Strictly speaking I see socialism as the state owning the ways and means and
results of work.
I also see it as a system where the person is dependant upon the state
throughout his or her life. This means during sickness and unemployment
(which, strictly speaking, should not happen under socialism!) but
inevitably means the creation of a people with no aspiration other than to
be looked after by government. Reward means recognition by the state rather
than pioneering through entreprenurialism or wealth-creation.
However Tony Blair *DOES* still say that his party is a socialist party,
despite no intent to nationalise everything (well, except part of the
railways). I guess he means this as a "new socialism" to go with "new
labour".
Of course, in reality most of those people who sit behind him will still see
themselves as "proper" socialists and since a political party comprises all
its members and representatives then that still makes it a socialist party,
despite what Mr Blair and his front bench say.
That saying, personally I would not risk going up to John Prescott and
saying "You're not a real socialist are you?"
If you know what I mean?
From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:33334] RE: A Pound of Bananas
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:00:12 +0100
>Stephen Humphreys
>The state's official politics is socialism.
Clause 4 of the Labour party constitution required "common ownership of the
means of production". However, after Tony Blair came to power, that clause
was removed in 1995 as part of the policy change to 'New Labour'. Many
definitions of socialism suggest that the removal of the clause meant the
end of it being a socialist party.
Opposing the views of another party does not make anyone a 'socialist'. Few
people would use the the word 'socialism' for policies of the Tony Blair.
What is your definition of socialism?
