What Has Happened To The Left?

[colinsdog]

I'm not "pigeon-holing". I'm certainly not rigid.

 

yet you try and label individuals and what they believe in because it fits your view of the world.

 

why not just accept the answers given, from the posters in question?

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 14:50 ----------

 

 

The moderate socialists on this thread have been trying to escape a definition of "left" which includes the word "socialist" completely unnecessarily.

 

 

 

your definition of left. However each of them has their own definition, which differs on a case by case basis co-incidently.

[unbeliever]

yet you try and label individuals and what they believe in because it fits your view of the world.

 

why not just accept the answers given, from the posters in question?

 

These people have openly labeled themselves as "left". I wanted to know what that meant. I suspected it meant "socialist". Turns out I was right.

I haven't labelled them at all. They labelled themselves and I merely translated their labels.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 14:53 ----------

 

your definition of left. However each of them has their own definition, which differs on a case by case basis co-incidently.

 

Their descriptions clearly match the definition of socialism.

I don't know why you have a problem with this.

 

Is "socialist" pejorative? I didn't think it was. It's a legitimate range idealogical viewpoints, which has its merits. Nothing to be ashamed of.

[colinsdog]

Socialists are a broad church, like any large political grouping.

They go all the way from Marxists (the state should run everything) to far more moderate views that the state should do just a little more. But they're all socialists.

The same is true of capitalists/libertarians. All the way from moderates (the state should do a little less) to extremists (the state should not exist).

 

This all started because of the socialists extremely deceitful attempts to define certain historical figures which all right minded people hate to their cores as "right" when in fact they're also socialists. They're nothing like the socialists on this thread, and they're nothing like the vast bulk of socialists in the world, but that doesn't magically turn them from socialists into capitalists. These genocidal maniacs perverted socialism and are quite rightly condemned by all sides for doing so.

 

It's important to understand and recognise this because you should learn that whilst socialism certainly has virtues, it is highly susceptible to this kind of perversion and therefore great caution is required in its application.

 

Call the worst people in history "far right" all you want. Doesn't make it true. And when you do it with people who make it so obvious that they were trying to be socialists that they even put in their names, you look ridiculous.

 

And even if they are all 'socialists' (I'm talking hypothetically because it's down to the individual) what does that achieve? what have we learnt today? that socialism in the wrong hands is capable of doing good and evil?

 

well so is a capitalist.

 

you just admitted yourself socialism is a broad church. So let it be broad and far reaching.

 

it's the individual not the label.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 15:00 ----------

 

 

Is "socialist" pejorative? I didn't think it was. It's a legitimate range idealogical viewpoints, which has its merits. Nothing to be ashamed of.

 

I don't believe they are 'ashamed'. It could be a tag they don't want to be labelled with, due to connotations associated with the word. Or maybe they are free thinkers, capable of defining their own beliefs through their actions.

[unbeliever]

And even if they are all 'socialists' (I'm talking hypothetically because it's down to the individual) what does that achieve? what have we learnt today? that socialism in the wrong hands is capable of doing good and evil?

 

well so is a capitalist.

 

you just admitted yourself socialism is a broad church. So let it be broad and far reaching.

 

it's the individual not the label.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 15:00 ----------

 

 

I don't believe they are 'ashamed'. It could be a tag they don't want to be labelled with, due to connotations associated with the word. Or maybe they are free thinkers, capable of defining their own beliefs through their actions.

 

If they had a problem with labels in general, they wouldn't have labelled themselves as "left". How can one feel that their individuality is being suppressed or they are being demeaned or pigeon-holed by being labelled "socialist" when it is not by being labelled "left". That makes no sense at all.

 

All I wanted was to figure out what they meant by "left". Now I know they mean (moderate) "socialist". It makes no sense at all that they define moderate socialists as "left" and extreme genocidal despotic socialists as "far right", but I suppose these labels have entered the zeitgeist and the moderate socialists find that convenient.

Edited November 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[colinsdog]

If they had a problem with labels in general, they wouldn't have labelled themselves as "left". How can one feel that their individuality is being suppressed or they are being demeaned or pigeon-holed by being labelled "socialist" when it is not by being labelled "left". That makes no sense at all.

 

All I wanted was to figure out what they meant by "left". Now I know they mean (moderate) "socialist". It makes no sense at all that they define moderate socialists as "left" and extreme genocidal despotic socialists as "far right", but I suppose these labels have entered the zeitgeist and the moderate socialists find that convenient.

 

So if you define yourself as left, you are also by definition a 'socialist'?

 

was Tony Blair a socialist?

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 15:16 ----------

 

he used the term. I'd argue subsequently, many of his actions were antithesis to the definition of 'socialism'.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 15:19 ----------

 

I'd argue again:

 

1) it's how you define yourself, and your own perception of the terms used

2) your actions define you e.g. I don't care if Corbyn is a socialist or a capitalist or a trot or an alien. As long as the actions are coming from a good place with a positive end result it matters not one jot.

[unbeliever]

So if you define yourself as left, you are also by definition a 'socialist'?

 

By defining yourself as left, you're saying your a socialist. Other socialists may feel that you're not socialist enough to be called a socialist, but that's not my concern.

 

 

was Tony Blair a socialist?

 

Blair's a tricky one.

When it comes to the modern state of UK politics sometimes he was so close to the centre ground that it's hard to put him on one side or another.

My own view is that, even though in the '90s the state didn't grow much, that all changed on the 00's and the state grew enormously. A lot of that growth was achieved by borrowing, but still the overall increase in public spending during his tenure would seem to place him in the socialist camp.

[colinsdog]

By defining yourself as left, you're saying your a socialist. .

 

So all the millions of people who voted for socialist Tony Blair (he said he was a socialist in 1994).

But then went out and borrowed loads of money for free market housing. They are true socialists?

 

should we redefine the term 'socialist' or just presume actions speak louder than words?

 

We are so far away from socialism in the UK it's untrue. There is no real appetite for socialism. Even the lefts aren't proper socialists!

[I1L2T3]

These people have openly labeled themselves as "left". I wanted to know what that meant. I suspected it meant "socialist". Turns out I was right.

I haven't labelled them at all. They labelled themselves and I merely translated their labels.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 14:53 ----------

 

 

Their descriptions clearly match the definition of socialism.

I don't know why you have a problem with this.

 

Is "socialist" pejorative? I didn't think it was. It's a legitimate range idealogical viewpoints, which has its merits. Nothing to be ashamed of.

 

I wouldn't call myself a socialist because I'm not one.

 

I'd call myself a social democrat really. That is the closest to what I am. That is quite different to being a socialist. Educate yourself on the differences.

 

As you say that might mean the LibDems would be a natural home for me. The problem for me with the LibDems is they are a broad church and also have a strong element of economic liberalism - for me that is too close to the Tories and New Labour so I could never support or join the LibDems on that basis.

[MikeFrank]

I note some on the left are complaining that Jihadi John was killed and not arrested. Need I say more. Its a pity the left seem to want to make themselves unelectable.

[unbeliever]

I wouldn't call myself a socialist because I'm not one.

 

I'd call myself a social democrat really. That is the closest to what I am. That is quite different to being a socialist. Educate yourself on the differences.

 

As you say that might mean the LibDems would be a natural home for me. The problem for me with the LibDems is they are a broad church and also have a strong element of economic liberalism - for me that is too close to the Tories and New Labour so I could never support or join the LibDems on that basis.

 

I really don't require educating.

A social democrat supports established unions, extensive redistribution of wealth, and high state spending (therefore big government). It's a kind of socialism. It's a moderate kind of socialism because it allows for some highly regulated capitalism to go on rather than calling for the nationalisation of everything. But it's still socialism.