Labour

[beorhthelm]

Fairer distribution of wealth means being paid a proper amount (aka wages) for work done (aka labour). It doesn't mean forcibly removing money, goods and land from people who have some, and handing it over to people who are unable or unwilling to work. The latter is a cult view in parts of the left, now, and has faded as society has changed . . .

except that this is exactly the view of the Corbyn, the shadow chancellor and others who support a 70% tax rate, financial transaction and wealth taxes. im well aware that these have become cult views within the left of politics, the issue is that the cultists just took over. Mandleson was talking of New Labour when remarking how relaxed they were about wealth. and speaking of cult views, its ironic to then cast a caricature of conservatism, which has never proposed people fend for themselves or considered state assistance as immoral, though some people who are conservatives may also hold views in that extreme, maybe 100 years ago.

 

[drew]

Is this your real world where you think socialists are people who can own property, share portfolios and other instruments that generate profit for themselves, thereby denying the benefit of that profit to the workers under the principle of common ownership?

In this world of yours I guess people like Bono would be described as socialist because he talks a good progressive game but beyond these empty words he is really a multi billionaire, tax avoiding capitalist shit.

Interesting world you live in.......

No, I'm talking about the real world where there is compromise. Make capitalism work for society rather than for a minority. Your world seems to be simply black or white. Wilson's Tackle post puts it clearly. I'm no Corbyn fan and can't see him ever getting elected if he evens gets that far as leader.

 

[Buzzer]

No, I'm talking about the real world where there is compromise. Make capitalism work for society rather than for a minority. Your world seems to be simply black or white. Wilson's Tackle post puts it clearly. I'm no Corbyn fan and can't see him ever getting elected if he evens gets that far as leader.

You cannot be a socialist and be rich. It's as simple as that. Simple economics dictates that if someone gets rich then someone else is poorer.

You want an equal society but are unwilling to cede your unequal share. And lifestyle socialism isn't socialism either. It doesn't matter how good a game you talk, if you're not willing to be a socialist you have no right to describe yourself as one.

What you describe is social democracy and that most certainly isn't the same as being a democratic socialist.

 

[drew]

You cannot be a socialist and be rich. It's as simple as that. Simple economics dictates that if someone gets rich then someone else is poorer.

You want an equal society but are unwilling to cede your unequal share. And lifestyle socialism isn't socialism either. It doesn't matter how good a game you talk, if you're not willing to be a socialist you have no right to describe yourself as one.

What you describe is social democracy and that most certainly isn't the same as being a democratic socialist.

What exactly do you mean by equal society? I certainly do not believe everyone should have an equal share of everything irrespective of their contribution to it. If that makes me a social democrat then so be it. It's a label. I think it still comes down to the fact that we do not live in a black or white world. You can believe in state ownership of the railways but that doesn't mean the state has to own every other business. I'm not against capitalism or people earning a lot of money but what I am in favour of is fair taxation. As a society you look after those that fall by the wayside. Unfortunately, with that comes those that will milk the system but they are a very small proportion of the cost to the state. However, there are those that milk the system at both ends of the scale. There are the benefit cheats at one end and those that don't pay their fair taxes at the other end.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You cannot be a socialist and be rich. It's as simple as that. Simple economics dictates that if someone gets rich then someone else is poorer.

.

That is what's known as zero sum economics. It assumes that the amount of 'wealth' is fixed. It is total nonsense. Take a lump of wood, chop it up, build a chair with it, you have made a chair and created wealth. If you like to work hard and want to make lots of chairs you are entitled to benefit proportionally. If everone making chairs is paid the same they have no incentive to work, and you end up with a stinking failure aka communist Russia . . . . and after 70 years of it the penny finally drops . . . .

 

[Hampster Gull]

A fairer distribution based on fair taxation. Are you suggesting that Mr Bragg is a tax dodger? Also, there seems to be a danger of confusing socialism and communism!

I think its meant to be based on ownership of production. But he signs a few songs abouts the nasty capitalists whilst banking enough money to be a multi millionaire. Sound like he is over charging his comrades.

 

[cunning fergus]

No, I'm talking about the real world where there is compromise. Make capitalism work for society rather than for a minority. Your world seems to be simply black or white. Wilson's Tackle post puts it clearly. I'm no Corbyn fan and can't see him ever getting elected if he evens gets that far as leader.

It is black and white because in the context of so many of Corbyn's long held uncompromising socialist beliefs he has been black and white. Throughout his political career, he has been anti militarist, anti trident, anti monarchy, anti EU, anti free market etc.

Compromising on these previously uncompromising socialist principles is not going to deliver the change that those people who joined Labour recently now expect from Corbyn. How can you compromise on being a republican socialist who wants rid of trident?

If people had wanted compromise they would not have voted for Corbyn, all of the other candidates were steeped in compromise and weak political conviction.

It's not my problem you don't understand these very simple matters...........those who backed Corbyn as leader will do as he slides towards Blairism because that is what the PLP have demanded.

 

[Buzzer]

That is what's known as zero sum economics. It assumes that the amount of 'wealth' is fixed. It is total nonsense.

Yeah, fair point I worded it badly. Essentially the point I was making was that if you are 'rich' then you're happy with the huge wealth gap between yourself and the poor to the extent that you don't do anything personally to re-distribute the bit that you clearly don't need but like to have. That is definitely not the actions of a socialist. Even if you campaign for a socialist society, I'd argue that unless you're prepared personally to put words into actions then you can't claim to be one. Not yet.

If you like to work hard and want to make lots of chairs you are entitled to benefit proportionally.

On this we can both heartily agree, it's a basic tenet of capitalism and this is why I will never be a socialist because a socialist would certainly want at least a cap on that benefit. "Each according to his need..." and all that.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Throughout his political career, he has been anti militarist, anti trident, anti monarchy, anti EU, anti free market etc .

And anti Bristish from what i have seen. Its odd how socialists struggle with the concept of nations and national pride

 

[Buzzer]

I certainly do not believe everyone should have an equal share of everything irrespective of their contribution to it. If that makes me a social democrat then so be it. It's a label. I think it still comes down to the fact that we do not live in a black or white world. You can believe in state ownership of the railways but that doesn't mean the state has to own every other business. I'm not against capitalism or people earning a lot of money but what I am in favour of is fair taxation. As a society you look after those that fall by the wayside. Unfortunately, with that comes those that will milk the system but they are a very small proportion of the cost to the state. However, there are those that milk the system at both ends of the scale. There are the benefit cheats at one end and those that don't pay their fair taxes at the other end.

This is all fine stuff and I can't disagree with a single word of what you say. My point is that if you prefer to perpetuate a capitalist system and try to make it more equitable/fairer/equal rather than change it for a socialist system then I reckon that makes you a capitalist.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It is black and white because in the context of so many of Corbyn's long held uncompromising socialist beliefs he has been black and white. Throughout his political career, he has been anti militarist, anti trident, anti monarchy, anti EU, anti free market etc.

Compromising on these previously uncompromising socialist principles is not going to deliver the change that those people who joined Labour recently now expect from Corbyn. How can you compromise on being a republican socialist who wants rid of trident?

If people had wanted compromise they would not have voted for Corbyn, all of the other candidates were steeped in compromise and weak political conviction.

It's not my problem you don't understand these very simple matters...........those who backed Corbyn as leader will do as he slides towards Blairism because that is what the PLP have demanded.

Corbyn stated repeatedly during his campaign that the party will take on a more collaborative approach to policy ie the wider party will help shape policy. This is still being mentioned today. You seem to be ignoring this rather big point with your continuous and incredibly selective comments from your ridiculously narrow black and white world. How can he be compromising his position if he is letting others also help steer the party?

You also seem to have a daft idea that to be a followers of any political system you have to adhere to every single rule the text book prescribes. Have your parents/guardians ever let you out of the house and into the real world?

 

[Hampster Gull]

This is all fine stuff and I can't disagree with a single word of what you say. My point is that if you prefer to perpetuate a capitalist system and try to make it more equitable/fairer/equal rather than change it for a socialist system then I reckon that makes you a capitalist.

Wise words Buzzer

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And anti Bristish from what i have seen. Its odd how socialists struggle with the concept of nations and national pride

I think it's because we're more worldly wise

(Joke)

 

[Soulman]

And anti Bristish from what i have seen. Its odd how socialists struggle with the concept of nations and national pride

I agree.

 

[drew]

It is black and white because in the context of so many of Corbyn's long held uncompromising socialist beliefs he has been black and white. Throughout his political career, he has been anti militarist, anti trident, anti monarchy, anti EU, anti free market etc.

Compromising on these previously uncompromising socialist principles is not going to deliver the change that those people who joined Labour recently now expect from Corbyn. How can you compromise on being a republican socialist who wants rid of trident?

If people had wanted compromise they would not have voted for Corbyn, all of the other candidates were steeped in compromise and weak political conviction.

It's not my problem you don't understand these very simple matters...........those who backed Corbyn as leader will do as he slides towards Blairism because that is what the PLP have demanded.

But I don't give a flying fig about Corbyn because I don't believe he will be around for long enough. My comments relate to where I stand on things.

 

[Buzzer]

And anti Bristish from what i have seen. Its odd how socialists struggle with the concept of nations and national pride

Actually, I think it's mostly a problem with English lefties and it's a curious thing. In France for example, both the left and the right have absolutely no problem with the idea of Gallic nationalism or wrapping themselves in the tricolour. There seems to be a large proportion of English lefties with a huge chip on their shoulder about their fellow countrymen showing similar pride in the cross of St George. And it's made even more odd by the fact that they apparently are very okay with Irish and Scottish nationalism. Very strange.

 

[Soulman]

Actually, I think it's mostly a problem with English lefties and it's a curious thing. In France for example, both the left and the right have absolutely no problem with the idea of Gallic nationalism or wrapping themselves in the tricolour. There seems to be a large proportion of English lefties with a huge chip on their shoulder about their fellow countrymen showing similar pride in the cross of St George. And it's made even more odd by the fact that they apparently are very okay with Irish and Scottish nationalism. Very strange.

Exactly, i find it strange the way that some are embarrassed to show or support national pride, seems it is ok for other countries and its people to show it.....but not for some here eh.

 

[cunning fergus]

And anti Bristish from what i have seen. Its odd how socialists struggle with the concept of nations and national pride

He would certainly be anti to certain aspects because of his republican beliefs........

It's why he should stand firm on his long held principles if he is not going to turn out to be another Labour establishment shill.

No doubt many people won't agree with him not singing the NA as leader of the opposition, however they will lose any respect they may have for him as a man of long held republican principles if he now starts singing it just to keep the monarchists in the Labour Party happy.

 

[cunning fergus]

But I don't give a flying fig about Corbyn because I don't believe he will be around for long enough. My comments relate to where I stand on things.

But you introduced Corbyn into the exchange we were having on socialism...............calm down dear.

 

[cunning fergus]

Corbyn stated repeatedly during his campaign that the party will take on a more collaborative approach to policy ie the wider party will help shape policy. This is still being mentioned today. You seem to be ignoring this rather big point with your continuous and incredibly selective comments from your ridiculously narrow black and white world. How can he be compromising his position if he is letting others also help steer the party?

You also seem to have a daft idea that to be a followers of any political system you have to adhere to every single rule the text book prescribes. Have your parents/guardians ever let you out of the house and into the real world?

I disagree with your interpretation.

Corbyn's collaborative approach to policies was extended to organisations like the unions............previously shut out of policy influence by the Blairites, you may not have realised that his victory in the UK was heralded widely as the death of new labour.

By collaborating on policies and acquiescing to the Blairites in the PLP those 500k who joined Labour to back Corbyn may as well have backed Cooper, Burnham or Kendall.

You can't be a little bit republican, a little bit anti trident, a little bit anti militarist or a little bit socialist..........you may be happy that he is weakening his previously held beliefs because you are a Blairite, but the people who elected Corbyn as leader are not.