Discussion History UsefulNotes / PoliticalIdeologies

You all keep using legionairre to refer to a roman legionary, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionary it doesn\\\'t]]
*\\\'\\\'\\\"Legionary is also a term used for members of other legions, like French Foreign Legion, Spanish Foreign Legion or Polish Legions. Members of these modern legions are often called légionnaires, the French term for legionary.\\\"\\\'\\\'

[[CaptainObvious There was no french term for a roman legionary]]

You all keep using legionairre to refer to a roman legionary. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionary it doesn\\\'t]]
*\\\'\\\'\\\"Legionary is also a term used for members of other legions, like French Foreign Legion, Spanish Foreign Legion or Polish Legions. Members of these modern legions are often called légionnaires, the French term for legionary.\\\"\\\'\\\'

[[CaptainObvious There was no french term for a roman legionary]]

You all keep using legionairre to refer to a roman legionary. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionary it doesn\\\'t]] \\\'\\\'\\\"Legionary is also a term used for members of other legions, like French Foreign Legion, Spanish Foreign Legion or Polish Legions. Members of these modern legions are often called légionnaires, the French term for legionary.\\\"\\\'\\\'

[[CaptainObvious There was no french term for a roman legionary]]

You all keep using legionairre to refer to a roman legionary. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionary it doesn\\\'t]] \\\"Legionary is also a term used for members of other legions, like French Foreign Legion, Spanish Foreign Legion or Polish Legions. Members of these modern legions are often called légionnaires, the French term for legionary.\\\"

[[CaptainObvious There was no french term for a roman legionary]]

1. \\\"socialism\\\'s primary value is a society where all people are economically equal\\\"

Well, no. Market socialists would disagree *vehemently* here, as would most Orthodox Marxists. Even in the framework of Marxism-Leninism, socialism is supposed to represent a more rigorously meritocratic system than does capitalism -- broadly, what you get is supposed to be proportional to the hours you work. Economic equity does not follow from this, at least if the unions are strong enough to haggle for leeway in control over hours. Which they are supposed to.

A better definition of socialism\\\'s primary goal would be a broader one of class empowerment. I don\\\'t see class mentioned explicitly anywhere here, and it is absolutely fundamental to most (most!) prevalent form of self-professed socialism. Certainly the closest thing to a universal.

So, as a sketch for a better intro, you\\\'re probably looking at \\\'Socialism = go workers, go!\\\' In Orthodox Marxism and similar, those workers are specifically revolutionized industrial workers; in Maoism, revolutionized peasants; Social Democracy, (more on this later) reform-oriented politicians acting on the behalf of the working class in generall.

2. \\\"The most well-known form of socialism is Marxism-Leninism...\\\"

[[BigNo No.]] In Europe and India at least (I can\\\'t vouch for South America. Sure, Che is big, but they were never actually red, and most recent governance has either social democratic or centrist) the overwhelming amount of the time the form most associated with the word socialism is Social Democracy, a tendency which parted ways with Communist Santa about 100 years back, before the Russian revolution and all that.

Basic precept here is to try and introduce reforms that favour the working class (NB: something of a broader label outside the US) through the existing political structure, without overthrowing the bourgeoisie or even without having \\\"economic equality\\\" as a long term goal. The three biggest exemplars of this tendency off the top of my head will be:

*Labour Party (UK) -- on-and-off ruling party of HM\\\'s United Kingdom for the last 90 years or so, recently kicked out of governance again. Social democratic, but with it\\\'s own internal splits. The last Marxist hangers-on, known then as the Militant Tendency and now as [[FunWithAcronyms SPE&W]], were ejected from the party in the 1980s. Never a Lenin fanclub.

*Dirigisme -- French economic system that stretched from the end of WWII to roughly the late sixties. Not explicitly socialist, but coupled social democratic ruling parties with strong trade unions for a period known through nostalgia-goggles as the Trente Glorieuses.

*INC -- Indian National Congress. Constitutionally democratic socialist/social democratic and currently India\\\'s largest party in parliament. This is a big deal, India being a big place.

At the mo, this section seems overly Americentric, and fails to adequately distinguish socialism from communism for someone new to the ideas, IMO. Which is sort of the entire point of this section. Not to push NPOV (this isnt Wiki), but to summarise my suggestions:

**Socialism isn\\\'t about equality per se, more about improving the lot of the working classes.

**Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy has been massively more influential in Western & Northern Europe, Asia and (at present) South America than has M-L. Neither current has ever had much traction in the continental US in the last century, which might be the source of the confusion.

Hope this was helpful. British socialist here. :)

(EDIT: grammar fix. Original troper here.)