Is 'Socialism' still seen as a 'Dirty Word'?

Killer Pigeon

Hey all!

I've been getting the impression lately that 'socialism' is still seen as a 'dirty word' amoungst a lot of people I know. Every since the riots last week in Dublin, in which organisations like Eirigí Sinn Féin and the Socialist Workers Party were involved, I've noticed that the media has been painting the Left in a more or less negative light, spouting that 'left leaning' organisation were involved. I believe that Eirigí Sinn Féin and the Socialist Workers Party don't represent the collective opinion of the Left, especially in their millitant, 'direct action' policies.

So I just wanted to get that out their and see what people think about it.

Regards,

KP.

P.S., I don't want this to turn into a thread that directly specifically discusses the Riot last Wednesday.

ArtSmart

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Hey all!

I've been getting the impression lately that 'socialism' is still seen as a 'dirty word' amoungst a lot of people I know. Every since the riots last week in Dublin, in which organisations like Eirigí Sinn Féin and the Socialist Workers Party were involved, I've noticed that the media has been painting the Left in a more or less negative light, spouting that 'left leaning' organisation were involved. I believe that Eirigí Sinn Féin and the Socialist Workers Party don't represent the collective opinion of the Left, especially in their millitant, 'direct action' policies.

So I just wanted to get that out their and see what people think about it.

Regards,

KP.

P.S., I don't want this to turn into a thread that directly specifically discusses the Riot last Wednesday.

as regards media, depends which media.
rte did a extended piece on the news (9oclock i think) which was good to see.

As regards socialism...
those who see socialism as 'beards n bootboys' will continue to see it as such - it's an emotional thing, not much gonna change that.

those who see it in positive terms will grow fonder of it.

those who've been hit with batons may grow even fonder of it....
those who've been hit with batons may never want to protest again.

those who witnessed the baton action and hated socialism will say ' nice one, hit those middle class layabout twats, baby, oh yeah'.

those who see our current crisis will want to see a slash n burn policy against welfare etc
those who see our current crisis will adhere more fully to socialist ideals.


in short, little if any change.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Depends. Socialism means Social Democrat type politics to some and democratic socialist republic mass nationalisation and anti-capitalism to others.

Amhran Nua

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Depends. Socialism means Social Democrat type politics to some and democratic socialist republic mass nationalisation and anti-capitalism to others.

And that's on all sides, every person who calls themselves "socialist" has a different mental image of it. Socialism is not a dirty word, Ireland is a socialised Republic. Communism, the far left, the SWP and their buddies, now that's a different story. They have a nasty habit of latching onto any worthy cause and trying to take it over, or at least add some burble about the redistribution of wealth into it. Almost no good ideas or intentions originate within these groups, however.

medici

In the US it certainly seems to be a dirty word alright. In most Americans' lexicon of political phrasiology, the term seems to be joined at the hip with Communism, or rather, the idea of Communism.

Irishrossoblu

I think Socalism in a European context is not a bad word, it is a word that describes half the population of most European countries. It is represented well by genuine Socalist parties both in government and opposition.

In Ireland I feel that it has been hijacked by the SWSS and SF and the likes. In their context it has become a militant and dirty word, and I feel genuine socalists have and will suffer because of it. Its a shame really. I have voted for Socalist parties in Europe when I was resident there. I would never vote for them in Ireland.

Rebelheart

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Hey all!

I've been getting the impression lately that 'socialism' is still seen as a 'dirty word' amoungst a lot of people I know. Every since the riots last week in Dublin, in which organisations like Eirigí Sinn Féin and the Socialist Workers Party were involved, I've noticed that the media has been painting the Left in a more or less negative light, spouting that 'left leaning' organisation were involved. I believe that Eirigí Sinn Féin and the Socialist Workers Party don't represent the collective opinion of the Left, especially in their millitant, 'direct action' policies.

So I just wanted to get that out their and see what people think about it.

Regards,

KP.

P.S., I don't want this to turn into a thread that directly specifically discusses the Riot last Wednesday.

Well corporate socialism seems to be still the object of a mighty love-in fest from the erstwhile "capitalists" with their beloved financial institutions in particular being dependent upon socialism these days. Capitalism: such a success story it has become socialist!

Killer Pigeon

Irishrossoblu wrote: »

I think Socalism in a European context is not a bad word, it is a word that describes half the population of most European countries. It is represented well by genuine Socalist parties both in government and opposition.

In Ireland I feel that it has been hijacked by the SWSS and SF and the likes. In their context it has become a militant and dirty word, and I feel genuine socalists have and will suffer because of it. Its a shame really. I have voted for Socalist parties in Europe when I was resident there. I would never vote for them in Ireland.

You could always vote for labour ...

Bottle_of_Smoke

Irishrossoblu wrote: »

I think Socalism in a European context is not a bad word, it is a word that describes half the population of most European countries. It is represented well by genuine Socalist parties both in government and opposition.

In Ireland I feel that it has been hijacked by the SWSS and SF and the likes. In their context it has become a militant and dirty word, and I feel genuine socalists have and will suffer because of it. Its a shame really. I have voted for Socalist parties in Europe when I was resident there. I would never vote for them in Ireland.

I disagree. Whilst I'm a social democrat type myself if anything we have hijacked the word from the so called radical socialists who oppose capitalism fundamentally and want all the workers to get an equal share of profit. These Socialist parties in Europe you voted for how socialist were they? Labour/Sinn Fein socialist or Eirigi socialist?

Killer Pigeon

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I disagree. Whilst I'm a social democrat type myself if anything we have hijacked the word from the so called radical socialists who oppose capitalism fundamentally and want all the workers to get an equal share of profit. These Socialist parties in Europe you voted for how socialist were they? Labour/Sinn Fein socialist or Eirigi socialist?

Just to be sure, I know the Irish Labour Party commits itself to being 'democratic socialists' but is that really the case or are they following a path more familiar with 'social democracy'. The gap between 'social democracy' and 'democractic socialism' I recognise as the following;
the former believing that it is necessary to abolish capitalism (without revolution) and replace it with a socialist system through democratic parliamentary means and the latter believing that a capitalist system could be retained but needs to be dramatically reformed, such as the nationalisation of large businesses (or a mix between nationalised and private businesses), the implementation of socail programmes (free education, universal health care, etc..) and the partial redistribution of wealth through the permanent establishment of a welfare state based on progressive taxation.

LeixlipRed

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And that's on all sides, every person who calls themselves "socialist" has a different mental image of it. Socialism is not a dirty word, Ireland is a socialised Republic. Communism, the far left, the SWP and their buddies, now that's a different story. They have a nasty habit of latching onto any worthy cause and trying to take it over, or at least add some burble about the redistribution of wealth into it. Almost no good ideas or intentions originate within these groups, however.

"The challenge that we face is to build a country based on transparency and accountability, equality, growth and prosperity, peace and freedom, for our future and the future that we hand to our children and grandchildren."

When you stand for rubbish like this you can hardly dish out abuse to other political parties.

Socialism is a dirty word. I've been a socialist for a long time but I only recently joined the SWP and the backlash from some people has amazed me. I'm an intelligent, highly educated person and nothing in what I've seen from my fellow party members suggests that the want anything more than an egalitarian society. The difference between us and this chaps rubbish above is that we're actually out on the ground doing something about it. Direct action is probably the actual dirty word(s).

The Volt

I think it's a buzz word at this stage. I'd like to think myself a socialist. I'd also like to believe a socialist believes in democracy but that would be disputed by people further on the left than I am.

dlofnep

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Every since the riots last week in Dublin, in which organisations like Eirigí Sinn Féin and the Socialist Workers Party were involved

Where's your evidence that Sinn Féin were involved in the riots in Dublin?

Irishrossoblu

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I disagree. Whilst I'm a social democrat type myself if anything we have hijacked the word from the so called radical socialists who oppose capitalism fundamentally and want all the workers to get an equal share of profit. These Socialist parties in Europe you voted for how socialist were they? Labour/Sinn Fein socialist or Eirigi socialist?

They were more Labour socialist than Sinn Fein/Eirigi socalist. They were the Italian left, Prodi and the likes. Either way the only party in Italy that acted like the SWSS/SF/Eirigi were the Anarchists/Black Block.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Irishrossoblu wrote: »

They were more Labour socialist than Sinn Fein/Eirigi socalist. They were the Italian left, Prodi and the likes. Either way the only party in Italy that acted like the SWSS/SF/Eirigi were the Anarchists/Black Block.

Well to be honest Eirigi actually are socialists. Sinn Fein are a hell of a lot closer to Labour than Eirigi, which is probably the main reason Eirigi exist.

Labour and Sinn Fein would be social democrats. The Italian left are the same. Its the political line I would take myself and wouldn't describe myself as a socialist. Though I can see the merits of socialism, I don't think it is currently feasible.

Irishrossoblu

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Labour and Sinn Fein would be social democrats. The Italian left are the same. Its the political line I would take myself and wouldn't describe myself as a socialist. Though I can see the merits of socialism, I don't think it is currently feasible.

Yeah you are probably right. I suppose I just wouldnt put SF and the Italian left together, seeing as the latter were never involved in terrorism!

KeithAFC

Don't think its a dirty word. Im not a socialist.

gandalf

No I don't think the word socialist is dirty. I think some groups aligning themselves as socialist such as Eirigi and the SWP are tainting the word with their hijacking of legitimate protests recently.

But the worst smear for the word socialist was Bertie "Absent" Ahern declaring that he was a socialist!

biko

It just took over as the next best thing after communism failed.
Next will be liberalism.

Killer Pigeon

dlofnep wrote: »

Where's your evidence that Sinn Féin were involved in the riots in Dublin?

Eirigí Sinn Féin flags and 32 sovereignty flags are clearly visible in the riot videos. I don't think the riot was supported by the main party though. Any, I didn't create this thread to discuss the riot in detail like so many other threads here on boards.

irishh_bob

gandalf wrote: »

No I don't think the word socialist is dirty. I think some groups aligning themselves as socialist such as Eirigi and the SWP are tainting the word with their hijacking of legitimate protests recently.

But the worst smear for the word socialist was Bertie "Absent" Ahern declaring that he was a socialist!

the bert was anything the electorate wanted him to be so the man was technically ( albeit perhaps temporarily ) correct

kev9100

It depends on what type of socialism you are talking about. So long as the SWP and the like hiack every good cause their type of socialism will always be viewed negatively.

yermanoffthetv

Its a very broad question your asking OP. There are what would traditionally be seen as socialist provisions that are appealing to many people like unemployment protection healthcare etc but these dont necessarily have to be government provided. Another problem is that the waters get muddied with nationalist beliefs like Eirigi have so its not strictly a left-right argument (see the Nolan chart)




So to answer your qustion OP: it depends....and now ive made your question even more confusing waaaay!:cool:

Overheal

Eng US: Socialism - a political ideology that wants to take your money, your job and your 2nd car and give it to Jose the latino abortion clinic specialist.

bmaxi

Jesus, theoretically, was a socialist, so by extension, all Christians should be socialist. The concept of socialism is admirable but the word has become associated with the excesses of trade unionism and the loony left
Eirigí and SWP, IMO, are anarchists not socialists.
True socialism is about the fair distribution of resources, not something for nothing. It is not about condeming your neighbour to be without light, heat or water so you can have the second car or sun holiday.
Unfortunately, just like many other worthy aspirations, it is much easier in the theory than the practice.

FTA69

Eirigí and SWP, IMO, are anarchists not socialists.

No they aren't. You haven't a clue to be blunt.

bmaxi

FTA69 wrote: »

No they aren't. You haven't a clue to be blunt.

OK then, just because you say so. :rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

bmaxi wrote: »

OK then, just because you say so. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you could provide reasoning as to why they're anarchists? How exactly do you define anarchists and socialists?

FTA69

bmaxi wrote: »

OK then, just because you say so. :rolleyes:

Éirigi are a Republican Socialist group, the SWP are Trotskyist Marxists; neither of those ideologies have anything to do with political anarchism which is a different political perspective altogether.

bmaxi

FTA69 wrote: »

Éirigi are a Republican Socialist group, the SWP are Trotskyist Marxists; neither of those ideologies have anything to do with political anarchism which is a different political perspective altogether.

Absolutely. Perhaps you'd care to explain their ideologies though, for those of us of limited intellect who might consider their behaviour anarchic.
I mean, if a crowd behaved the same way at a football match, they'd just be a rabble because there wouldn't be a political motive, right?
That's OK though, I'm quite prepared to admit I was wrong and term Eirigí and SWP, rabble, instead of anarchists, if that makes you happy.
It'll take a bit of a stretch of the imagination though, to associate them with socialism.

goose2005

bmaxi wrote: »

Jesus, theoretically, was a socialist, so by extension, all Christians should be socialist. The concept of socialism is admirable but the word has become associated with the excesses of trade unionism and the loony left
Eirigí and SWP, IMO, are anarchists not socialists.
True socialism is about the fair distribution of resources, not something for nothing. It is not about condeming your neighbour to be without light, heat or water so you can have the second car or sun holiday.
Unfortunately, just like many other worthy aspirations, it is much easier in the theory than the practice.

No, socialism is public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. There is such a thing as anarchist socialism, but Eirigi and the SWP aren't really anarchist.

bmaxi wrote: »

Absolutely. Perhaps you'd care to explain their ideologies though, for those of us of limited intellect who might consider their behaviour anarchic.
I mean, if a crowd behaved the same way at a football match, they'd just be a rabble because there wouldn't be a political motive, right?
That's OK though, I'm quite prepared to admit I was wrong and term Eirigí and SWP, rabble, instead of anarchists, if that makes you happy.
It'll take a bit of a stretch of the imagination though, to associate them with socialism.

Anarchism means a stateless society without authorities. And if a crowd at a football match shouted, sat down and threw a few bottles I doubt the guards would bring out batons and attack dogs.

FTA69

Perhaps you'd care to explain their ideologies though, for those of us of limited intellect who might consider their behaviour anarchic

I said nothing about your intellect, I just said that you obviously don't really know what either socialism or political anarchism are; a fact that's becoming plainer with every post you make.

As goose said, socialism is a political and economic philosophy which put simply would entail the means of production being in the hands of the working class; there largely being two classes, the boss class which owns those means and profits from them and the proletariat who sell their labour to a given boss.

Social democracy á la Labour or Sinn Féin is basically capitalism although a regulated version of it which makes it a bit fairer and provides a strong welfare state for the average citizen.

Anarchism is a political philosophy in itself which is again concerned with class conflict and the empowerment of workers but which also sees the state as an inherently repressive organ etc etc etc; you can research the rest yourself if you're bothered.

Éirigi and the SWP are socialists in the sense that socialism is their key ideology, the same way Fianna Fáil are capitalists in the sense they believe in capitalism.

It isn't rocket science like.

irishh_bob

bmaxi wrote: »

Jesus, theoretically, was a socialist, so by extension, all Christians should be socialist. The concept of socialism is admirable but the word has become associated with the excesses of trade unionism and the loony left
Eirigí and SWP, IMO, are anarchists not socialists.
True socialism is about the fair distribution of resources, not something for nothing. It is not about condeming your neighbour to be without light, heat or water so you can have the second car or sun holiday.
Unfortunately, just like many other worthy aspirations, it is much easier in the theory than the practice.

the jesus i was taught about when growing up ( in school books and in church ) was most definatley a socilist , he railed against the wealthy , the powerfulll and called on the rich to give away all their money , on the other hand ,the jesus that people in the southern states of america believe in is a republican voting , pro gun ownership , fox news lovin , anti big goverment free marketeer

as someone once said , god is created in the immage of man

people choose to believe what suits their own agenda

sponsoredwalk

medici wrote: »

In the US it certainly seems to be a dirty word alright. In most Americans' lexicon of political phrasiology, the term seems to be joined at the hip with Communism, or rather, the idea of Communism.

You gotta love the irony in that those who profess the loudest to being
red blooded staunch anti-communists also profess a deep seeded
belief in the Christian values that their country was founded on.
It gets funnier when you realise Jesus was practically a communist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
or a socialist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism
:pac:

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Communism, the far left, the SWP and their buddies, now that's a different story. They have a nasty habit of latching onto any worthy cause and trying to take it over, or at least add some burble about the redistribution of wealth into it. Almost no good ideas or intentions originate within these groups, however.

Just like the last thread we had an argument in about the SWP you again
have to dish out insults with no evidence. Will your example here be as
vacuous as last time - claiming entryism because one guy in your
regional party started speaking like a commie? Oh no, wait, I forgot
about your proof that they mandated official orders to increase the
attack on the seat of democracy :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwZl2Hyw-sk

scr123

Capitalism is man exploiting man. Socialism is vice versa

dlofnep

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Eirigí Sinn Féin flags and 32 sovereignty flags are clearly visible in the riot videos. I don't think the riot was supported by the main party though. Any, I didn't create this thread to discuss the riot in detail like so many other threads here on boards.

What is "Éirígí Sinn Féín"?

Show me evidence of Sinn Féin activists in the riot, or retract your statement. thank you.

sensibleken

Crevice is a dirty word!

sponsoredwalk

Evidence is a dirty word! :P

sensibleken

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Evidence is a dirty word! :P

so is plop!

Killer Pigeon

dlofnep wrote: »

What is "Éirígí Sinn Féín"?

Show me evidence of Sinn Féin activists in the riot, or retract your statement. thank you.

Well, it's well known that many young hooligans that are associated with sinn féin have seperate association with Éirigí - so why not just call it Sinn Féin Eirigí. While Sinn Féin say that they are not Eirigí is just Sinn Féin in disguise.

dolphin city

I think capitalism is the dirty word here.

wasn't it marx that said ' capitalism sows the seed of its own destruction"

well, we all have front row seats for this, now don't we.

sit back and enjoy. the revolution will be repeating itself any day now.

dlofnep

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well, it's well known that many young hooligans that are associated with sinn féin have seperate association with Éirigí - so why not just call it Sinn Féin Eirigí. While Sinn Féin say that they are not Eirigí is just Sinn Féin in disguise.

Sweet holy mother of god. Do you arbitrarily post ignorant statements like that? Éirígí has nothing to do with Sinn Féin, and Sinn Féin activists are not associated with Éirígí.

You've clearly demonstrated to lack even the most basic knowledge on who Éirígí is, or why they exist. Try again.

smiles302

FTA69 wrote: »

I said nothing about your intellect, I just said that you obviously don't really know what either socialism or political anarchism are; a fact that's becoming plainer with every post you make.

As goose said, socialism is a political and economic philosophy which put simply would entail the means of production being in the hands of the working class; there largely being two classes, the boss class which owns those means and profits from them and the proletariat who sell their labour to a given boss.

It isn't rocket science like.

The bit in bold I've never completely followed. Does that mean everyone has shares in the company?/Or everything is owned and run by the government?

I can't figure out how socialism would work in practice...

sensibleken

smiles302 wrote: »

The bit in bold I've never completely followed. Does that mean everyone has shares in the company?/Or everything is owned and run by the government?

I can't figure out how socialism would work in practice...

Its not neccesarily like that. I think a lot of socialist follow this too strigently.

The thing is that there marx was writting at a time when this certainly existed. This border between the working and boss classes has been obscured to the point of non-existance.

I regard socialism as an attempt to create, not neccesarily a level playing field, but making sure all the runners start at level starting blocks.

Policies to bring this about revolve around equal access to education, health, utilities etc. expensive? yes. worth it? yes. Cheaper than picking up the tab for run away capitalism? f*ck yes!

It does not neccesarily need to be either the government owning everything or employees having shares in a company or even soviets. Its about employers not having the ability to be tyrants. after all a boss has more power over your life than your elected representative.