Miliband - Labour didn't listen blah blah

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Glad to see you've been paying attention ...

Some things stand out. Must be the comedy value

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I also agree.Socialism isn't communism anymore than every Tory is a right wing fascist toff determined to keep the serfs in place.

Erm.....taken from here: http://www.marxmail.org/
Is this instructional piece: http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

More here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th..._and_communism

Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism says that the distribution should take place according to the amount of an individual's production efforts, whilst communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.

That's nice, huge difference.....therefore @ socialism & communism........oh, and they left out the bit about marching the pre-revolution, pre-existing, educated people into the forest to be shot (like my grandfather)

You missed out the paragraph above the bit you quoted...

The main problem with this question is that there are many different, conflicting definitions of both words. Even Marx and Engels themselves used the words to mean different things at different points in time. To talk about someone's specific beliefs, you generally need to use more specific terms than either "socialist" or "communist".

" Socialism is the idea that the working class, the class that produces the profits, the wealth, the cars, houses, planes, steel, should take over and run things collectively, democratically, for the benefit of the majority (who also "just happen" to be workers too).

Communism is the idea that society should not have classes - exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed, and so on. "

• Socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism refers to both an economic and political system

But again that's just overly simplistic. Communism is not Socialism. I don't think there are many people, at least in the west, that advocate public ownership of all goods and services produced by the economy. It's just wrong.

There isn't Socialism or not socialism. There are variations of socialism and degrees of it. I mean we have Governments in Europe who are considered 'socialist' that do not fit that definition of socialism. We ourselves have socialised healthcare and we have the benefit and welfare system, including state pensions, these too can be described as socialist.

This thread is just nuts. People don't fall into extremes like that. You know this because if you consider yourself right wing that doesn't mean you believe fascism is a good thing or that the BNP should be elected. We're not robots downloading our political beliefs from chairman mao. It's insane.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

This thread is just nuts. People don't fall into extremes like that. You know this because if you consider yourself right wing that doesn't mean you believe fascism is a good thing or that the BNP should be elected. We're not robots downloading our political beliefs from chairman mao. It's insane.

This of course is why it's important that fascism is left-wing

Originally Posted by Ramrod

socialism & communism........oh, and they left out the bit about marching the pre-revolution, pre-existing, educated people into the forest to be shot (like my grandfather)

They don't do this in France*, or here, or Sweden, or Norway. These were authoritarian, nasty regimes. They're not indicative of socialist policies.

*Well the French Revolution they did kind of do this but that was about revolution against a controlling elite (who weren't, bizarrely, socialists) .

[downquark1]

Perhaps we should draw a distinction between socialists and full on Marxists.

But, but, but, but.......

Doing that would mean things aren't merely 'black or white' or allow all-encompassing one size fits all simplistic statements to be made......

Originally Posted by downquark1

Perhaps we should draw a distinction between socialists and full on Marxists.

Herr Hitler agreed with you:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

As quoted here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ts-of-fascism/

But of course this article was written by a right-wing Tory MEP so it must be wrong.

And when Hitler self-identifies as a socialist he must be wrong too. Wikipedia says so.

[Ramrod]

So we are all agreed that there is a problem defining socialism & communism and where one becomes the other...
This problem has been pointed out by our left wing leaning members and has bogged the thread down nicely.
This reminds me of the times we discussed the perils of unfettered immigration and it's effects on the social fabric of Britain/England......the same thing happened there as our left wingers immediately challenged us to define what Britishness/Englishness is......thereby bogging down the discussion and shifting it away from the real topic
I don't think it's a deliberate ploy, I suspect it's a left wing knee jerk reaction to an uncomfortable topic.

More reading:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tyranny-Cl...mm_kin_title_0

Originally Posted by Chris

And when Hitler self-identifies as a socialist he must be wrong too. Wikipedia says so.

Hitler, or at least the Nazi party, were strongly anti-communist as well. People can self-identify however they want but it doesn't mean they represent it well. Again though the problem with the Nazi party was not a belief in nationalisation or workers rights. It was the genocide of a race of people and their desire to conquer a lot of Europe. These weren't liberal or socialist policies taken to their extreme conclusion, they were an extreme form of totalitarianism and anti-Semitism. I am not really sure that if Hitler had a more nuanced view of the limitations of the state in public life they he wouldn't have committed the Holocaust. Frankly when people have reached the stage where they're systematically killing millions of people then they have long past any relevance when talking about moderate left/right politics. No one on the left that I know wants to set up concentration camps and I can't see which policy is a natural precursor to that.

I don't think authoritarianism/totalitarianism are limited to left or right. I think they exist on a different spectrum which people on either the left or right can veer towards or away from.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Herr Hitler agreed with you:



As quoted here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ts-of-fascism/

But of course this article was written by a right-wing Tory MEP so it must be wrong.

And when Hitler self-identifies as a socialist he must be wrong too. Wikipedia says so.

Coincidence of policy does not establish consanguinity of doctrine.

The article agrees with me (and Hitler it would seem)

[Osem]

Meanwhile, back on the subject of Labour now realising their mistakes and suddenly listening after a decade and more of doing the opposite....

Heard Yvette Cooper today on Radio 4 talking about their plans for immigration and using the opportunity to bash the current govt. on the minimum wage, which she says must be addressed as part of the immigration question, with prosecution being the required sanction. She came out with a nice statistic too - there have been no minimum wage prosecutions in the last 2 years she exclaimed! Sounds awful doesn't it? Gives the impression that there were sooooooo many more when her crew were running the show. So how many minimum wage prosecutions were there during Labour's tenure? It must have been a lot more surely or her statement would be disingenuous wouldn't it? So, thousands then? Hundreds maybe? Dozens surely? Well, according to the Low Pay Commission, there have been only 7 since the minimum wage was introduced in 1999. So none in the last 2 years during a major recession. Not so surprising then? Rather puts Cooper's assertions in a different light I reckon...

What, innumerate bombast? I wonder who she picks that up from.

[Osem]

Dunno, some very dodgy types amongst their ranks. They all seem to suffer from selective amnesia and talk a load of Balls most of the time...