I don't see much evidence that the policies of the "new Labour" government
fits the model of socialism you describe.
I agree - but there is a healthy representation of 'that sort' of socialism
in the Labour party - both in the commons and in the membership.
Speaking for myself, I can see the value of free enterprise and the
entreprenurial spirit in most areas of society but there has to be an
element of social responsibility as well. There is also the question of how
much a large corporate industry can be allowed to grow and diversify before
it becomes a monopoly and starts to develop into what amounts to a
privately owned "state" in its own right.
I agree that large private corporations can be almost as bad as state run
organisations.
But I wouldn't condone the state interfering with that.
It's all quite cyclic - companies get big - then sell their 'arms' off -then
get big again - then outsource - then insource - then (etc).
Note that supercompanies like IBM fall victim to being so big - when the
orders stopped coming in in the mid 90's they got into trouble and shrank.
I think there are areas of society, such as transport and communications,
where it makes sense to have a common infrastructure which really ought to
be in public ownership. Otherwise you get a lot of wasteful duplication and
fake competition.
My view is - selling the transport infrastructure in the UK was done in a
cack-handed way. It could have succeeded if it was done properly.
I don't know how you'd classify that.
Sounds like pre-thatcher conservatism. "One-nationist" I believe it used to
be called. A social-conservatism rather than neo-liberal-conservatism.
