Talk:History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom

message: Is anybody still disputing the neutrality of this article, or should the header be removed G-Man 19:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I changed the link to just revolution as there is no padge for bourgeois revolution, the revolution padge is a mess and doesn't even mention the Marxist concept of Bour'revo's but, at mo, nothing better to link to. Some one should have a go sort out revo page. --JK the unwise 12:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  bourgeois revolutions 

message: I have divided the article into centuries; I think the 20th century should be further divided into pre-WWII and post-WWII (in the main outline and not as sub-divisions).
Maybe someone could write an introduction for each century (19+20), summarising the important points, these are:
* The 19th century
** Peterloo massacre.
** Legalization of unions.
** Chartist's movement.
** International Workingmen's Association (This also should be added to the article ).
** The rise of the trade unions.
* The 20th century
** Political representation.
** The general strike.
** The Attlee government and the welfare state.
** The rise of reformism (right-wing labour leaders).
I also added a section about the Chartist movement; an article with the title "History of British socialism" without a section about the Chartists is not worth its name.
Doesn't Unitarianism belong in the section Ethical socialism? I don't really know much about the movement, only that Elizabeth Gaskell was married to a Unitarian minister.
Also in the section Trade unions it's not clear that before 1824 combinations (unions) were illegal, there is also no mention of the (Peterloo) massacre in Manchaster. 
The section Lib-Labs and the ILP, I believe, does not belong in this article; it's about the origin of the political representation of labour and not British socialism per se. The Liberals were never socialists, why talk about them? Instead of talking about the liberals the article needs a section about the growth of the trade unions in the 1880's and 1890's espicially in the ranks of the unskilled workers (dockers, women, etc.).
The Origins section, also, needs a lot of work. The Reformation did not occure later in Britain than mainland Europe, and even if that's true I don't see the point of this remark in this article. Socialism is not a religion, but it might express itself through religion. This section should cover the following points:
* The Levellers
* The Diggers.
* The Quakers.
* John Bellers.
* Social and economic change.
The part about the English revolution and how Marxists view it has no place in this article; it should be moved to an article that discusses the revolution and not socialism. There is a difference between class struggle and socialism, a history of socialism should not be about class struggle, otherwise we'll have to start with the Romans; the revolution was the culmination of the struggle between two classes, nobles and bourgeois. (For source material, about the points above, see:
Cromwell and Communism  by Eduard Bernstein) — Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
I agree with the above suggestions about points to cover, they were on my mind as i wrote my quick dip into 'improvements' section above (had to answer the door). I will dig Tony Benn's Arguments for socialism out at some point. I wrote a review of the book on Amazon if anyone is interested. Benn sent me my copy for free when I was at school, so I hope it isn't construed as advertising, I am trying to establish consensus on good sources by referring you to it.  The part on historical development is the best part of the book [Kathybramley (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article division 

message: I removed the statement that privatisation was "anti-working class legislation" because it's a POV comment and not neutral at all. - Johnbull 19:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The legislation is clearly anti-working class, whether that is good for the overall economy or not is a matter of POV! I think the statement should be re-inserted. --DelftUser 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't anti-working class, many workers purchased shares in privatised utilities and many working-class people benefited from the move from state owned council housing to private home-ownership. They would not have won elections if they didn't have working class votes. Any statement that privatisation is 'anti-working class' is clearly POV and not neutral.-Johnbull 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "many workers purchased shares in privatised utilities", oh really, name one! Maybe the legislation lifted an insignificant percentage of workers on the social ladder, but then they aren't workers and no longer belong to the working class! As to "private home-ownership" workers don't own their homes the bank does, workers pay the mortgage! I still claim that the legislation is anti-working class by it's nature, whether that is good or not is POV. --DelftUser 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They do eventually do get to own their home. More skilled workers in 1983 and 1987 voted Tory than Labour . I don't think these working-class people would vote for a party that passed "anti-working class legislation". The claim that privatisation is anti-working class is POV and represents a Socialist viewpoint and is therefore against Wiki policy.Johnbull 19:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "anti-working class legislation"

message: This article doesn't cover Ireland, and I don't believe it would make sense to include it.  Britain and Ireland have had quite distinct socialist movements, although both have agreed that a united Ireland is desirable, so those socialist groups operating in Northern Ireland are the same as those in the Republic.  As a result, I plan to move this article back to history of socialism in Britain. Warofdreams talk 17:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see! Perhaps you could consider Great Britain for the name? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UK/Britain

message: Would it be worthwhile to make more of the mention of the Christian Socialists in the 19th Century section?  Despite their brief period of activism, they did have some influence, particularly over the ILP in the early days.  It could also be argued that British socialism has had a fairly consistent thread of Christian socialism running through it, and at present it isn't mentioned in any depth. MrTrev 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are a bit short on material on Christian socialism.  Feel free to improve the article! Warofdreams talk 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a wee bit, but I need to think before I can show a thread running through the history. MrTrev 19:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest, rather than trying to show a thread running through history, it would better to provide plenty of examples and refer to existing theories of this thread, in order to comply with the "no original research" policy. Warofdreams talk 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I mean I'm trying to figure out the best places to insert these.  Unfortunately, while I am aware some of the leading figures in British socialism believe their Christianity has focussed and/or been a part of their socialism, it's not a view I subscribe to in general, so I'm struggling a bit here.  I just felt that with socialists such as Benn (who has had a significant effect on socialism in the UK) stating its importance to them, it needs to be covered. MrTrev 08:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Socialists

message: I just removed this sentence: More radically, some members of the socialist group Red Action became Provisional IRA bombers in the early 1990s.
It's not that it's false (it's true, although I might word it slightly differently) but it seems pretty marginal to the history of socialism in Gt Britain. What do others think? BobFromBrockley 11:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism and nationalism 

message: At the end of the article I found this "Many socialists have abandoned the Labour Party, with few exceptions such as the Socialist Appeal group." I would say the wording is not correct and up for dispute. The Socialist Appeal group may be Socialist but more openly Marxist but, as we know there is more than one form of Socialism you could argue that many Communists have left or been expelled rather than Socialists. There is no evidence that the Labour party has no Socialist members some people may say that most members of the Labour Party are socialist just some are allocated to different more soft variants. --Joeb20122012 (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the socialist movement in the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress