(John continues:-) I would mention in passing that some of the Communists I
have known are totally sincere, good people. I hate their policies, because I
believe they cloud appreciation of the real problems by relying on emotional
attacks on just about all successful people. But here the word is not "dirty"
enough to gain points in an intelligent argument.
(Joe replies:-) My mother's older brother was a lifelong 'Communist', and a
finer, more decent human being would be hard to find. I spent many hours of
enjoyable debate with him in trying to turn him from 'the dark side'. I never
succeeded. Though he did mellow with age, first into more often calling himself
a 'Socialist', and later, not long before he died, he'd morphed into what he
called a 'Social Democrat'.
Just what exactly the distinction was in his mind between these various
labels I was never quite able to discern. It all sounded like the same old Party line
to me. In one sense though, he was just the same as every other 'Communist',
'Socialist', 'Social Democrat' I've ever personally known ~ all fine people,
too, by the way. As long as it was somebody else's private property that was
being 'socialised' the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' knew best. But if it
ever came to pass that any of THEIR property was under the slightest threat of
'proletarian' control, in any manner whatsoever, well, their politics veered
further to the 'Right' than Maggie Thatcher's.
In spite of that, I wouldn't take the word as having a 'dirty' connotation.
What Bill refers to is most likely intended as a statement of fact rather than an
insulting epithet.
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
