Blair and co - "Friends Of The Poor"
jon ivar skullerud
[Followups set]
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <6992.717...@heading.demon.co.uk>, Brendan Heading writes:
> The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. Alliance is not. That
> important difference was reflected in the party manifestos.
And exactly how is it reflected? You have failed to point out any
significant differences. You just keep on repeating the mantra "we
are socialists, you are capitalists" -- as if repeating it often
enough made it true.
> > Neither I, nor Gerry Lynch, nor any members of the Alliance Party
> > would call themselves socialists. Gerry's original argument was
> > whether or not LABOUR were socialist.
> And how is he such a big expert on socialism all of a sudden?
How much of an expert are you then? You don't become an expert by
calling yourself one.
> This is not a diverson. Non-socialists have no business in casting
> irrelevant aspersions based on an ideology they do not understand.
Exactly, Mr Boothroyd. So shut up then.
> > The election success of my own party is irrelevant.
>
> It's not irrelevant, it's nonexistent.
So what? Since when was the validity of people's opinions determined
by the electoral success of the parties they belong to or support?
You are stooping very, very low.
--
______ _____________________________________________________
/ | |
| jon | jon ivar skullerud (to reply:) |
\______ | jon...@ph.ed.ac.ku (transpose last chars) |
\ | jsku...@physix.adelaide.edu.au (correct spelling) |
ivar | | http://www.ph.ed.ac.ku/~jonivar/ |
_______/ |_____________________________________________________|
jon ivar skullerud
[Followups set]
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <oden2ma...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud writes:
> > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > In article <6992.717...@heading.demon.co.uk>, Brendan Heading writes:
> > > The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. Alliance is not. That
> > > important difference was reflected in the party manifestos.
> >
> > And exactly how is it reflected? You have failed to point out any
> > significant differences. You just keep on repeating the mantra "we
> > are socialists, you are capitalists" -- as if repeating it often
> > enough made it true.
> I have pointed out several times that there is a key
> difference. Alliance says the public sector should just continue,
> and the private sector should take the lead in economic
> development.
That is how you read it.
> Labour believe in forming a partnership between the
> public and private sector.
Not a particularly socialist policy, i would say. It also seems to me
that Alliance and the LibDems are advocating exactly the same.
> > > > Neither I, nor Gerry Lynch, nor any members of the Alliance Party
> > > > would call themselves socialists. Gerry's original argument was
> > > > whether or not LABOUR were socialist.
> >
> > > And how is he such a big expert on socialism all of a sudden?
> >
> > How much of an expert are you then?
> I think I should know a bit more about socialism than Gerry Lynch,
> because I am a socialist and he is not.
You call yourself a socialist. As far as i am concerned, you are no
more of a socialist than Gerry Lynch. And i should know a bit more
about socialism than you, because i am a socialist and you are not.
> > > This is not a diverson. Non-socialists have no business in casting
> > > irrelevant aspersions based on an ideology they do not understand.
> >
> > Exactly, Mr Boothroyd. So shut up then.
>
> Are you telling yourself that? Well done for disengaging from the debate.
I think you understand what i meant. You, a non-socialist, should not
cast irrelevant aspersions based on an ideology, socialism, which you
do not understand.
David Boothroyd
In article <ode203l...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud writes:
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > In article <odek9he...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud
writes:
> > > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > > I have pointed out several times that there is a key
> > > > difference. Alliance says the public sector should just continue,
> > > > and the private sector should take the lead in economic
> > > > development.
> > >
> > > That is how you read it.
> >
> > And Alliance posters in this thread accept it.
>
> Do they really now. I must have missed those articles. Please
> provide the references.
Alliance supporters have agreed that their own party is not socialist.
> > > > Labour believe in forming a partnership between the public and private
> > > > sector.
> > >
> > > Not a particularly socialist policy, i would say.
>
> > And you would say it wrongly. It is a fundamentally socialistic
> > policy, because it accepts the key role of the public sector in
> > ensuring the private sector provides for the whole of the
> > population.
>
> Socialism has very little to do with the public vs the private sector;
Nothing at all, because the public sector isn't against the private sector
and vice-versa. Alliance and other non-socialist parties say the public
sector should let the private sector alone apart from occsional helps.
Labour and other socialist parties say the public sector and private sector
should form a partnership in the nation's interest.
> Plenty of Conservative and Christian Democrat governments have
> advocated 'partnership' as well.
Have they? The most co-operative Conservative manifesto in this country was
in October 1974 (the 'Government of National Unity' time), when the
Conservatives said "There is no majority for the continued harrying of
private enterprise". IOW, let the private sector alone.
> > > You call yourself a socialist.
> >
> > I am a socialist.
>
> You know, we could go on like this forever.
No, only so long as it takes you to concede defeat.
--
\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
The House of Commons now: Lab 416, C 163, L Dem 46, UU 10, SNP 6, PC 4, SDLP 3,
SF 2, UDUP 2, Ind 1, UKUP 1, Spkrs 4 + 1 seat vacant. Government majority = 178
Phil Hunt
In article <odebu2k...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>
jon...@ph.ed.ac.ku "jon ivar skullerud" writes:
> Now DB uses his own private definition of socialism, combined with the
> fact that Alliance and Gerry Lynch call themselves non-socialists, to
> 'prove' that Alliance and Gerry Lynch do not believe in social
> justice. Sorry, but this would fail a first-year exam in logic.
>
> The structure of David Boothroyd's argument is as follows:
>
> 1. Person A says that he is not a christian.
> 2. DB defines a christian as someone who believes people should not
> kill or steal.
> 3. It follows from this definition that someone who is not a christian
> believes it is ok to kill or steal.
> 4. Person A therefore must think it is ok to kill or steal.
>
> The fallacy is assuming that the definition you provided is the one
> the person had in mind. That is the charitable version. The other
> way of saying it is that you are changing the rules (definitions) in
> the middle of the game. Chances are that under DB's novel definition
> of socialism, Alliance would be socialists -- but i'll leave that up
> to them to declare.
>
> Basically, David Boothroyd is using dishonest debating techniques.
He's practising to be the next Peter Mandelson.
--
******** Phil Hunt == ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk ********
"Brewery leads in anti-drugs fight" -- Newspaper headline
<http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/index.htm> for info on:
Eurolang, politics, voting systems, basic income.
** My other computer is an Indy **
David Boothroyd
In article <ode90xo...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud writes:
>
> [Followups set again. Why do you keep on ignoring the followup line
> and directing the thread to groups where it is off-topic?]
You need a refresher course in logic. I do not do anything. My newsreader
does not recognise the Followup-To: line. You must change the Newsgroups:
line.
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > In article <ode203l...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud
writes:
> > > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > > In article <odek9he...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud
> > writes:
> > > > > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > > Alliance says the public sector should just continue, and the
> > > > > > private sector should take the lead in economic development.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is how you read it.
> > > >
> > > > And Alliance posters in this thread accept it.
> > >
> > > Do they really now. I must have missed those articles. Please
> > > provide the references.
> >
> > Alliance supporters have agreed that their own party is not socialist.
>
> That is not the same. Please do not twist the meaning of words.
I have shown how it is the same; further my original claim was a simple
paraphrasing of Alliance's 1997 manifesto, not something I had written
myself.
> I refer you to the responses by Brendan Heading and Gerry Lynch.
Which support my side of this rather tedious argument.
> You are a liar, David Boothroyd.
Argument by assertion, very poor.
> > > Socialism has very little to do with the public vs the private sector;
> >
> > Nothing at all, because the public sector isn't against the private sector
> > and vice-versa.
>
> Very clever. Now address the point i was raising.
I did do that, though you chose not to deal with the point raised incidentally.
Socialism is fundamentally about preserving society and providing services
for those unable to provide for themselves. This requires the private sector
and the public sector working in partnership.
> > Alliance and other non-socialist parties say the public sector
> > should let the private sector alone apart from occsional helps.
> > Labour and other socialist parties say the public sector and private
> > sector should form a partnership in the nation's interest.
>
> Nonsense. And you know it.
I note the lack of any supporting argument. I did get much of the phrasing
there from the Alliance Party 1997 manifesto and the Labour Party 1997
manifesto.
> > > Plenty of Conservative and Christian Democrat governments have
> > > advocated 'partnership' as well.
> >
> > Have they? The most co-operative Conservative manifesto in this country was
> > in October 1974 (the 'Government of National Unity' time), when the
> > Conservatives said "There is no majority for the continued harrying of
> > private enterprise". IOW, let the private sector alone.
>
> "IOW" == "This is what I want it to mean". Nil points.
In other words. The 1974 Conservative manifesto opposed 'harrying' of
private enterprise, which was by way of reference to state control and
interference. You can hardly have a partnership when one side can do
nothing.
> And the phrase "Conservative and Christian Democrat" should have given
> you a hint that i was not referring exclusively to this country.
References to matters outwith this country have to deal with a different
political culture. I have always avoided them because this argument is
about the UK. One must only compare like with like.
> Another refresher lesson in logic for DB:
>
> The utterance by a person of the statement "I am a socialist" is a
> proof of the assertion that this person calls himself a socialist. It
> is not a proof of anything else. In particular, the utterance of the
> statement does not make the statement true.
A refresher in common sense from DB:
If you come up with a definition of socialist which excludes 99% of the
people who call themselves socialists in this country, it's a pretty
useless definition.
David Boothroyd
In article <B029EF129...@0.0.0.0>, Simon Gardner writes:
>
> Hmm
>
> Boothers is a politician. The Labour party is a political party.
Well, Simy-Wimy me old pal me old beauty, could you tell me how you
define who is a politician and who not?
> Politicians lie. Political parties lie
People lie, sometimes. You lie, sometimes. Politicians are not a breed
apart from everyone else.
> Boothers and the Labour Party assert (with no evidence) that New Labour is
> "socialist".
With considerable evidence, which I cannot be bothered to repeat right
now.
> Therefore New Labour is not socialist.
>
> :-)
Simon, am I right in remembering that you are a journalist? I mean
they are famous for their voracious desire never to distort anything
to make a better story (ie to lie) aren't they?
jon ivar skullerud
[Newsgroups trimmed]
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > No, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of control and
> > exchange is in common ownership, or a belief system whereby a change to
> > such an economic system is actively pursued.
Almost, but not quite. Close enough.
> No it isn't. Socialism is a political philosophy which places
> preservation of a civil society at its centre.
You are confusing socialism with communitarianism. As i said before,
your definition would make Edmund Burke a socialist.
> > OK, your argument about LibDem policy not being intended to be
> > implemented no longer holds water. Unlike Labour, we clearly costed our
> > programme
>
> For someone to look critically at that costing, it would mean taking
> the Lib Dems seriously. No serious political commentator would ever be
> caught doing that.
Your arrogance has no bounds. Instead of addressing somebody's
arguments, you dismiss them as irrelevant because their party is not
as big as yours.
Nil points, and suspension from the rest of the debate until you can
learn proper debating technique.
Mr A J Smith
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Simon Gardner wrote:
> There is a widely accepted definition of socialism.
Widely accepted except by socialists.
> It's in all the reputable reliable reference books.
But contradicted by many of the major texts on socialism this country has
produced.
> It's just that Boothroyd thinks they are all wrong.
It's almost as though David had some special insight into what socialists
believe. Perhaps he is one? Or perhaps he's a member of some large
socialist organisation? Perhaps he could be a member of the largest
socialist organisation in the very country where socialism first appeared
as a political philosophy?
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew John Smith |"Andy is a thoroughly nice chap, he just |
| ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk |happens to believe that all problems can |
| homepage: |be solved by the application of rational |
| http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~mapej/ |principles and innate common sense" - jdc |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Adams
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<97082723...@election.demon.co.uk>...
> If you come up with a definition of socialist which excludes 99% of the
> people who call themselves socialists in this country, it's a pretty
> useless definition.
But earlier in your post you said:-
> Socialism is fundamentally about preserving society and providing
services
> for those unable to provide for themselves. This requires the private
sector
> and the public sector working in partnership.
This is not a definition of socialism which I have ever heard from anyone,
outside New Labour anyway. It is certainly not one which I, or anyone
I know who calls themself a socialist would accept.
Preserving society and providing services is a rather vague aspiration
which
very many people, socialist or not, would support. The whole point of any
political philosophy is how to arrange and order society in order to attain
such goals.
Partnerships between the private and public sectors may or may not be
the way forward, but they are in no way a socialist solution. And no true
socialist would be so willing to jump into bed with as many capitalists as
Blair has done.
The way he has put so many unelected business people in positions of
power, either in the cabinet or in charge of "task forces", is cronyism
almost on a par with the Tories.
Andrew Adams
David Boothroyd
In article <odek9h6...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud writes:
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > OK, your argument about LibDem policy not being intended to be
> > > implemented no longer holds water. Unlike Labour, we clearly costed our
> > > programme
> >
> > For someone to look critically at that costing, it would mean taking
> > the Lib Dems seriously. No serious political commentator would ever be
> > caught doing that.
>
> Your arrogance has no bounds. Instead of addressing somebody's
> arguments, you dismiss them as irrelevant because their party is not
> as big as yours.
You have misunderstood. The point at issue here is my claim that the
manifestoes of minor parties, defined for the purposes of this section
as those other than Conservative and Labour, are never looked at
critically because of the minute possibility of those parties actually
obtaining power.
I cite as support for this view the reaction of one newspaper journalist
in 'The British General Election of 1992' who is quoted as saying (page 108):
"The Liberals get away with murder. I can't treat Paddy like I treat Kinnock
or Major, as someone who might be Prime Minister with a working majority.
I can't with a straight face, press home serious 'What would you do?'
questions."
jon ivar skullerud
[Newsgroups trimmed. Followups to uk.politics.philosophy]
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <ode90xo...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud writes:
> >
> > [Followups set again. Why do you keep on ignoring the followup line
> > and directing the thread to groups where it is off-topic?]
>
> You need a refresher course in logic. I do not do anything. My newsreader
> does not recognise the Followup-To: line. You must change the Newsgroups:
> line.
Get another newsreader that isn't broken. Yes, i'm serious. If your
newsreader violates RFC 1036 and does not respect the Followup-To:
line, it is broken and should be thrown away. Write to whoever
produced it and say as much.
In any case, if you know this, you should spot the Followup-To: line
and edit the headers manually.
> > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > In article <ode203l...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud
> writes:
> > > > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > In article <odek9he...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud
> > > writes:
> > > > > > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > > > Alliance says the public sector should just continue, and the
> > > > > > > private sector should take the lead in economic development.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is how you read it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Alliance posters in this thread accept it.
> > > >
> > > > Do they really now. I must have missed those articles. Please
> > > > provide the references.
> > >
> > > Alliance supporters have agreed that their own party is not socialist.
> >
> > That is not the same. Please do not twist the meaning of words.
>
> I have shown how it is the same;
You have done nothing of the kind.
> further my original claim was a simple paraphrasing of Alliance's
> 1997 manifesto, not something I had written myself.
It was not a simple paraphrasing, it was a deliberate twisting of
words to make it look as if they meant something that was not in the
original formulation.
> > I refer you to the responses by Brendan Heading and Gerry Lynch.
>
> Which support my side of this rather tedious argument.
Black is white. War is peace.
If someone states that you are misrepresenting their opinions, you
take this as a confirmation that your presented their opinions
correctly.
Congratulations. Big Brother would be proud of you.
> > You are a liar, David Boothroyd.
>
> Argument by assertion, very poor.
I produced evidence for it above. I can repeat it if you wish: You
attribute opinions to other people that they have never expressed, and
continue to do so even when they explicitly deny holding those
opinions. This is known as lying about other people's opinions, and
doing so makes you a liar.
> Socialism is fundamentally about preserving society and providing services
> for those unable to provide for themselves. This requires the private sector
> and the public sector working in partnership.
Socialism is about the economy being controlled by the people for the
common good, rather than by a few individuals for their personal
enrichment. Exactly how this control is exerted is a secondary
point. "Providing services for those unable to provide for
themselves" is good old-fashioned charity, and about as far from
socialism as you can get.
Nothing to do with preserving society, although socialism wouldn't
work without a functioning society. But then again, neither would
capitalism.
> > > Alliance and other non-socialist parties say the public sector
> > > should let the private sector alone apart from occsional helps.
> > > Labour and other socialist parties say the public sector and private
> > > sector should form a partnership in the nation's interest.
> >
> > Nonsense. And you know it.
>
> I note the lack of any supporting argument.
The arguments have been presented countless times before, but you
continue to ignore them.
> > > > Plenty of Conservative and Christian Democrat governments have
> > > > advocated 'partnership' as well.
> > >
> > > Have they? The most co-operative Conservative manifesto in this country was
> > > in October 1974 (the 'Government of National Unity' time), when the
> > > Conservatives said "There is no majority for the continued harrying of
> > > private enterprise". IOW, let the private sector alone.
> >
> > "IOW" == "This is what I want it to mean". Nil points.
>
> In other words. The 1974 Conservative manifesto opposed 'harrying' of
> private enterprise, which was by way of reference to state control and
> interference. You can hardly have a partnership when one side can do
> nothing.
'Harrying' = excessive interference. With emphasis on the excess.
Perhaps you could start addressing what people actually say, rather
than some fictuous statement derived from your convenient
'interpretation' of what they said?
> > And the phrase "Conservative and Christian Democrat" should have given
> > you a hint that i was not referring exclusively to this country.
>
> References to matters outwith this country have to deal with a different
> political culture. I have always avoided them because this argument is
> about the UK. One must only compare like with like.
Socialism is, by its very nature, an international ideology. This
argument is about socialism. Therefore, it cannot be limited to the
UK. You propose as a defining characteristic of socialism something
that is endorsed by non-socialists in a number of countries. This
points out a basic flaw in your definition.
> > Another refresher lesson in logic for DB:
> >
> > The utterance by a person of the statement "I am a socialist" is a
> > proof of the assertion that this person calls himself a socialist. It
> > is not a proof of anything else. In particular, the utterance of the
> > statement does not make the statement true.
>
> A refresher in common sense from DB:
>
> If you come up with a definition of socialist which excludes 99% of the
> people who call themselves socialists in this country, it's a pretty
> useless definition.
Which 99%? Where did you get that number from?
Are you trying to say that less than 1% of the people who call
themselves socialists in this country would be included in the OED
definition? That's strange, because i am quite certain that much more
than 1% of the entire population of the UK is covered by that
definition. Even counting up the vote for the fringe socialist
parties brings you over 1%, and that is before you even begin looking
at the socialists within the Labour Party and other parties like the
SNP.
David Boothroyd
In article <B02B6E899...@0.0.0.0>, Simon Gardner writes:
> In article <jVDBTaA8...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>,
> Jonathan Bratt <j...@moseley1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > there is a consistent, widely accepted version of
> > socialism
>
> There is a widely accepted definition of socialism. It's in all the
> reputable reliable reference books. It's just that Boothroyd thinks they
> are all wrong.
Where do the reference books get their description from? Have we ceded
control over our language to a self-selecting group of academics?
Definitions of socialism in this country and others tend to originate
in the old wording of Clause IV(4) of the Labour Party constitution as
adopted in 1918, and amended in 1929. The Labour Party never believed
in this form of words. Certainly no Labour manifesto or Labour government
actually set about implementing it. If Labour without the old Clause IV
is not socialist, then it has never been socialist.
David Boothroyd
In article <872809...@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt writes:
> In article <97082800...@election.demon.co.uk>
> da...@election.demon.co.uk "David Boothroyd" writes:
> > In article <B029EF129...@0.0.0.0>, Simon Gardner writes:
> > > Boothers is a politician. The Labour party is a political party.
> >
> > Well, Simy-Wimy me old pal me old beauty, could you tell me how you
> > define who is a politician and who not?
> >
> > > Politicians lie. Political parties lie
> >
> > People lie, sometimes. You lie, sometimes. Politicians are not a breed
> > apart from everyone else.
>
> Politicians lie *for a living*.
If that is the case then Simon Gardner got it wrong when he started this.
Actually I do not accept that. I would ask you to justify it.
David Boothroyd
In article <odehgc8...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud writes:
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > In article <ode90xo...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud
> > writes:
> > > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > >
> > > > Alliance supporters have agreed that their own party is not socialist.
> > >
> > > That is not the same as saying the public sector should just continue,
> > > and that the private sector should take the lead in economic development.
> > > Please do not twist the meaning of words.
> >
> > I have shown how it is the same;
>
> You have done nothing of the kind.
I have shown how a socialist party believes in building partnerships between
the public and private sectors, an approach not adopted by Alliance, and
how a socialist party believes in the public sector taking a key role in
enhancing business, which Alliance do not believe it should.
> > further my original claim was a simple paraphrasing of Alliance's
> > 1997 manifesto, not something I had written myself.
>
> It was not a simple paraphrasing, it was a deliberate twisting of
> words to make it look as if they meant something that was not in the
> original formulation.
How can you twist something simply by changing the grammar? If Alliance
believed in building partnerships with business, they'd have said so.
They did not. They said the private sector should always lead the way.
At no point was the meaning distorted.
> > > I refer you to the responses by Brendan Heading and Gerry Lynch.
> >
> > Which support my side of this rather tedious argument.
>
> Black is white. War is peace.
I know that's what you think but we have to deal with the realities.
> If someone states that you are misrepresenting their opinions, you
> take this as a confirmation that your presented their opinions
> correctly.
Now you're taking it upon yourself to decide how I think!
> > > You are a liar, David Boothroyd.
> >
> > Argument by assertion, very poor.
>
> I produced evidence for it above.
You produced no evidence whatsoever.
> I can repeat it if you wish: You attribute opinions to other people
> that they have never expressed,
This is not so. I said Alliance was not a socialist party; Alliance
supporters agreed it was not a socialist party.
> and continue to do so even when they explicitly deny holding those
> opinions.
This is not so. I said that it was open to Gerry Lynch (and therefore
to Brendan Heading also) to say that they were socialists even though
their party was not. They both disagreed.
> > Socialism is fundamentally about preserving society and providing services
> > for those unable to provide for themselves. This requires the private
sector
> > and the public sector working in partnership.
>
> Socialism is about the economy being controlled by the people for the
> common good, rather than by a few individuals for their personal
> enrichment. Exactly how this control is exerted is a secondary
> point.
So you, along with me, don't believe all those dictionary definitions which
talk about common ownership being crucial?
> > > > Alliance and other non-socialist parties say the public sector
> > > > should let the private sector alone apart from occsional helps.
> > > > Labour and other socialist parties say the public sector and private
> > > > sector should form a partnership in the nation's interest.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. And you know it.
> >
> > I note the lack of any supporting argument.
>
> The arguments have been presented countless times before, but you
> continue to ignore them.
The arguments that have been presented have been bogus, misleading or
inaccurate. The Alliance statement above was exactly what they said in
their manifesto; the Labour statement was in the Labour manifesto.
> > The 1974 Conservative manifesto opposed 'harrying' of private enterprise,
> > which was by way of reference to state control and interference. You can
> > hardly have a partnership when one side can do nothing.
>
> 'Harrying' = excessive interference. With emphasis on the excess.
Which all depends on how you define 'excess'. But the key point is that that
phraseology clearly comes from the standpoint of public sector and private
sector at odds, the direct opposite of the partnership approach favoured
by Labour and other socialist parties.
> > > And the phrase "Conservative and Christian Democrat" should have given
> > > you a hint that i was not referring exclusively to this country.
> >
> > References to matters outwith this country have to deal with a different
> > political culture. I have always avoided them because this argument is
> > about the UK. One must only compare like with like.
>
> Socialism is, by its very nature, an international ideology. This
> argument is about socialism. Therefore, it cannot be limited to the
> UK.
On the contrary it must be. Socialism in different countries is taken
as meaning different things. Sendero Luminoso and the Labour Party are
both left-wing, but they are so totally different that comparisons are
pointless.
> > > Another refresher lesson in logic for DB:
> > >
> > > The utterance by a person of the statement "I am a socialist" is a
> > > proof of the assertion that this person calls himself a socialist. It
> > > is not a proof of anything else. In particular, the utterance of the
> > > statement does not make the statement true.
> >
> > A refresher in common sense from DB:
> >
> > If you come up with a definition of socialist which excludes 99% of the
> > people who call themselves socialists in this country, it's a pretty
> > useless definition.
>
> Which 99%? Where did you get that number from?
Estimate of the number of people who support the Labour Party as a proportion
of the total number of people supporting socialist parties in the United
Kingdom.
jon ivar skullerud
[Note followups]
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <LzE$1DAjQ2...@ashton.demon.co.uk>, Nigel Ashton writes:
> > To pick up on another point which has surfaced in this thread, I am not
> > a socialist, but I do have an interest in the study of politics. I
> > therefore assert my right to comment on what, in my opinion, constitutes
> > socialism. I also welcome the opinions of people who are not Liberals on
> > questions relating to Liberalism.
>
> Liberals clearly believe you should let it all hang out. Socialism
> is a bit different.
Utter rubbish.
Are you now going to go around to every politics department in the
country and demand the end to all lectures and seminars on socialism
where people you consider to be non-socialists are involved?
I am a socialist, and i welcome the opinions of non-socialist,
including David Boothroyd and Nigel Ashton, on what socialism is.
What next? Only fascists should be allowed to comment on fascism?
Mr A J Smith
On 31 Aug 1997, jon ivar skullerud wrote:
> Are you now going to go around to every politics department in the
> country and demand the end to all lectures and seminars on socialism
> where people you consider to be non-socialists are involved?
I doubt it, but he's fully entitled to suggest that the last word on what
socialists believe should be had by socialists rather than opponents of
socialism. Otherwise it would be a bit like a Christian church saying
"Perhaps we should get the Muslims to write a new creed for us? After all
they have an opinion on what we believe."
> I am a socialist,
It's a funny kind of socialist that refuses to respect anyone who isn't
familiar with your favourite obscure anarchist philosopher. I don't know
what your philosophy is, but it strikes me as way too elitist to be a form
of socialism.
> and i welcome the opinions of non-socialist,
> including David Boothroyd and Nigel Ashton, on what socialism is.
Ooooh now David isn't a socialist. Well how could he be? He's only a loyal
member of the largest and most influential organisation to call itself
socialist in the country where socialism originated. As a qualification
for being a socialist that clearly doesn't compare with being arrogant,
dogmatic and familiar with insignificant anarchist thinkers who are
best remembered for losing arguments with Marx.
Phil Hunt
In article <97083016...@election.demon.co.uk>
da...@election.demon.co.uk "David Boothroyd" writes:
> In article <872809...@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt writes:
> > Politicians lie *for a living*.
>
I will give you an example. Today, I have heard loads of politicians
on TV and the radio saying how saddened they are about Princess Diana's
death.
I think it is unlikely that they all beleved everything they said. I'm
sure some of them privately thought "OK, it's sad for her friends and
family, but I personally didn't know her very well, and therefore it
doesn't sadden me personally, nor is it a disaster for the vast
majority of the population, who didn't know her personally".
Yet none of the politicians said this. Why not? Probably because they
felt it would sound callous and therefore lose them votes.
So politicians, if they are to be successful, sometimes have to say
things they don't believe and refrain from saying things they do
beleive. Politicians that fail to observe this rule tend to be
penalised by the political establishment -- eg Clare Short. So
telling lies is often an intrinsic part of the job of being a
politician.
Of course, some politicians are more honest than others, and few
are totally dishonest.
jon ivar skullerud
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <odehgc8...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud writes:
> > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > In article <ode90xo...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud
> > > writes:
> > > > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alliance supporters have agreed that their own party is not socialist.
> > > >
> > > > That is not the same as saying the public sector should just continue,
> > > > and that the private sector should take the lead in economic development.
> > > > Please do not twist the meaning of words.
> > >
> > > I have shown how it is the same;
> >
> > You have done nothing of the kind.
> I have shown how a socialist party believes in building partnerships
> between the public and private sectors,
You have in no way shown that this is a socialist policy. It is not
unique to socialism (as i have shown), nor do all socialist parties
believe in this.
> an approach not adopted by Alliance, and
Is it not now? The Alliance supporters on these ngs seem to disagree.
> how a socialist party believes in the public sector taking a key
> role in enhancing business,
I must have missed this. I cannot recall any demonstration of how
this flows from any definition of socialism.
> which Alliance do not believe it should.
Does it not? The Alliance supporters on these ngs seem to disagree.
> How can you twist something simply by changing the grammar? If Alliance
> believed in building partnerships with business, they'd have said so.
> They did not. They said the private sector should always lead the way.
> At no point was the meaning distorted.
They said the private sector should lead the way. That does not
preclude the public sector having a key role, or partnerships between
private and public sectors.
> > > > I refer you to the responses by Brendan Heading and Gerry Lynch.
> > >
> > > Which support my side of this rather tedious argument.
> > If someone states that you are misrepresenting their opinions, you
> > take this as a confirmation that your presented their opinions
> > correctly.
>
> Now you're taking it upon yourself to decide how I think!
No, i am going only by your public expressions. It is of course
entirely possible -- likely, even -- that you do not believe what you
write yourself.
> > I can repeat it if you wish: You attribute opinions to other people
> > that they have never expressed,
>
> This is not so. I said Alliance was not a socialist party; Alliance
> supporters agreed it was not a socialist party.
That is not what the argument was about, and you know it.
> > and continue to do so even when they explicitly deny holding those
> > opinions.
>
> This is not so. I said that it was open to Gerry Lynch (and therefore
> to Brendan Heading also) to say that they were socialists even though
> their party was not. They both disagreed.
True. There is no disagreement between us on this point. The
disagreement arises when you start drawing conclusions from this,
based on your peculiar definition of socialism, regarding other
opinions they may have.
Other people here have not accepted your definition of socialism. You
can therefore not use this definition to conclude anything about the
opinions of those who have described themselves as socialists or
non-socialists.
> > Socialism is about the economy being controlled by the people for the
> > common good, rather than by a few individuals for their personal
> > enrichment. Exactly how this control is exerted is a secondary
> > point.
> So you, along with me, don't believe all those dictionary
> definitions which talk about common ownership being crucial?
Depends on what you mean by common ownership. The crucial point is
that the community as a whole is in *control* of the means of
production and distribution. It is certainly a fallacy to mistake
state ownership for common ownership or control -- more often than
not, they are diametrically opposed.
OED talks about "common ownership and control". Chambers doesn't
mention ownership at all, but talks about "plac[ing] the means of
production and distribution in the hands of the community". I prefer
the latter wording.
> > > > > Alliance and other non-socialist parties say the public sector
> > > > > should let the private sector alone apart from occsional helps.
> > > > > Labour and other socialist parties say the public sector and private
> > > > > sector should form a partnership in the nation's interest.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. And you know it.
> > >
> > > I note the lack of any supporting argument.
> >
> > The arguments have been presented countless times before, but you
> > continue to ignore them.
>
> The arguments that have been presented have been bogus, misleading or
> inaccurate.
You are talking about your own arguments here, i see?
> The Alliance statement above was exactly what they said in
> their manifesto; the Labour statement was in the Labour manifesto.
Where exactly did they say "let the private sector alone apart from
occsional [sic] helps"?
> > > The 1974 Conservative manifesto opposed 'harrying' of private enterprise,
> > > which was by way of reference to state control and interference. You can
> > > hardly have a partnership when one side can do nothing.
> >
> > 'Harrying' = excessive interference. With emphasis on the excess.
>
> Which all depends on how you define 'excess'.
Of course.
> But the key point is that that phraseology clearly comes from the
> standpoint of public sector and private sector at odds, the direct
> opposite of the partnership approach favoured by Labour and other
> socialist parties.
Actually, i thought many socialist parties also adopted that
standpoint.
More to the point, the quote comes from a campaign document, which
tend to use confrontational language.
> > > References to matters outwith this country have to deal with a different
> > > political culture. I have always avoided them because this argument is
> > > about the UK. One must only compare like with like.
> >
> > Socialism is, by its very nature, an international ideology. This
> > argument is about socialism. Therefore, it cannot be limited to the
> > UK.
>
> On the contrary it must be. Socialism in different countries is taken
> as meaning different things.
I wish you had said this at the outset, and perhaps we might have
avioded much of this rather tedious discussion. Obviously it is
impossible to discuss political theory in any meaningful manner with
someone who imposes arbitrary restrictions on the use of words which
are normally used in an international context, and who is so insular
that he refuses to take into account the experiences of other
countries.
A cannot take your statement as anything but a denial that socialism
is an international ideology, and a claim that it is merely a
convenient label to put on things you like or dislike. If this is so,
there is no point in discussing socialism with you, since you refuse
to delineate the subject in any manner that makes sense.
> Sendero Luminoso and the Labour Party are both left-wing, but they
> are so totally different that comparisons are pointless.
If you accept that socialism is a defineable ideology (or class of
ideologies) you could discuss whether either or both of them were
socialist. (My personal opinion is that neither is, though there are
socialists in both movements.)
And of course you can compare Labour and SL, just as you can compare
SL and NSDAP, or the LibDems and Hizbollah. Whether those comparisons
are useful is another matter (imo only the SL-NSDAP comparison of
these is useful).
> > > If you come up with a definition of socialist which excludes 99% of the
> > > people who call themselves socialists in this country, it's a pretty
> > > useless definition.
> >
> > Which 99%? Where did you get that number from?
>
> Estimate of the number of people who support the Labour Party as a proportion
> of the total number of people supporting socialist parties in the United
> Kingdom.
I debunked this claim immediately after the sentence you quote. Do
you really think you could get away with snipping that away?
Here is what i wrote, which i assume DB deleted because it made his
argument a nonsense:
Dave Thomas
Simon Gardner (simon....@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk) wrote:
: To try and make a word which has international meaning and is understood as
: a political description and philosophy throughout the world into the
: property not only of one country but of one particular party at one
: particular time is quite ridiculous.
Socialism has never had an international meaning. It has been applied
to many parties, movements, societies. To pretend otherwise is absurd.
: It is another example of the New Labour party attemting to pervert language
: to its own narrow aims.
That view is certainly arguable.
: "Socialist" is not the adjective of 'Labour party'. At one time to be a
: member of the Labour party was to be a socialist. But post Blair, to be a
: socialist and also a member of the New Labour party is to be an
: embarrassment.
You are wrong in implying that Labour Party membership implied
socialist beliefs, of whatever definition. It was a party pursuing
the interests of the organised working-class, largely skilled male
workers, Labourist rather than Socialist , in the main.
--
DaveT
--------------------------------------------------------------
"We dwarves and men should not dance on stages made for giants"
jon ivar skullerud
simon....@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) writes:
> "Socialist" is not the adjective of 'Labour party'. At one time to be a
> member of the Labour party was to be a socialist.
I don't know if this was ever the case. But then, i am not an expert
on the history of the british labour party.
> But post Blair, to be a socialist and also a member of the New
> Labour party is to be an embarrassment.
I would disagree with this. There are still many socialists in the
labour party and they are by no means embarrassments (not all of them,
at least).
Mr A J Smith
On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Simon Gardner wrote:
> At one time to be a
> member of the Labour party was to be a socialist.
Not by the definition of socialism you kept posting from the OED.
The OED definition of sociailism couldn't possibly be wrong now could it?
Mr A J Smith
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Simon Gardner wrote:
> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > And if it is incomplete why did you keep repeating it again and again
> > without mentioning this?
>
> I think the OED definition is perfectly accurate as far as it goes.
In which case how do you explain your claim that to be in the Labour
Party used to imply being a socialist, when the definition of socialism in
the OED is not an accurate description of what people in the Labour Party
believed?
If the OED is right, then you are wrong. Are you going to admit this?
> You really must catch up and get back on message. The whole point about New
> Labour is that it ditched socialism.
The whole point about New Labour is that it has made socialism electable.
Mr A J Smith
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Simon Gardner wrote:
> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > The OED definition of sociailism couldn't possibly be wrong now could it?
>
> I'm glad you asked that Andrew.
Isn't that what politicians say when they're asked a question they can't
answer? You know just before they ramble on without addressing the point
at hand?
> It seems incomplete, rather than wrong.
Well given that it isn't even an incomplete description of what the Labour
Party believed before Blair, were you wrong when you said Labour Party
members used to be socialists?
And if it is incomplete why did you keep repeating it again and again
without mentioning this?
> So far, various attempts by
> Boothroyd to define socialism have been risible since he has attempted
> painful contortions by trying to make a definition of socialism which is
> compatible with the New Labour party.
Not half has painful as the contortions you're now pulling, in which
socialism is simultaneously a) what the OED says, b) what Labour members
used to believe in, and c) something more than what the OED says.
> I think if one ignores the New Labour party, it would be possible to come
> up with a more complete definition of socialism than the OED one.
If that is the case why did you keep repeating the OED definition?
> The problem for Boothroyd is that the New Labour leadership and its
> policies are clearly not socialist.
We know this is your opinion. However you've been saying this for months,
(years?) and the only justification you've come up with is a definition of
socialism that means Labour wasn't socialist since before Blair was even
born, and which even you now admit was "incomplete".
> For reasons that utterly escape me
> [sentiment?] this fact (which is quite obvious to the country at large) is
> a bit uncomfortable to some New Labour party members.
The reason it isn't obvious to me is because a) I've heard some of this
country's best academic experts on socialism disagree with you, b) most of
the people who say new Labour isn't socialist use a definition of the term
which means Labour was never (or hardly ever) socialist, c) most of the
people saying Labour isn't socialist have very little understanding of
what Labour policy is, or the reasons behind it, d) because I've read most
of the great works by British socialists and they are mostly perfectly
compatible with New Labour, and e) because I both posted a definition of
socialism, and explained why New Labour was consistent with it, and yet I
have not seen one post actually arguing with either the definition or my
explanation.
David Toube
m...@lineone.net (Marc Living) wrote:
:Not so. All Claire Short was asked to do was keep quiet about certain
:subjects. She was not asked to lie about her views on them.
Quite. In the case of one subject in particular, I seem to
remember that she justified her own self-imposed injunction in
order to save other members of the cabinet from lying.
----
David Toube
Lecturer in Law
QMW, University of London
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
J.Ty...@doc.mmu.ac.uk
I
>> What I can't understand is why you are getting so het up over the widely
>> acknowledged fact that New Labour is not "socialist".
>I gave you a list of 5 reasons why I don't accept any such "fact". I
>can only accept political points as fact when they are supported by
>convincing argument.
>> We all know this.
>Except of course for all those politicians, historians, political
>scientists and activists who think otherwise.
Maybe I have missed the point of this thread - but are you arguing that there
is a weight of intellectual opinion in the Uk which would define New Labour
as "socialist"; I for one would be glad to know the names of any historians or
political scientists who have written in support of this proposition.
As for politicians - I remember the speech at the opening of this parliament
when Gerald Kaufman jokingly referred to having dared to use the word
"socialism" on a public platform.
Like the previous poster, I can't figure out why you are so hung up about it.
We are living in what is fashionably called a postmodernist era, New Labour
seems to me to epitomise this era - its a kind of supermarket approach to
politics.
>Fuss? What fuss? I object to you continually posting the same opinion
>without being able to justify it. I always get irritated about that sort
>of thing because it wastes our time.
>> The various Blairites went to a
>> great deal of trouble to get across the idea that what was different about
>> New Labour was that it wasn't socialist.
>I can only assume that these "Blairites" are a group entirely distinct
>from Tony Blair, who of course added the word socialist to the
>constitution, and said the word more times in some of his speeches than
>Kinnock did in years as leader.
>> Why are you trying to undo all their good work?
>I'm not. I'm merely trying to oppose the continuing efforts of the hard
>left to hijack the word. They were wrong when they claimed it for
>classical Marxism, they were wrong when they claimed it for Soviet
>Communism, they were wrong when they claimed it for the opposition to
>revisionism, they were wrong when they claimed it for pacifism, and they
>are wrong when they claim it for the directionless, intellectually
>challenged, deeply conservative, middle class, protest politics which
>passes for a left-wing critique of new Labour.
I think it ill behoves the writer of this paragraph to accuse anyone of being
intellectually challenged.
--------------------------------------------------
John Tyrrell
"middle class tosser"
---------------------------------------------------
"middle class tossers" term coined by leading Manchester
Labour Councillor to describe the 4000 Manchester
citizens who signed a petition opposing the conversion
of the Free Trade Hall to a hotel
Dave Thomas
J.Ty...@doc.mmu.ac.uk wrote:
: The concept of socialism is problematic in the UK. To the right it is a
: pejorative and ill-defined term (as it is in more general political discourse
: in the US), to the left it has a fairly precise meaning which clearly has
: for most of its history excluded many (most?) people in the Labour Party.
: As I understand it, socialists believe that capitalist society should be
: transformed into something else either by example (Utopians), revolution
: (Marxists) or by reform (Evolutionary Socialists). Clearly parts of the
: UK labour movement have always belonged in category three - but in its origins
: the labour party was simply a movement to provide representation for the
: organised working classes, and many of its adherents were ideologically close
: to the new liberals of the early C20. Many former liberals joined Labour in
: the 1920-50 period - not because they had become converted to socialism but
: largely out of political realism - and liberals were the main architects of
: the welfare state - LLoyd George, Beveridge, Keynes.
: In the post-war years the Labour Party was influenced by US ideas of "end of
: ideology" and "embourgeoisement" - and there was a continuous struggle over
: attempts to modernise the party. Blair seems to have won that battle - and to
: have become the kind of figure ("middle of the road", "non-socialist
: alternative to conservatism","Kennedy-like figure") that the 1960's Liberals
: (excluding Peter Hain!) used to say the UK needed. He obviously has not yet
: quite remade his party in his image - but he is working on it!
: --------------------------------------------------
Very erudite. i.e not much I'd argue with here.
Mr A J Smith
On Fri, 5 Sep 1997 J.Ty...@doc.mmu.ac.uk wrote:
> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 J.Ty...@doc.mmu.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >> I for one would be glad to know the names of any historians or
> >> political scientists who have written in support of this proposition.
>
> >One of each:
>
> >Donald Sassoon.
> >Anthony Wright. (Although he is now no longer an academic).
>
> Can you tell me anything else about them?
I don't have their biographical details to hand. I can tell you Anthony
Wright is now an MP.
> What have they written?
Among other things, Donald Sassoon wrote "100 Years of Socialism" and
Anthony Wright wrote "Socialisms: Old and New."
> What is their own political orientation?
I think they are both on the centre left of politics.
> >There's nothing new or postmodern about people, especially from the left,
> >claiming Labour isn't socialist. They've been doing it for as long as I've
> >been paying attention to politics, and it doesn't take too much historical
> >research to learn that they've been doing it for most of the twentieth
> >century. Like I said, they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
>
> Certainly true. Here's my three penneth for what it is worth.
>
> The concept of socialism is problematic in the UK. To the right it is a
> pejorative and ill-defined term (as it is in more general political discourse
> in the US), to the left it has a fairly precise meaning which clearly has
> for most of its history excluded many (most?) people in the Labour Party.
Then I dispute the validity of that meaning. If most of the Labour Party,
for most of its history are excluded, then it is an absurd definition.
The Labour Party is pretty much the pre-eminent democratic socialist party
in the world. Who can possibly have the right to declare that it isn't and
wasn't socialist?
> As I understand it, socialists believe that capitalist society should be
> transformed into something else either by example (Utopians), revolution
> (Marxists) or by reform (Evolutionary Socialists).
It depends on how you define capitalist. There are socialists who
have considered it to be the extreme free market economy and took the
establishment of the welfare state to signify that it had already ended.
There are also socialists who consider capitalism to be nothing more than
the existence of private investment, and therefore compatible with
socialism. Socialism isn't defined by it's relationship with capitalism.
There are ideas that have been claimed by both capitalists and socialists.
> Clearly parts of the
> UK labour movement have always belonged in category three - but in its
> origins the labour party was simply a movement to provide representation
> for the organised working classes,
No, that was certainly part of its origins, but there was always more to
it than that.
> and many of its adherents were ideologically close to the new liberals
> of the early C20.
Some Labour people were ideologically close to some liberals.
> Many former liberals joined Labour in the 1920-50
> period - not because they had become converted to socialism but largely
> out of political realism - and liberals were the main architects of the
> welfare state - LLoyd George, Beveridge, Keynes.
None of which makes it any less socialist.
> In the post-war years the Labour Party was influenced by US ideas of
> "end of ideology" and "embourgeoisement"
It depends what you mean by those terms. But if you mean by "end of
ideology", pragmatism and a rejection of dogma, and if by
"embourgeoisement" you mean reaching out to more than just the working
class, then both of these were part of the Labour Party's traditions prior
to the second world war, and certainly haven't been acquired from the US.
J.Ty...@doc.mmu.ac.uk
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970904103243.19754B-100000@lupin> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes:
>From: Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Blair and co - "Friends Of The Poor"
>Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:42:40 +0100
>On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 J.Ty...@doc.mmu.ac.uk wrote:
>> >> What I can't understand is why you are getting so het up over the widely
>> >> acknowledged fact that New Labour is not "socialist".
>>
>> >I gave you a list of 5 reasons why I don't accept any such "fact". I
>> >can only accept political points as fact when they are supported by
>> >convincing argument.
>>
>> >> We all know this.
>>
>> >Except of course for all those politicians, historians, political
>> >scientists and activists who think otherwise.
>>
>> Maybe I have missed the point of this thread - but are you arguing that there
>> is a weight of intellectual opinion in the Uk which would define New Labour
>> as "socialist";
>No. I'm merely pointing out that there are academics who are known for
>their expertise on socialism, who would say New Labour is socialist.
>> I for one would be glad to know the names of any historians or
>> political scientists who have written in support of this proposition.
>One of each:
>Donald Sassoon.
>Anthony Wright. (Although he is now no longer an academic).
Can you tell me anything else about them? What have they written? What is
their own political orientation?
>> Like the previous poster, I can't figure out why you are so hung up about it.
>> We are living in what is fashionably called a postmodernist era, New Labour
>> seems to me to epitomise this era - its a kind of supermarket approach to
>> politics.
>There's nothing new or postmodern about people, especially from the left,
>claiming Labour isn't socialist. They've been doing it for as long as I've
>been paying attention to politics, and it doesn't take too much historical
>research to learn that they've been doing it for most of the twentieth
>century. Like I said, they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
Certainly true. Here's my three penneth for what it is worth.
The concept of socialism is problematic in the UK. To the right it is a
pejorative and ill-defined term (as it is in more general political discourse
in the US), to the left it has a fairly precise meaning which clearly has
for most of its history excluded many (most?) people in the Labour Party.
As I understand it, socialists believe that capitalist society should be
transformed into something else either by example (Utopians), revolution
(Marxists) or by reform (Evolutionary Socialists). Clearly parts of the
UK labour movement have always belonged in category three - but in its origins
the labour party was simply a movement to provide representation for the
organised working classes, and many of its adherents were ideologically close
to the new liberals of the early C20. Many former liberals joined Labour in
the 1920-50 period - not because they had become converted to socialism but
largely out of political realism - and liberals were the main architects of
the welfare state - LLoyd George, Beveridge, Keynes.
In the post-war years the Labour Party was influenced by US ideas of "end of
ideology" and "embourgeoisement" - and there was a continuous struggle over
attempts to modernise the party. Blair seems to have won that battle - and to
have become the kind of figure ("middle of the road", "non-socialist
alternative to conservatism","Kennedy-like figure") that the 1960's Liberals
(excluding Peter Hain!) used to say the UK needed. He obviously has not yet
quite remade his party in his image - but he is working on it!
--------------------------------------------------
John Tyrrell
Hugh Harris
Gerry Lynch <gi0...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Boothroyd wrote:
>>
>> In article <oden2ma...@elektra.ph.ed.ac.uk>, jon ivar skullerud writes:
>> > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> > > In article <6992.717...@heading.demon.co.uk>, Brendan Heading writes:
>> > > The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. Alliance is not. That
>> > > important difference was reflected in the party manifestos.
>The Labour Party - oh, that is why you are confused, David. I was
>talking about New Labour.
>> > And exactly how is it reflected? You have failed to point out any
>> > significant differences. You just keep on repeating the mantra "we
>> > are socialists, you are capitalists" -- as if repeating it often
>> > enough made it true.
>>
>> I have pointed out several times that there is a key difference. Alliance
>> says the public sector should just continue, and the private sector should
>> take the lead in economic development. Labour believe in forming a partnership
>> between the public and private sector.
>Principle number 3 of the 4 founding principles of the Alliance Party
>supports the mixed economy.
>> > > > Neither I, nor Gerry Lynch, nor any members of the Alliance Party
>> > > > would call themselves socialists. Gerry's original argument was
>> > > > whether or not LABOUR were socialist.
>> >
>> > > And how is he such a big expert on socialism all of a sudden?
>> >
>> > How much of an expert are you then?
>>
>> I think I should know a bit more about socialism than Gerry Lynch, because
>> I am a socialist and he is not.
>Not true. One can be a socialist and know comparatively little about
>it, whilst one can be the most ardent liberal/capitalist/nazi/ecologist
>imaginable and be an expert on socialism.
>> > > This is not a diverson. Non-socialists have no business in casting
>> > > irrelevant aspersions based on an ideology they do not understand.
>Just because I am not a socialist does not mean I am incapable of
>understanding socialism. What bizarre crap you come off with sometimes
>David. Even David Stone is disagreeing with you.
>Gerard James Anthony Lynch, GI0RTN
>--. .. ----- .-. - -.
>http://members.tripod.com/~gi0rtn
>North Belfast Alliance http://members.tripod.com/~gi0rtn/nballiance
>'A woman's just a woman, but a good cigar's a smoke'
> W C Field
What exactly is a socialist? I always thought I was one, but now I`m
not so sure. (can`t help feeling tempted to ask WC Field which he`d
prefer of those two)