<HTML><HTML>In a message dated 11/21/04 5:08:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, lbo-talk-request@lbo-talk.org writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> Doug's point was that in a mainstream media interview you can say things like "I support the idea of a welfare state" and still be taken seriously whereas if you say "I would like to see the US become a socialist state" everything you say after that will be treated like so much static. He is essentially correct. Saying that this statement really means he isn't a true socialist because the concept of a welfare state is meaningless under socialism misses the point. When we finally have a socialist state here in the US I promise never to confuse anyone or reveal my true ignorance by using the term welfare state. Until then however I will use the term to help describe my beliefs to strangers. If that earns me a "D" in someone's imaginary class that's fine with me. I come here to learn, not to earn a grade. I haven't said that to anyone in quite awhile. John Thornton </BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps we can help matters with a homely analogy. There is a great house. Twenty servants live in the basement and do all the work. A half dozen family members inhabit the capacious upper three floors and do no work. There is disquiet in the servants' quarters, as a result of which some family members come to advocate more generous terms for the servants: a raise in pay, more time off, provision for the servants in old age and illness. This is the welfare state. There is also a debate in the servants' quarters. Some servants favor settling for the more beneficent family regime. Others speak of throwing the family out or putting them in the basement and taking over the house. This is socialism Hope I haven't oversimplified. </HTML>