Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I would suggest that the New Labour types and indeed the likes of Cathy Newman etc are 'progressive capitalists' rather than socialists.

    They're hardly 'workers of the world unite' types.
    Sure, but these have become dominant in all of the main parties in Britain and originate under radicals, Euro communists and critical theorists.

    They are Marxist- they just don’t mind if ‘private’ companies run state utilities if they’re beholden to the state and their ideals (and actually see it as better because they’re not accountable)

    I do think we should keep concepts like Socialism and progressivism separate rather than just mixing them together to the point where the terms have little meaning.
    I’m not so sure. Under your terms the French National front would qualify- but you wouldn’t qualify them as Socialist purely because they explicitly reject the progressive narrative. And unlike what you would class as socialists, do not work in tandem with ‘progressive capitalists’ who are explicitly against The WWC
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Sure, but these have become dominant in all of the main parties in Britain and originate under radicals, Euro communists and critical theorists.

    They are Marxist- they just don’t mind if ‘private’ companies run state utilities if they’re beholden to the state and their ideals (and actually see it as better because they’re not accountable)



    I’m not so sure. Under your terms the French National front would qualify- but you wouldn’t qualify them as Socialist purely because they explicitly reject the progressive narrative. And unlike what you would class as socialists, do not work in tandem with ‘progressive capitalists’ who are explicitly against The WWC
    I would actually say FN are Socialist to an extent.
    Economically I like some of what they have to say. Though I think their version of socialism is too centralised, rather than putting emphasis on workers.

    Though I'm liberal socially and find their social policies too off-putting.

    Just likely you can have liberal capitalism and authoritarian capitalism, the same is true of Socialism.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Conspiracy theory goes like this: commies realised at some point that they'd never get to power in the West by agitating the working classes like in Russia or China, the mere existence of a middle-class in our patch put a big block on that. Therefore, the only way is to completely redesign the world by demolishing what they call the 'social construct', the established hierarchies and systems in place that keep them boxed in. Anything that stands must be flattened in order to rebuild the world from scratch, be it the family as an institution, marriage, gender, the concept of personal responsibility, borders between countries, religion as a competing ideology, any vestige of nationalism, the entire status quo. The middle aged white bloke has been identified as the enemy, he must be replaced with somebody else. Everything must go, no matter how or what.

    For instance, motherhood has been getting in the neck big time. Gone are the days when some appreciation of it was the societal norm, these days we have Soros-funded campaigns to make it ever more accessible to eliminate the inconvenience or for the State to get their hands on the newborns as soon as they drop in order to program them correctly. Women need a place to dump that thing that popped out and is preventing them from living their lives, that's what the Beeb have been persuading everyone of. 24/7.

    But that is only a conspiracy theory, like I said...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    To me, Socialism is an economic theory based on class. It is not the same as 'progressivism'.
    I myself deconstruct socialism into economic socialism and social socialism aka progressivism although it's debatable whether it's really progressive or not. I'm not sure if many other people do the same because human nature is to look at the whole (as in existing socialist movements) rather than the components.

    Something that has stuck in my mind is the time when an old Labour type in the early 2000s accused the SWP that it's not (economically) socialist it's (socially) liberal, and liberalism gone into overdrive. It offers nothing for the poor and working class people.

    The problem is that many people tend to use the word 'socialism' as a catch all word for everything they don't like.
    I agree with you that socialism and socialist are derogatory terms nowadays.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Where does Momentum fit into the picture? Are they economic socialists, social socialists / progressivists, or just a youth movement for people with degrees?
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    As long as you recognise the inherent struggle of the proletariat, and the interclass dialectic of our bourgeoisie-dominated history; as well as the moral decadence of capitalism, then you can well be called a socialist.

    Gay marriage is libertarianism, although some would also call it a basic degree of common sense, but in no manner linked to socialism.

    Health be to you in the eternal struggle, comrade!
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.