Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I'm interested. What does socialism mean? Can you go to an anti g-20 protest wearing leather shoes and clothes you bought from the highstreet?
(guess who had a minor identity crisis this week)
then obviously everyone should be drinking champagne whenever they feel like it
The equal distribution of wealth thing anyway
I so wondered this about you once, saying you're a socialist and all. I think you told me that in the same breath in which you said you liked the idea of fraternities (which were founded on class and exclusion, no?). Haha.
I will give my proper answer below, maybe.
I wrote a very confused/confusing blog post saying as such.
I just don't think I'm entirely comfortable with what I am today, but nor am I comfortable with giving up many of these things. Which in the current constrains of this system, I am perfectly entitled to.
Are you saying that only the people who buy and consume can force the change?
I guess that's what I'm driving at. I don't believe that a revolution is needed, in the classical sense. Overhaul and overthrow is profoundly wasteful and counter productive, if history's taught us anything. I just want to somehow force a change within certain institutions and organisations. Which sounds really horrendous and thirdwayish.
and 'saving the world'/'helping the needy'. Surely an ideal world would combine the two?
who are entitled to certain things, rather than abolishing those things altogether. that would be stupid
this means basically all clothes, records and foods which are within my capacity to buy and afford right now. This is why I say we're doomed.
then yes, I am. I'm nothing more than a consumer. I have no power over anyone at any of these companies other than the power of the pounds in my pocket.
But honestly, I logically can't. This is depressing me.
fighting the system (or wahtever) by exactly the same ideals
anyway. you could always start by buying fair trade stuff.
Fair trade's slightly expensive, no? Personally, I'd love to be more responsible in my purchases, but I'm scraping by as it is. It's literally impossible for me to budget for definitively alright items in most cases. It's kind of shuffle a little and hope for the best at the moment.
my point still stands.
I don't want to go into the reasoning behind this here. But it's not exactly the perfect solution and can actually end up making the situation far worse. It has some terrible side effects as well.
go into it here and tell us about the side effects.
surely it's pretty essential socialism that you need to get organised etc in order to achieve stuff? am i way off here? so saying that you want to stick to socialist thoughts or ideals and achieve stuff and change etc but not do anything like team up with others is a bit contradictory?
But idk, something like that maybe. I can't really think right now. I'll read your blog post at some point.
if they were available to everyone they wouldn't be luxuries. Superior good et al.
Are you a bonafide socialist? What even are you defining yourself as here? Devil's advocate?
I'm just curious.
I'm not a socialist, no. I have some socialist leanings, but I'm more moderate. Praticality matters. Maybe I could be some sort of longview socialist, but I don't really know. I don't consider myself even well-educated enough for hard stances all around.
...as the merc car beams triumphantly on the driveway.....then the socialists can have their champers
I don't believe that the undeserving and those who don't strive to achieve and make the world a better place yadder yadder should get anything at all.
there wern't an ounce of actual thought in that post.......
HAHA GET ME I'M SO LITERAL MINDED
Certainly my understanding of it, and what I mean when I describe myself as a democratic socialist is that I believe as a society we have a duty to ensure that wealth is fairly (not necessarily equally) distributed amongst society and that we have a basic duty to provide for the weakest of society and ensure everybody has a basic right to a living wage, a home etc. It also means (to me at least) a commitment and willingness to pay tax in order to create a better social welfare, education, hospital etc. and a belief that a situation with higher taxes and better public services is preferable to a situation with lower taxes and worst public services. I also think it means a rejection of private healthcare, education etc. on the basis that healthcare and education are basic human rights and everyone has a right to the same standard of healthcare and education, rather than a situation where ability to pay determines the equality of healthcare of education you receive.
It's not the same as Communism and, as I say, doesn't necessarily mean equal distribution. I've no problem with the director of a company getting paid far more than I do, for example, but I do think that has to be proportionate and the situation where the director gets 100 times more than the lowest paid in the company is inherently wrong.
Going back to the original question I don't think it is necessarily a contradiction to drink champagne and be a socialist. I think its a contradiction to be wealthy, not contribute to society and be a socialist and I think it is a contradiction to hang out with the rich and privileged and take advantage of how rich and privileged they (or you) are and be a socialist (which is where the term champagne socialism comes from) but drinking champagne in itself (assuming you worked fairly to afford it and paid taxes on your wage, taxes for the alcohol etc.) would not contradict Socialism.
when you're using your own wealth to buy you things most people can't afford.
Of course these days it's harder to make those distinctions, given we live in a time where the cost to feed a family of four for a week would probably buy you a decent TV or a computer.
20-30 years ago those things weren't remotely comparable.