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