Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!we13!otuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Totalitarian vs. Communist
Message-ID: <141@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Jun-83 17:54:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: tty3b.141
Posted: Fri Jun 24 17:54:13 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jun-83 09:42:53 EDT
Lines: 32

Tom Craver seems to have come up with a version of (U.S.
United Nations Ambassador) Jeane Kirkpatrick's authoritarian
vs. totalitarian non-distinction.  Ms. Kirkpatrick has developed
a very academic theory supposedly justifying the differences in
Reagan policy towards South Africa, Chile, Argentina, etc. and
Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.  

Now Tom Craver (in his "Is technology good or bad" submission) 
writes:
hat would be the differences ... in, say
	Russia (totalitarian), China (communist), France (socialist),
	the U.S. (mixed economy) ..."

This seems like one of those aptitude questions: "Find the term
which doesn't belong."  Communism, Socialism and a Mixed Economy
are ways of organizing the economy.  Totalitarian doesn't fall
in that class; it's a form of political organization.  

And by the way, I have friends in France who would certainly
disagree with your description of their country as "socialist".
Mitterand seems to use the same remedies as Reagan when the chips
are down.  Of course, it helps to find a country in the worst
economic shape and tsk-tsk about `the effects of socialism'.  Why
not look at Sweden or Yugoslavia, both better examples of
socialist countries?

Anyway, I know I'm missing the main point of your submission.  But
I'm preparing a response to that, too.


Mike Kelly 
tty3b!mjk