I think it is not how we define socialism because socialism has already been defined. It is more about how we can use the best of socialist principles within a social democracy.

Belly is right about the way the socialist tag is bandied about whenever anyone tries to implement a government health care system which is what happened to Hilary Clinton in the US and will probably happen to Obama. The hope is that in this different economic and poitical climate Americans may be more open to socialised healthcare. The interest of big business will always be looming in the background so it will be an interesting venture and one to watch in the US.

Socialism is a word that whips up hysteria for no apparent reason, those same people who cringe at the idea of socialised health appear to be oblivious to the fact that other government services like police, fire and emergency services are all administered by governments.

To me the aspects of socialism we should embrace are ones that work in opposition to the latest fad of socialising debt and privatising profit. Socialising debt appears to be one aspect of socialism that the fat cats have no problem with because it works in with the whole greed principle.

As far as Australia goes, we are a social democracy and that means we exist within a capitalist system side by side with the benefits of a strong community support structure, albeit one that is not perfect and can aways be improved.

It is nice to agree with Antispectic for a change and I agree with him that the socialist part of our heritage should not include middle class or corporate welfare. A well balanced system should not need these structures particularly while the poorest (age pensioners, disabled etc) continue to be put at the back of the queue.

After all that, in short I see socialism relative to Australia as being about access to opportunity, free education based on merit, assistance/care for the disadvantaged and most importantly, a reduction in the disparity of incomes (distribution of wealth)

david f,
I AM A SOCIALIST BUT my socialism has nothing to do with " government controls the economy" what you call socialist economic system in realy is communist system
It is truth that many times communists use the word socialist to describe the communist system, It truth that some crazy dictator call their self socialist, as Cantafiin in Lybia, It is truth that new conservatives, right extremists use the word socialist and mean communist and they call socialist any progresive person, any liberal person, any human right activist, any one who desagree with their unfair, non democratic policies, It is truth that in agglo saxon world the word socialist mainly has the meaning of communist even for members and officers of the Labor Parties althougt the Labor parties from UK and Australia are full members of the socialist international.

The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties. It currently brings together 170 political parties and organisations from all continents

List of the members of Socialist International
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931

Read here the
DECLARATION of PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31

Read here the
ETHICAL CHARTER THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=24

I AM VERY PROUD TO BE SOCIALIST.
socialism and socialist is not what others says about us but what we say how we act as socialists for the socialism!.
The socialist international is the oldest international political organization and it have played the most important role for our rights, for our democracy, for our civilizations from the industrial revolution until now.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Foxy,

I have worked for both government and large corporations. I have heard many times people talking about government bureaucracy and private efficiency.

It is my observation that corporate bureaucracy is pretty much the same whether it is in a government department or a corporate department. In both cases people in management build empires, advance their cronies and put their private interests over that of the organisation. Their chief concern is not to advance the interest of the institution whether its interest is to make a profit in the case of the private corporation or to serve the public in the case of a government department. Where an individual or family owns a business the owners concern themselves with making a profit. However, most corporations have executives who may be primarily concerned with advancing their own interests.

Social insects such as the bees and ants are apparently solely concerned with the interests of the hive or nest. That is not true for humans.

In my opinion corporatisation is a great problem, and it is irrelevant whether the corporation is government or privately owned. In small business putting one’s need above the needs of the business has a fairly certain punishment since the business will go under. In a large corporation producing goods and services much of what could be profit go to the management drones. It is ridiculous that a corporation operating at a loss should give large bonuses or golden handshakes to CEOs. In the United States such bonuses have already rewarded executives whose contribution has been to get government money from the stimulus package to support an enterprise they have bankrupted.

I am amazed that socialism and corporate capitalism have worked as well as they have.

Dear Wobbles,

The structure of tribes varies widely. Marx created the myth that tribal societies live in primitive communism and that that is the natural state of humanity. He relied on the work of Lewis Henry Morgan (1818 – 1881), an American ethnologist, anthropologist and writer, who studied the Seneca. Marx made several glaring errors.

(continued)

(continued)

Marx extrapolated from Morgan’s study of the Senecas to assume all tribal people live the same way. They don’t. The Kwakiutls of British Columbia were a very acquisitive society with a well-defined class structures and a great disparity of wealth and power. There were slaves and very wealthy men. One of the features of the Kwakiutls is the potlatch festival where wealthy men would entertain other wealthy men and display their wealth. During the feasting blankets and canoes would be burned to show they had so much that there could destroy wealth. The recipient of the hospitality would then be obliged to entertain his host at a future date. This would require him to accumulate wealth for his display. The Senecas led in primitive communism, but the Kwakiutls were much more acquisitive and wasteful than our society. However, the Marxist myth prevails even among those who don’t follow him.

Another error is to assume that tribal societies live the way our ancestors did. Tribal societies have been on earth as long as we have and have developed customs and rituals that it is reasonable to assume are as different from their ancestors as ours are from our ancestors.

A third error extending beyond tribal conditions is to see history as an orderly procession of various well-defined stages.

I see Marxism as pseudo-Christianity. Original sin is the advent of private property. The myth of a Garden of Eden is primitive communism as exemplified by the Senecas. The battle between good and evil sees the exploiting classes as evil and the working classes as good. The second coming is the eventual triumph of communism, and the classless society represents the millennium. A quasi-supernatural figure in the form of Historical Necessity directs the process. One big difference is that the Christian commitment to violence in the form of the Crusades, countless massacres, the Wars of the Reformation, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and other obscenities is accompanied by protestations of love, and the Marxist commitment to violence is not accompanied by similar nonsense. The Marxists are more honest about their commitment to violence

pelican, antiseptic I agree with all your posts here.
I am in part a socialist, but the points made are the reason its only in part.
Let us not get carried away with the thought Labor is a socialist party, yes quote our party but look truly at us, we are not such a party.
Remember until recently we owned post office and telephone services much more.
The failure of capitalism, that is what it is, will not bring about a social Utopia, it may bring about a better more caring world.
A thousand times a thousand descriptions of socialism exist we may never get an answer to this thread but it is interesting.

pelican
I am very sorry,my deep apologies.
I provoked you hard, twice last weeks. I think that you are a Union or an ALP beaurocrat. I wanted to see your reaction, for me your ideas sound good enouph! SORRY!

david f,
You are a GOOD SURPRISE, a big surprise! I was sick from D.Tceny, Bush etc and last months with the big croocks, (CEOs).
It is good for us to have an American progresive person(WHAT A PROGRESIVE PERSON!).
I do not know, I can not put you to a special group of progresive people but sure you are very different from most of us, you seem very good!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide