What does socialism mean?

[Louis MacNeice]

and what about those who continually suggest other people are being disingenuous, will they/you be posting there?

Shouldn't you be posting this elsewhere?

Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

On this page there are posts from you THBaldwin and Brasicattack which would all be better off elsewhere. So next time any of you three - and others - feel the need to start trading off topic playground insults, I've provided you all a space to do it...because I'm kind like that.

Louis MacNeice

You've got it all arse about face, like your mate, torres. The two that you mentioned came along solely to harass me. Please don't call me "paranoid" because the evidence is there and it speaks for itself.

 

[TremulousTetra]

On this page there are posts from you THBaldwin and Brasicattack which would all be better off elsewhere. So next time any of you three - and others - feel the need to start trading off topic playground insults, I've provided you all a space to do it...because I'm kind like that.

Louis MacNeice

didn't see you create one of these for Pickman's model etc. I wonder why?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You've got it all arse about face, like your mate, torres. The two that you mentioned came along solely to harass me. Please don't call me "paranoid" because the evidence is there and it speaks for itself.

I've not said anybody is paranoid. I've not said who started it. What I've suggested is that it's done elsewhere.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

didn't see you create one of these for Pickman's model etc. I wonder why?

Because P'sM hasn't posted on here for some considerable time? Because I've posted my suggestion in specific realtion to my thread? Although I'm quite happy for other people having trouble with off topic spats on their threads pointing the protagonists in the direction of http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=214538.

Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

I've not said anybody is paranoid. I've not said who started it. What I've suggested is that it's done elsewhere.

Louis MacNeice

<yawn> I thought you'd say this.

 

[nino_savatte]

This has to be one of the most transparently obvious threads of the year.

So sad that some folk waste their time trying to score cheap points in order to make themselves look good.

 

[Sue]

So sad that some folk waste their time trying to score cheap points in order to make themselves look good.

So sad that some folk waste their time resurrecting long-dead theads for no apparent reason.

 

[nino_savatte]

This is hardly a "long dead" thread...unless you happen to live in dog years.

 

[kyser_soze]

Nino's Thread Archaeology Company - Finding The Threads They Thought Were Dead!

 

[Fruitloop]

Zombie thread. It's the dis-embodiment of 'death drive'.

 

[mk12]

This has to be one of the most transparently obvious threads of the year.

So sad that some folk waste their time trying to score cheap points in order to make themselves look good.

Why did you feel the need to bump it then?

 

[_angel_]

Dunno if anyone clicked on the map of how british parties have drifted rightwards..
http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright


and where the US ones are at!


http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

 

[nino_savatte]

Why did you feel the need to bump it then?

What's your point, Mr Pointless?

 

[WeirdlyGreen]

I've never studied political theory so may not have properly understood a fair bit of this. Being utterly reductive, for me one of the things that a socialist administration must do is narrow income differentials. Failure to do this shows that right wing policy making has been a primary feature and suceeded. A long time ago I got into a debate with my fella about whether we've had socialism since 1997. My emotional sense was that we haven't but his response was that it depends what you mean by socialism. Does this thread agree that allowing the gap between rich and poor to widen is not socialism? Not really a definition I know but as I said I admit to reductionism.

 

[nino_savatte]

I've never studied political theory so may not have properly understood a fair bit of this. Being utterly reductive, for me one of the things that a socialist administration must do is narrow income differentials. Failure to do this shows that right wing policy making has been a primary feature and suceeded. A long time ago I got into a debate with my fella about whether we've had socialism since 1997. My emotional sense was that we haven't but his response was that it depends what you mean by socialism. Does this thread agree that allowing the gap between rich and poor to widen is not socialism? Not really a definition I know but as I said I admit to reductionism.

That sounds reasonable to me but there are some whose idea of socialism is narrowly defined and purist (they are the sectarians). Then there are others who claim that socialism "doesn't work" or it has "failed" (they are also sectarian) but never provide evidence to support their claims (which appear to be based on some narrow understanding of leftist politics). This country has never had real socialism; the US wouldn't have stood for it. I often find that there are many personal definitions of socialism and, in some respects, this can resemble a person's individual understanding of spirituality.

Too many people were quick to pronounce socialism dead with the fall of the Berlin Wall. What these people forget is that ideas cannot be killed.

 

[The Black Hand]

I often find that there are many personal definitions of socialism and, in some respects, this can resemble a person's individual understanding of spirituality.

Too many people were quick to pronounce socialism dead with the fall of the Berlin Wall. What these people forget is that ideas cannot be killed.

Very true. The 'end of history' was actually at the same time the birth of a New World globalised Order of capitalist Empire manifest through the USA. The class struggle never finished, it has just changed forms somewhat. Now, instead of half measures and transitional demands the alternatives are clear; either you want capital to continue via bolstering the social democratic status quo, or we are what we do. Communism/anarchism (call it what you will) is both the means and the ends of our politics, there is no separation.

 

[nino_savatte]

Very true. The 'end of history' was actually at the same time the birth of a New World globalised Order of capitalist Empire manifest through the USA. The class struggle never finished, it has just changed forms somewhat. Now, instead of half measures and transitional demands the alternatives are clear; either you want capital to continue via bolstering the social democratic status quo, or we are what we do. Communism/anarchism (call it what you will) is both the means and the ends of our politics, there is no separation.

Quite, the fall of the Berlin Wall was like the firing of a starting pistol for the adherents of neo-liberalism. The phrase "the end of history" is revealing in itself since it makes the bold claim that history is now dead because of a series of related events. But history cannot end unless, of course, the world ends.

 

[mk12]

I think neo-liberalism had begun to take root before 1989-91.

 

[Groucho]

I think neo-liberalism had begun to take root before 1989-91.

Yes it was called Reagonomics in the USA and Thatcherism here, although some basic Thatcherite economic measures had been introduced under Callaghan. Neo-liberalism refers to the acceptance by the 'mainstream' internationally of Thatcherite/Reagonite policies. By mainstream of course is meant the media and political concensus of the establishment.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think neo-liberalism had begun to take root before 1989-91.

No shit. Perhaps I meant the followers of postmodern politics.

There's no need to reply btw.

 

[becky p]

But history cannot end unless, of course, the world ends.

 

[mk12]

No shit. Perhaps I meant the followers of postmodern politics.

There's no need to reply btw.

"the Berlin Wall was like the firing of a starting pistol for the adherents of neo-liberalism"

Sloppy.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

Arising from another thread here are two takes on what socialism might be; they are meant as a starting point for some debate over what the S word really could/should/does mean:

1.

So what are some of the main features of socialism?

Social justice
Equality
Homes
Jobs
A free health service (and certainly one that is free of the notions of the internal market or simulated markets which prevent proper delivery of service - in other words, targets have become more important that patient care. That isn't socialist).
Education for all
A properly integrated publicly owned public transport system
Publicly-owned utilities​

2.

Socialism needs to be able to address questions of material provision, it needs to be thorough going in its commitment to democracy, it needs to be able to accommodate notions of both individual and collective responsibility and it needs to get to grips with challenges of environmental sustainability.​

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Socialism can never occur "naturally" or "organically" so it has to be forced like it was during the 30s in Russia.

I'm reminded of a great line from the best survey ever of the Soviet Union, Martin Malia's The Soviet Tragedy: "The Soviet experiment turned totalitarian not despite being socialist, but because it was socialist."

Socialism, like its equally repugnant sibling Nazism, is one of the great poltical evils of modernity. Thankfully, I believe it has been vanquished.

 

[butchersapron]

Socialism can never occur "naturally" or "organically" so it has to be forced like it was during the 30s in Russia.

Something that state socialism sharews with it's equally repugnant capitalist cousin then.

 

[nino_savatte]

"the Berlin Wall was like the firing of a starting pistol for the adherents of neo-liberalism"

Sloppy.

Just come along to snipe, have you? You're fucking pathetic. Btw, as far as neo-liberalism was concerned, there was a headlong rush in Eastern Europe to embrace it. So, the fall of the Berlin Wall did act as a starting pistol.

 

[Zeppo]

Fall of the Berlin Wall was important. Yes all those Thatcherite neo liberal consultants went to Eastern Europe to fuck things up more.

What does socialism mean? People who have been under the heel of 'socialism' in E Europe will tell u it sucks (includes the majority of Russians).

For people in the UK (if they are new Labour) it means getting rid of it fast. Tories - we hate it. Lib Dems - we'll get back to u on this.

For those on the left - a clearer mass marketing strategy needs to be in place - a sort of socialism for Dummies. For me the usual - real democracy, a brill welfare state/NHS, real equality, no exploitation of workers, more workers say and control, getting rid of anti-trade union laws would be a start - we can sort out the rest from there.

 

[nino_savatte]

Socialism can never occur "naturally" or "organically" so it has to be forced like it was during the 30s in Russia.

I'm reminded of a great line from the best survey ever of the Soviet Union, Martin Malia's The Soviet Tragedy: "The Soviet experiment turned totalitarian not despite being socialist, but because it was socialist."

Socialism, like its equally repugnant sibling Nazism, is one of the great poltical evils of modernity. Thankfully, I believe it has been vanquished.

Hmmmm, this 'analysis' has been taken directly from the Idiot's guide to 20th century ideologies. So, if I understand you correctly, capitalism and all its ugly relations occur naturally but socialism doesn't? It seems to me that you haven't really examined your history in any detail because if you did, you would discover that there have been many socialistic movements throughout history.

 

[butchersapron]

Just come along to snipe, have you? You're fucking pathetic. Btw, as far as neo-liberalism was concerned, there was a headlong rush in Eastern Europe to embrace it. So, the fall of the Berlin Wall did act as a starting pistol.

Only if you think the 100 metres starts with 50 metres already run. Neo-liberalism was up and running from the early to mid 70s depending upon which part of the globe you're talking about. In Chile it appeared under the guise of the military, in the old 3rd world it appeared under state-restructuring programs as a condition of IMF and WB etc loans in the period post-1982, that's when neo-liberalism fist took root as a global capital strategy. 1991 is far far too late - if you start there you'll end up with an incomplete and partial (not to say potentially eurocentric) picture of what's really took place over the last three decades and of where we are today.

 

[nino_savatte]

butchersapron
This message is hidden because butchersapron is on your ignore list.

Because you're such a tool; a hypocritical, bullying tool. Good night and goodbye, arsehole.