" you must understand what
is being proposed to be conserved.

Now, I will not attempt to pretend that everyone in the American
Conservative moment is a agent of goodness and light. All movements
have their bad apples and the "Conservative Right" is no different (as
is the case with the American "Liberals" (more accurately called
Neo-Liberals) or "Progressives" who have no shortage of skeletons in
their closet - both past and present).

I think it was one of the great ironies of history that one of stated
concepts of the Republican party - defeating Russian communism - was
achieved under Reagan and Bush...and in the end managed to remove a
primary reason for the party's existence, and wipe out (at least for a
while) a good-sized chunk of the defense industry.
The other irony is that they allowed the neoconservatives - who started
out as a major headache in the Democratic Party - into the Republican
party, with disastrous results.
As someone pointed out about Gingrich's "big tent" concept of
dissatisfied voters playing a major part in the "Republican Revolution"
if you spread the circus tent wide enough, eventually the freak show
ends up inside the tent.
And that's just what happened. :-D

Pat

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:19:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



DR SMITH wrote:
Extremly well put. Due to the state of our educations system of the last
few decades, the only people who know this information are those that took
it upon themselves to read or research. Thanks to the bias media many
believe that the the great dictators of the past few hundred years were
conservatives. Dictators are often referred to as 'right wing'or 'hard line
conservatives' in news stories.

If one of the precepts of conservatism is that a particular society has
gone to hell and needs to return to a purer form that it had in earlier
days, then Hitler's call to return to the purity of the Germanic past
and Mussolini's desire to recreate the glories of the Roman Empire
certainly count as conservative ideas, and pretty severe ones at that.

I see.

So, Obama is a conservative?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/0...t-it-once-was/

"America is, uh, is no longer, uh...what it could be, what it once
was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."

Get that man a teleprompter, quick!

Leopold Stotch wrote:
kT wrote:
Leopold Stotch wrote:
kT wrote:
DR SMITH wrote:
"Leopold Stotch" wrote in message
news:wXMnk.292629$yE1.257837@attbi_s21...
Actually no. Both of the major fascist movements of the 20th
century were grounded on the left. Mussolini was a dedicated
communist before founding the Italian fascist movement which
retained most important facets of Communism/Socialism. Mussolini
was in fact well respected by Lenin. The only major difference
between the two was that Mussolini envisioned communism married
with nationalism while Lenin believed that communism was an
international movement that would supplant nationalism entirely.

The name Nazi is of course a contraction of Nationalsozialismus
(National Socialism). The Nazi party was rooted in the Socialist
movement that was sweeping Europe at the time and was viewed by
contemporaries as the logical extension of the German social
contract started by Bismark, which is commonly remembered as one
of the hallmarks of the progressive movement. The Nazi party was
initially profoundly anti-business and preached a social contract
that would look familiar to the New Dealers that were to follow in
a few short years. In fact, many New Dealers publicly praised the
Nazi movement before they began their military adventures. They
were virulently anti-communist, but this reflected their extreme
nationalist and racial ideology, not their objection to communist
economic policy. Hitler basically took what Mussolini started and
added an extreme racial superiority component.

Extremly well put. Due to the state of our educations system of
the last few decades, the only people who know this information are
those that took it upon themselves to read or research. Thanks to
the bias media many believe that the the great dictators of the
past few hundred years were conservatives. Dictators are often
referred to as 'right wing'or 'hard line conservatives' in news
stories. Libreal ideas are the one that often revolve around
citizens serving the state for 'the greater good', mostly by
treating the funds and resources earned by the citizen as borrowed
from others, and thus having to be returned through high income
taxes, estate taxes, death taxes, windfall taxes, etc. These taxes
are always framed as 'paying your fair share. This is a
generalization, but you get the point.

Fascist and conservative schemes always fail, progressive liberal
schemes always thrive. You choose. Oops, I mean you already chose :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Yer ****ed. You may now barrage us with explanations that it isn't
your fault, it's all the commie librus's fault for wanting social
justice and health and prosperity for all, especially in an era of
cheap natural resources, wealth and energy. Intelligent people can
see right through the nonsense and death that you spew in the name
of 'political science'.

Well, since I consider myself a classical liberal (as the Europeans
would understand this term) then you and I should be on the same
page. I favor maximal personal liberties and limited government that
intrudes into the private lives of its citizens as little as
possible. I don't want a government that can peer into anyone's
bedrooms or their private business and I certainly don't want a
government that can limit anyone's political speech. I believe in a
government of limited enumerated powers where the state can interfere
with the liberty of the individual only in the most extreme
circumstances. I hope you would agree with me on these points.

"Conservative" is a term that gets bandied about and is almost
meaningless unless understood in context. For example, when the old
Soviet Union was in the process of imploding, the old guard
communists were routinely referred to as "Conservative elements" or
"Hard Line Conservatives" by the media of the day. This was in and of
itself was a true statement. They were indeed attempting to conserve
the status quo, i.e. the old communist system.

So, "Conservative" in general means those in society who seek to
conserve the traditions of a particular culture or society.

Given this definition, what do U.S. "Conservatives" wish to conserve?
In general, they are attempting to conserve the classically liberal
tradition that this country was founded upon (individual liberty,
limited government, free speech, and a democratically elected
representative republic). So, a "Conservative" American of the late
1980's had nothing in common with Russian "Conservatives" of the same
era who were trying to roll back the clock and maintain the Soviet
empire which was in the process of collapsing, even though the media
of the day used the word "Conservative" to describe both.

So, whenever you hear the word "Conservative" you must understand
what is being proposed to be conserved.

Now, I will not attempt to pretend that everyone in the American
Conservative moment is a agent of goodness and light. All movements
have their bad apples and the "Conservative Right" is no different
(as is the case with the American "Liberals" (more accurately called
Neo-Liberals) or "Progressives" who have no shortage of skeletons in
their closet - both past and present).

Now, this has all been very interesting but I'm not sure what it has
to do with space history, policy, the Shuttle program, or the ISS.

To the intelligent progressive liberal with even a modicum of
scientific training and experience, the relationship would be
intuitively obvious.

Intelligent progressive liberal scientists understand the importance
of outer space development and colonization to the future of
civilization.

Dunno KT, I've always found the "intelligent progressive liberal" to be
a bit of an oxymoron, or at least a mythical beast never to be verified
with hard evidence. Much like the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster.

You do seem to have a habit of patting yourself on the head and
congratulating yourself on what a forward thinking, intelligent person
you are. It has been my experience that truly intelligent, forward
thinking people rarely do this.

I'm pretty sure I got context and tense correct in that statement.

Third person isn't good enough for conservatives I suppose.

I will agree with you however that becoming a space faring species is
crucial to the long term survival of mankind. Perhaps we can build on
our common ground rather than fixate on our differences.

Pat Flannery wrote:


DR SMITH wrote:
Extremly well put. Due to the state of our educations system of the
last few decades, the only people who know this information are those
that took it upon themselves to read or research. Thanks to the bias
media many believe that the the great dictators of the past few
hundred years were conservatives. Dictators are often referred to as
'right wing'or 'hard line conservatives' in news stories.

If one of the precepts of conservatism is that a particular society has
gone to hell and needs to return to a purer form that it had in earlier
days, then Hitler's call to return to the purity of the Germanic past
and Mussolini's desire to recreate the glories of the Roman Empire
certainly count as conservative ideas, and pretty severe ones at that.
Churchill dreamed of the grand old days of the British Empire, but he
didn't take it to the point of wanting to kill all the members of the
House Of Commons for treason against the crown...at least I don't think
he did, but he gets pretty far out in the last couple of chapters of his
"History Of The English-Speaking Peoples" and you can see that he
definitely expects America to wake up from its sad delusion and join the
the inevitable rebirth of the British Empire when that golden day
arrives. :-)

I do not accept it as axiomatic that a core part of conservatism is a
call to return to some glorious Utopian era of the past. That certainly
has been a feature of past fascist movements, particularly those that
incorporate a strong racist component (although fascist Italy did seek
to restore the glory of the Roman empire without a significant racial
component).

In actuality, Conservatism does have something of a built in defense
against this type of thinking as it is a major tenet of conservative
thinking that Utopia (i.e. a perfect world) is not achievable and all we
are allowed to do is choose from imperfect alternatives which will
generate imperfect results. This is actually a key distinction between
modern Conservative and modern Liberal ideology, as most modern Liberal
(a better word would be Leftist) movements have perfection as an
understood goal. These two premises do result in fundamentally
different attitudes and results. In a conservative world view if some
policy or action yields an imperfect result it is the anticipated
outcome. Certainly a conservative might decide that the policy yielded
less than desired and the policy might be adjusted, but perfection is
never expected. In a Liberal world view on the other hand, perfection
is often the stated or unstated expected outcome. When a Liberal policy
or action yields an imperfect outcome the general understanding is
either that those that carried out the policy were insufficiently
dedicated and therefore failed in their mission or the goal was denied
due to nefarious intentions by an enemy or some subversive element.
This explains many of the excesses found in various leftist state
experiments (the USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia, and yes, Nazi Germany and
Fascist Italy).


Libreal ideas are the one that often revolve around citizens serving
the state for 'the greater good', mostly by treating the funds and
resources earned by the citizen as borrowed from others, and thus
having to be returned through high income taxes, estate taxes, death
taxes, windfall taxes, etc. These taxes are always framed as 'paying
your fair share. This is a generalization, but you get the point.

Of course the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" and "right"
and "left" evolved so much during the 20th century that political
ideologues of 1908 would be baffled by their present incarnations.
Remember when conservatives were isolationists that kept us out of
foreign wars, unlike those meddling liberal internationalists? That sure
changed, didn't it? :-D

Pat

Yes, the meanings of "Liberal" and "Conservative" have been turned on
their heads a few times in the last century. These labels in many cases
have become almost meaningless.

Pat Flannery wrote:


Leopold Stotch wrote:

Actually no. Both of the major fascist movements of the 20th century
were grounded on the left. Mussolini was a dedicated communist before
founding the Italian fascist movement which retained most important
facets of Communism/Socialism. Mussolini was in fact well respected
by Lenin. The only major difference between the two was that
Mussolini envisioned communism married with nationalism while Lenin
believed that communism was an international movement that would
supplant nationalism entirely.

The name Nazi is of course a contraction of Nationalsozialismus
(National Socialism). The Nazi party was rooted in the Socialist
movement that was sweeping Europe at the time and was viewed by
contemporaries as the logical extension of the German social contract
started by Bismark, which is commonly remembered as one of the
hallmarks of the progressive movement. The Nazi party was initially
profoundly anti-business and preached a social contract that would
look familiar to the New Dealers that were to follow in a few short
years. In fact, many New Dealers publicly praised the Nazi movement
before they began their military adventures. They were virulently
anti-communist, but this reflected their extreme nationalist and
racial ideology, not their objection to communist economic policy.
Hitler basically took what Mussolini started and added an extreme
racial superiority component.

One difference though. At least theoretically socialism and communism
aren't the same thing.
Under socialism all power is held by the government with the intention
of improving people's live via central planning, wage and price
controls, and numerous government run programs guaranteeing all citizens
a reasonable standard of living while using heavy taxes to keep a few
from developing great wealth at the expense of the many.
Ideally, pretty much everyone ends up as middle class with no rich or poor.
Under communism, the central government was supposed to "wither away" to
be replaced by a decentralized form of government based on small-scale
groups of workers and farmers voting at the lowest levels and sending
representatives into higher and higher level voting forms (what makes
that odd is that you can see libertarians coming up with something along
these lines, though the communist system would operate within a fixed
set of laws and controls that all had to obey) - rather like if all the
union members in a industry shot the bosses one day, burned all the
stock certificates, and took the whole industry over for themselves -
with all of its profits being theoretically split evenly among the workers.
The Soviet Union never claimed to be communist, as its name Union Of
Soviet _Socialist_ Republics indicates.
Socialism was seen as a transitional phase between capitalism and true
communism (or in Russia between feudalism and communism) necessary until
things got worked out into their final worker's paradise form.
Under Mussolini and Hitler the socialist phase was seen as the desired
end in itself; and that became the de-facto case in Russia also,
especially after Stalin rose to power.
What the Soviet Union under Trotsky would have been like would make a
fascinating alternative history speculation.
Pretty chaotic for starters, as laws would have constantly been
rewritten to reflect the current stage of "evolving society" under the
concept of "permanent revolution* "; and there would have been a far
larger push to spread the Marxist-Leninist gospel abroad than Stalin's
"socialism in one country" approach.

* I always thought that the Mexican "Institutional Revolutionary Party"
sounded like something Trotsky would have come up with. :-)

Pat



The central problem with socialism is that in order to achieve their
ideal goals so much power is ceded to the central government that you
are guaranteed attract those that seek power above all to positions in
government, i.e. the very people that will be attracted to run your
government are the exact people you don't want to put in charge. This
is a bad enough problem in a government with constitutionally limited
powers, but when you vest the government with the essentially limitless
powers needed to achieve socialist goals the problem is magnified by
orders of magnitude.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Aug 6, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" wrote:

Liberals identified early with their mothers.
Conservatives with their fathers.

No, no. It's birth order! Firstborns are conservatives, later-borns
are liberals.


Well that does explain my family!



John Savard