Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!trc
From: trc@houti.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Totalitarian vs. Communist
Message-ID: <329@houti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Jun-83 17:58:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: houti.329
Posted: Wed Jun 29 17:58:45 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jun-83 02:16:16 EDT
Lines: 29

Response to Mike Kelly on totalitarianism:

If you prefer to use Sweden in your examples, go ahead.  The major 
trend in France is towards more socialism.  Anything major new problem, 
such as a vast change in the economic structure, would certainly be 
handled in a socialistic manner.  From the point of view that is important
to this discussion, it wont make much difference whether we discuss France or
Sweden.  I was not trying to give a rigorous definition of the types 
of government - nor to limit discussion to particular countries.

I *was* trying to characterize the fundamentals of the nation, however.
Russia can scarcely be said to be mainly communist or socialist, since those
particular ideologies are supposed to be ruled by the will of the masses.
In Russia, everything - *including* the economy - is "totally" controlled
or able to be controlled by the government.  Anything that is not controlled
is "free" only by allowance of the government.  Though China is also 
totalitarian, it appears to have been more concerned than Russia with 
trying to achieve "pure" communism.  (Which is not to say that it is
somehow better.)

Finally, the comment on Ms. Kirkpatrick's "authoritarian vs. totalitarian 
non- distinction", appears to me to have little to do with my note - except 
that it has to do with totalitarianism and with making distinctions.  This 
seems like an attempt at condemning me by association.  I do *not* think that 
either government form is much better (morally) than the other.  At best, 
one might be a slightly lesser evil, but only by default.

	Tom Craver
	houti!trc