Re: comrades!

Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:26:33 -0400 (EDT)
Andrew Wayne Austin (aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)

Comrades... and Professor Sanderson,

According to my dictionary, "comrade" means "associate or companion in
some activity." I thought that at least we were all associates. And,
moreover, that we were companions in some sort of activity. Another
dictionary of mine says that a "comrade" is "a person who shares closely
in the activities, occupation, or interests of another," "a companion,
associate, or friend." I hope we are all friends.

As for the reference to the Soviet Union, I might remind Professor
Sanderson that socialists and communists call one another "comrade"
throughout the world. It might also be useful to note several other
things, such as (1) I am a socialist, there are socialists on this list,
and I think that it is appropriate to use this term of affection; (2) the
Soviet Union, and other socialists countries, were and are vast
improvements over conditions previously existing in Russia and elsewhere;
(3) the socialist world system was far superior to most of the capitalist
world system past, present, and future.

I suppose I haven't a clue what Dr. Sanderson means about his reference to
1989 and 1991. Is this supposed to imply that the victory of capitalism in
the former state socialist countries proves that socialism is not viable?
Is the fall of communist regimes in these countries reckoned a good thing?
If this is the implication, how so?

The fall of the Soviet Union and fragmenting of the socialist world system
has meant a marked decline in freedom and the standards of living for over
one-third of world's population. It would seem that given the
accomplishments of socialism--even deformed state socialism--this century,
and particularly in light of the rapid decline in the welfare of hundreds
of millions of people with the dismantling of the state socialist system
worldwide, that "comrade" is still a quite honorable name.

Your Comrade,
Andy Austin