> > If only the Soviet Union and its satellites and cronies are
> > considered socialists, then that is a pretty restrictive definition of
> > socialism.
>
> I never have thought of them as socialist, but rather as what
> would happen if the labor unions took over the corporations, and
> the stereotype of Jimmy Hoffa replaced the stereotype of John Akers.
>
I am still waiting a response to my arguments:
1./ There are well defined reasons for democracy not surviving in the
so called socialist countries so far;
2/ The absence of these reasons has a good chance to produce
a democratic socialist system
> ..................... If one wishes to call
> a system in which coordinated social policy creates and
> preserves something which can reasonably be called a
> "free market economy" capitalism, that's OK, so long as one does
> not oppose such a system of state regulation to socialism,
> not as one form of state regulation to another, but as absence
> of state regulation to state regulation. The invisible hand
> is IMO rather sleight of hand.
>
>
You are totally lost me here, but I'd like to point out,
that socialism by definition is not a state regulated system.
Only so far it happend in a totalitarian fashion - see my
tiradas before.
If (when!) the democratic pattern will be followed,
the state will wither away, remember. The seeds of that
withering away is actually showing with the appearance
of some local selfregulatory structures - some of them
however is more frightening than uplifting - due to
lack of information/education and ignorance.
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
