I didn't say 'people'. I said people worked for the state and produced
material for the state. They then rely on the state. Excuse the pun but
it's a "state" of being. You must have remembered the "job for life"
mentality accompanied with union power, 2 workers for one job, and the idea
of "if a company becomes big then the government should own and run it" ?
I could go down the communism, marxism, trotskyite, anarcho-syndicalism,
anarcho-communism, nazism route - which are extremes of socialism with and
without state - but I'm sure that would be getting more and more off-topic.
From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USMA:33338] RE: A kilo of Socialism
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:24:46 +0100
You seem to be equating socialism with communism.
Whether Labour is socialist or not will depend on a) how it's defined and
b) what their actual values are. Do you think that the Labour party is made
up of people who advocate a society in which are people owned by the state
in the way you describe?
Phil Hall
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Humphreys"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: [USMA:33338] RE: A kilo of Socialism
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?
