Talk:History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Wrote Article" is by me, but my f****** computor logged me off. 16:45, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think this is weighted too much towards the Labour Party as it stands. I think we either needs to rename it to 'democratic socialism' or add non-parliamentary groups as well. What do you think? Secretlondon 17:18, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

I thought that, too, when I first saw it. Perhaps some of the content should be moved to the Labour Party entry (if it's not already there)? Andy Mabbett 12:10, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Like what? The CPGB? Sorry they and similer groups are *not* part of the British Socialist tradition.

The trots in the SWP/SA? Same applies.

The syndicalists in the SLP? ditto.

This article is about British Socialism and it's very unusual development and history.

I do intend to add more on the Unions and also the Jarrow Crusade. I hope to get that done in the next few days.

Regards

19:41, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And they are Socialists and British. Even if you are going to be dismissive of them (which would violate neutral point of view policy), then you should at least mention them in that article rather than just omitting them. I find it quite remarkable you managed to write a history of it without mentioning either them, or even Labour's links to the far left, Tony Benn, the fact that Karl Marx did most of his writing here, the Chartists, etc, etc... I think you will find there is more to socialism than Tony Blair. Morwen 19:45, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to move this page to History of the British Left and that could include the non Labour left as well. G-Man 13:16, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I believe that socialism includes the non-labour left, if moving the page provides clarity then we should move it. Secretlondon 14:00, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

May I second that, the "Far-Left" are a strain (if not perhaps a very influential one) of British socialism. The should at least get some sort of mention.

Let us not forget that the CPGB was the only Far-left wing party in Britain to have ever had MP's elected to parliament. And that Millitant was a strong power in local government in the 1970s-80s G-Man 20:10, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I do intend to mention the chartists, and do more on the Unions and the Jarrow Crusade.

I want to make a few things clear:

1)Although Marx did his writing over here, his influence over British Socialism was minimal. True his economic analysis of labour *was* highly thought of he was(and is) regarded by the bulk of the British Socialist movement as an economist. This article is not about economics.

Keir Hardie prevented the Marxists from having influence and thus it has stayed.

2)Tony Benn was a pathetic failure, who only suceeded in severly weaking the Labour Party. I'll mention that if you like.

3)The CPGB are not part of the British Socialist tradition and have no place in this article. You can write a History of British Communism if you like.

4)Ditto with the Trots in Militant/SWP/SA. You can write an article on the History of British Trotskyism if you like.

I think you are wrong, of course. But I am not going to be able to persuade you of that. Instead I will point out that it certainly is a matter of debate, therefore it would be biased and your point of view to just ignore our criticisms and say "you are wrong, i am right". The article has to be written neutrally - and right now it's not - to me it looks like it's written from the point of view of a centrist tony blair supporter who doesn't think communists count as socialists, and doesn't understand the distinction between worker control of industry and state ownership of industry. Before pruning it even came across as rather triumphalist. I hope you weren't planning to put in "Tony Benn was a pathetic failure" in the article. Morwen 09:54, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

You need to remember that articles need to be written with a neutral point of view. No-one wants to get into an edit war about this. I understand that you believe very strongly that the history of British socialism = the history of the Labour Party but this is not uncontroversial. The spirit of wikipedia is to be co-operative. I'm sure as a fellow socialist you understand that. Secretlondon 10:02, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

---

As a postthought perhaps you haven't read the NPOV policy document and I am being too harsh. I suggest you take a look at it and digest. Morwen 10:05, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have.

I'm not being biased over this.

13:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Then I suggest you do so again and again until enlightenment hits you

You are too: Everyone is biased, and it is good to acknowledge it. The very fact that the article is being disputed by people proves that it is non-neutral. A tony blair fan or a trotskyist or a tory or whoever needs to be able to read this article and agree that it has no bias, and right now it definitely does not even begin to meet that. "It is true" is not a defence against arguments of bias. Morwen 13:27, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How can you justify omitting Marx, Engels and the First International, the CPGB and British trotskyism (perhaps just a brief mention, with a link to the suggested History of British Trotskyism)? The page is entitled History of British Socialism, and all of these things have had an impact upon it. The Militant Tendency is important in the history of the Labour Party, the CPGB in the trade union movement, and Marx and Engels on the left of Labour and the ILP. If no-one else incorporates these, I intend to. Warofdreams 14:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

--

I think the General Strike of 1926 needs adding as well. Secretlondon 14:21, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

--

I'm a bit annoyed at some of the recent editing on this page. If you intend to either put a neutrality sign up(which I've removed) or edit in any substantial way, please put it on the talk page so it can be debated.

The History of British Socialism is NOT controversial unless you are trying to flog your own viewpoint. What I have written is the commonly accepted version of events. If you happen to disagree, that's fine. What is not fine is vandalism.

I have not mentioned my political affilations once, and have not let them in anyway influence this article, which is as much about history as anything else.

My compromise is this: Please put all the information on the Hard Left in this article: History of the Hard Left in Britian, I will put a link to it on this page and hopefully this stupid argument will end.

I have also added a little bit on the General Strike.

I don't want an argument over this, so If any of you have some suggestions, please put them on the talk page.

Thanks

10:14, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This isn't the way wikipedia works. We don't need your permission to edit the article. No-one wants an argument but you are going to have to compromise. Secretlondon 10:19, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say that.

I am trying to compromise and never said you needed my persmission to edit the article.

If thats what you thought I meant I'm sorry.

10:34, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot helpful. If this was the "commonly accepted view of events" then there would be no debate. Secretlondon 11:54, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

It's the usual view amoung historians, but is disputed by a significant minority of people.

I can accept that.

I don't feel very well at the moment anyway, but this stupid dispute over what amounts to a few details is certainly not helping.

I'll link to the CPGB and Militant pages , as that seems to have started the whole problem off.

I'm going to repeat that the last thing I want is a long and bitter dispute over a few details.

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it makes sense for everyone to compromise.

12:06, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I put this on my talk page, but it's worth repeating here:

I'm feeling a bit better now, and can see a funny side to all this. So I've added myself to the problem users page, because I'm a user and I have problems :)

I've decided to forgive everyone who upset me, and have assumed that anyone that I may have upset has forgiven me.

12:30, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

1. Anyone can edit (more or less) any page on Wikipedia.

2. This is controversial. That's not to say it's wrong, just that people have different viewpoints on it. Let them all contribute.

3. I strongly disagree with the title "After the revolution". Has anyone other that Harry S Truman ever described the good work the Attlee government did as a revolution? I tried "After the welfare state", could we find another compromise?

Warofdreams 13:49, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I've reverted to my version... partially. I taken some of the extra detail on the Hard Left and on the '80's from the other version, and added it to the previous one. I've also added more on Clause IV and the "Benn Question".

I've gone for "After the "Revolution", as it's a nice tounge in cheek title(like "the Birth of Labour"). After the welfare state, would be innacurate as we still *have* the welfare state.

I've also tried to NPOV the ending. I decided not to mention Red Ken(as he looks likely to be re-admitted to Labour), or the SSP(it belongs to a seperate, but no less interesting scottish tradition of very radical Socialism. It would be nice if someone could write an article on it. It would have to include:

• The "Maxton era" ILP
• The Scottish Labour Party
• Jim Sillars
• The SSP).

I would like to remove the "warning" at the top of the page, but will leave that to someone else :) 16:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

It's still not NPOV so the warning stays;) It's interesting that you don't want to mention Scotland - the title is the History of *British* socialism - although personally it reads more like a history of the English Labour Movement. We either add Scotland, or change the title... 193.131.186.150 15:53, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No... just the radical clydeside tradition, which does not fit in the wider :British Socialist Movement.

But I'm happy for you to write an article on the clydeside tradition :)

16:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You're not the only arbiter of what constitutes the British Socialist movement! But the article is improving, and moving (very slowly) toward a consensus. I like the quote marks for "revolution". It still needs a lot more on trade unions and revolutionary socialism, and there are numerous spelling mistakes, but with time, it should get there. Warofdreams 16:21, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Could someone write Clydeside Radical please?

Thanks

10:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Can I take the warning down now?

09:20, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

When the other side is happy with the article, it will take it down. Morwen 09:35, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This still reads like a history of the English Labour movement. We cannot have an article on the 'history of the British anything' without mention of Scotland. Clydeside Radicals etc are part of British Socialist History. I think the reason why you think it does not fit is that you wrote this article as though it is a continuous and natural progression from the Tolpuddle Martyrs to Tony Blair. It is almost fairytale like ;)A true history of anything shows the splits, dead-ends and disagreements. Secretlondon 13:09, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

I have mentioned splits etc.

Scotland has been mentioned, and I'll go and add some more on it. I'm happy to do so. I don't know a lot about the Clydeside Radicals, but I'll mention them anyway.

10:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Perhaps it would be a good idea if this article was moved to History of the British left, which could include the non Labour left. And could give an explenation of why the British left developed as it did and not along Marxist/revolutionary etc lines G-Man 22:57, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

'British' Reformation

whats this chat about a so called British reformation? This is the first place I have ever heard of such an event.

There was of course a Scottish Reformation and an English Reformation, but they were quite distinct from one another; i.e. they took place at different times; were driven by totally different peopl; occured in different fashion from one another; and instituted different forms of church governance. It is therefore erroneous to talk of a British reformation.

Also, this article really focuses on England to the exclusion of the rest of the UK. Or is that an incorrect impression. More should be added about the development of socialism elsewhere, with links to the Red Clydeside article and so on.

I also agree with much of what was said earlier as well. This reads like an article on the Labour Party (with a bit of historical context added) rather than on the history of socialism in the UK. Of course they have played a major (if not THE major) role in that history (and some may be snide and say that socialism is history now in the modern Labour Party) but there have been other groups of importance, and are some today.

Even mentioning their existence might be an idea. For example, the Social Democratic Federation was the first organised socialist party in the UK (ahead of the ILP) and surely should be referred to.

Might well just have to add this stuff myself some day. :o) Big Jim Fae Scotland

I'm happy to add more stuff ;)

10:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The conclusion

Simply shouldn't be there. I think the fundamental problem with the original version, which still persists, is that it started out as an essay trying to prove a point. All traces of that need removing. Morwen 12:56, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't actually trying to prove a point, but I'll write a new conclusion.

Encyclopedia articles don't have conclusions. Secretlondon 13:11, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Some do

Name another Secretlondon 13:32, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

They are not usually called "conclusions" but you often get paragraphs summing things up.

So that would be a 'summary' then? Morwen 13:59, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

End

I've had enough of this stupid argument. Just say what you think is wrong with the article and I'll change as appropriate.

Actually I think I'll just delete the whole article and shift usefull content elsewhere.

As has been pointed out to you before, you do not own this article. Morwen 14:02, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I know I don't. I just want to know what you think is wrong with the article so I can change it.

Threatening to delete the article implies that you think you have ownership of it.

My problem with the article is that it (still) reads like an official history of the Labour Party. Secretlondon 14:15, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Don't try and second guess what other people think

We can change it ourselves. But if you must know - it reads like a hagiography of the labour party. still. Morwen 14:13, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It was not meant to. I think I'll delete what I've written and stick some of it in the Labour Party article.

Better idea: I'm withdrawing from this stupid edit-"war". I can then do something else.

14:36, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Name removed. Please do not revert to previous version. Thanks (for an explaination: go to my talk page) Alnu