Thanks Robred. I must confess that I come to these issues as a lapsed socialist myself but I changed my position because of a number of facts that I could not reconcile. One of these was my response to the question ‘what about the USSR and Stalin and the Gulags?’ For years I gave the classic response that this was not ‘real’ socialism and the revolution had been hijacked. The problem was that I was unable to cite anywhere that the ‘real’ socialism I had in mind had arisen and persisted. I had to confront the fact that the ‘real’ socialism I believed in was nothing more than a lot of romantic notions and a vague wish that people were nicer to each other.

Another factor in my conversion was the sorry tale of the British Labour Party over the last fifteen years. The standard ‘left’ response to this is that New Labour is an abandonment of socialism. However, many of the New Labour figures have impeccable socialist credentials. They include a whole bevy of trade unionists, former communists and erstwhile student radicals. They have also retained the full measure of scheming, backbiting, bitching, narrow mindedness, humourlessness, power hunger and authoritarianism that is characteristic of socialist groups everywhere. I remember enough of them from my university days to recognise the type. I find it hard to take seriously earnest young people hectoring me with socialist righteousness when I know they are the next generation of Straws, Hains, Jowells and Reids.

Socialism has long harboured clever dicks who see it as a means of getting into a position where they can tell the little people what to do, all for our own good of course. Orwell skewered this type in The Road to Wigan Pier. The bossy-boots tendency goes back to the Fabians in a current through Oswald Mosley (another Socialist who switched easily to Fascism) right up to the busy bodies and know alls of New Labour today. No-one cheered louder than me in 1997. No-one is more thoroughly disillusioned now.

This links to another issue which is the contradiction between socialism and my own personality. I am by nature an individualist. That’s not to say that I am selfish but I do like to control my own life as much as possible and not have things decided for me by some outside authority. Neither do I have the slightest desire to control anyone else. I tried for a while to reconcile this with my romantic attachment to socialism by thinking of myself as an individualist socialist. This is of course a contradiction in terms and I eventually had to accept it as utter nonsense. If all resources are to be held in common and be allocated according to a plan then the central planning authority would be compelled to interfere in people’s affairs to such an extent that private life would disappear. New Labour provides a grim foretaste of the kind of nannying, hectoring, interference and bullying that would ensue following such an extension of state power.

The fourth thing that changed my view was that I read a few heretical books, particularly those of JS Mill and FA Hayek. I found that although the arguments within were anathema to my romantic socialist notions I could find no counter argument to stand against them. They also seemed to fit the facts of history far better than any available socialist explanation.

Taken together these factors compelled me to abandon my romantic attachment to socialism and accept that this particular set of vague good intentions really does pave the road to hell. That is not to say that I do not still have the highest regard for many individual socialists or that socialist ideas may not be effective in some limited circumstances. I share your admiration for Tom Paine but whilst an internationalist he was certainly not a socialist. Paine’s philosophy emphasized individual liberty and a limited state which I suppose would make him a liberal. These are ideas I support.

I also share your admiration for Jaures but although he maintained his virtue in opposition he was never tested in power. As I pointed out previously, socialism has great slogans in opposition but the fine words disappear quickly whenever anyone tries to implement a socialist programme. It is also notable that socialist parties throughout Europe overwhelmingly swung behind the national war efforts in 1914. Many socialists played very active roles in their war economies, particularly in Germany and it was at this time that the idea of national socialism was born. Jean Jaures was a very rare exception.

Sorry to wander off topic and become a bit self absorbed but it would be useful for you to know the position I come from. I will look out for ‘Blind Eye to Murder’. You may even win me back to the cause!

I would venture Benbow, is that you have found yourself at at what is commonly known, as an intellectual crossroads.

I myself have had the privilege of reading "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists", by Robert Tressell, written in the Edwardian period, when historians, could argue, that the British Empire was at its Zenith. The 2nd to last chapter is probably the most powerful words ever written. As it suggests, that a socialist, once open to its ideas of equality, liberty, fraternity...can never walk away from those ideas. It becomes a fixture and fitting of a socialists intellectual and philosophical thought. You or any other person exposed to those ideas, can never run away from your own soul, because, thats the beauty of socialist thought. The belief in something better and higher than self-interest or established traditions.

I must confess, I laughed when you quoted "The Road to Wigan Pier"...As Orwell himself noted, socialism to the common working man, was simply better wages and a boss that would be off your back!
Orwell however noted, painfully, that the system as it stood was simply against the working person. He felt that, when he did a shift down a mine. How the bosses would not pay for the time it actually spent to get to the coal face, even though it would take a strong fit miner to get there in 4-5 hours, before they became productive.
As for JS Mill, his works on liberty and the rights of women, should be widely read, as he stood against Conservative convention. Indeed, he was no socialist, but how could he be, he was still a member of the ruling group. He was just adroit enough, to point out the changing nature of society. As for Hayek, who wrote "The Road to Serfdom"...He always described himself as a "whig"...not a Conservative. He was a radical, who identified the dynamism that existed in capitalism, and his fundamental criticism of socialism, was the lack of that economic dynamic. A salient point...But what he forgets, as most people do, is capitalism, has managed to assimilate socialist features, within its system, as to ensure preservation...I myself contend, why cannot socialism?
It is only natural, to be suspicious of the State...The State in its function, is not geared to the elevation or welfare of its citizens. The State is in the business of self-preservation. I would submit, that the State in 1945, was facing 6 million highly trained killers coming back from the war, it was compelled, for its own survival...To address the social, economic and cultural conditions of working people. Labour was elected and it implemented a programme, which in effect, saved the capitalist system. This was managed against a back-drop of bankruptcy and the loss of imperial possessions.

As for the Labour Party...I a member of the Party, but I am also a member of the Labour Movement. The political expression of that movement, is the political party. However, the Labour Movement consists of intellectual groupings, such as the Fabian Society..but also the Co-Operative Movement, even other political groupings like Militant, The Socialist Party, The Socialist Workers Party etc...This movement, is united with the purpose, of constructing a socialist programme. A programme, that I myself, would contend, is more relevant than ever...as we face ecological calamity.
The ideas of allocation, effective management and sharing resources, makes socialism, more relevant, than at any other time in human history. To honestly think, that we can consume, waste and discard at the rate western society does...is simply over.

As for Stalin...I actually believe, that the revolution took place in the wrong Country at the wrong time. Stalin's purges and murderous regime, demonstrated its opposition to the ideals of socialism. Stalin mistakenly believed that his "socialism in one Country" policy would hold sway...but Nazis aggression put paid to that idea. Communism is condemned to failure, because it negates traditions, it can never deliver equality...because it relys on uniformity. Human beings are individuals...not uniform.
Socialism, can however take the argument of the collective good, in which the individual can be elevated, through communal welfare, health and educational mechanisms. It can disregard the "survival of the fittest" notion.
Something incidentally, the Nazis most certainly adhered to.

As for Thomas Paine, I would venture, that he would be a critical member of the Labour Party. He was after all, a founding member of the Customs & Excise Trade Union, who was relieved of his position thanks to a strike he led, calling for better wages and conditions. Thomas Paine acknowleged free trade, but he also put out proposals that would be a springboard for the welfare state...child benefit, universal healthcare and a minimum penson, were ideas advocated by Thomas Paine in "The Rights of Man". He believed, albeit reluctantly...That the State had a duty to the welfare of its citizen. That places him, very much, in the socialist camp of political thought.

As for Jean Jaures..a hero. A Socialist hero of International dimension. One of the best orators of the French Labour Movement, and his forlorn attempt to prevent the calamity of 1914, should never be forgotten. As he knew what the war would be like...and it wasn't in the mould of..They'll be back by Christmas.

Jaures, would never be allowed near the levers of power, as he played a pivotal role, in defending Alfred Dreyfuss, who was imprisoned and became a useful scapegoat against Jews and the loss of the Franco-Prussian War 1870. Jaures had simply stated the truth...and when you hold the truth, you suffer the calamity that comes! Jaures did!

Socialism to me...Anyways...Is the pursuit of justice, equality and liberty. To be on the side of reform and elevation of working people, that can make life more tolerable than the injustices, prejudice and hatred spewed out by capitalism.