Socialism being confused with social democracy

[ed miliband]

In Europe it's fairly acceptable to describe yourself as a socialist and indeed many people do, but I've noticed the definition of socialism has acquired a rather strange meaning. People are considered - or consider themselves - socialists for this sort of thing:



Wanting a strong welfare state.
Wanting to see certain industries nationalised.
Wanting to help minorities (by seeing the working class as a mixture of groups that will never get on, if that makes sense).
Favouring identity politics over a class analysis.
Seeing the state as a body that can (and should) be good.

And so on.

A teacher today remarked on the resignation of Gordon Brown by saying that he was 'a life-long socialist', and she was not saying this as an insult ('stupid socialists', etc), but as a reason to like him. Similarly I've had arguments with people professing to be socialists who have claimed that "no socialist would think society could be run by 'the workers' without a state". These people aren't stupid and they consider themselves socialists, and yet they have got it so wrong, right? Another example is that 14 year old boy who voted. The kid was brave, and maybe he'll learn more, but I read the article he wrote for the Guardian cringing because it was a rehash of what I have heard so many times from people calling themselves socialists.

So what can be done? I mean, it seems that in most people's minds socialism now describes the things set out above, a sort of third way between capitalism and communism. People who use the term like that seem to be in the majority, and it isn't exactly easy to turn around and say to everyone "hey, you've got the meaning wrong, socialism is actually..." (I've tried and been told I must be wrong because everyone thinks otherwise "and you're thing of communism - which doesn't work"). Also, for as long as people with the Labour Party and their supporters use the term, surely socialism will become associated (and is already, I guess) with their very obvious, very common, and unforgivable mistakes?

[cska]

Similarly I've had arguments with people professing to be socialists who have claimed that "no socialist would think society could be run by 'the workers' without a state".

Well, here I'd have to argue that that is the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism requires the state. As far as communism, well, people argue about that...


So what can be done? I mean, it seems that in most people's minds socialism now describes the things set out above, a sort of third way between capitalism and communism. People who use the term like that seem to be in the majority, and it isn't exactly easy to turn around and say to everyone "hey, you've got the meaning wrong, socialism is actually..." (I've tried and been told I must be wrong because everyone thinks otherwise "and you're thing of communism - which doesn't work"). Also, for as long as people with the Labour Party and their supporters use the term, surely socialism will become associated (and is already, I guess) with their very obvious, very common, and unforgivable mistakes?

The correct term for such people is progressives. They are the only group (other than true socialists) that I as a socialist am willing to support in elections. Sadly though, the progressives in America, the Green Party, don't have much support.

[BellaCiao]

Good thread. I have noticed this too.

Another part of the problem is when Socialist groups endorse mainstream political parties, which are not socialist but propose some tolerable policies - such as the Labour Party. This only heightens confusion and blurs understanding as it suggests these political bodies are either socialists or satisfy the demands of socialists. Neither is the case.

I personally find it more comfortable to criticise and distance myself from the Labour Party than to endorse it as a lesser of evils.

But without a revolutionary movement, culture or, at the very least, a more united 'British Left', then I can't see how this mistaken definition can be untangled.

[cb9's_unity]

The problem always stems from the idea of socialism being 'public ownership or intervention in the economy', or something along those lines. The people you are talking about have basically equated socialism with government. However socialism isn't nearly that universal.

Socialism is often characterized as primarily the opposition to capitalism. And while socialism obviously does opposes capitalism, you can't forget that feudalism opposes capitalism too. Socialism is the progressive opposition of capitalism, it is the movement that opposes the entire class structure of capitalism and proposes a society where class divisions as well as other characteristics of capitalism are abolished.

If someone believes in keeping the class structure we have today, even if the government takes active part in the economy while setting up certain social institutions, then they are in no way a socialist. Nothing short of calling for the abolition of the existing class structure is the primary requirement to being a socialist.

[Red Commissar]

Part of this also arises from the fact that most of these social democrat parties originally arose out of the reformist strands of socialism. Through most of the 20th century, I'd argue up until the late 1970s, most social democratic parties tended to have a wing of "democratic" socialists and more progressive minded liberals. With the neoliberal upheaval of the 1980s, social democrats began to move to the centre and abandon this concept of democratic socialism in favor of a more capitalist-friendly system.

I've noticed that many Americans I talk to about socialism, regardless of whether they see it in a good or bad light, characterize it as a system of nationalization and a welfare state, like we would see in Scandinavia. Though I would argue even that characterization is outdated, as many of these cherished welfare state have begun to be dismantled across Europe.

And many of these social democrats, during this era, sometimes referred to themselves as "socialists" and in many cases had the word in their party names. Of course though this was reformist, as opposed to revolutionary, socialism but at any rate all of these parties have moved more and more to the right since the 1980s.

Also like liberalism, conservatism, and anything else, socialism is a broad concept.

Though apparently Brown in his younger days was much more of a "radical" as far as we can take that word. He had an admiration for the Clydesdale socialists like James Maxton and Marxists like Antonio Gramsci. He contributed to what I've read as a pro-"socialist" collection of papers, the "Red Paper on Scotland". Obviously though he lost that along the way like many of his fellow Labour members, falling into neoliberalism.

[Atlee]

Socialism is a massively broad term covering many tendencies and over time or cultures has evolved respective to each localism. It was not uncommon for the Eastern Block to the USSR to China to southern Europe to disagree with neighboring nations. In fact we can look right here to see all the other persons with their own idea. Who knows, maybe one person here will be the next -ism?

[ed miliband]

Though apparently Brown in his younger days was much more of a "radical" as far as we can take that word. He had an admiration for the Clydesdale socialists like James Maxton and Marxists like Antonio Gramsci. He contributed to what I've read as a pro-"socialist" collection of papers, the "Red Paper on Scotland". Obviously though he lost that along the way like many of his fellow Labour members, falling into neoliberalism.

Hmm yeah, it's odd. I've heard he was a really big Gramsci fan, which I think makes his performance even worse - he is not stupid and he presumably knew better.

[Comrade Gwydion]

In all honesty, I could very well be a social democrat myself.... dunno. Thing is, there are no social democrats left in the world. There's socialists, and there are neo-liberal wankers walking around with soc-dem banners. (oh, and a few social populist party's, but meh.). For me, it's fairly easy to decide who's side I'm on.

Btw, old style Soc-Dem just meant using the current system in combination with popular insurrection to eventually reach communism, right?
Funny dutch guy is Troelstra. He pronounced the revolution once, while being in the parliament. Shame though, it failed. His party from back then (1918) has now turned into our version of New Labour.

[OCMO]

It doesn't help to the clarification of the two terms when you have a european group called Party of European Socialists who admits parties who have Socialist or Social-Democracy in their names and Labour Party as a member.

I doubt that any of this parties are socialist.

[AK]

Wanting to see certain industries nationalised.
Hear that? If you favour state ownership, you're no longer a socialist.

In all seriousness though, if this is some Bourgeois tactic, it's either;


Working terribly. I mean, seriously. Why the hell did some Bourgeoisie choose to associate themselves with the likes of the USSR. This is a terrible tactic for a capitalist.
Working great. After all, if a country is ruled by "socialists", then it is officially "socialist" and any claims to the contrary are made irrelevant - so the Bourgeoisie can exploit in peace; without the nuisance of us real socialists blabbering to the working class how this world is still capitalist and the upper class is exploiting us all.

[Atlee]

It doesn't help to the clarification of the two terms when you have a european group called Party of European Socialists who admits parties who have Socialist or Social-Democracy in their names and Labour Party as a member.

I doubt that any of this parties are socialist.

If we say we are socialists we are on the Left,
If we say we are workers we are on the Left,
If we say we are social democrats we are on the Left,
If we say we are democratic socialists we are on the Left,
If we say we are communists we are on the Left,
If we say we are anarchists we are on the Left,
If we say we are social libertarians we are on the Left,
Therefore, we are resolved to be to on the same side of the barricade or vote come the revolution regardless of the tactical method used.
We are divided by degree and ideology and capitalists have control because we cannot see into our brothers and sisters camps to unite. Each of our divisions carries a different banner. Until each banner is respected what we know will not change. Will you be the voice of change?

[Zanthorus]

If we say we are workers we are on the Left,

This is so unbelievably wrong it's not even funny. The rest of this post is just as ridiculous. As if anyone needed another reason to ditch "leftism".

[Atlee]

Working terribly. I mean, seriously. Why the hell did some Bourgeoisie choose to associate themselves with the likes of the USSR. This is a terrible tactic for a capitalist.


I wanted to address this one point. Article III, Section 2 of the Manifesto of the Communist Party addresses the bourgeoisie socialism in a very direct way as being dangerous and that it must be destroyed. In Marx and Engels' time this might have been a truism. Today as more evolved postmodern socialist we have extend critical theory to draw from and why many bourgeoisie are part of the social first movement. Not every rich person is a capitalist or some entrepreneur as we have property and lower birthrates in this type of society and interest large sums are passed down naturally. In Marx and Engels' day this only happened to royalty as landless to landed was new in most of Europe and still not so in Eastern Europe and Russia or China for that matter. Luxemburg touched on a few points but that is another conversation.

[Palingenisis]

This is so unbelievably wrong it's not even funny. The rest of this post is just as ridiculous. As if anyone needed another reason to ditch "leftism".


There are pretty big differences between classical liberals and traditional conservatives. The whole left/right divide obscrues more than enlightens.

[Atlee]

This is so unbelievably wrong it's not even funny. The rest of this post is just as ridiculous. As if anyone needed another reason to ditch "leftism".

This is not evidentiary as to either "Why" or "How" the post is ridiculous as we are all entitled to our opinion irregardless of facts, right?

My guess, I am looking for more unity and you are of a faction. So please, help us all understand what is missing.

[Zanthorus]

The whole left/right divide obscrues more than enlightens.

Agreed. For the most part the whole thing just seems to serve the interests of various capitalist groupings. "Of course you could try and organise independent working class resistance to capitalism but then the tories might get in. You wouldn't want rightists in would you?" etc etc. I've personally been called an "underclass leech" by middle-class progressives. It's not left vs right but capitalist vs worker.

[Palingenisis]

This is not evidentiary as to either "Why" or "How" the post is ridiculous as we are all entitled to our opinion irregardless of facts, right?

My guess, I am looking for more unity and you are of a faction. So please, help us all understand what is missing.

Okay Zanthoros considers me a state-capitalist and I consider most of the people you named as being state-capitalist...Stop thinking in terms of right and left and start thinking in terms of communism versus capitalism, the working class against the ruling class...Than you will understand his point.

[Palingenisis]

"Social Democracy" has a blood soaked history. Its a class enemy plain and simple.

[Atlee]

There are pretty big differences between classical liberals and traditional conservatives. The whole left/right divide obscrues more than enlightens.

If we say we believe and want socialism - in general context of the word - then we are part of the living documents that have come from the Enlightenment through the modern era and now exist in a postmodern world. Therefore, socialism itself is multi-dimensional traveling over space and time, culture, race, creed, colors, ideologues, war, peace, love and hate...

By basing socialism on a limited view we cannot see a future and like old sailors of pre-1492, "There be MONSTERS" was all they wrote on the map and the people feared to travel to new lands until they were established. Socialism today is becoming more mainstream and the fear-monger is loosing ground. Let us not hold our own leash.

[Palingenisis]

If we say we believe and want socialism - in general context of the word - then we are part of the living documents that have come from the Enlightenment through the modern era and now exist in a postmodern world. Therefore, socialism itself is multi-dimensional traveling over space and time, culture, race, creed, colors, ideologues, war, peace, love and hate...

By basing socialism on a limited view we cannot see a future and like old sailors of pre-1492, "There be MONSTERS" was all they wrote on the map and the people feared to travel to new lands until they were established. Socialism today is becoming more mainstream and the fear-monger is loosing ground. Let us not hold our own leash.

What you consider Socialism smashed in the skull of a 14 year old member of my family with a plastic bullet back in the days of "old Labour". Im not interested in that type of "Socialism".

[Atlee]

"Social Democracy" has a blood soaked history. Its a class enemy plain and simple.

Hense forth, we will put all weapons on trial because the blight known as human history is innocent of any bloodshed.

When we see the enemy in our own camp we do the bidding of the capitalists and weaken our own position in history.

There are two historical persons who have damned social democrats, Engels used the term "communist" and was the source of divide at the first international with Marx. The second was Hitler who used the term "national socialist" and too in his Mien Kampf cursed the "red rag" of social democracy. The question then is, "Who have we become and why?" Engel was a capitalist and Hitler was nationalist... What are we as socialists? If we are to use the term collectively.

[Palingenisis]

Hense forth, we will put all weapons on trial because the blight known as human history is innocent of any bloodshed.

When we see the enemy in our own camp we do the bidding of the capitalists and weaken our own position in history.

There are two historical persons who have damned social democrats, Engels used the term "communist" and was the source of divide at the first international with Marx. The second was Hitler who used the term "national socialist" and too in his Mien Kampf cursed the "red rag" of social democracy. The question then is, "Who have we become and why?" Engel was a capitalist and Hitler was nationalist... What are we as socialists? If we are to use the term collectively.

Go and read about events in Germany between 1918 and 1923 where "leftists" paid proto-fascist thugs to murder and rape the working class standing up for what is theirs rightfully.

[Atlee]

What you consider Socialism smashed in the skull of a 14 year old member of my family with a plastic bullet back in the days of "old Labour". Im not interested in that type of "Socialism".

So hate defines your stand in politics. You are justified in your feelings.

Politics have no feelings, only ideology. Weapons have no feelings, only death.

When my great-great grandparents left the old world in 1898 they lost the whole family to nationalist, communists, starvation, full metal jacket bullets, land mines, wire fences, "papers please", race, creeds, partisans, weather, and so on... I should too hate the world everything in it. Maybe we all should rage in anger? If validity is low then our expectation too should be just as low.

[Atlee]

Go and read about events in Germany between 1918 and 1923 where "leftists" paid proto-fascist thugs to murder and rape the working class standing up for what is theirs rightfully.

I have. History will never change until we make that change happen. Neither of us were alive then. I do know that psychologically that those who are always looking back can seldom move forward due to paralysis. It is good to know and understand the past, but never to relive it.

[Palingenisis]

I have. History will never change until we make that change happen. Neither of us were alive then. I do know that psychologically that those who are always looking back can seldom move forward due to paralysis. It is good to know and understand the past, but never to relive it.

In order to understand the present you have to understand the past. Im sure the Afghans and Iraqies appreciate the difference between Obamha and George W. Bush mo chara. Marxists see the world from the point of view of the working class internationally.

Atlee's goverment oversaw terror in my nation and others however much a "nicer" face of capitalism he showed to the working class in England.

[Atlee]

In order to understand the present you have to understand the past. Im sure the Afghans and Iraqies appreciate the difference between Obamha and George W. Bush mo chara. Marxists see the world from the point of view of the working class internationally.

Atlee's goverment oversaw terror in my nation and others however much a "nicer" face of capitalism he showed to the working class in England.

I can understand what you are say and I am sure they know too.

Correction, your government leader was spelt with a "tt" which is no relation to me or my user name. Attlee does not equal Atlee. I do not believe in statements of absolute as everything can be nicer or worse depending on variables. I could just wake up in a bad mood and nothing goes right for me. That does not mean I should rain on another parade and good day.