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