>> > Or should we debate the meaning of "is" also?
>>
>> how about the meaning of "socialist"? at the moment, your definition of
>> it seems to be "everything outside of my personal opinion".
>
>I would define it as, to secure for the workers by hand or brain the full
>fruits of their labour by means of common ownership of the means of
>production distribution and exchange.
As always you left out one bit "...owership of the
means...exchange, buy forcing--through violence, or the threat of
violence--the current owners of the means to give them to the *state*
in trust of the people".
Socialism is *inherently* the ownership of the "means of
production" by the government, supposedly "in trust" for the people.
As owners, they also *control* the means of production.
Facism is the *control* of the means of production allegedly
in the interests of "the people", while the ownership is still held
in private hands. Of course, how you can truly be said to own
something you cannot exercise control over is a little lost to me.
Most government are at *least* a little facistic, or
socialistic. Currently the US is midly facistic and moving more and
more towards socialistic. England seems to be heading the other
way--from socialism to facism.
Both are abominations. Both assume *implicitly* that the
market *needs* to be "controled", and **CAN** be controled at a
central point.
Both assumptions are blatantly wrong.
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: **********************************************
If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret
the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
