> > 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.
Reese appears to define it as any political system that is contrary to
the political interests of the elite class of the United States, threatening
to their economic or political dominance.
Reese is as much a dinosaur as communism. Like much of the Republican
party he only understands opposition to some external enemy, so needs
to create one as a prop for his world view. Left to their own devices that
faction will have the US at war with China for no other reason than to
maintain their ideological position.
Ultimately though Reese is just a tin pot nationalist with no experience
outside
the propaganda of the culture he grew up in. Like all tin pot nationalists
his is not a view that travells well. He just does not understand how anyone
could not realise the absolute perfection of his position. It would be less
tedious for the rest of us if he could work out the inner conflict between
his
anti-government and rabid-nationalist positions elsewhere but c'est la vie.
Phill
