Posted by Nick on July 12, 1999 at 04:45:12:
In Reply to: Re: Plots, what do they tell us? posted by Martin on July 11, 1999 at 16:33:07:
: Tut, tut, tut. Here we go yet again.
: Before anyone starts in a big way, may I remind various people that there are almost as many definitions for "socialism", "capitalism" et al as there are people who care about them. There is no single "correct" definition, especially for "socialism"....
: Isn't it a tad unfair to lumber poor old Jack Vance with interpretations favoring one's own prejudices?
: Thank God Vance is so pragmatic or even flippant about religion; if he favored one particular religion, the posts here would really be out of control.....
Of course there is a single correct definition, both of capitalism, communism, socialism etc. People may choose to use their own definition, but that does not invalidate the original meaning of the term.
I said "What I mean is that Nazism was called National Socialism, labels mean nothing."
you said :"...may I remind various people that there are almost as many definitions for "socialism", "capitalism" et al as there are people who care about them.)
The two statements appear to be the same to me.
You said :"..Isn't it a tad unfair to lumber poor old Jack Vance with interpretations favoring one's own prejudices?"
Who has "lumbered" Jack Vance in this way?
Endre, simply said "...a clear demonstration of Vance's true feelings toward socialism, one suspects."
Are we not allowed to suspect something?
(PS. I hope u noticed that i disagreed with Endre, and he did not seem to be annoyed. This seems to be a polite exchange of views to me, until you're post that is.)
On religion, I would argue that Vance considers religion to be the most pernicious of human follies, and there is a welter of evidence in the text to support that idea. (I realise that this does not prove anything)
(I have been suspected to be a creationist on this board btw, though I am not. Please do not assume that I have an axe to grind with every post.)