Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is socialism?
Message-ID: <1439@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Mar-85 00:01:10 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1439
Posted: Wed Mar  6 00:01:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Mar-85 06:15:26 EST
References: <325@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <711@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <190@ubvax.UUCP> <736@ucbtopaz.CC.BerkRRe: What is socialism? I think that it is necessary to get a definition of ``exploit'' though.
>Otherwise it is going to be difficult to come up with a definition of
>``class''. And if there is no such thing as a ``class'' then we have
>already got a classless society. Now go walk in a ghetto. Ooops, there
>is something wrong with that conclusion as well...
> 
>Laura Creighton
exploit: to turn to practical advantage  (OED and Random House dictionaries,
slightly shortened).  In a second meaning, the advantage is for selfish
ends,  but nowhere does a definition suggest that exploitation is to
anyone's DISadvantage.

Why are you so hung up on word definitions?  I guess it makes things easier
to discuss if everyone uses the words similarly, but we are never going
to achieve mathematical agreement on all nuances (even the mathematicians
redefine their foundations a couple of times per century).  It would
perhaps be better to try to get across what we mean, rather than assert
what appear to be syllogisms that turn out to depend on shifting
word definitions and porous assumptions.  Your "joke" article quoted
above is hardly a parody, since it matches so well so many of the
articles on this net.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt