@CannyMind Said
"Socialism does not always mean what you state it does."
I have
never said it does!
Yes "socialism" means many different things to many different people: That is precisely why I suggested you find a
good dictionary.
If we all used words to mean only what we ourselves defined them as, political discourse would quickly become untenable.
The Fabian "socialism" (small s.) advocated by the labour party has done little enough to advance the cause of true liberty and equality, let alone worker or trade union rights.
Perhaps you are too young to remember "the winter of discontent" when the then ruling "Labour" party hammered the unions and workers.
But Blair's government was an exercise in hypocrisy and cant, and passed many, many, anti-union and anti-civil liberties acts, as well as dragged this country into a totally unjustifiable war at the behest of Bush and the USA's ruling elite.
(At least I could respect Tories like Rifkind and Whitelaw, as they truly believed in the "justice" of their cause.)
(I have no "membership card" and need no leaders!
"Don't you know that the emancipation of the proletariat must be carried out by the proletariat themselves!" )
Then what was the point in giving a specific dictionary defined meaning of the term then?
Labour are a democratic socialist party, on that we are agreed?