Can you be a leftist without also supporting terrorists and criminals?

[cdnvic]

Removed some inflammatory comments and replies.

[Mike_Hunt]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

 

As I explained before, the British Labour Party was - in theory at least - a democratic socialist party (until the mid-1990s).

 

The Party's guiding principle was the original Clause 4 (reproduced below) which Blair revised. It is clear from the original clause that socialism is to be achieved without violence.

 

While revolutionary socialists may embrace terrorism and violence, democratic socialists eschew it. This is why your statement that, "Socialism mandates terrorism and violence. The philosophical underpinnings of socialism, indeed, their entire philosophical premise for government and life can only be achieved by terrorists who engage in violence and authoritarianism", is patently incorrect.

 

_---------------;;;;;;;

 

Original Clause 4 of the GB Labour Party constitution.

 

"To secure for 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 or service."

 

Do these people realize that socialism always fails? 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/24/2025 at 5:23 PM, hotsun said:

Apparently not. Quite a blunder what the modern western philisophy has sided with

Rubbish. Entirely possible to be a socialist ( small s ) without supporting supporting them or being woke.

The NHS is socialist and most support it.

[RayC]

7 hours ago, Mike_Hunt said:

 

Do these people realize that socialism always fails? 

 

That simple question begs numerous others? For a start, what criteria did you use to measure success and failure? 

 

Wrt the Labour government of 1945 - 51, most historians consider it to be a relative success overall. The establishment of the Welfare State, the improvement of living conditions, the nationalisation of the BoE, full employment can be considered successes. However, there were also failures. As another poster pointed out, amongst other things rationing (of certain goods) remained and poverty certainly wasn't eliminated.

 

So does Socialism always fail?  Well Marxism as a theory has been largely discredited so in that sense, yes. Likewise, a fully centralised planned economy e.g. the USSR could hardly be called an (economic) success. However, are socialist economic practices operating within a market-based economies therefore predetermined to fail? The evidence from Europe since WW2 would suggest not.

[Yagoda]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Rubbish. Entirely possible to be a socialist ( small s ) without supporting supporting them or being woke.

The NHS is socialist and most support it.

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

That simple question begs numerous others? For a start, what criteria did you use to measure success and failure? 

 

Wrt the Labour government of 1945 - 51, most historians consider it to be a relative success overall. The establishment of the Welfare State, the improvement of living conditions, the nationalisation of the BoE, full employment can be considered successes. However, there were also failures. As another poster pointed out, amongst other things rationing (of certain goods) remained and poverty certainly wasn't eliminated.

 

So does Socialism always fail?  Well Marxism as a theory has been largely discredited so in that sense, yes. Likewise, a fully centralised planned economy e.g. the USSR could hardly be called an (economic) success. However, are socialist economic practices operating within a market-based economies therefore predetermined to fail? The evidence from Europe since WW2 would suggest not.

You guys confuse "social democracy" and "Socialism".

 

Social Democracy, like Labour, is a lie. Socialism is a specific political philosophy that as part of its utopian dream requires the eradication of humans who wont comply. You cant have a utopia without violence, simply because most folks wont comply.

 

Social Democracy and Labour spin about their goals while slowly tricking the populace into accepting them. But once they have gone far enough, let the shooting begin.

 

Spinning about economics, or denying that a doctrine like National Socialism is Socialism doesnt change the fact that it cant thrive without violence.

 

Im not going to give up my property. Im not gonna give up my freedom of speech. Im not going to give up my guns, propagandize my kids, or pay homage to your idea. Im gonna be standing on a street corner screaming you are thieves.

How long before I am dragged off to the local Lubyanka by some sadist for "reeducation"?

 

 

[RayC]

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

 

You guys confuse "social democracy" and "Socialism".

 

No, you are the one who's confused. Like most philosophies, socialism is dynamic and continues to evolve. Social Democracy can be viewed as one evolution. Yes, there are common attributes -  e.g. ensuring workers receive benefit for their labour -  which are shared by the various évolutions, but there is not a 'one size fits All' Socialism.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

 

Capitalism can be used as an analogy here. Should we say that a system is capitalist only if the price mechanism is allowed to operate without interference? In that case, the US cannot be considered a capitalist country. In fact, by this narrow definition capitalism has ceased to exist, which is clearly a ridiculous statement.

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Social Democracy, like Labour, is a lie.

 

I've no idea how to interpret that?

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

 

Socialism is a specific political philosophy that as part of its utopian dream requires the eradication of humans who wont comply. You cant have a utopia without violence, simply because most folks wont comply.

 

Most folks will comply but some won't. I would agree that Marxist and Fascist 'utopias' cannot exist without compliance and that violence is, therefore, probably a necessity for such systems.

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Social Democracy and Labour spin about their goals while slowly tricking the populace into accepting them. But once they have gone far enough, let the shooting begin.

 

Absolute tosh, not least because recent history proves otherwise. Western Europe has been ruled by social democratic/ democratic socialist parties almost without interruption since WW2 and there have been no violent revolutions during this period.

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Spinning about economics, or denying that a doctrine like National Socialism is Socialism doesnt change the fact that it cant thrive without violence.

 

On the one hand, you apparently reject the idea that Socialism can evolve and that Social Democracy and/or Democratic Socialism cannot legitimately be labelled 'Socialist', while at the same time you argue that Socialism gave birth to 'National Socialism'. It's an inconsistent argument. You can't have it both ways. 

 

Using a narrow Marxist definition of Socialism violence probably is necessary, but given that Marxism is largely discredited as a political philosophy and that Socialism has evolved, it's a rather meaningless and redundant argument.

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Im not going to give up my property. Im not gonna give up my freedom of speech.

 

No one is asking you too.

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Im not going to give up my guns,

 

Personally, I think that the private ownership of firearms should be severely restricted. UK society is a much better place because only a relatively few number of people can legally keep firearms.

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

 

propagandize my kids,

 

You are doing that as I am. Moreover, unless you find a way for them to live in a vacuum, it will inevitably happen.

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

 

or pay homage to your idea.

 

What idea? In any event, I'm not asking you too.

 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

 

Im gonna be standing on a street corner screaming you are thieves.

How long before I am dragged off to the local Lubyanka by some sadist for "reeducation"?

 

 

Perhaps that may happen in Russia but in Western Europe, depending on the neighbourhood, one of two things will probably happen: (a) your voice will be lost in the cacophony or (b) you will be asked (politely or otherwise) to keep the noise down.

[Yagoda]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

socialism is dynamic and continues to evolve.

So there is no more communalism? Collectivism? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? Ownership of the means of production? Abolishment of markets, interest, capitalism? All that is no longer the goal?

 

Tell us what else has been dropped from the basis of Socialism? Is it no longer Abolish Western Capitalism?

[RayC]

19 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

So there is no more communalism? Collectivism? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? Ownership of the means of production? Abolishment of markets, interest, capitalism? All that is no longer the goal?

 

Tell us what else has been dropped from the basis of Socialism? Is it no longer Abolish Western Capitalism?

 

I'm not an Etymologist. The link which I provided in my previous post gives a pretty good description of Socialism imo.

 

 

[Evil Penevil]

On 3/24/2025 at 11:20 PM, MalcolmB said:

Or is it because of a suppressed feeling of guilt for all the bombing they have done around the world in the name of “freedom and democracy”

 

I don't feel any guilt whatsoever over the bombing the U.S. has done to defend freedom and democracy on 0ne hand and suppress terrorism on the other.  I feel happiest over the U.S.-supplied bombs dropped by Israel on Gaza.  That's the best possible use of my tax-payer dollars.

[Yagoda]

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I'm not an Etymologist. The link which I provided in my previous post gives a pretty good description of Socialism imo.

 

 

OK thens its still the firing squad for those who dont comply, because thats the way it has always worked.. Glad we got that settled.