Mediaboss Marketing

I have followed a debate in your paper with interest. A. Abbott really needs to Google a few words, as his arguments seem to be based on incorrect interpretations of socialism and other forms of regime.

This letter relies heavily on excerpts from theories found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or co-operative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.

In the various countries A. Abbott mentioned in your paper of July 4, not one of them is a true socialist regime as there was no social ownership. There was also no democracy within those countries as they were ruled by evil dictators. I think the word he is seeking is totalitarianism, in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Evil dictators and fascists chose to seize control the means of production and to control everyone in their countries. Any dissenters were quickly disposed of, in not very nice ways.

There are examples of good social democrat countries in Scandinavia and Europe where ideology successfully supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Perhaps the egalitarian states would better demonstrate socialism than the ones erroneously touted as the models.

Mary-Ann de Kort

I have followed a debate in your paper with interest. A. Abbott really needs to Google a few words, as his arguments seem to be based on incorrect interpretations of socialism and other forms of regime.

This letter relies heavily on excerpts from theories found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or co-operative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.

In the various countries A. Abbott mentioned in your paper of July 4, not one of them is a true socialist regime as there was no social ownership. There was also no democracy within those countries as they were ruled by evil dictators. I think the word he is seeking is totalitarianism, in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Evil dictators and fascists chose to seize control the means of production and to control everyone in their countries. Any dissenters were quickly disposed of, in not very nice ways.

There are examples of good social democrat countries in Scandinavia and Europe where ideology successfully supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Perhaps the egalitarian states would better demonstrate socialism than the ones erroneously touted as the models.

Mary-Ann de Kort

Read more:
Totalitarian, not socialist - Gisborne Herald