epiphany Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 How far do you take the definition of any ideological "ism" and upon what do you base that definition? As with any political ideology, the more you read about their historic detail and intellectual depth, the more you come to realise just how crude and inadequate modern definitions have become, and how our division of political "camps" has become so robustly formed based on presumption, disregarding the convoluted and complex nature of the non-linear political spectrum. "Socialism" is constantly equated with the Soviet Union - a statist, authoritarian, capitalist experiment. It is equated with the state controlling all resources, the consolidation of the free individual into a herded, unthinking collective. Now that bankrolled state-socialism has monopolised the definition of socialism in general, it's no wonder that the use of the term has become derogatory and associated with state tyranny and oppression. This is ideal for any ruling intellectual hegemony - by using the Orwellian inspired technique of shrinking the grand spectrum of political definition and debate into a simplistic dichotomy (conservative vs liberal, or even just red vs blue, party A vs party B) they are able to shape the supposedly conflicting ideologies into concepts that can only be differentiated by aesthetic and non-penetrative issues, the status quo can be comfortably maintained. "Socialism" now becomes an undesirable, outdated, tried and failed model, because of its gross misdefinition. It now lies outside the accepted "moderate" political arena. What will never be discussed, as long as this artificial concision is maintained within academic and media institutions, is that state-socialism is only one branch of socialism that developed from Marxist reactionism. Detail. If people want to take politics seriously, and explore the many solutions and alternatives to the status quo, they must open their minds beyond the preformed spectrum of debate constantly drip-fed to us by those who wish to maintain the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saracen 1000 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I think that the Americans have got this sorted....... you are either a Democrat or a Republican...if neither then you dont vote....it could not be more simpler..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I consider that I come under the umbrella of neoliberalism which is closer to the Conservative party then the Liberal party. The Labour party has now seemed to ditch it's socialist roots to embrace this style of politics, but they seem miss the point by become what seems a "neo-Thatcherite" party. It would seem that socialism is dead as the other early 20th century political theories, however it is interesting to see the return of Keynesian economics, although I am extremely dubious as whether this approach will be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zongamin Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I think that the Americans have got this sorted....... you are either a Democrat or a Republican...if neither then you dont vote....it could not be more simpler..... That's not really the whole picture - may I suggest a trip to the library? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 All 3 of our political parties owe a debt to socialist ideas of a welfare state, the NHS, trade unions. The only person in politics challenging the core philosophy of socialism is Daniel Hannan the Conservative Euro MP who was to the disgust of the rest of his party talking down our NHS in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 It would seem that socialism is dead as the other early 20th century political theories... Case in point though - what makes socialism dead? We have to know what the definition of socialism encompasses before we can confidently and absolutely lay it to rest. Are co-operative economics not part of the socialist ideology? It would seem these ideas are still developing within capitalist society. Profit sharing, increased labour rights etc. - if this does not stem from socialist persuasion then where has it come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I think that the Americans have got this sorted....... you are either a Democrat or a Republican...if neither then you dont vote....it could not be more simpler..... U.S voters can register themslves with any party, Republican, Democrats, Libertarian party, American Freedom Party or just opt to be Independents. When each party choose presidential candidates such as the Democrats (Clinton vs Obama) then only voters registered as Democrats can vote for the candidate of their choice. Same applies to Republicans or any other party In elections to choose a president the voter can cross party lines and vote for a candidiate selected by another party ie a registered Republican voter choosing to vote for a Democrat (Obama) instead of voting for the Republican candidate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saracen 1000 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Yes I have been to the library...and the result is ...the Democrats or the Republicans get into power...or did I miss something....no dont tell me the Eskimos took power...... God damn! how did I miss that................. Thats it Geronimo gets to be president and the attorney general is Nanook from the north and Kaolin Powell is in charge of the cotton pickers.....yeah! yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 <snip rather long no true scotsman laden post> Yes and "George Bush wasn't a true Conservative" either That's one of the most in depth and most pretentious no true Scotsmen I've seen for quite a while, congratulations. Just as with Bush and American conservatism the only definitions of 'socialism' which completely exclude the USSR, CCCP and so forth are those made up after the fact specifically to try and exclude politically embarrassing past champions of the ideology in question. Oh and where do you get this bizarre notion the notion is maintained in academia that state socialism is the only form of socialism? Even in A-level sociology or history you learn about wide varieties of socialism take the step up to University and there's a bewildering variety of variants of socialism (along with pretty much every other ideology you care to mention) being vigorously discussed all the time both in seminars, journals and books and on campus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saracen 1000 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I just love these "vigourous" discussions ....... when I took my A level history we had to discuss what may have happened had the wind been blowing the wrong way when the fire ships were lit during the battle with the Spanish armada and how it may have change the course of modern history. Plekhanov ...I think that you need to get a life ...... and from your post.....as soon as possible.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.