Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So clause 4 goes further than I thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV

But there are several positions here:

a) The actual behaviour of the UK Labour in most of the second half of the 20th century. i.e. Essential services nationalised, state players in strategic industries, and private enterprise for the rest. Wanting to nationalise the corner shop would be an extreme position.

b) The stated goals of clause 4.

c) State ownwership of all businesses. To see how this is different from b, I refer you to the abovelinked article.

d) removing "the freedom for individuals to own property" (your phrase). I have lots of property that isn't corporations. I'm sure you do too. People own houses, cars, laptops, clothes, teaspoons, etc.

to conflate b with d as you have done is a cartoonish strawman.




Socialism is just a path to Communism.


No it is not, and it is "extremely right-wing" to believe that. It's more moderate to believe that things are what they are, not what some scaremonger tells you they are going to turn into some day.

It may be true that the path to communism first goes to socialism. But ... so does the path to socialism. Democratic countries can and do become more and less socialistic over time, in effect debating how socialistic they want to be at the polling booth. They don't turn into communist dictatorships.

Do you for instance, believe that equality of marriage, allowing gay people to marry each other, will lead inevitably to marriages involving three people and a horse? Would you argue against equality of marriage on that basis? It's the same kind of illogic.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: