Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I do agree that the motivations you have cited by the British upper middle class (which is entirely different from the modern U.S. upper middle
class) in championing the creation of a working class social safety net sound reasonable.
Finally, you are inferring that Winston Churchill, one of the most effective political figures in shaping the post war modern world did not understand
the correct definition of Socialism?
No I believe Churchill new exactly what socialism is, and that is why he new it wasn't liberalism.
Your previous argument has been that National Socialism is a far right ideology and socialist in name only. was In the post you also stated
that Adolph Hitler and the architects of the NSDAP did not understand the correct definition of Socialism and had misused the term when naming their
new political ideology National Socialism.
National Socialism has nothing to do with left-wing socialism. I did not say they did not know the correct definition, they changed the definition
for their own agenda. They did not mean 'worker ownership' when they used the term. When socialists use socialism they mean worker ownership.
I would also point out that when your further pronouncement of fascism and socialism being mutually exclusive was refuted by the examples of
Stalinist Soviet Union and Castro's post revolution Marxist Cuba, your answer was to denounce both as not being actual Socialist
Stalin wasn't a socialist either, he was simply another person in authority using left-wing terms for their own agenda.
Do you know enough about late early 20th century/ post history to know that 1920's Germany's neutered government was much more desperate for
a "Social Safety net" to care for the needs of millions left to the economic ravishes of the Versailles Treaty?
That is not true. The government wasn't neutered at all, the Nazi Party was the government. The Nazi Party did a lot for the people, it doesn't make
it socialist. His government was fascist. He did not support worker ownership and put socialists, communists, anarchists, trade unionists in prison
Historically, Winston Churchill says that the post industrial U.K. government has a responsibility to provide for the basic well being of its
Labor class who cannot. When he says he is a liberal, not a Socialist you use the quote as an example to illustrate that he was wrong and was
preaching a form of diluted Socialism.
No not at all. He was not preaching socialism, he was preaching liberalism. I use the quote as some evidence that socialism and liberalism are not
the same thing, as most rightist, and a few neo-liberals seem to think. I am trying to make you see there is a distinct difference, and they came
from different places. Liberalism came from the upper classes, socialism came from the working classes. Socialists did not support the Liberals.
Marx stopped using the term 'socialism' and used 'communism' because of the Liberals appropriation of the term 'socialism'. Liberals trying to use
the term socialism is nothing new.
Historically, Adolph Hitler says that post war, debt burdened Germany has a responsibility to enact an even more progressive social program
than Churchill proposed 15 years later, they name the new political party the National Socialist German Workers' Party. You use the Nazi's Governments
heavily State controlled privatised industry, a trait shared by Britain, to say that the NSDAP was Socialist in name only.
But once again that is not socialism. Social programs, social safety net is a liberal ideology, it is not socialism.
To be socialist he would have to have been supporting worker ownership. Socialism is NOT a form of government, it is an economic system.
Nationalisation is not socialism. Britain has never been socialist. So you have no point.
Four of the most effectual leaders of the 20th century and all architects of various permutations of the Socialist state are all wrong in
favour of Anok's pet fringe mechanism of "Social anarchism" as being the correct and only definition?
What those so called leaders did was not socialism, it was authority using socialist terms for their own agenda.
The original socialists who were the actual architects of it, people you have probably never heard of, is what I use. People like Robert Owen who was
one of the founder of socialism and the cooperative movement, because socialism is worker ownership, not despot governments.
Serious question, did your education in political theory came from the same school as your education in classical physics? (meaning if you cant
dazzle with brilliance just make some stuff up?)
Huh? I don't make stuff up, everything I say can be checked. I supply links and quotes. I have been a socialist for over 30 years. I went to a
good school for engineering. Has the thought ever crossed your mind that you might actually be wrong? To find the truth you have to dig, not just
accept the first blog you can find that agrees with what you think. The net is full of BS, and you have to have some background in the subject to
know what is truth. I was reading socialist and anarchist literature before the net was even heard of. I hung out with socialists who had been in
Spain before WWII.
In closing, extra credit points if you can tell us what were Joseph Stalin's views on Anarchists?
Stalin threw anarchists in the gulag. Stalin was an authoritarian. He twisted Marxist ideology for his own agenda. The Anarchist supported the
Bolsheviks in the begging but turned against them at the end because they were statist, right-wing not left-wing.
I have tried to explain this but it gets ignored, there is the left-wing of the working class that got started in the early 1800's with industrial
workers. Then there is the "left" of the state, authority who was simply trying to maintain it's control. The true left is of the working class,
those who were revolting against the authority of the state. To understand that you need to read a lot of history, because it's not all explained in
edit on 9/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)