Sure I understand what you are saying but the probem is people in the main tend to identify socialism "with the two arseholes at the end"; realtively few are aware of the Marxian/SPGB defintjion of socialis. The whole pointt of the exercise is to highlight the huge gulf between these different versions of (pseudo)"socialism" and the real thing by encouraging people to see it for themselves with a question like "which do you think is the more accurate descriotion of socialism"
That still doesn't resolve anything. They may well agree that our defintion of socialism is the more accurate, but that doesn't mean they approve of it.
Sure I understand what you are saying but the probem is people in the main tend to identify socialism "with the two arseholes at the end"; realtively few are aware of the Marxian/SPGB defintjion of socialis. The whole pointt of the exercise is to highlight the huge gulf between these different versions of (pseudo)"socialism" and the real thing by encouraging people to see it for themselves with a question like "which do you think is the more accurate descriotion of socialism"
That still doesn't resolve anything. They may well agree that our defintion of socialism is the more accurate, but that doesn't mean they approve of it.
Thats true but the point of the exercise is surely to bring to their attention that another – actually the orginal classical – defintion exist in the first place that is totally at variance with what they might understand by "socialism". You cant get them to approve what we mean by socialism unless they know about it in the first place. Most workers dont unfortunately
You cant get them to approve what we mean by socialism unless they know about it in the first place. Most workers dont unfortunately
Which is where we come in of course – we have to redouble our efforts. It doesn't appear that capitalism, simply left to its own devices, will necessarily produce its own gravediggers.