Are there any modern Socialists?

Tsukasa Buddha

Other (please write in)
Tsukasa Buddha
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
15,302
I've read books by Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals, but I've never read one arguing for straight-out Socialism. So I decided to look at the library for some books... and they were all really really old. Like the newest one was at least twenty years old. I tried looking at the websites for the third parties here, but they were all jokes.

I know that conservatives are always ranting about how the elite intellectuals are Marxists and all that stuff, but I seriously can't find anyone arguing Socialism.

Is Socialism still around? I know that there are still Socialist parties in other countries, and IIRC the Labour Parties consider themselves as part of a Socialist movement.

But I am really having trouble finding any resources. One that I did find that was interesting explained some things about a vision for socialism, but it was all really vague and even admitted that a specific plan would have to be made later.

I suppose I could read the Communist Manifesto, but I know enough about Socialism to know that I don't like Communism with it's violent revolution; and it is so old I don't know how much of it applies to today's world.
 
I think George Galloway is the best one I've heard/read. Plus Tony Benn.. but he's in the coffin-dodger phase.
You're right that there aren't many well known ones these days.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I've read books by Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals, but I've never read one arguing for straight-out Socialism. So I decided to look at the library for some books... and they were all really really old. Like the newest one was at least twenty years old. I tried looking at the websites for the third parties here, but they were all jokes.

I know that conservatives are always ranting about how the elite intellectuals are Marxists and all that stuff, but I seriously can't find anyone arguing Socialism.

Is Socialism still around? I know that there are still Socialist parties in other countries, and IIRC the Labour Parties consider themselves as part of a Socialist movement.

But I am really having trouble finding any resources. One that I did find that was interesting explained some things about a vision for socialism, but it was all really vague and even admitted that a specific plan would have to be made later.

I suppose I could read the Communist Manifesto, but I know enough about Socialism to know that I don't like Communism with it's violent revolution; and it is so old I don't know how much of it applies to today's world.
Click to expand...

Primarily, there aren't many socialist thinkers out there, which is kind of a shame.

Secondly, (WARNING: Rant ahead) the USSR was not socialist, nor was it communist. It cannot, in fact, have been Communist, because Communism is the goal, not the method.
Secondly, whatever they called themselves, that was not socialism. Socialism is not neccessarily as extreme as Marxism, and is definately not as extreme as Marxist Leninism or Stalinism. People who claim that they know Socialism is evil because of the Soviet Union do not tend to know what the difference is. This is not a personal failing, merely a lack of knowledge.

Socialism (when working within Capitalism) is the system whereby the government runs all the basic needs of the people, healthcare, transport etc. and controls some of the production facilities. This is a more lightweigt version really, but it's the one you most often hear about, since it's the one that has been included in a number of Western European countries in the form of a Labour Party. There's also a more forceful version, which is the one espoused by Marx, whereby the people (via the government) control ALL production equipment (the people's hammer etc.) and usethis control to ensure fair wages, good production and most of all, no shafting of the proles by the bourgeois and those above them. There are also a number of other additions thrown in.

Then you have the first major split from this trend. Marxist-Leninism. Lenin did not agree with Marx, and altered the docterine until it became almost unrecognisable. He instigated various degrees of force into his writing, and effectively created the idea of a strong leader to control from the top. He also removed most of the democracy from the system (at the time the proposed system) and this led to a split within the Communists in Russia. On one side, those who favoured Marxism (general democratic process within one party system, mobilisation of proles in order to move towards communism etc.) who were the Mensheviks, and those who favoured Leninism, the Bolsheviks.

After this split comes an even bigger one. The steady alteration from Leninism into Stalinism, which was not only controlling but positively oppressive and violent. More controls were added, and the last of the democracy was eliminated as the Gensek (General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party), a role empowered by Stalin, took total control of the state, with the rest of the party network effectively being left to run the system rather than discuss how it should be ran. (Rant over)

Appologies for the history lesson. I just can't help it some times. (I, by the way, am a Democratic Socialist. I believe in the first method mentioned above).
 
Try looking under "Structured capitalism". I think that is what it goes by now.

Also I think there is 1 congressman or senator who is listed as a socialist.
 
plumjam said:
I think George Galloway is the best one I've heard/read. Plus Tony Benn.. but he's in the coffin-dodger phase.
You're right that there aren't many well known ones these days.
Click to expand...

George Galloway? The man is a bloody waste of space.

His attendance in Parliament is abysmal.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=George_Galloway&mpc=Bethnal+Green+%26amp%3B+Bow

72 votes out of 709, 10.2%
Click to expand...

That's worse than useless.

ETA: Apart from the NI MP's he has the second worst voting record in Parliament. Ye gods.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mps.php
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
George Galloway? The man is a bloody waste of space.

His attendance in Parliament is abysmal.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=George_Galloway&mpc=Bethnal+Green+%26amp%3B+Bow



That's worse than useless.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more to democracy and politics than an individual vote count or parliamentary attendance. Let's see, I would guess that more UK citizens have heard of Galloway and his views than they have of at least 600 of the current sitting MPs. Perhaps his vote count is relatively low because he is engaged in politics in a more active and fruitful way. Such as making speeches around the nation, founding a new political party, writing books, tv appearances, having his own national radio talk show, founding his own tv show, verbally destroying the US senate, rasing funds etc..
Just a guess.
 
plumjam said:
There's a lot more to democracy and politics than an individual vote count or parliamentary attendance. Let's see, I would guess that more UK citizens have heard of Galloway and his views than they have of at least 600 of the current sitting MPs. Perhaps his vote count is relatively low because he is engaged in politics in a more active and fruitful way. Such as making speeches around the nation, founding a new political party, writing books, tv appearances, having his own national radio talk show, founding his own tv show, verbally destroying the US senate, rasing funds etc..
Just a guess.
Click to expand...

So his aim to get the populous into politcs means he can ignore what his constituents voted him in to do?

If he wanted to kick up a huge fuss and do all these things then fine, but why did he have to be voted into a Parliment he hardly ever attends? Why didn't he just...I don't know, do the rest of his stuff without wasting our time?

Oh, and thanks for the politics lesson. Real cute you think you can tell me about what politics is.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
So his aim to get the populous into politcs means he can ignore what his constituents voted him in to do?

If he wanted to kick up a huge fuss and do all these things then fine, but why did he have to be voted into a Parliment he hardly ever attends? Why didn't he just...I don't know, do the rest of his stuff without wasting our time?

Oh, and thanks for the politics lesson. Real cute you think you can tell me about what politics is.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out the transparent weakness of your criticism of Galloway as a politician.
As to his being voted into Parliament.. well, yes, maybe you are in need of a politics lesson. He stood for Parliament, and was voted in freely by his constituents. It was up to them who they chose, not you. That's democracy. I dare say quite a few of them were aware of his voting record. Yet he was still chosen. To me that would indicate that constituents take parliamentary attendance and voting statistics a lot less seriously than do those who wish to smear Galloway and are reduced to dredging up such data because they fail to find other more convincing weaknesses in him.
 
plumjam said:
I was pointing out the transparent weakness of your criticism of Galloway as a politician.
As to his being voted into Parliament.. well, yes, maybe you are in need of a politics lesson. He stood for Parliament, and was voted in freely by his constituents. It was up to them who they chose, not you. That's democracy. I dare say quite a few of them were aware of his voting record. Yet he was still chosen. To me that would indicate that constituents take parliamentary attendance and voting statistics a lot less seriously than do those who wish to smear Galloway and are reduced to dredging up such data because they fail to find other more convincing weaknesses in him.
Click to expand...

I'm not in need of a politics lesson, I already study it. Still, I'll tell you what, I'll concede that Galloway is maybe not as bad as all that if we get back to the OP, ok? Personally I don't like the man, I think he's a slimy git who says what people want to hear irrespective of what he really thinks because he likes running a media circus around himself. On the other hand, he could just be a concerned man who was against the war in Iraq.
 
The JREF forum has been spared a rant from me; MarkCorrigan has said more or less everything I was going to. It's almost eerie.

Tsukasa Buddha said:
I know that there are still Socialist parties in other countries, and IIRC the Labour Parties consider themselves as part of a Socialist movement.
Click to expand...

Not the British Labour Party. There are still socialists in the party (my former MP Jeremy Corbyn, for one) but the current Labour front bench would rather die than be called socialists - unless they were in a room full of socialists, of course. There are Conservative parties in Europe further to the left than the current Labour administration, who are only on the left by American standards (pro-choice, pro-diversity, anti-gun, etc). The large number of actual socialists in this country who have been abandoned by "their" party have yet to find a new home - a few have thrown in their lot with the posturing Galloway, a few have moved in the opposite direction and joined the Liberal Democrats, but most are stranded - which is partly why socialism has a low profile in this country at the moment. The only high-profile left voices tend to come from the Galloway camp, which is not a great advert (Galloway is sound on many issues, but he's an appalling human being, his anti-racist / pro-Arab stance has decayed into all-out embrace of Islamism and occasional borderline anti-semitism, and his thunderous oratory style is ill-suited to the 21st century). As a result, many of the working class in Britain who feel disenfranchised by hardcore capitalism, people who were once the Labour Party's natural base, are without representation, and unsurprisingly some of the dumber ones are falling to the neo-fascist BNP, who have rather seized the day.
 
Galloway in an "all-out embrace of Islamism"?
Wow, what tosh.
Galloway is a practicing Catholic.
 
Well for anyone on Tyneside, the SWP have organised a public meeting on 'Why You Should Be A Socialist' - Northumbria Uni, Stage 2, Tonight, 7.30 p.m. ...
 
I've come to consider myself a socialist. My beliefs and positions are my own, it is just that I've found that I'm moving more in that direction.

I find quite silly those that think that any degree of socialist belief is the moral and intellectual equal of Stalinism, and I'm done humoring them by avoiding the label.
 
Comparing it directly might be a bit on the rude side, to be sure.

But it's worth noting that, if socialism slows technological development even just a little bit (say, 10-20%), after a century we'd have, for example, 1980 level technology in the year 2000.

Delta the difference in death rates due to medicine, medical machines, etc., and, well, I'll let you be the judge.

Basically it uses rhetoric to buy votes and please people now, at the cost of people's lives and healthiness down the road.

But the math cannot be avoided. It adds up.
 
Beerina said:
Comparing it directly might be a bit on the rude side, to be sure.

But it's worth noting that, if socialism slows technological development even just a little bit (say, 10-20%), after a century we'd have, for example, 1980 level technology in the year 2000.

Delta the difference in death rates due to medicine, medical machines, etc., and, well, I'll let you be the judge.

Basically it uses rhetoric to buy votes and please people now, at the cost of people's lives and healthiness down the road.

But the math cannot be avoided. It adds up.
Click to expand...

"If X happens due to Socialism, we can see that X happened due to Socialism."

What?
 
For all we know, added socialism will increase the march of technology, especially if the government takes an increased role in pushing forward and funding research in areas that don't present immediate commercial benefit.

A lot of libertarian thought stems from "Austrian School" economic theory, and a cornerstone of that is the rejection of analysis of real world data in favor of deductions made from assumptions regarding human behavior. The above is an example of that reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom