I actually remember someone coming back from a racism awareness course in the early '90s arguing that "black coffee" was unacceptable - the suggestion was dismissed as ludicrous by most people in the office (including black colleagues) even though most of us would have avoided a phrase such as "to blacken someone's name" for example.

Yasmin's article is interesting - personally I'm not that bothered about my national identity; I love the English people, landscape and language and many peculiar English traditions, but only in the same way that I love my favourite coat.

Where I think she's wrong is that the English resent devolution because we are somehow Unionist; I think devolution is undemocratic and unfair because the reason that Wales can abolish prescription charges and Scotland tuition charges is that the formula for funding their executives means that England, in effect, subsidises them. I'd be happy to see the UK break up if the Scots and Welsh opted for independence.
An article in the Telegraph on Monday suggested that if there was a referendum on the Union tomorrow, the Scots would support it and the English would oppose it, and I think that's probably about right.

kk jboyd... maybe youve posted in the wrong thread?

anyways, back to the topic in hand. i belive that in recent years siocailism has just is way, and i can justify by listening to some people talk about it here and in other places.

the way i think that it has lost its way is because the labeling system is all wrong. if iam inspired by the soviet system of goverment, then iam a 'communist' and these countries are 'communist'. i see that the words 'socialist' and 'libertarian' are used indiscretionatly and that people who are mearly left call themsevles socialist. this i think is wrong because it confuses the heck out of the layman who is trying to have a basic understanding, and it splits ignorent votes at general election (see the liberal democrats in britain for details). i think that yes, socialism is alive, but in order to survive the 21st century we (yes that is including myself) have to change and sort out our labels, if only to reconise each other (!).

ok, here are MY labels and what they are:

'true communism' -a classless system based upon the rulings of the working class. money does not exist and nor do any of the old institutions like the church, the goverment, schools, so on. everyone shares what they have and the 'economy' is based upon farming.

'authortarian communism' -the soviet system. people are forced to conform to their part in communism. what results from this is usally a dictorship that has none of the hallmarks of a communist state, but has a red flag.

'liberal democratic socialism' a state that is oriantated around the working class. the middle class does exist, but only to a certain extent. money and traditions exist, however they are subject to the rights and equality of socailism. all industrys are nationalised (owned by the state) and a private market exists to the extent that people are treated fairly (this would kill the coca-cola cmpany lol). democracy exists so that the people still have choice. people can do what they like as long as it does not hurt anyone else.

'authortarian socialism' same as above however people cannot do what they like when the leave the work place, and have to conform to the whim of the state. there is no democracy (shock, horror!) people are forced to work together and are equal.

'marxist socialism'-same as authortarian socailism, however people conform willingly.

'co-operatives' when business works with the masses in order to create a fair system... one current example is the co-op; however more worker-oriantated.


there could be many, many more labels. however, i dont have the time or knowledge to create them... plus, rome wasn't built in a day. one cannot turn about a misunderstanding/misinformation by the mass media of britian about the left wing for 25 years (fresh from thatcher...).

on a final note, i do think that socailism is on the rise, however, until misconceptions are ironed out as mentioned previously, we are not going anywhere fast. add to that a new attiude in britain of "we dont need to look after others that are less fortunate... ...why dont they all just gets jobs?... ...iam more worried about the people in africa... ...i dont understand politics... ...polititions are all the same... ...the rich poor gap? what are you on about boy?... ...poverty in britain is not happening... ...lets privitise everything, that'll sovle our problems!... so on and so forth. ^^

really? maybe (and only maybe) in Latin America.

But in the UK?

the bloddy starvelings just aren't rising up

Comrade whatever your name is - do you have to have a bloody gun in your avatar?

Is that a gun in your avatar comrade or are you just pleased to see me?

"really? maybe (and only maybe) in Latin America.

But in the UK?"

ya, lok at the labour party. micheal meacher is runnng for the leadeship f th labour party, represeting the lft of it. i see this as evidenc that its on th rise.

"Comrade whatever your name is - do you have to have a bloody gun in your avatar?"
"Is that a gun in your avatar comrade or are you just pleased to see me?"

ok... lets all have a pointless conversation!! *for the n00bs-thats sarcausm*

Er, right......

I think your 'e' key is stuck

ya sry bout that

no worries.

I still dont see that having a left-wing candidate in the labour leadership election is a sign of renewed interest in socialism.

Excuse me? I asked was there a reason you have a gun in your avatar as I find that deeply offensive with all of the connotations having that kind of avatar has and you patronisingly call as n00bs (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean).
Frankly, while you've got something like that as an avatar, I can't take anything you say seriously.
Its pathetic

Well it is, albeit a relatively small one.
As a matter of interest, Barmy, would I be correct in assuming that you aren't actually too anxious to see Socialism revived anyway? (And that's not intended to be the slightest bit offensive or even provocative).

I'm not sure where this is leading any more.

I don't think the Labour Party is a true socialist party and probably never will be. I read in the New Statesman recently that the problem with the Blair government of the past ten years is that, although a decent man, he has no real principles. I would go along with that (to a point) because it indicates that socialist principles are not on the agenda.

“Excuse me? I asked was there a reason you have a gun in your avatar as I find that deeply offensive with all of the connotations having that kind of avatar has and you patronisingly call as n00bs (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean).
Frankly, while you've got something like that as an avatar, I can't take anything you say seriously.
Its pathetic”

*shrugs* block me then.

“I still dont see that having a left-wing candidate in the labour leadership election is a sign of renewed interest in socialism.”

For me, it shows that socialism is still alive and kicking within the labour party, be it small and largly ignored.

I cant really answer this with hard statistics unfortunately… I think that socialism is on the rise, however, I see it under different names. For instance, people don’t call themselves ‘left wing’ but they still quote the ye olde socialist policys… tell ya what, ill come back to you with some ‘hard’ evidence if I can see it ^^.


“I don't think the Labour Party is a true socialist party and probably never will be.”

Yeh I totally agree, I mean to be truly socialist we would have to withdraw from the EU, abolish the free market and give power back to the people with a PR electoral system… I don’t see that happening any time soon. On the other hand people are harping the ‘workers need better conditions tune’.

Why would you withdraw from the EU? Surely that is a step in the right direction of looking after human rights in Europe. (I think that's why Blair and the Tories have problems with the EU.) You seem to be spouting anarchist views rather than socialist ones. Armed struggle is not on the agenda in Europe right now. Your avatar would suggest that you think it is. This is a typical anarchist error. Or is it simply that you like playing at soldiers?

On another point raised by your post, do you have a problem with your keyboard? I find it very difficult to take seriously a message when it is so unfortunately transmitted. It's quite sloppy, if oyu gnow what I mean.

I think that the Labour Party has always been too broad in its membership to be truly and purely considered a "Socialist Party"; however, it has always included more Socialists within it than any other party and has, despite its flaws, always represented the best vehicle for achieving socialism.

Anarchistic Proportional Representation - have I arrived in the Twilight Zone?

socialism is the methodology in which to obtain true communism -- to organize business in the form of workers co-operatives rather than modern capitalist business.

true communism is a stateless idea so red anarchists of course have a lot in common with socialists.

Thank god you came along "GenericDisplayname" - we'd never have been able to come up with such insightful comments if you hadn't.

God forbid I have anything in common with anarchists

As a matter of interest Barmy, (and this is a genuine question) how would you describe your politics?

Orwellian.

Though I'd happily ascribe to the following quote from Alan Bleasdales GBH from Jim Nelson's speech to the Labour Club:

""Socialism is not just the redistribution of wealth but of care and concern and belief in human kind"

According to that political compass website I sit with Nelson Mandela and Muhatma Ghandi - must say I was rather pleased with that

Like the Jim Nelson quote, too.

Though, if you describe your politics as Orwellian then I'd say you have at least one thing in common with anarchism: The refusal to toe any party line for short-term gains. That's an aspect of anarchism I rather like.

I'd go along with that Fred.

Edited: because what I said was an attempt to be funny, but wasn't really.

Great job of showing your own insightful comments. Whatever happened to solidarity? Man asked a question and I answered him. Yeah it's probably been said before but it doesn't hurt to repeat things.



True marxists/socialists and anarchists have a lot in common whether or not they like to admit it.

Doesn't make me an anarchist though

Like Orwell I have an aversion to dogma, and a respect for what the truth - whether I like it or not....



Indeed - they all share a total lack of a sense of humour

I admire Orwell immensely but I've always found it easier to work out what he was against than what exactly he was for....

Remembering Dave Hallsworth


I can't say I knew this man personally, but I heard him in speeches, both in a classroom setting, and talking through a megaphone on a demonstration or two.
Now that's what I call a socialist.

He sounds like a decent bloke; it would be interesting to know what he made of "Spiked!"
And I think that the obituary might have been more respectful without the rather sectarian comments at the end...

Well JBoyd: he wrote for it a couple of times.
'The day I stopped being a Stalinist' was one of his.

And by ''rather sectarian comments'' - do you mean these?

If that's what you're refering to, I don't see that as sectarian.
That could be the beginining of a discussion about what sectarianism is, (and isn't).
And btw, in the link I did, was a much longer piece, where his experience in the Royal Navy was recounted:

Accusing other Socialists of 'workerism' was one of the classic tactics of Left Sectarianism.
I read his piece about the Hungarian Revolution (and also, for that matter, Frank Furedi's); personally I find it difficult to see how anyone could ever have assumed that the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe after the Second World War had anything much to do with socialism. And whether the Hungarian revolution was really revolutionary (as opposed to simply a nationalist rising) seems debateable. But then I have the benefit of hindsight.
Sad that the bloke died, though.

Well just from looking at them (and reading their paper and sometimes taliking to them), I had the opinion that the SWP were ''workerist.'' I wasn't told to think that, it's just how they come across when you see them selling their papers and (forever) calling out: ''Kick out the Tories'' - ''Socialist Worker: only 30 pence''
And I do think they are a bit patronising to working class people, the way that they dumb down their way of writing, as if the people who read their paper are a bit thick.

As for walking along in public chanting: ''The workers united, will never be defeated'' - : well that's just plain embarrassing.

I think one of the reasons that the Trotskyist Left (the SWP, Militant, WRP, RCP, etc) were so ineffectual was that they were constantly posturing and arguing amongst themselves about relative trivia, when they should (in theory) have had an enormous amount in common.

At most of the big political events I attended (People's March for Jobs, Miners' Rallies and actions, other protests) during the 70s and 80s, it was striking that however angry the Far Left were with the Conservatives and/or the US Government they always ended up much more angry with each other when they fell out about the marshalling or the paper selling or whatever else they couldn't agree on.

If MI5 had infiltrated all those organisations with the aim of playing one off against the other to render the Left powerless, they could not have done it better.

Anti Nazi League ineffectual? Rock Against Racism ineffectual?

Other stuff you said was largely correct. But let's not overlook material conditions. The relative affluence of people in UK makes it unlikely that the revolutionary left will be able to increase membership. With that affluence comes much selfishness.

It is important to keep the flag flying, the flame burning (choose your metaphor) because there is still a healthy mistrust of those in power or representatives of the State.

Well the ANL and RAR were effective as campigns, but not (ultimately) as vehicles for advancing revolutionary socialism, which I think was their real purpose as far as the Trotskyite Left were concerned.

and that fact that life in Communist Eastern Europe was totally shite.

I don't know about having an enormous amount in common. It was before I used to follow these things, but during the miners strike, if you have the majority of the left going along with the NUM line, and some other people arguing for a ballot (in the cause of unity), then there is bound to be friction amongst opposing groups.
Frank Furedi (of the RCP) was feeling a bit estranged from the conventional left during this time:

I always thought that they had had a fair point of view. But they were scabs to others.

Well they were all Trotskyists, so they obviously had something in common... if you look at the issues that actually divided them, they were essentially about tactics rather than principle - indeed some of them were so trivial that it was probably more about egos and personalities....



I also thought that a ballot was the right way forward, for the same reasons; however, without some sort of commitment to collective responsibility, any movement is destined to dissolve into internecine bickering and division. I always thought that the Far Left marching under the banner "Unity is Strength" looked like a Monty Python joke....

I'm not very clued up on this stuff these days, (Trotskyism etc), but the idea that these different parties had much in common, seems a bit fanciful.
And when I talked about unity, - it wasn't unity of this daft left that I was talking about, but that of the National Union of Mineworkers in 1984/85.
But as I said, I only watched the strike on TV, as an individual.

But was this good enough?

There wasn't much room for political debate on this, from what I heard, (some years later).
You were more likely to get a smack in the head, (if you went against the mainstream view).

Click to view attachment

If you look at what divided the Trotskyist groups, it was actually quite superficial. And either Trotskyism is a coherent philosophy, or it's so vague and/or open to interpretation that it is bound to lead to fragmentation.
Whatever your view of the Labour Party, it has to be said that it has been far more successful at overcoming internal divison than the Far Left, and maybe that's one reason it's been more succesful.
There was some debate about the best strategy during the strike, though going against the official 'No Ballot' view that Scargill and the NUM leadership espoused was never popular. However, there was room for differences of view as long as the basic rule that they should be kept in their rightful place was observed. When it came to the crunch, it was expected that people would leave differences aside and focus on unity.

Does anyone have any particular recommendations as to books offering a basic introduction to socialist theory or philosophy? I'm more interested in these facets of socialism than, say, its historical or anthropological roots. Also, I'm interested in reading about its application in the contemporary geopolitical setting.

I know its not exactly what you asked for but theres 3 absoloutley fantastic books -
The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist - about painters and decorators and the on going battle with "the church"
The Grapes of Wrath - about fruit pickers.
Germinal - about French miners.

I'm making my way through the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists currently as it happens. It's pretty awesome.

The Grapes Of Wrath is one of the most moving books I've ever ready .... & a brilliant film. The problem is I can't just read/watch it anymore as I end up feeling so sad afterwards because the hopelessness gets into my brain.

Meanwhile Respect splits in two following on from the SSP split last year. good for a laugh these Ultra lefts.

Tommy's gone what price George next?

Its fantastic isn't it.
If ever I start to get a bit disheartened or disillusioned I read it and it reinforces everything I ever believed in! And, I absoloutley love Philpot.

Frank Owen's my man. The arguments he finds himself in on his lunch break with his colleagues sounds disturbingly like me and my mates on a Friday night in the pub.

[

it really does doesnt it Have you read Cannery Row?