My name is Martin Wisse and I'm a card carrying socialist, being a member of the Dutch Socialist Party. I became a member in late 2001, because I had become so frustrated with what was happening in the world and in Holland: the march of neoglobalism, the curtailing of civil liberties in the wake of september 11, the socalled "War against Terror" and the SP was the only national party to actively take a stance aginst these developments. In particular, they were the only party to oppose the "war against terror" and the havoc it wrought in Afghanistan from the start.
Below is my definition of what socialism means to me. It's neither a complete nor an offical definition of socialism, but rather a quick sketch of what I think are the salient characteristics of socialism. I came to socialism from a practical, not a theoretical point of view, more from the heart than from the head. Socialism as a framework to help me guide my actions. I don't believe in it as scientific theory, as classical Marxism would have it.
In general, I believe in socialism as sketched above as the best way to safeguard everybody's freedoms and rights, the best way to built a decent society, with all aspects mentioned above necessary to built this society.
I reject any and all claims of being socialist by groups which are not based on the principles I outlined above, especially those groups who believe in a vanguard of elite revolutionaries (usually themselves) leading the poor, huddled masses out of their slavery. We can do it ourselves, thank you very much.The Communist Manifesto, the call to arms by Marx and Engels was first written in 1848, but is still relevant. It succintly describes what communism/socialism is and what its aims are.
A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
The Two Souls of Socialism is an article written by Hal Draper on the ongoing struggle in socialism between those who would create a socialist society by handing it down from on high and those who want to arrive at a socialist society from the bottom up, by the actions of the common people. It's the struggle between what Draper calls Socialism-from-Above and Socialism-from-Below and I call top-down and bottom-up socialism:
Back to the roots: the following pages propose to investigate the meaning of socialism historically, in a new way. There have always been different "kinds of socialism," and they have customarily been divided into reformist or revolutionary, peaceful or violent, democratic or authoritarian, etc. These divisions exist, but the underlying division is something else. Throughout the history of socialist movements and ideas, the fundamental divide is between Socialism-from-Above and Socialism-from-Below.
What unites the many different forms of Socialism-from-Above is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control in fact. The heart of Socialism-from-Below is its view that socialism can be realized only through the self-emancipation of activized masses in motion, reaching out for freedom with their own hands, mobilized "from below" in a struggle to take charge of their own destiny, as actors (not merely subjects) on the stage of history. "The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves": this is the first sentence in the Rules written for the First International by Marx, and this is the First Principle of his lifework.
It is the conception of Socialism-from-Above which accounts for the acceptance of Communist dictatorship as a form of "socialism." It is the conception of Socialism-from-Above which concentrates social-democratic attention on the parliamentary superstructure of society and on the manipulation of the "commanding heights" of the economy, and which makes them hostile to mass action from below. It is Socialism-from-Above which is the dominant tradition in the development of socialism.
Politics and the English Language is a justly famous Essay by George Orwell. It's a dramatic appeal for the use of clear language and should be read by anybody involved in politics, or writing about politics.
This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose-construction is habitually dodged.
[...]
As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier - even quicker, once you have the habit - to say In my opinion it is a not unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences, since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious.
When you are composing in a hurry - when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech - it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump. By using stale metaphors, similes and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors.