Tristan,

While there are atrocities that can be attributed to non socialist governments, nothing can compare to the 10s of millions of citizens killed by their own governments by Stalin, Lenin, and to a lesser extent by those following in the soviet union, and further millions killed by Mao in the cultural reform.

Socialism's trademark is that it takes equality to the point of enforced conformity. Liberty is all about choice, and while much of it may not seem fair, it is the engine that drives innovation.

The labor/unionist left is moribund in the ideology of socialism that crippled many OECD countries in the 60s and 70s and did a fair amount of damage to the Aus economy.

The labor left should leave to join its ideological cousins in the Greens, however, with the union affiliation of the labor party, it enjoys far more influence there. While not in control it inflicts an unhealthy influence on a party that has tried to remake itself in a more modern fiscally capable centrist mold.

With the palpable split in the labor party, it would be healthier to split the labor party into say New Labor and the Reds party. (sic)

There has been overall moral degeneration of the Labor Left just as there has been within the greater political arena. Historically Labor has always had a more chequered history when it comes to internal fragmentation via the factions and branch stacking.

Many in the Left have thrown up their hands in defeat or succumbed to party pressures, and pressures inherent in the corporatisation of global politics.

The only way to reduce the 'power corrupts absolutely' threat is to ensure mechanisms are in place to transfer elements of power to the people on those issues deemed essential in a democracy.

One of the side effects of the shift towards a corporate society and Right Wing thinking is the confusion and suspicion surrounding socialism. There are many who deliberately or unknowingly confuse the principles of democratic socialism with the worst of fascist or communist regimes.

If you read Latham's books, he really embodied for the most part, the spirit of the old Labor movement's emphasis on egalitarianism, social justice and access to opportunity and services. Where is this universal resolve now in the ALP - just another corporate cog in the capitalist wheel.

This is not to overlook the efforts the current government has made in some areas such as homelessness, but the ALP has forgotten the big picture. For all Latham's faults he would have been preferable to the current PM. I liken Latham to more real and open politicians such as Barnaby Joyce, Bernardi, Xenophon, Brown etal, while you may not like their politics, at least you are seeing and dealing with a real person.

Who was it that said recently that Mr Rudd should concentrate more on being an ex-bureaucrat who happened to become a leader rather than a leader who still behaves like a good bureacrat.

People no longer expect their politicians be honest yet we should insist upon it. Transparency is lip service and spin is up. It is up to us to vote the offenders out - there are some good Independents and Greens - we continue to let them get away with it.

To gusi, it seems many people believe socialism = communism. I believe the idea comes from American capitalists who cannot or do not want to comprehend democratic socialism. The idea of looking after those in their society less able to do so is tantamount to a breach of their constitutional rights.

Anyway it is an old arguement just rearing it's head again. I am still heading down the road of being a fence sitting liberal. There is hardly any difference between the two parties regardless, but I just can't bring myself to vote labour again.

To Tristan just because countries call themselves something doesn't mean that they are:
east germany - democratic republic of Germany
North Korea - democratic republic of Korea
PRC - run by the communist party (Marx would turn in his grave)
Democratic Republic of Congo etc etc etc...
Similarly some states with a democratic system actually never change ruling parties; Singapore and until recently Japan spring to mind.

I think we need to be very careful before we start applying generalist labels. Politicians love these because they are empty and people apply their own interpretation to them. That applies to both sides of the fence; there is a vast gulf between a Howard-liberal and a small-l liberal for instance.

In my book a socialist is someone who wants a state with a safety net and a fair go for everyone. Americans may settle for "Liberty or Death", but many of of us from the continent prefer "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". I suspect that most Australians fit in between somewhere.

Col's up to his usual old tricks I see, feigning moral high ground for effect, by means of sophistry, straw man and recursive arguments etc.
None of which hold any intellectual/factual basis.
I still await his definitive examples or proof that despite the titles most so called socialist govts aren't really.
___________________________________________

SM,

You are correct as far as you go but one swallow still doesn't mean ipso facto spring. Likewise one or two attributes don't mean socialism, any more that a vote means democracy.
names,claims mean/prove nothing.

I repeat *I favour equity (fairness) not necessarily equality*. The latter is solely theoretical, aspirational and only exists with inanimate object.

I would argue that 'capitalism' as practiced today isn't that. In fact it is an amalgam of several other lesser realities (i.e. human greed/nature). It's so corrupted by externalities as to render the the description as a farce, it should have a different name.

Sure our economics system has elements of capitalism but the theory neither predict or definitively explain the reality. The current invocation is predicated on the magic pudding scenario. And notional concepts of wealth, money, worth value etc.
It *isn't* a science. It fails several of the scientific tests.

Also, the entire Left is quietly going along with Rudd's personal ambitions to re-Christianise our public schools, a continuation of Howardism. It won't be long before they start selling public schools off to 'faiths' to run them as private 'religious' schools.