CDR: Re: would it be so much to ask..

[Tiarnan O Corrain]

   Since I was mentioned in passing, socialism (at least the way I use it) is
   the central management of resources and people without private ownership.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the definition, but I acknowledge that
it seems to fit with the Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. However,
the Solidarity movement, instrumental in bringing down the Polish tyranny,
was also a form of socialism. It's interesting that unions were banned in
the USSR (because they were unneccessary, all property was owned jointly
by the People, doctrinal truth, blah, blah) and badly messed up in the
US because they were socialist. In effect, two countries in which power
and control over resources were highly centralised (USSR: nomenklatura,
US: Fortune 500, two-party system) used diametrically opposed political vocabularies to
achieve the same end -- defeating democratic self-organization on behalf
of entrenched power-structures.


All the best

Tiarnan