Michael, re: your definitions of secular humanism, socialism, and the political left.
1) Secular humanism. The link you have provided gives a summary of basic beliefs that people who accept the label of "secular humanists" profess. It's rather lengthy, but I agree it will suffice, for our purposes.
2) Your "definition" of "socialism" will not suffice. You have provided a link to the web page of an obscure Austrialian outfit called the "International Socialist Organization." Their particular credo can't begin to define what socialism "is."
There is Fourierist socialism, Owenite socialism, Marxist socialism, revolutionary socialism, evolutionary socialism, Soviet communism, Maoism, democratic socialism, etc. There is even Christian socialism. Check it out:
encyclopedia.com
I think that when you use the word "socialism" you have either 1) to specify which particular kind of socialism you have in mind, or 2) to limit yourself to the narrowest possible dictionary definition, one that hopefully would cover the common core of all these disparate "socialisms." For example: "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." (From the American Heritage Dictionary.) I find that particular formulation too vague to be entirely "sufficient," but it's a start.
As for "political left," it is not a synonym for "socialism." If I recall correctly (I'm not quite sure on this one), the term "left" originated as a designation of those parties and groups that sat to the left of the chamber in the French Assembly (the more "radical" ones), as opposed to those who sat on the right(the more "conservative" ones). Thus, the actual character and beliefs of "The Left" will shift from time to time and from country to country. In some countries, there never was a "socialist" Left. And in the Soviet Union, there was a "Right" as well as a "Left" -- but it too was "socialist"!
I will get to "spirituality" in a separate post...:-)
Joan
|
