Labour still want to tax and spend the country into bankruptcy

[Conrod]

And? Does it suddenly come as a surprise to you that politicians will use words inaccurately to try and appeal to a certain section of people? I could call myself a conservative, doesn't mean i am one. Remember "we are the party of family values" from the tories last time they were in power, just before all the revelations that made it clear that many of their members definitely weren't interested in family values?

Some of those parties you refer to do of course believe in workers owning the means of production, so they are OK.

By the way, Lion Bars do not actually contain Lions

You're really not very good at admitting you're wrong.

[ricgem2002]

Possibly still with a Labour Government, still spending beyond our means, still running up the deficit, still storing up the problems for future generations; building the house of cards as high as possible before watching it collapse.

but we havent got a labour government have we ?i think the condems should thank the last government for bailing out the banks instead of letting them go under and being further in debt (but they wont ).are the banks now making a profit due to labours bail out ?

[Conrod]

Because I'm not.

 

What I am is an actual socialist and it annoys me when people take the tag for themselves when they are not socialists.

Whatever your own political beliefs may be, that doesn't make you more authoritative than a national political party or the international organisation to which it is affiliated.

 

Labour may not be quite as 100%, silly-headed socialist as some may wish it to be (just as the Conservative party is far too middle road these days for my liking) but it's still a socialist organisation. Deal with it.

[astraflash]

aircraft carriers without planes nuclear subs without top cover local services with no staff tories hiding there money on the camen islands where all in it together dont make me laugh

[dell12]

Labour may not be quite as 100%, silly-headed socialist as some may wish it to be (just as the Conservative party is far too middle road these days for my liking) but it's still a socialist organisation. Deal with it.

 

New Labour certainly aren't Socialist any more, although they contain a wide spectrum of political opinion, as the Tories do.

 

Socialism is most commonly defined as:

 

"The ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution is by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products."

 

I would defy you to find a single New Labour policy which fits these criteria, never mind the many needed to be able to call the New Labour party 'socialist'. Judge a party by its actions, not by what it calls itself.

[Harleyman]

Seems strange that people think that the means of production should be owned and operated by the government when exactly the reverse is happening in Russia and China where government ownership was a complete failure after decades of being in that state.

[mj.scuba]

Seems strange that people think that the means of production should be owned and operated by the government when exactly the reverse is happening in Russia and China where government ownership was a complete failure after decades of being in that state.

 

It also assumes a production only economy, what about the service sector? When we go to the cinema, does the spotty kid checking my ticket own the cinema? Only own part of it? And which part of it? Do they "sell" "their share" to the next spotty kid when they leave?

[Conrod]

. . . .Socialism is most commonly defined as:

 

"The ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution is by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products."

 

. . . . Judge a party by its actions, not by what it calls itself.

I'm quite familiar with a variety of definitions of socialism, but thank you anyway.

 

To a left-winger, Labour has betrayed its followers and embraced the ugliness of capitalism.

 

To right winger, Labour is still pretty much 'way out there' on the left of the spectrum. While in power, it continued to bloat the public sector, pour more money into nationalised organisations, waste billions upon billions in excessive welfare for the workshy, and to tax middle earners remorselessly. That's socialism, even without a shared village cow and grey smocks.

 

Few things in the real world can be tied down by exact definitions - if they were, there would be no country on Earth that could ever claim to be truly socialist.

 

Whatever the pedantic insistances of some left-wingers, Labour was and continues to be a socialist party. It may have softened (a bit) round the edges, but that's what it is, and I think the shower of politicians who make the party's policy have more right to define its purpose than an armchair expert in Sheffield.

[mossdog]

Because I'm not.

 

What I am is an actual socialist and it annoys me when people take the tag for themselves when they are not socialists.

Socialism sounds fine till you leave Uni and then enter the real world!

[Conrod]

. . . .

 

What I am is an actual socialist . . . .

Unless you are a young student type, yet to discover the realities of life, might I ask what motivates you to this . . . mindset?

 

Most people who start off, with perhaps well-meaning intent, on the path of socialist beliefs tend to come to their senses after a few years when they realise it's an impossible ideal, and that human nature doesn't allow it.