|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 26, 2011 18:04:04 GMT -5
Okay then non-Americans, how did socialism get to be embraced in your countries? The labor party was socialist and it won government (they get a shout-out in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair). Then it fell apart. Then it won government again, decades later. Then it hated itself and one bit dedicated itself to destroying the other bit forever. Then the Liberals (torys) established a perfectly working regulated capitalist system with full employment. Then Labor won government again, decades later, after abandoning socialism. |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Sept 26, 2011 18:34:11 GMT -5
The labour party hasn't been 'socialist' in years. In name, it is a social democrat/Fabian socialist party, but the last person to act even vaguely on that platform was Whitlam, even then he supported Indonesia and the slaughtering of the East-Timorese. Big government=/=socialism.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 26, 2011 18:52:16 GMT -5
Okay then non-Americans, how did socialism get to be embraced in your countries? Many socialist and labor parties came from the trade-union movement forming a political party in their own right, something that never really happened in the US. That said a good many socialist and labor parties are socialist and/or labor in name only. The Australian Labor Party was once a member of the Socialist International, but you wouldn't know it now! The ALP embraced economic rationalism back in the 80's under Prime Minister Hawke and has marched steadily rightward since. It's now a party dominated by Machiavellian internal faction-fighting that takes it's ideas from focus groups and has largely replaced idealism with pragmatism. It's policies in immigration, asylum seekers and economic policy aren't that different from the ironically named conservative "Liberal" party. All this is why the ALP loathes the Greens, who are now taking a good proportion of the votes of educated, middle class left-leaning former Labor voters. You can see the same sort of thing happening in European socialist parties and especially in Britain's Labour party. A politically educated American would recognize the paw prints of Blue Dog Democrats all over these purportedly "socialist" parties. So yes, socialism was embraced by some mainstream parties-in the past tense! |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 26, 2011 19:13:17 GMT -5
The labour party hasn't been 'socialist' in years. In name, it is a social democrat/Fabian socialist party, but the last person to act even vaguely on that platform was Whitlam, even then he supported Indonesia and the slaughtering of the East-Timorese. Big government=/=socialism. That's essentially what I said. By the time Whitlam came around, socialism was (quite rightly) abandoned, being replaced by capitalism. Which is strange, because Whitlam was a... you know... |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Sept 27, 2011 0:42:12 GMT -5
I know not how it was embraced, but according to my history teacher when the province was installing a socialist government the CIA was apparantly prepared or planning to overthrow it. The only interesting thing to happen in Saskatchewan, ever. Floods can be interesting. Then Manitoba came along. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 27, 2011 1:23:47 GMT -5
Big government=/=socialism. Well actually one of the core policies of socialism is no private enterprise. So yes, big government kind of comes with the territory. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 1:34:19 GMT -5
Big government=/=socialism. Well actually one of the core policies of socialism is no private enterprise. So yes, big government kind of comes with the territory. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 27, 2011 1:38:02 GMT -5
That's a type of anarchy, not socialism. Just because something has "social" in the title does not make it socialist. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 1:44:52 GMT -5
That's a type of anarchy, not socialism. Just because something has "social" in the title does not make it socialist. If you had read the first line of the article, you'd see that they're called 'social' anarchists because they believe in 'socialism'. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 27, 2011 1:59:50 GMT -5
That's a type of anarchy, not socialism. Just because something has "social" in the title does not make it socialist. If you had read the first line of the article, you'd see that they're called 'social' anarchists because they believe in 'socialism'. Much like a lot of Swedes believe their system is socialism too, except it's not, just regulated capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 27, 2011 2:04:19 GMT -5
Big government=/=socialism. Well actually one of the core policies of socialism is no private enterprise. So yes, big government kind of comes with the territory. Yeah, but IRL most socialist parties are more accurately Bernstein-style social democrat parties and don't actively seek to squelch private enterprise however much the local Tory's and their pet shock jocks might claim that this is the case. They are usually in favor of more regulation and social intervention so that does usually lead to a slightly larger government apparatus than the Tories put in place. Whether or not this is a bad thing is another debate entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 27, 2011 2:11:59 GMT -5
Well actually one of the core policies of socialism is no private enterprise. So yes, big government kind of comes with the territory. Yeah, but IRL most socialist parties are more accurately Bernstein-style social democrat parties and don't actively seek to squelch private enterprise however much the local Tory's and their pet shock jocks might claim that this is the case. They are usually in favor of more regulation and social intervention so that does usually lead to a slightly larger government apparatus than the Tories put in place. Whether or not this is a bad thing is another debate entirely. Exactly. My point is that socialism isn't the same as slightly more regulated capitalism, as many people seem to think. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 3:00:57 GMT -5
If you had read the first line of the article, you'd see that they're called 'social' anarchists because they believe in 'socialism'. Much like a lot of Swedes believe their system is socialism too, except it's not, just regulated capitalism. Except that anarchy is actually socialism, of the non-capitalist kind. You can trace the anarcho-socialist theory to well before Marx, with your Proudhons and such. Their means of getting to a non-state, no-inequality paradise was different to Marx's, but it's still socialist. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 3:05:04 GMT -5
Much like a lot of Swedes believe their system is socialism too, except it's not, just regulated capitalism. Except that anarchy is actually socialism, of the non-capitalist kind. You can trace the anarcho-socialist theory to well before Marx, with your Proudhons and such. Their means of getting to a non-state, no-inequality paradise was different to Marx's, but it's still socialist. *head desk head desk head desk* |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 3:23:24 GMT -5
Except that anarchy is actually socialism, of the non-capitalist kind. You can trace the anarcho-socialist theory to well before Marx, with your Proudhons and such. Their means of getting to a non-state, no-inequality paradise was different to Marx's, but it's still socialist. *head desk head desk head desk* Says the guy who thinks Phil Adams is totally like Stalin. |
|
