well... what is it all about?

Fuck knows but I am one and Mr Teflon was supposed to be one and I know Bill definatly is and you is, I dont know let Nevski and KLF argue this one out for a couple of weeks.

But according to Mr Jeeves

Quick Definitions for 'socialist'


adj: of or relating to or promoting or practicing socialism
noun: a political advocate of socialism
adj: advocating or following the socialist principles


definition of socialist
One who advocates or practices the doctrines of socialism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quick Definitions for 'socialism'


noun: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
noun: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
definition of socialism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

But I noticed on my search that it did not say anything along the lines that you cannot be a socialist while living in a nice house, owning a decent set of pans and a pajero.

Of course it didn't, love. Have another glass of shiraz.

It's about Justice & Liberty.

Have a read of "The Road To Wigan Pier", by George Orwell.

and doesn't Pajero translate as Wanker in Mexican?

spanish

actually, billy isn't a socialist... would you believe

a socialist of the heart maybe and that will butter lots of parsnips but it aint the real thing.

my reason for saying so has nothing to do with his mitsubishi. (or whether ownership of one is compatible with anything)

a socialist is someone who thinks socialism is the way to go.

that doesn't mean spreading wealth about a bit by giving to charity. It isn't even redistribtion of wealth by taxation, although that is not a bad start.

It means keeping the wealth in the hands of the people in the first place (or putting it back after it has been taken away by the likes of thatcher and teflon).

funnily enough, we used to have a socialist party here and this was their aim.

"To secure for all the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry of service."

but now they are 'new'


i have already said similar to billy here


see below for billy's starter post and go to the link for some excellent contributions, particularly by dickie, graham and of course carol.

billy bragg posted at 1:20 pm on June 18, 2002

''At the risk of drawing the irate fire of the Nasty Tendency, here are a few points that we might knock around:

What is socialism in the 21st century?

Can socialism be achieved democraticly?

Can you have socialism without abolishing capitalism?

What is the difference between socialism and communism in the 21st century?

Will I be sorry that I opened this particular can of worms?

Hopefully not. If we can avoid pendantry, personal attacks and name calling and concentrate on constructing or deconstructing a vision of what we think socialism is, we may be able to do more than was done on the Is BB A Socialist thread. The case for anarchism was so eloquently put there that if our anarchist friends could refrain from repeating themselves as they put their case, that would be helpful.

Let me kick off by stating what I consider myself to be: I am a democratic socialist, I believe that mass participation in democracy is the best way to achieve a fair and equal society. I believe that democracy should be extended to the workplace and that the best model for business is the co-operative. I realise that I pissed a few of you off by declaring that I have never advocated the abolition of capitalism. So what am I advocating? Smiley Capitalism? No.

Capitalism is the ideology of the market. Socialism is an alternative to capitalism in that it seeks to organise the market in a different way. In the Soviet Union, it could be argued that capitalism was abolished or at least overthrown. Yet the market was retained. It was still possible to buy and sell goods and services, although not accumulate capital. The difference was that the market was organised according to the theories of Marxism.

So what I should have said, rather than "I have never advocated the abolition of capitalism", was

"I have never advocated the abolition of the market".

I believe that the market should be organised according to the needs of the majority rather than for the benefit of the minority and I believe that this can be achieved through mass participation in democracy. That's what democratic socialism means to me. ''

I'm glad Billy took the time to delineate so clearly his ideology for the benefit of his fans. But that doesn't mean mine has to match his. I can be uncomfortable about stuff he's perfectly happy about, and anyone else can feel the same about me.

Personally, like Roo, I feel that until the world is a little more equal, there is something obscene about a certain level of conspicuous consumption. I think there IS a link between having a leftist ideology and feeling uneasy about splashing out huge amounts of cash on possessions while so many people in the worlds are in need.

I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me. But I think it's good that we're having the debate.

I'm not a big fan of discussing hypothetical systems: communism, marxism, socialism. You can waste many nights have severe arguments over them, but it's all so pointless. Our society is capitalist, and we have to make do until the revolution...

I'm all for trying to make our current society more equal and better for all

nor me. Personally I think the classic peoples perception of socialism is outmoded and has had its day in the west,but is a viable construct for other,less developed parts of the globe. (i'll leave capitalism out of this too apart from saying I think that's totally washed up and all the needless materialistic consumerism sickens me).

I'm more disturbed at how socialism has been twisted by B Liar and his chums, paring off the people-democratic portions and heaping more helpings of extra government control over our lives - not for our well being (although thats how its pushed) but for their accumulation of power and desire for control over previously ungoverned aspects of our lives. Roll on when humanity finally grows out of politics.

Thanks for posting that link to the old forum Beryl it made interesting reading.

I'd probably stick by most of the things I said then but as the Forum is dumbing down I'd use shorter words.

i totally understand lee's point of view, although i don't aree with it. But it is interesting that he should link it to being 'socialist'.

Sorry, i often don't know what i'm on about.

no need to apologise. You made a valid point but i would say that being a 'socialist' isn't just being warm and cuddly towards other people regardless of their views. It is about wanting to change society in a very particular way.

bringing this to the top in response to (cross thread) ...

As I have no idea how to make a new thread (for some reason ), instead of spending ages trying to work it out, I'll hijack this old one.

This is Claire Fox News. Whether it's socialist or not I don't really know.
They used to be the revolutionary communist party, and although I was never a member (too thick), I knew many of the people that are still around Spiked and the Institute of Ideas.

I think their politics are a breath of fresh air - even if I don't always agree with or get what they are saying.

They are in some ways, directly going against the Billy Bragg Forum way of looking at things. And as I said before, in Hyde Park in 1991 (on an anti-war demo) BB himself denounced them from the stage as they walked in with their ''Victory to Iraq'' banner.

There are nine programmes on this site - at about an hour each. I think they are well worth looking at - but think their merrit might not be so obvious from the start. Sometimes they take 15 minutes to get going.

What is left wing, and what is libertarian or right wing? Sometimes it's not so obvious.

Try these

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/socialism.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazigermany.htm

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/icfi/icfi.shtml

http://www.swp.org.uk/

http://www.bnp.org.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

How about this too?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,2024324,00.html

Thanks for the list Andy. I had never seen the Spartacus one before. There is loads I could learn from it (and will spend some time on it), as there is so much that a person (like me) just doesn't know.
But I remember those sparts, when they used to speak at public meetings (often Americans) and they came across as absolutely barking (woof woof).

And though the SWP are obviously left, I might question whether they are they progressive. (They're still going after the dictatorship of the proletarait).

If you google anything about spiked, you get pages that describe them as libertarian - which if you take the dictonary definition, implies 'not progressive'. I think this young woman Emily Hill belies that definition. That is progressive IMO.
Nothing to get overly exited about maybe, but a neat little piece all the same.
(And isn't she cute?)

And as for Ed Vulliamy, he had some serious beef with the RCP some years back. Did Living Marxism get it wrong over Bosnia? Maybe.
And so did a lot of other people. Including Vulliamy perhaps.

That's what I mean by it not always being easy to work out what's left or not.

I think that the events of the last twenty-five years have turned much of the language and conceptualisation of politics upside down and inside out. For me, as a Socialist, I would be happy starting from Billy's definition that " .... mass participation in democracy is the best way to achieve a fair and equal society. ... that democracy should be extended to the workplace and that the best model for business is the co-operative. Capitalism is the ideology of the market. Socialism is an alternative to capitalism in that it seeks to organise the market in a different way. ... that the market should be organised according to the needs of the majority rather than for the benefit of the minority and ... that this can be achieved through mass participation in democracy. That's what democratic socialism means to me.''
That seems to me to be a sound definition of Socialism; it begs the question as to how you achieve the objective, but I think that is reasonable because it allows both the Revolutionary and the Gradualist/Fabian/Parliamentary to be acknowledged as Socialists.
And, for me, "Left" is synonymous with "Socialist".
The problem with libertarianism, I think, is that it prioritises individual freedom above the struggle for a "fair and equal society"; the "Spiked" crew don't address this issue (or don't seem to do so). "Left Libertarianism" may be a legitimate position, but to me, it has an inherent contradiction within it: when push comes to shove, do you come down on the side of fairness and equality or individual liberty, if the two are in conflict, as they sometimes are?
Similarly, I always find it ironic that the American Right equate the term "Liberal" with "Left": Liberalism has always championed free-market capitalism and individual freedom. Thatcher was a Liberal in economic terms even if she was (mildly) conservative on social issues.
If you look at what the Neo-Conservatives have to say about domestic policy, they are actually rather more "left" in some ways than Neo-Liberals like Thatcher, in that they do not oppose state intervention on principle.
The "loss of faith" (as we god-botherers might describe it) that has afflicted the Marxist Left since the late Eighties and Labour's apparent decision to embrace the market does not mean however that Socialism as an ideal has died; it hasn't and it can, and hopefully will, return.

billy also comes down hard on cynicism.. and i do try but it isn't easy.

good post JB .. although i don't agree with Billy's definition and have said so elsewhere.... but if i could get back my 'faith' it wouldn't be a bad starting point.

Definitions of socialism are so numerous that these concepts are a real minefield. When I was a young lad back in the 1980's with Thatcher and the miners things were really easy, it was easy to take a side and many of us fought real hard.

For me growing up on a huge council estate in Canning Town and seeing the brutal government we had I felt as a working class boy going to comprehensive school that they the Tories were waging war on me and my kind.

So for me my socialism at the time was wrapped up with class consiousness, a desire for equality and justice and fairness, a desire that the welfare state be protected so that my family didn't suffer both myself and my dad (god bless him) spent long periods on the dole back then.

Today I call myself a social democrat why? because I don't believe that society can be overthrown or changed so fundamentally as to abolish capitalism. I believe that the best we can hope for is some reform of the system (welfare state NHS minimum wage that sort of thing)

Having a family has changed me fundamentally I want to live in a society that protects the vulnerable (like my son with Asperger Syndrome) but when I see people with everything going for them throwing their advantages away I despair, thats why I am glad we have had debt relief and record aid in Africa (the people who really need it IMHO.

Great post Mick.
I think it's fair to say that the parameters within the left are somewhat blurred nowadays unlike the time of which you speak when i'd imagine it was a sense of 'us against them.' I'd personally like to see a more right versus left scenario in British politics but i look back at the 80's and think maybe not sometimes. It could even be said that socialism in its definition is in fact evolving as we speak.

On the Midnights In Moscos video, Bill and Pete Jenner are browsing a record shop and Bill's heard to comment that he hasn't got a credit card because he's a socialist.

Is there a connection? Can you have a credit card and be a socialist?

i bloddy hope so

Bill is just too canny with his money to pay interest to thieving capitalist bastards!

I hate to sound like a grizzled old cynic, but there was very little unity amongst the Left in the Eighties: the RCP, SWP and WRP could only agree on one thing which was that they all hated Militant. The Euro-Communists and the pro-Soviet part of the CP loathed each other and the non-Marxist Left was bitterly divided. The amphitheatre scene from "Life of Brian" was the most accurate portrayal of the Left at that time that I've ever seen.
There are a lot of lessons that the Left should learn from the Eighties, and the fact that dividng into warring factions is a recipe for complete failure is one of the most important...

Got to be honest Mick but I think that class consciousness is pretty much what Socialism is. My only quibble would be your putting party politics in there - it's not the Tories waging class war, although Thatcher certainly did that, it's capital. But I don't think it's that useful to see New (Same Old) Labour as a party that fights for the proletariat. Perhaps things were easier to realise in the 80s but, with an international view, it's easy to see who is exploited and who does the exploiting. Anyway, I think it's easy to see the effects that "brutal government" had on the fabric of UK: the quality of housing is degraded; teacher - pupil ratios are much higher; roads are in poor condition; self-centredness has increased.




What can be MORE progressive than that!

Well of course the Dictatorship of the Proletariat might well be seen as an example of self-centredness... though more significantly, I think that the Soviet experience showed how open it was to abuse, and more significantly still, it is debateable whether the proletariat still exists in the form that it did when Marx wrote.
Thatcher attacked the Working Class through the assault on the Unions; she also presided over its enfeeblement through the erosion of the industrial base that is esential to its existence. However, she also succeeded in seducing it to a significant degree through the promotion of share- and home-ownership. I think that the classic Marxist theory works as an explanation of economic history, but it failed to anticipate what has happened to the proletariat in Europe.

I think it was more the SWP the WRP and Militant all hated the RCP. And I can undrestand why, becouse they weren't 'workerist' in the normal left wing way. And if you look at what they turned in to it's easy to spot. Their online output on Spiked is still very much like their magazine Living Marxism was.

So maybe they're not left wing in the sense outlined by Mick and JBoyd. But I still say they are more progressive than the likes of the SWP, as they aren't kidding them selves (like the Tooting Popular Front) that there is going to be world revolution any time soon.

Why I scoffed at the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat was that the people in those parties presume that THEY are the one who are going to be leading it.
Can you imagine that?

Will anyone admit to watching that edition of Claire Fox News that I linked to? I would be interested to know what people thought. I get the idea that if you have formed your left wing politics in a more traditional way, (maybe like Billy Bragg for example), then a discussion like that will not seem to have anything in common with your idea of left wing. So it has to be libertarian or right wing.

I watched a bit of it, but I had to go out and couldn't go for long. It was dry stuff, and I'm on record as being hopelessly confused about socialism. I think I am one until I see that stuff then my eyeballs roll back in my head.

I don't think an American can truly be a socialist any more. We've bred it right out of us. All that's left is good intentions and a drawerful of Che shirts.

They weren't seduced - they were already in favour of it because they were let down by their own party and trade unions.

Marxism works in all manner of ways but I never see it as any kind of prophecy. Dialectical materialism is brilliant and explains things like what has happened to the proletariat in Europe (What HAS happened to the proletariat by the way?) The difficulty I have with Marx is the illogical conclusion he drew about economic and social relationships ending with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I agree that Marxism should not be seen as prophecy: it is simply a very accurate theoretical model.
I think that the success of Thatcherism was due to a number of factors, some like the Falklands War and the formation of the SDP, that are now easily forgotten. However, it owed a great deal to the widespread perception that Labour couldn't manage the economy and that the Unions were too powerful. Those were still beliefs that we encountered campaigning in the elections of the 80s and even in 1992.
As for the fate of the European proletariat, it's obviously very complicated, but I would suggest, as a starting point, that its power has dramatically contracted as a result of economic change. In the 80s, the industrial working class were still very powerful; now, I would say that they are stronger than many assume, but still much weaker than they were.

An American party that I like, are the people behind The Militant. They used to do 12 week subscriptions to their paper for about £3. I think I had two.
They are union all the way, and I remember avidly reading their coverage of the Appalachain coal miners strike, 10 or so years ago. (They also seemed to be nice people, if you came across them in London).

I understand why people might not like Claire Fox News. I am a fan though.

I know those guys. Very working class. Nice people. Good parties.

So people didn't seem too impressed with Claire Fox News - maybe it's an aquired taste, or perhaps they reaaly are a bunch of w*nkers like barmyrob says.
I was reading this thing about them just now from GM watch.org who seem to take a very very dim view of them, and reguard them as sinister and cult like.

But something doesn't seem right about that view. I'm watching this edition of Claire Fox News and it seems like excelent intelectual debate. Does no one else think so?

Standing up for free speech in academia and universities is a bad thing? Ellie Lee compares how the mood on campus is so much more censorious these days than it was when she was an undergraduate.
It really is worth a watch.

I don't know who the guy on the left is, but the others were all RCP.
It might not be socialism, but it sounds progressive to me.

That's a bit strong for posting in the wrong thread Maria - it's very common on this forum and people usually get asked to p off somewhere else, without being asked if they are incapable of reason, logic and order.

The question that has been on my mind for the last couple of days is whether the failure of socialism led to the rise of political correctness.

That may seem ''stupid'' or lacking reason, but the question of whether PC actually exists or is an idea thought up by the enemies of progressive ideas is an important one.

As I said in that other post on the tv thread, I get the idea that several people on here would deny there is such a thing, and it's all an invention of the daily mail and the sun, and that's why you would be better spending your time by reading astrology or celeb gossip than that rubbish.

There is some reason in that last sentence isn't there? It seems to make sense to me.

But I have the opinion that as far as littlejohn and co exaggurate PC (which makes them the enemy) to deny it in it's entirety does not help the progressive cause either. Littlejohn and the rest do sometimes have a point when they rail against it, in my opinion.

There were a couple of opinion pieces in the mail and the express today. About the immigration minister Liam Byrne's announcement that mass immigration had had some unfortunate side effects in the UK, and the government now planned to change to a points based assesment on who could come here.

That the writers of these two pieces were (sort of) shaking their heads and saying ''Incredible'' is I think perfectly understandable. David Blunket dismissed someone on the radio as being ''far right'' for saying the same thing a couple of years ago.
At Oxford uni, a student group has been calling for the sacking of professor David Coleman for saying the same thing. What's is that if it's not political correctness?

The guy in the express had the cheek to start his article off with the words: ''Englands greatest political writer George Orwell said:'To tell the truth in times of deciet is a revolutionary act'.''

Perhaps it is PC that fuels the reactionary right.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/...,925908,00.html

Well I know I'm not meant to be very bright, and miss sarcasm (acording to SL) but your two links to the regestration page of the Media Guardian youv'e done Beryl (here and on the TV thread) - leave me scratching my head.

I don't suppose Sarah will turn up on here (I think she's got me ignore anyway) and it probably wouldn't be very fruitful anyway, but in way of some explaination: when she talked about being in a pub full of singing Chelsea supporters a while back, and I said I was surprised she went to such places, I got a bit of stick for that, and rightly so. Sometimes it's best to say nothing.
It's just been my experience that a lot of fans that would go and sing and shout in a pub are likely to be sun readers, (or the star, mirror, or express) but most definatly not guardian readers.
25 years ago when I used to turn up at Palace with a copy of the guardian in my pocket, my mates used to mock me and take the piss. It might have well been a copy of the Socialist Worker (or Gay News). That's how I found most of the lads to be. Those kind of people are despised by some.

I don't think it's that much different today. I sometimes do overnight trips to the massive City Link depot in the Black Country (in one of these) where trucks come in from every corner of Britain. While getting unloaded all the drivers hang about at the tea stand, eating pies and sausage rolls. They are what you could call 'sun readers' almost to a man.
Many are middle aged and I don't think they are that much different to how they were 25 years ago.
The ideas of socialism (I guess) means nothing to them, and they seem socially conservative.

They know now that they can't openly talk in a racist way, (although you can sometimes hear it) and this might be a sucess of our modern times. Many of them might not have been won over, but absolutely forbiding racist chanting at football (for example) is something they have had to accept, and after a while it becomes the norm.

The same with someone using Gene Hunt (from the TV programme) kind of language about women or gays. If you can't win peoples hearts and minds then you have to harrang and hector them out of it.
Or at least shut them up.
Maybe that is what people say that PC is - but if that's what it takes to change society then that's what progressive people do.
Is that last bit right?

I'm not so sure Damon. It depends on how you frame the conversation. If you start with the question, "Are you a socialist?" you may well get a predictable answer. It's a bit like asking someone if they're middle class. However, if you ask them, "Do you think it was the right thing to do to invade Iraq?" you may well get a completely different kind of conversation because you may well begin taling about democracy, accountability and representation.

i was very excited about going to my first trades union conference and when i got there i discovered that most of the delegates were reading the scum I was so disappointed

later on a got to mett some socialists there ... and even married one of them

damon.. PC is a term coined by the likes of littletoilet to undermine what was taking place in the 80's which was a move to change people's attitudes by refusing to accept racist or sexist language. The last link i left was to show you that most of the 'pc' stories are just urban myths.

I was a bit cynical about the language thing but now i wouldn't even think of calling a woman manager a manageress for instance. I think it will make a difference.. eventually.

What I should have said Beryl is that the links don't work. They just show a registration page for the media guardian which asks for your e-mail address and password.

I'm not sure how important changing the titles of words like manageress or chairman is.
(I said not sure). I have heard women who I respect say as much. Someone like (for example) the wonderful Deborah Orr of the Independent (I'm guessing as I can't remember) but I reckon she wouldn't think it was such an issue to kick up a fuss about (all the time).
But if she did think it was important, then I'd happily go along with her, as she is my idea of a strong minded and wise feminist woman.

And Andy, in the canteens and transport cafe's that I am often in, asking questions like that might alarm people. I have never (ever, I think) heard a conversation when the words democracy, accountability and representation cropped up. And if your sitting there with the Indi or the Guardian in front of you and you start a conversation like that, you're likely to have you're self marked out as a bit of a nutter.
Especially if you work in lots of different places and you're not known that well.
People would watch you reversing onto the loading bay, (which can be tricky) and if you made a bit of a hash of it and had to shunt back and forth a few times (as you don't know all the angles as well as the regulars) - then you're card will be marked, (with the word 'TOSSER')

Damon, you don't have to use words like that to get at the concepts. Listen to what's bugging everybody and join in. I quite like arguing about/discussing stuff like that. I always used to read The Guardian in the factory canteen and left it there when I finished my dinner. I read The Sun as well. Socialism is about class loyalty and education you see. It's never bothered me if people see me as an educated person or a Guardian reader because that's what I am. I'm not ashamed of that at all. I was often "Wanker of the Week" for some cock up or other. You have to be "one of the lads" as well. That never bothered me too much because it was someone else's turn the following week. In fact, I always thought that made a fairly humdrum job more bearable.

sorry damon.. i wondered if you meant that but i was in a hurry.

It seems you have to register to read the online grauniad nowadays. Try registering. It doesn't cost anything, and let me know if it works.

Well I registered. What a frustrating 20 minutes that was. My application kept getting rejected, and then when I put it right and sent it, it came back with ''country of residence - Afghanistan'' Then it wouldn't accept my postcode.

I read the article, and I agree a lot of those stories are urban myths. The hot cross buns one, and the blackboard one too. The banning of christmas and all that hoo-ha every year. But I wouldn't be too complacent about it (PC) not existing at all, I think there is some of it in our society.
And maybe the changing of traditional gender words is one of it's forms.

(I say maybe as I'm not really fussed). ''Lady'' I understand is past it's sell by date. But chairman, chair, madam chairman is not something I would get bothered by if I was a woman.
Even the word woman, is man prefixed by wo. Like fe - male, count - ess, Lion - ess, dog - bitch. Where do you stop. Is it sexist to call a ship ''she''?

And Andy, I find you leaving the Guardian in the factory canteen after you've read it is funny. It's like being a flippin' missionary . I've done the same thing.

I don't see it as funny.

Come the revolution Andy, I can see you being in charge of a division of Red Guards.
Some years ago, I left a copy of Living Marxism on the table in a canteen. When I came back in, some blokes were looking at it, and one of them asked me accusingly ''Is this yours?''

About PC being just an invention of the rabid right. The other night on the radio, I heard Mark Wadsworth, of The Anti-Racist Alliance say that the English flag should be done away with and a new one designed, as the cross of St George was a symbol of opperssion going back to the crusades.
(I have mentioned this on the Talk Sport Radio thread).

He was calling in to a radio show that was talking up St Georges day, and everything great about England. What a clumsy way to engage with the lumpen proletariate who were listening and phoning in.
Just wind them up and make them feel more paranoid and reactionary than they already were.
One caller mentioned some urban myth that in his town you were no longer allowed to ask for a black coffee, but had to ask for a coffee without milk. It's because of people like Wadsworth, who I heard with my own ears, that these stories like the coffee one are belived.
How did that sound to people who would listen to the Gary Bushell show? That some ''anti-racist lot, say our flag is drenched in blood, like the flag of apartheid was.''

It would have been better for Yasmin AB to try to explain to Talk Sport listeners why many people have a problem with this celebration of Englishness, as she wrote well in yesterdays Independent.

Was what Mark Wadsworth said PC, or just foolish (given who he was talking to?)

my best ever st george's day was watching morris dancing with billy bragg .. i've got the t shirt

damon. Just because socialists get the piss taken out of them all the time by the likes of littletoilet doesn't make socialism wrong.

Using non racist non sexist language cannot be a bad thing.

if you constantly want to be populist you will never make society better.

the concept of socialism scares people because people think its all about being a martyr, being poor, living like a saint and giving all your stuff away

socialists are allowed sex and chocolate!

in fact, in certain forms of socialsim , its positively the law! im sure it is for socialist feminists anyway



it doesnt even have to be with other socialists

i remember, when i was young, we communists were famed for our ''free love''

"Living Marxism?" No wonder they think you're odd.

A division of Red Guards, eh? The inbred mutants had better watch out then.


We're not are we? I'd better get cracking, I haven't had a bar of Dairy Milk since I was 15.