CJ,

You say >> “I don't suppose it's occurred to you that your very narrow and negative definition of socialism mightn't encompass the breadth of the ideology?”

Negative definition? WTF? I defined socialism in exactly the manner described in wikipedia. The first line of the socialism entry says

“Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements WITH THE GOAL OF A SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM IN WHICH PROPERTY AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE COMMUNITY.”

Socialists are people who espouse the ideology of socialism which is defined in the same wikipedia article as “ an economic system of state ownership and / or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution.”

That does not cover the social democrats, who believe in incorporating some socialist ideas into a capitalist state. There’s a reason that they identified a category known as social democracy. Its because its not the same thing as socialism.

So I went to other socialist websites to see how they defined socialism.

Heres what I found

>> “The alternative to capitalism is socialism, a system that uses the potential of human talent to build a truly fair and democratic society. This society would have an economy that is democratically planned to provide for the needs of everyone. It is hard to imagine how such a system is possible and realistic, especially since attempts to set up socialism (like in Russia) have failed in the past.” http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1438#more-1438

You’re telling me !! !!

>> “It is only by overthrowing capitalism that we will be able to begin to build a society free from poverty and inequality.”
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1438#more-1438

Its not even worth posting the “bill and ted” nonsense that the socialist alliance have on their website. Suffice to say I was astonished that they managed to leave off the “… righteous dude” and “ .. totally” from their charter.

So if you could direct me to a serious socialist party who have a definition of socialism which matches yours please be my guest.

Dear Paul,

The following website may provide you
with some further insight into the
subject:

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=204449 - 93k

Fraccy... your definition of 'Socialist' would make me one.

But it's not what I read in the Socialist Alternative web site.

So.. as I said earlier.. I should have narrowed or tightened up the question a bit.

It would be better put "Is the Socialist Alternative doctrine of 'Propoganda Unit' seditious"? (where it refers to revolution.)

Paul L has a good point though..
-Yes they are seditious but
-No..they are not sufficiently powerful or annoying for us to worry about them.

But wait... I think they can have a much bigger impact than their numbers would suggest. G20 and that kind of thing showed they can make a few waves... although in that case I'd say it was a hotch potch of many groups.

The 'Communalist' approach did seem to fit Jesus and the disciples because of the itinerant ministry.. and the very early church was so overwhelmed with the sense of love and fellowship that "Nobody said what they had was their own" and it was all pooled. (Acts 2:42)

Unfortunately 'tribalism' caused the light of love to fade a little and the Greeks felt their widows were being neglected and the Hebrews preferred..(Acts 6) so, it didn't last long in that 'glowing' manifestation...and they did what we humans tend to do..'formed a committee' :)

But still they were not just inward looking as your definition suggested..

"They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." Acts 2:46/7

PolyCarp when we get down to definition of socialism

Norman Mailer was pretty close

“The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level”

Margaret Thatcher summarized it succinctly

“….once we concede that public spending and taxation are more than a necessary evil we have lost sight of the core values of freedom.”

And qualified the consequences

“"...(T)he larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."”

Whilst also identifying something which we are very well aware of here in Australia

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

And to the cause of most socialist envy and bile she said

"The accumulation of wealth is a process which is of itself morally neutral. True, as Christianity teaches, riches bring temptations. But then so does poverty."

And of the core of economics

"Whether manufactured by black, white, brown or yellow hands, a widget remains a widget - and it will be bought anywhere if the price and quality are right. The market is a more powerful and more reliable liberating force than government can ever be."

Which we see unfolding in the (slowly) evolving liberation of China.

And to all those socialists who think the government is there to pander to their every whim and perceived need, she said

“There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

She’s a living treasure that lady.

Ah, the Gospel according to St Maggie the Demented.

Thanks Col.

According to Ian Robertson, "Sociology,"

"In fact, there is little basis for the
common view that capitalism and
socialism represent "either/or"
alternatives, since neither system exists
in a pure form.

In practice there is great variety in these
two kinds of economy, ranging from the most
capitalist societies, such as the United States
and Canada, through intermediate societies, such
as Britain, Sweden, to the most socialist
societeis, such as China... There is moreover,
great variety in the political systems that are
associated with both capitalism and socialism,
for democratic and authoritarian forms of
government are found in each type of economy.

For example, Sweden is socialist but democratic,
While Cuba is socialist but authoritarian:
Switzerland is capitalist and democratic, but
Chile is capitalist and authoritarian.

The concepts of "capitalism" and "socialism" each
represent merely an "ideal type," an abstract description
constructed from anumber of real cases in order to
reveal their essential features."

Robertson emphasizes that in actuality, there
are two very divergent forms of socialism in the
modern world - one practiced in authoritarian,
communist-ruled societies, (Eastern Europe and
Asia), and one practiced in democratic, pluralist
societies, mostly in Western Europe. (Denmark, Austria)
These versions
differ markedly in their degree of centralized control
of the economy, and in the liberties their citizens
enjoy.