What is Socialism?

We often hear broadcasters and journalists say that they are "socialists", what do they mean?  One definition, given by Michael Freeden (1996), is that socialism posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals; that it considers human welfare a desirable objective; that it considers humans by nature to be active and productive; it holds the belief of human equality; and lastly, that history is progressive and will create positive change on the condition that humans work to achieve such change.  As a definition this is largely absurd because any modern politician will say that they are working for a better world and quote a similar list, whether they are left, right or centre.  Probed more deeply the list becomes even more absurd, are absolutely all humans active and productive and are all humans so equal that they can jump the same height?  Without further definitions and caveats the list is nonsense and it is these further definitions that distinguish a socialist from a conservative.

The idea that socialism is the only mode of political thought that believes in the good of humanity flies in the face of reality, for instance the people who set up the US Constitution were not socialists and most of the radical changes in British political history were Liberal/Whig ideas and/or action, from the Abolition of Slavery to National Insurance and Social Security benefits to the NHS (Lloyd George and Beveridge were Liberals).  In Britain you can be a caring Conservative or Liberal. 

We can know socialists from their actions.  In Britain the Labour Party are the socialists.  What did they do?  In the 1960s and 1970s they used taxpayers money to buy vast swathes of British industry, also borrowing a fortune, and by 1979 the country was nearly financially ruined.  In the Noughties they spent vast amounts of borrowed and taxpayers money on the Public Sector (about a third of UK debt was accumulated before the credit crunch), raising wages and pensions to extraordinary levels compared with the Private Sector and by 2010 the country was nearly ruined.

Socialism appears to be the spending of vast sums of money to create industries and services that are run by civil servants.  Much to the surprise of socialists the civil servants are never competent, the industries and services collapse or become hopelessly inefficient, the employees strike and demand money then the whole enterprise falls apart.  Socialists create fake employment and massive debts. That is what they do. Little wonder that Socialists must claim that they invented all political good when their record is one of such malevolence, if we include the communist countries in the analysis Socialism becomes a positive evil.

Socialism is a teenage sort of politics.  Making false claims such as Socialism invented all political good is a way of saying "I am a good person", "I believe in doing good" but giving away the family's resources to prove this is juvenile and just leaves the whole family destitute.  Socialism relies on a socialist government spending vast sums of money on credit and then handing the country back to other people who act like parents, taking on the thankless task of paying the bills.  Socialism relies on the young and inexperienced, especially the young because after ten years of another party paying off the bills from the last socialist binge the under 30s confuse the responsible party with austerity and the profligate socialists with "caring".

The journalists and broadcasters are largely responsible for the addiction cycle of socialism in which the socialists binge, their successors pay and then the young vote for another binge to get over the recent tough times.  Journalists like to pose as "good people" who would happily give away the family's money so support the next Socialist binge.

To recap, socialists have understood that if they pay for fake jobs and give away large sums of money they will be liked, any government that follows the socialists will appear nasty because they must reverse all these unaffordable gifts, the socialists can then promise gifts once again, seem "sweet and caring" to new voters and the ignorant and then get elected into power again to repeat the cycle.  Their main support in all of this are the self-promoting, post-modern journalists and media pundits who have renounced even the idea of truth. (See The London Riots and the Mediocracy).

If you vote Labour every time the economy recovers you will prevent the responsible parties from ever putting in place sustainable changes for the good of society.  Personally I would recommend the Liberals (not Lib-Dems) or the English Democrats (not the English Democratic Party), which is a non-racist, nationalist party as a caring alternative.

See

Is Labour any more than the Public Sector Party?

The roots of New Labour

The Labour Shadow Cabinet - Milliband's Mockneys

Immigration, House Prices and Boom Economics



 The aims of localism



Economic policies for recovery


Getting richer every day in every way: income and wealth


 


 Freeden, M, (1996). Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach (Oxford, 1996)