Reply
Sat 9 Jul, 2005 04:46 pm
For UK politics only. When a person announces that they support Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, etc, their announcement is respected and valued. However, if a person announced that they were a Fascist, Communist or a member of the National Front, they would be hated in public. So, if I said I was a Socialist, what kind of reaction would I get? I am very left wing, but not so that I am a Communist.
If you said you were a socialist in the UK, in general people might think you were a bit old fashioned maybe, but there is absolutely no shame whatsoever. Many respectable Labour politicians claim to still be socialists. This is not at all like the US, where 'socialist' means 'bad'.
define socialist an i'll give you my opinion
contrex wrote:Many respectable Labour politicians claim to still be socialists.
Not only that but the "Labour party is a democratic socialist party".
(Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution)
(And, of course, the Labour Party is a member of the European section of the
Socialist International)
A theory or system of social organization whitch advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production,captital,land,etc.,in the community as a whole. the people would control the resources as they saw fit instead of companys P.S. I'm not a socialist so don't call homeland security on me
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:define socialist an i'll give you my opinion
Someone willing to have a jar with you at the local, along with everyone else in town, at someone else's expense.
oh oh, this doggy is sharp and wired on coke.This is the main argument against socialism and can't be pushed aside
This is a very lonely thread.TEAMSTERS RULE!
I thought it was a great question with some really good responses.
That the term "socialist" has become such a pejorative term in some quarters is more than a bit sad. In my country (Australia) the term and the concept are definitely out of favour but you won't be hounded if you say you're a socialist. People might think you're a bit quaint but you wouldn't get the cops called on you.
Even the Australian Labor Party has written out its old socialism clauses, preferring to regard itself as a "social democrat" party (in the European model) rather than a "democratic socialist" party (again following the European model).
... although the English Labour Party still is a "democratic socialist party" ... :wink:
goodfielder wrote:I thought it was a great question with some really good responses.
That the term "socialist" has become such a pejorative term in some quarters is more than a bit sad. In my country (Australia) the term and the concept are definitely out of favour but you won't be hounded if you say you're a socialist. People might think you're a bit quaint but you wouldn't get the cops called on you.
Even the Australian Labor Party has written out its old socialism clauses, preferring to regard itself as a "social democrat" party (in the European model) rather than a "democratic socialist" party (again following the European model).
I once checked out the Fabian Society website (don't recall why now) and even they now avoid using the term socialist. It has become a pejorative, which i blame on the wave of conservativism which swept industrial nations in the 1980's--like a bad fashion trend.
socialized medicine and education is a just idea
Amigo wrote:socialized medicine and education is a just idea
Some things should be socialised although not totally controlled by the state - these are two of them.
Amigo wrote:A theory or system of social organization whitch advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production,captital,land,etc.,in the community as a whole. the people would control the resources as they saw fit instead of companys P.S. I'm not a socialist so don't call homeland security on me
The community not the state.but I see your point.By the way I don't know if I would socialize anythin else.
Amigo wrote:By the way I don't know if I would socialize anythin else.
And I think that's a sensible position. The problem is that when this comes up commentators tend to retreat into absolutism - the totally unrestrained free-market capitalists versus the totally centrally planned and controlled command economy proponents. How to balance the creeative forces of capitalism (such forces being able to do good and bad things on a huge scale) with the constraining and moderating forces of socialism but to ensure the latter don't inhibit the former to the point of extinction.
Thats exactly the idea I dream of.Take capitalism where it works socialism where it works but what would you call this frankenstine and could it exist
Actually I think it has worked at various times in various countries. I'd like to say it used to work here in Australia but that was when we had a heavily protected economy.
We were buffeted by the idea of globalisation (which for me is just another name for unrestrained capitalism) in the early 1980s and we dropped a lot of protection and allowed the free market to work.
To some degree it was a good idea but it changed us irrevocably. There could have been a very workable and useful mix of the milder versions of capitalism and socialism here except that there has been an extended shift towards unrestrained capitalism which has increased wealth overall in this country but concentrated most of that wealth in a very few hands thus causing a major social imbalance that has yet to be rectified.
It will take me years to understand these ideas.And I like to know before I say.I want to think responsibly.I read your post carefully
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace