Forum menu
That is not socialism in any way. What you are proposing is liberalism ( not neolibralism)
I'd dispute this. Liberalism endorses free market principles and free enterprise - that's at odds with delivering outcomes for the good of society as a whole with only light touch intervention.
Liberalism also doesn't recognise the state as the creator of money.
That doesn't seem to me where Kerley is going.
How about social democracy?
Absolutely lets have some of that. Not what Starmer and Reeves are offering though is it? They're offering more neo-liberal race to the bottom austerity and socialism for the rich. What we have now isn't social democracy, it's oligarchy and kleptocracy, willingly supported by both main parties. At least the tories are honest about it, Labour on the other hand pretend to be on the side of working people.
How about social democracy? Thats a mixed economy with redistribution and management of markets? better for the poor than liberalism due to the re distributive element and control of markets
Because we've gone too far in one direction with markets and their poor outcomes.
Social democracy is not going to fix the problems we currently have.
How on earth do you address problems like lack of housing or inequality without the state spending big?
Living in a dream world where we pretend that market economics just roll up and fix things is a huge issue for western democracies. (Look at the evidence!)
I think the next few years will continue to show us this appalling trajectory.
Most of the self proclaimed "lefties" on here support either liberalism or social democracy - both centrist philosophies. Not socialist
Ernie is the only real leftie on here. Good knowledge of the philosophies as well. I disagree with many of his conclusions but its clear he has real knowledge of political philosophy
Me I am a dark green - which has much to share with socialism but also some major differences often arriving at the same place for different reasons
I see myself as a realistic/practical socialist. With the outcomes of socialism but within the remits of how the world works in 2024. Anything else is just dream world stuff.
I don't care what it is technically called but Labour were closer to it (nowhere near close enough) just a few years ago than they now are under Starmer
Riiiiight!
Social democrat or liberal then
potato potaato. Social Democracy is a form of socialism and the form that I think could most realistically work given the constraints that are now firmly set.
Oh good. TJ has read a book and now he's going to bash everyone over the head with it.
I'm just having a laugh at the folk proclaiming themselves to be socialists without actually understanding what socialism is. Confusing liberalism or social democracy for socialism
Nowt wrong with being a social democrat - its the most pervasive form of political party across europe, its whats given the scandenavians such a high standard of living and such equal countries, its what has given Germany industrial co operation not strife etc etc. Its what the labour party has been for most of the last 50 years, its what the SNP are
Its as much fun as anything else on this thread 🙂
I’m just having a laugh at the folk proclaiming themselves to be socialists without
actually understanding what socialism is.agreeing with my definition of socialism.
Ftfy.
It's all gone Humpty Dumpty.
[ Ooof... looked for a nice image to remind people of the quote from Alice in Wonderland on the meaning of words... and it's really been picked up by conspiracy theory nuts, hasn't it... switch off the internet... go re-read the book.]
Ransos - its not my definition - its the definition of those who first outlined it. 🙂
The key theorists don't agree on everything.
Errmmm - do you know who first outlined socialism? do you know how it is defined?
Errmmm – do you know who first outlined socialism? do you know how it is defined?
was it jeremy corbyn?
Bingo! You understand the game 🙂
Errmmm – do you know who first outlined socialism? do you know how it is defined?
You do know that there are multiple strands of socialism, right? And that its origins go back to antiquity? It's nowhere near as simple as you make out.
What political philosophy should people be reading then TJ to be able to define socialism?
To clarify, are you saying that you're a dark green or a socialist? (They're very different things)
Errm - Marx and Engels defined socialism and communism as far as I am aware. Of course there were various forms of communitarian setups prior to that but as far as I am aware Marx and Engels are the creators of socialism as a political philosophy and it was a step on the way to true communism. got any references otherwise? I am allways prepared to learn
Socialism means state or community control of all means of production and a command economy. Thats why I laugh at folk saying " I'm a socialist but don't believe in nationalisation or state control of the whole economy, I believe in free enterprise"
they have just defined social democracy which is where the state controls some key parts of the economy and manages the market for the rest of the economy
Im a dark green. We reach some of the same places as socialism but from a different direction. Much of the outcomes are the same but for different reasons. One key difference is I believe in a zero growth economy
What political philosophy should people be reading then TJ to be able to define socialism?
Pretty much any basic text on political philosophies I guess. "Das kapital" is pretty hard going
Interesting.....just for a bit of clarity, I'm not a dark green but do lean towards a zero/post growth economy. I've actually written on these very clashes, and will be starting a PhD in the area in October.
I'm not going to start arguing online with you, but suffice to say, the notion of socialism has evolved a bit since Engels and Marx!
Raymond Williams wrote extensively around these issues, his writing is absolutely brilliant and very 'accessible' by academic standards. His essays around 'the new left' and 'socialism and ecology' should be of interest.
More recently Matthew Huber has written about Eco-socialism. I can never quite decide whether or not Kate Raworth and doughnut economics should be considered socialist.... probably not, but as noted by others 'socialism' especially in 2024 is an inherently contested term.
I need some reading material. Ill have a look at those authors you mention
Errm – Marx and Engels defined socialism and communism as far as I am aware.
They really didn't. Modern socialism has its origins in the enlightenment and French revolution.
Of course everything is built on what went before - but socialism was defined by Marx and Engels
I need some reading material. Ill have a look at those authors you mention
While you're at it look up Murray Bookchin.
but socialism was defined by Marx and Engels
If you are using their definition of socialism because they were "first" (lets leave aside the question around that) then shouldnt you be using John Locke's definition of liberalism.
Which very definitively isnt the one you have been using so far.
Of course everything is built on what went before – but socialism was defined by Marx and Engels
They gave a definition but they certainly weren't the first.
Wasn't the 'first' (I mean how do you say who was the actual first!) a French guy, surname begining with L? His name escapes me.
Wasn’t the ‘first’ (I mean how do you say who was the actual first!) a French guy, surname begining with L? His name escapes me.
I would argue there was no "first" as there are competing views on what it means. As far as I'm aware, Saint-Simon was the first to use the word and describe it. But there were numerous French philosophers of that time, as well as Robert Owen who could be considered socialists.
I’m not going to start arguing online with you, but suffice to say, the notion of socialism has evolved a bit since Engels and Marx!
Exactly. Things change/evolve and form into different approaches (social democracy) but are still inherently socialist in their nature with the same desired outcomes for society.
FFS - social democracy and socialism are very different things
socialism requires full state or community ownership of the means of production and a command economy.
Social democracy is state control of key assets and a managed mixed economy
Social democracy and socialism have very different aims as well.
Just accept you are not socialists but social democrats
Ernie is the only real leftie on here.
On here? How can you possibly think that? Maybe the only really visible one, in this thread, right now.
OK - the only public lefty on here as in someone who actually believes in socialism
FFS – social democracy and socialism are very different things
Market socialism? Utopian? Scientific? Communism?
I agree that social democracy is different to those, but they are all different to each other.
Market socialism is an oxymoron ( I think thats the term - when two opposing words appear together). If there is a market there is not socialism, in socialism there is no market. I guess its another way of saying social democracy
communism is not the same as socialism. Thats very basic stuff
I am going to say I don't really care that much about pure definitions and am more interested in the form/variant of socialism that I think can work in 2024 so will leave you to your 'debate'
in the form/variant of socialism that I think can work in 2024
Are you in favour of full state control of the means of production and a command economy? You need both those things for socialism
What you seem to want is social democracy. A fine aim. Thats where you have a mixed economy, a full welfare state and redistibutive taxation. Its not a form of socialism however. Its a a different political philosophy
Like the Scandi countries or Germany or indeed much of europe
Nobody is perfect bikepawl - not even me. 🙂 Porritt was once asked in a TV interview what his biggest environmental crime was. he replied flying to here for this interview 🙂
communism is not the same as socialism. Thats very basic stuff
Your problem there is that Marx used the terms interchangeably. Are you still prepared to reduce socialism to a Marxist definition?
Market socialism is an oxymoron
Yeah, no. A cooperative operating in a market economy, for example.
There is no purely socialist state in the world. Not even China.
There is no pure unfettered market economy in the world. Not even the USA.
These ideas are in practise together, in all countries. We’re all living in mixed economies, and the arguments and political “battle” is all about what that mix is, and how much is state owned, or controlled, or regulated.
Your problem there is that Marx used the terms interchangeably.
No - he was very clear on the difference from my reading. Communism is the end point, socialism is a step on the way.
Are you in favour of full state control of the means of production and a command economy? You need both those things for socialism
No, you dont. You are simpifying socialism down to a single version and/or reading a lot into something Marx left rather vague. The problem with your approach is social ownership doesnt simply mean state ownership.
you could argue that there is a difference between flying for work and flying for pleasure.
However if you’re going to call yourself a dark green then flying for pleasure does seem to be hypocritical
correct - as above it could be community ownership
Socialism is clearly state or community owned means of product5ion and a command economy - what you guys keep on describing is social democracy - a different beast
Nowt5 wrong with social democracy but it is not socialism
No – he was very clear on the difference from my reading. Communism is the end point, socialism is a step on the way.
I'm pretty sure it was Lenin who popularised that view.
Communism is socialist but not all socialism is communist.
Socialism is clearly state or community owned means of product5ion and a command economy
It really isnt unless you are the sort of yank you uses "liberal" as an insult.
Now you could argue about the relative usefulness of the various definitions and at which point they blur into something else but honestly I leave that to the fanatics. So enjoy.
I’m amazed to see that Starmer fully supports Sunak’s rambling waffle about extremism. I’m sure nobody saw that coming !!
Such a shock, given the lack of authoritarianism in the way Starmer has governed the Labour Party up to now it’s an absolute head scratcher. Lots of good comments on Twitter from various political pundits but they all mention the thing that shall not be mentioned so won’t post them, but they’re there if you know where to look, nudge-nudge…wink-wink.
Ah, we're back to the "you're not worthy to call yourself socialists" anti-elitism.
I'm out.
More cash - not my point at all. My point is that folk are calling themselves socialists while repudiating any actual socialism ( state control of the means of production, command economy). There is no shame in being a social democrat. Its what has made the scandi countries such nice places to live
its like driving where everyone thinks they are above average. folk that lean leftish think themselves more lefty than they are and on here that trait is more pronounced than I have seen in other places. I only claim to be leftish. More interested in Green issues
I am leftish, your definitions put me as social democrat (yes a form/variant of socialism) that is more leftish than anything else although I haven't seen your definitions for left, leftish and so on but don't bother posting them, please.
I don't care how you want to box me and given a choice from scratch I would choose a socialist state. We don't however have that opportunity for many reasons which is why I would go for an approach that could actually a)have a chance of working within the 2024 constraints and b) get voted for.
We don’t however have that opportunity for many reasons which is why I would go for an approach that could actually a)have a chance of working within the 2024 constraints and b) get voted for.
Pragmatic Socialists Party.
social democracy is not a form of socialism. ~This is really basic stuff.
More cash – not my point at all. My point is that folk are calling themselves socialists while repudiating any actual socialism ( state control of the means of production, command economy).
I'm not sure why you dogmatically continue to reduce socialism to a Marxist definition.
Because that is what socialism is. Social democracy and socialism are not the same thing at all
Never mind all that, we just need to know whether he's sub 20 for 10K.
https://twitter.com/Andy66cb/status/1762577569050714325
Geez and we thought the conservatives had cornered the market on infighting and navel gazing. This really is Monty Pythonesque.
And back on topic is it any wonder Starmer purged the left of the party.
Postwar and pre-thatcher the Tory Party was a social democratic party. For example Harold Macmillan strongly supported a mixed economy and universal welfare state. Harold MacMillan was never a socialist.
Scandinavian countries have never been described as socialist countries, social democratic countries maybe.
I remember Tony Blair in his early years trying to pretend that social democracy was socialism. He stopped doing that when social democracy sounded too radical for his agenda.
Because that is what socialism is.
It's what Marx said it is. Which, demonstrably, is not the same thing.
It’s what Marx said it is. Which, demonstrably, is not the same thing.
And by extension, if that really was socialism, we wouldn't have ended up with the terms Marxism and Communism.
And looking at the Scandinavian countries, I'm quite happy to be criticised for being a social democrat.
I’m quite happy to be criticised for being a social democrat.
I think that was precisely the point that TJ was making.
I wasn't criticising anyone for being a social democrat and i pointed out the scandi countries. I just find folk on here calling themselves socialist while stating their opposition to anything socialist amusing
Its like saying you are an mtber but will only ride with skinny tyres and drop bars
Communism and socialism are differnt things.
we wouldn’t have ended up with the terms Marxism and Communism.
"Marxism" describes Karl Marx's critique of capitalism as much as anything else. And Lenin sometimes referred to socialism as first phase communism, although he certainly never called the USSR communist.
Communism and socialism are differnt things.
Not according to Marx. We've done this already, go and look it up.
I have and he did differentiate
Socialism is a step on the way to communism according to Marx
The "withering away of the state" doesn't sound much like socialism to me.
Socialism is a step on the way to communism according to Marx
Oh right. Could you provide a reference because I'm not aware that he ever said that.
Had a dig around and some commentators say he used them interchangeably and some say he differentiates
Fairly irrelevant to my basic point tho.. indeed if you say they are the same thing then most folk on here are even further away from socialism.
Had a dig around and some commentators say he used them interchangeably and some say he differentiates
A direct quote would be the best way of supporting your claim.
Fairly irrelevant to my basic point tho..
Your basic point seemed to be reducing socialism to a Marxist definition. But you don't seem to know what Marx actually said.
My basic point is that on here thete are nany folk who claim to be socialists while saying no to anything that actually is socialist
My basic point is that on here thete are nany folk who claim to be socialists while saying no to anything that actually is socialist
Have you found that quote yet?