Definitely, but that begs the question...

Is it possible to truly be a socialist?

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

Yes.

The true source of socialism is not intellectual discourse; it's actually caring about people. If you don't care about those people immediately around you, how can you care about the world?


Billy Bragg describes Antonio Gramsci as the Smokey Robinson of Marxism, I think he's right.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Again, yes.

That said, Malcolm, I am that curious variation, the socialist misanthrope.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

No you're not. All Scots think they're misanthropes. They're just giving in to the John Laurie gene.

They don't exist. "Socialist misanthrope" is an oxymoron. I don't think it's possible for a misanthrope to be a socialist. Sure I despair of humanity sometimes eg when I read comments on Mailonline or hear the pronouncements of the Tories, even more so the far-right, but for me, socialism is essentially optimistic. I travel in hope, sometimes flying in the face of the evidence, but I see no reason to give up.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

From the view of seeing the equal worth of all people only?

To be frank I don't, or at least don't aim to, unjustifiably discriminate against any group and I am certainly no socialist. I do discriminate against those who refuse to take responsibility for their behavior.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Sadly, socialist politics and activism have long been dominated by white western men who've often been painfully slow to embrace others. Well into the 1970s, male socialist thinkers and activists were dismissing the gay and women's liberation movements as distractions from the main business of the class struggle. Homophobia in the trade unions was endemic (although it was also through the trade unions that workplace discrimination against gay people was contested). Western socialists still support policies that exacerbate inequalities between developed and developing countries.

As I understand it, socialists recognise that social conflict is caused by inequality. The goal of eliminating inequality can't be achieved without targeting and, to some degree, disempowering the people who benefit from it. These people may get upset; many will react in defence of their privileges. Because they have power and status, they have many methods at their disposal. They don't tend to worry too much about, for instance, stigmatising minorities, stirring up nationalist sentiment, financing reactionary movements or, when necessary, flexing their muscles to retaliate against protesters, discredit campaigners and bully critics. They can easily find people to justify their actions, usually in the name of liberty, security, or maintaining the current order. I'm not frightened of challenging people who benefit from that order to examine their own place in it, and inviting them to see how they are part of the problem. That may be uncomfortable or upsetting. So be it. Until it has happened, I doubt that they — we; I include myself in this — can contribute anything useful to the campaign against inequality, however lofty our principles.

In that case I apologise.

Yeah, I want to retract my last sentence. That's just angry undergraduate shite.

Also didn't mean it to be a reply to you, Malcolm. From what I gather, you've done more to help kids and reshape institutions than I'll ever do in my life.

I still don't agree with the 'socialism covers all the other -isms' argument though. I mean, that might be the case one day, but while we're waiting for the glorious dawn, we need to address conflicts within society that are not based on random individual factors or purely on wealth and class, but may relate to structural inequalities based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc. I'm not convinced that socialism has an answer for this: let's all be nice to each other is fine, and in a world without structural conflict it would be enough, but I don't see how it helps rape victims to press charges or forces the Mail to stop printing stories about Asian sex gangs.

Socialism isn't about being nice to people. It's about making sure that people are treated equally and well, that their legitimate needs are met and their ambitions and potential, wherever feasible, fulfilled. It's about ensuring that the state is competent and affluent enough to meet people's needs and aspirations. It's about making sure that the whispers of the weak are heard as much as the shouts of the strong in the places of power and decision making. It's about the goods of society and their distribution in a fair and open manner. It's about solidarity.

It's an idealistic position, but I would back it against a cynical one any day. I may never see it in my lifetime, but some future citizens may if I and others hold it as our beacon. If we don't they certainly won't.

Well said Malcolm.

Ezinra - I'd just like to ask, whatever socialism's shortcomings, and I'm not denying them, how many the of moves towards social equality of the past 100+ years would have occurred without it?

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Better to try and fail....

Sound words for a first post Awayman and welcome.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...