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