I don't follow or support any party here.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Jeremy Corbyn.
- Thread starter Diablo
- Start date
I don't follow or support any party here.
Ah, I see....think I will start supporting Bayern Munich.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,747
Why don't you you look up the definition of state socialism, then ask yourself the following......
Would a state socialist controlled railway have "investments" in other nations railways like DB AG has with Arriva?
Would a state socialist controlled railway have an "investors page" on its website like DB AG has?
Would a state socialist controlled railway collaborate on projects with other capitalist concerns like DB AG does with Hong Kong's MTR Corporation?
Would a state socialist controlled railway issue bonds that are listed on a stock market?
http://www1.deutschebahn.com/ecm2-db-en/ir/bonds_rating/bonds.html
Would a state socialist controlled railway consider privatising aspects of its business like DB AG is doing?
A socialist minded individual would know the answer........
why because it exists within a mixed economy.
The recent bank nationalizatin in UK follow the general trend.
Vital private firm/service fails state rescues it.
In the UK the Steele industry was the only nationalization
A profit making firm non bankrupt firms and industry nationalized.
As ever context is everything .
The recent bank nationalizatin in UK follow the general trend.
Vital private firm/service fails state rescues it.
In the UK the Steele industry was the only nationalization
A profit making firm non bankrupt firms and industry nationalized.
As ever context is everything .
It would appear Labour really ARE trying to prevent Corbyn from winning - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34060453 - talk about corruption. The identikit candidates clearly want to win at any cost.
Go for it! Great football, cheap tickets, standing at some away games and you can drink in the stadium.
Why should I look up state socialism? I've no real interest in this and have never advocated it.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,747
But yet why do you say you support Corbyn and Benn?
Both advocate ownership of state assets by the workers for the workers, that is state socialism.
There is no Blairite third way if you are a socialist. There's no "profit" from state assets being distributed to capitalist SHAREHOLDERS. There's no "investor relations" or "bond holders" via a "finance company".......there is just the state.
That is why clause IV and its removal by Blair was so important, if you understand and support socialism.......which as this thread demonstrates you don't,
You don't think clause IV is important because you are happy with capitalism, it's why you don't understand the nature of a capitalist ownership structure (like DB AG).
It's why you and other neo liberals (Tories) want the UK to remain in the EU........state socialism is effectively illegal........we need "competition".
Corbyn is calling this out on the TTIP arrangement and its impact on the NHS.........albeit PFI was the start of NHS privatisation........under which Govt?
Not a socialist one that's for sure.
Which bit of
do you not follow?
It would appear I do not fit your rigid old fashioned definition of what a socialist is. Look up democratic socialist and social democracy, things might be clearer for you then. But even then I do not follow every last morsel of these beliefs, to do so would be weird.
I support state ownership of the railways. The German rail system is state owned and state run. I'm happy with this and yes they might run it as a regular business but in 2015 I have no issue with this whatsoever. It does not seem to fit your definition of what a socialist is....so be it.
Let's agree to disagree as we seem to be arguing about different things here.
Last edited:
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,747
You are dead right we arguing about different things........by your own admission you are a neo liberal, a Blairite, a wet Tory.
You support the capitalist economic model, that why you support the EU.
That's why your political man for all seasons routine is so absurd. Just like you cannot be a little bit pregnant, you cannot be a little bit socialist.
If you support Corbyn or Benn, (as you have on this thread) you are rejecting the capitalist model that defines your social democratic ideology.
You are rejecting the EU, you are rejecting the DB AG ownership structure, you are rejecting private ownership of state assets.........a state owned nationalised railway would not be a SHAREHOLDER.
This difference is the new political battlefront within the Labour Party you say you are a member of; it was opened by Blairites in 93 with the rejection of clause IV (you know what that is right?)
Now we have it again with rise of Corbyn........politically you are either with him (a socialist) or against him (a neo liberal).
You can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try.
I think the bolded section explains everything. You somehow can't seem to grasp there is a fairly large piece of ground between these two definitions. Either with, or against......
Us two repeating the same arguments must be as utterly boring for you as it is for everyone else. Let's end it.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
They will fail. Ladbrokes now going 1/5 JC. They know
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,747
I think the bolded section explains everything. You somehow can't seem to grasp there is a fairly large piece of ground between these two definitions. Either with, or against......
Us two repeating the same arguments must be as utterly boring for you as it is for everyone else. Let's end it.
No, I do, on one side is socialism and on the other capitalism.
A socialised capitalism is still capitalism.....saying it's different is like putting cherries on a dog turd and saying it's not a dog turd......
Which brings me to people like you that gladly jumped on Tony Blairs neo liberal bandwagon in 93 which consigned the Labour Party's socialist ideology to the wilderness. You are so committed to Blairism you still define yourself by it.
Now Corbyn has arisen from the wilderness and got mainstream oxygen because the failure of neo liberalism you now want to jump on his socialist bandwagon.........like some shithead JCL.
That's why you are worse than Tories, people like you supported the ideology that almost killed socialism in the Labour Party and reduced committed socialists like Benn and Corbyn to eccentric cranks.
I don't care if it's boring or repetitive socialists have waited over 20 years to have a party leader with the balls to stand up to capitalists and its supporters (people like you Toynbee, Cooprr et al).
Whatever.
This is a simplistic and plain wrong statement. It is true that the left believe in spending the public's money as a means to achieve their political objectives. However so do the right. In July of 2011 the national debt was £940 billion or 68% of GDP. By the end of 2013 it was £1,254 billion or 75.7% of GDP. By the first quarter of 2015 it was £1,560 billion or 81.6% of GDP. All of these years are under a pro austerity tory led right wing government. Quite simply the Tories increased the amount of money we owed by £600 billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt
The difference between left and right is how public money is spent. The left seek to prioritise spending of social programmes designed to create a more equal and cohesive society. in other words transferring wealth from rich to poor. The right seek to create a society based upon individual achievement by helping individuals move ahead at the expense of the majority. They seek to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. They have been very successful at doing this.
At the same time as public debt has been increased by £600 billion, the distribution of wealth has dramatically gone from poor to rich. This process was started under Blair and has increased pace under the tories. Put quite simply, The richest 1% has driven up to treasuries throughout the western world in massive vans walked in and taken billions of our taxes, with the government acting as security guards.
Those opposed to austerity are opposing this theft. Those supporting austerity are either part of the 1% or are so busy lapping up the the pro austerity lies, in the hopes of getting a few crumbs, that they don't see they are being stolen from as well.
Whist this is an extension of the socialist v capitalist argument, austerity is capitalism in its most brutal, vicious and raw form. People are waking up to this and this is what has changed.
This.
It does occur to me that essentially 300 tories have paid up to join the labour party and very successfully ensured the meltdown of the party they oppose. Whilst I deplore the tactics. I cant blame them for trying.
I can however blame those who either have such an overblown sense of their own self importance that they only care about their own future careers, or so corrupt that they are consciously helping the tories, or so naive and stupid that they cannot see how self destructive their actions are.
In fact I think one of each, Kendall is a corrupt tory, Cooper is has an overgrown sense of her own importance, (look at her twitter page for evidence of this). Burnham is the naive well intentioned fool,.
I have always liked respected Jeremy Corbyn. He is in so many ways the MP I wish I had. likeable, kind, principled, sincere and thoroughly decent. I suspect he is embarassed at the limelight that is being cast upon him. He clearly never expected this. Lets be honest though, and I think even he would admit this, he's not a political giant in the way Clement Atlee or Aneurin Bevan were. His campaign isnt about individual personality but about a collective movement. That's why I support it.
However if there had been a worthy opponent to his ideas, he'd never have had a chance. Having said that I dont believe the Tories are led by giants either, and the strategy he is following may yet bear fruit. Certainly more fruit than the other 3 would produce.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,332
you are correct in this, and it doesnt contradict anything i said. those spending plans are what were inherited and without a root and branch retrenchment of the spending Labour brought in, we wont see the deficit go down very quickly. there hasnt been any real austerity, the rate of increase has been constrained to allow the economy to recover and catch up, over taking slowly. all that debt has gone into the great re-distribution of wealth that you support, defered on the never, never.
where you are quite wrong is the notion that there is any politcally directed transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. the taxes levied on the richer and more wealthy are greatly more than those on the poor. the rich dont get hand outs - fyi a tax cut is not a payment to anyone, it is less money from the person to the government. the vast amounts of tax collected are redistributed for all, most non-means tested, to everyones benefit.
This is where you are quite wrong. The whole raft of privatisations ranging from utilities, BT and railways to the Post Office and the NHS have been a direct transfer from the public sector where money is spent on services to the private sector where a profit motive is the bottom line. In the few examples where a profit wasnt made the private sector has walked away from their contracts breaking them, and leaving the tax payer to pick up the pieces.
In the NHS since the Health and Social Care Act was introduced in April 2013 an estimated £19 billion of contracts that were previously run by the NHS have been awarded to Private sector companies including Virgin, Serco and Sodexo. The company that provides catering at the Amex is winning NHS contracts. This is a direct transfer into the profits of giant companies. I wont go on about the piss poor service they provide but will mention Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridge. It was awarded to a private company, Circle, to run in November 2010. In September 2014 the Care Quality Commission highlighted severe issues with patient care. in January of this year Circle walked away from the contract on the grounds that it was "no longer [financially] viable under current terms" , The same day as the CQC recommended the trust should be placed into special measures.
Now clearly the private sector are being given tax payers money in the form of sale or return contracts where they can keep them where profitable or hand them back when not.
This year the NHS budget is £115 billion. This government has clearly earmarked this for transfer to the private sector.
Still think the rich don't get hand outs from their friends on the right, or shall we talk about the whole banking crisis.