When the fall of communism began in 1989, and then the Soviet Union fell in 1991, so people began to say that, socialism, as we knew it (even though I wasn't alive then), was dead.

Parties on the left scrambled for the centre. Bill Clinton for the US Democrats, Jean Chretien for the Canadian Liberals, Romano Prodi for the Italian The Union coalition, Gerhard Schroeder for the German Social Democrats, Helen Clark for the New Zealand Labour, and Tony Blair for the UK Labour, were noted examples of this new wave of centrist leftist parties being elected.

A post a few months ago on this site, had many comments about how young Liberals describe themselves. They don't tend to describe themselves as Socialists, not necessarily because they are not, but Liberal is mainly a new way for people to descrfibe themselves.

The more left-wing means of the US Democrats, the UK Labour party etc. tend to concentrate on economic rather than social issues. I'm not sure many of social these measures (Religious and Racial hatred, Hate Crimes bill in US) are entirely constitutional. Indeed, the Hate Crimes bill is often advocated, when getting rid of 'Don't ask, Don't tell' is not advocated (or hasn't been for 14 years).

However this has always been the case. Wilson made profound social changes, with the steel re-nationalisation the bit of red meat for the left to chew on. And I would agree with the Left then for opposing the Vietnam war, or to protest at not allowing Kenyan immigrants in. But Wilson and Roy Jenkins were at the forefront in decriminalising homosexuality and abortion, and reversing censorship laws. A cultural effect of Blair's social changes is that my 2-year old cat is called 'Asbo'.

I ask of all of you, what does it mean to be a Socialist in 2007? Labour apparently seems to be made up of 'Marxists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Social Liberals, Liberals, Democratic Socialists, Neo-Cons, Neo-Liberals, Thatcherites, Tories' according to accusations made by those who consider themselves to be left-of centre, to those with opposing views, but still on the left-of centre.

To me, I think we need to believe in democracy first, socialism second. That means we have to stop cosying up to Castro and Chavez, just because they're 'socialists'. I assure you, if Cuba and Venezuela weren't anywhere near the continental America region, the Left
wouldn't really give a damn. It also means we have to respect the right to protest, freedom of speech and expression, habeas corpus etc.

Furthermore, both sides have to criticise more un-democratic countries, rather than criticising each other for not criticising un-democratic countries. The more left-wing have to criticise Cuba, North Korea, Sudan etc. The more right-wing have to criticise Saudi Arabia etc. more Both have to criticise China more.

I think we need to change our answers and our attitude. The examples in the US is that, Conservatives have presented themselves in a quasi-socialist light, representing the 'little man' with dangerously right-wing social ideas. They have also presented Liberals as the bourgoise. The Liberal elite can go to the courts, and click their fingers, and everything will get done. Roe vs. Wade, ending racial segregation. They block the legislatures, courts with their ideas, so say the Conservatives. We need to change our response.

So when the Tories, Republicans, Christain Democrats etc. want to cut taxes for the rich, and say, when the leftist parties oppose these tax cuts, that, 'they just don't support ANY tax cuts', we need to emphasise that we support cutting taxes for the average family. Not defensively ramble about the rich, which somehow proves the Right's argument, which has no basis.

If they attack the mainly pro-choice left, as being 'baby-killers' (obviously they'll say something less extreme, hopefully), we need to say that we support fighting poverty, which could make a real difference in limiting abortion. If the Right doesn't support anti-poverty measures, but anti-abortion laws, women afflicted by poverty will just turn to the unsafe abortion backallies.

We need to respond to the actual points that the Right are making. When they say that hanging is a deterrent for being a drug kingpin, we need to say that drug kingpins are faced with the daily fear of far more gruesome executions. Not bleeting defensively about how the Death Penalty is inhumane (which it is). When they say that the students at Virginia Tech could have defended themselves with a gun, we need to say that over a half-dozen Presidents have been shot while surrounded by well-trained armed guards. These are answers that need to be given in order to point out the hypocrisy of the Right, and the lack of valid arguements in their points. These are answers that need to be given, in order to make sure that the Left aren't seen bleeting defensively their opinions, but rather, clear arguements which sum up our opinion.

In conclusion, Socialism should mean that we care as much about Social issues as Economic issues. When we talk about the Iraq war (which I opposed, and still will), we can criticise the post-war planning, say that the military fight may be lost, that the arguements for war were week. Fine. But we need to offer our fraternal support for more trade-union recognition in Iraq, and support for the Socialists in fighting the privatisation laws there. While criticising most aspects of the war, we need to offer support, rather than ignoring support but cynically dismissing any chances of hope, for building a better, more Liberal Iraq.

Basically, we need to be more progressive. We need to remind people that battles they fought, have been hardly fought and won. The 20th century was more Liberal with more rights for gays, women, ethnic minorities, the working class. With full emancipation, Colonialism being fought etc etc. Marxism never made sense because it has the attitude of wanting to return to 1900, just so they can 'take over' the factories. Communists aren't Socialists. They are inverse snobs. They want the poor to be rich, and the rich to be poor, not to be equal. We need to put economic and social arguements both at the top of our agenda. We need to respect democracy and freedoms above all. We need to answer the Right's arguements with an answer to their arguements, not our opinions. This is why I am a Socialist. This is what I think Socialism could ans should be. This is what it means for me, personally to be a Socialist in 2007. What does it mean for you to be a Socialist in 2007, and what does Socialism mean in 2007?