[Closed] not so Red Ed?

No matter what your political leanings, the union block vote is a pretty indefensible, totally undemocratic way to take decisions. Even Bob Crowe must know that.

If Millibean manages to reform this, then he neuters one of the Tories (and their right wing friends in the press) main areas of attack! And then he can rightfully start shining a light on where they're getting their funding from. An unsavoury bunch of non-taxpaying non-doms, hedge fund managers, corporate vested interests like American private healthcare firms, and the uber-rich with dubiously obtained fortunes. Even Bob Crowe should be able to see that too

Bit puzzled by the whole thing.

So the opt-out is removed and the £10 a month goes to the union instead of the [chosen political party]. What stops the union taking (membership * £10) and using it as a one-off donation? In fact, it gives them more clout because they can easily chose to withhold it depending on their agenda, and those members who did disapprove of the whole political donation thing now have no opt-out at all.

So in fact, the party is even more in the grip of the unions than before.

Maybe so, but if he can't afford the billboard for the attack ad, will it be much good to him in the long run?

does this mean he actually formed one whole opinion 🙂

Bet DC is quaking

mikewsmith - Member

Bet DC is quaking

think hes still sulking over cocking up the syria vote thing

The unions are one of the few voices for normal working people to influence politics. This is just about pandering to the right wing press and city bankers who now own labour just as much as they do the tories.

The biggest surprise to me is that the unions haven't withdrawn their financial support for labour a long time ago.

I would prefer opt-ins and greater transparency in general but still find the angst over funding slightly bizarre. So the Labour Party which is broadly speaking there to support workers rather than the owners of capital, are funded, Influenced and aligned to unions - shock horror! And the Tories being there to represent the owners of capital receive funding, are influenced and aligned to business - shock horror! What should we expect?

More troubling for me is the fact that Milliband is prepared to show such little gratitude for those who put him in power. Well at least he stepped back from the "utter, utter disgrace" (!?!) that needed a transparent police investigation of Falkirk. So perhaps he doEs recognise his rightful place after all!!

Is his speech on tv?

No matter what your political leanings, the union block vote is a pretty indefensible, totally undemocratic way to take decisions.

The union block vote for leadership elections was abolished a long time ago, the only "block vote" they get is as delegates to conference, and then there it's a delegate system anyway, they don't wield millions of votes on the basis of union membership.

It's as democratic, or undemocratic in fact, as any other representative democracy process - like MP's voting on behalf of their constituents - 50% of the voting and delegates and CLP's carry 50% of the voting. Given it was the unions who set up the Labour party to provide a political voice for trade unions, it seems pretty reasonable...

Even Bob Crowe must know that.

Given that he is general secretary of a trade union which is not affiliated to Labour, and has precisely no votes what so ever in the Labour party, his opinion seems moot. (The RMT are however pumping funding back into the ill fated No2EU party for next years Euro elections.)

I'm continually surprised by trade unionists I meet who still support the Labour party, and given the alegation that unions have so much control of Labour, it seems odd that it enacted over a decade of neo-liberal, anti-working people legislation, much of which was opposed by trade unions, not supported, and there was no repeal or even reform of the most restrictive anti-trade union laws in the developed world - which remain on the UK statutes.

Itd be nice if this was the start of a genuine reform of all party funding

The unions are one of the few voices for normal working people to influence politics.

If you want undemocratic have a look at Corporation Votes in the City of London.

Itd be nice if this was the start of a genuine reform of all party funding

Definitely this.

The Labour party is utterly irrelevant these days, although I'm vehemently anti-Tory, there's no way I can in all conscience give Labour my vote. They've learned nothing from their 2010 defeat, blaming the whole debacle on their immigration policy is an utter sham.

bokonon - is it one member, one vote? Hardly. How can you possibly defend a system as democratic when you automatically affiliate your members to a political party then effectively use that vote on their behalf

Until the system is reformed to one member, one vote, then the unions can shout until they're blue in the face that its democratic, but nobody believes them.

And approaching an election, it provides an open goal for a rabidly hostile right wing press to deflect attention away from the Tories ridiculously bent funding.

In any right-thinking world, the Tories shouldn't be in any position to lecture anyone on funding, and its effect on decision making and policy FFS! But they are getting away with it, and will continue to do so until the labour party makes the process truly transparent

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/miliband-to-marry-victoria-wood-2013091079313 ]Anyway.. the next election is in the bag[/url]

wrecker - Member
Not for me, nor the vast majority of people I know. In fact, the only people I know who are union members are in the public sector. Hardly representative of the majority of working people.

Join a Union then.

6 million ish union members, just under half are in the private sector.

Politics by birth or by job is finished, vote for those that represent you best.

The only positive thing to come out of the Oz election was to see that the green party actually moved from a single issue (stop everything) to having opinions on other policies)

A labour party that represents unions that are formed from people who do not share it's views but whose votes/support is carried by a leadership who are stuck in the past doesn't really work.

Support who you want donate if you want. Don't vote for a party because you feel you ought to.

its always struck me as odd/ shortsighted that the unions slavishly support the labour party.

surely they could get much better leverage/ return on thier investment if they 'donated' to which ever party was in power..

big buisness donate to the govt of the day to garner favour.. why not labour after all donating to the opposition changes nothing donating to the govt gets results..

bokonon - is it one member, one vote? Hardly. How can you possibly defend a system as democratic when you automatically affiliate your members to a political party then effectively use that vote on their behalf

Is parliament one member one vote? No, it's not - it's one delegate one vote.

I'm not defending it as democratic, I'm suggesting that as a country we remove the plank from our eye - the hilariously undemocratic parliament system we use, and as for the lords...before we need to address the mote in the eye of the Labour party - which the Labour party has decided to use, on it's own, for itself. If you don't like it, perhaps you should join and then you can have a say in it. Personally, I'm not a member, and couldn't give a stuff how decrepit their internal democracy is - the political party I am a member of only operates on a one member one vote system for everything.

None the less, if we're talking internal party democracy, at least in Labour CLP delegates get 50% of the votes - in the Conservative party, they don't even get a chance to vote, not on the leader, or on policies - so Labour is a paragon of virtue by comparison.

Join a Union then.

"If you want undemocratic have a look at Corporation Votes in the City of London."

Or the ability to vote on parliamentary matters by Lords Spiritual.

Personally, I find it very sad that unions have become so demonised in this country, that they are no longer seen as organisations which can (and have) actually stand up for ordinary workers. And even more worrying, that many ordinary people seem willing to see the backs of those same unions which fought for many of the rights we all enjoy today. When they're gone, then maybe people will finaly appreciate them.

Without unions, how will ordinary workers be able to temper the greedy demands of coproations and companies with nothing other than the generation of profit (for a very few) at heart?

Miliband has shown his true tory hand. Or rather, the hand of Capitalism that's been rammed so far up his arse, every time he opens his mouth, you can see it's fingers waggling.

Miliband has shown his true tory hand. Or rather, the hand of Capitalism that's been rammed so far up his arse, every time he opens his mouth, you can see it's fingers waggling.

I think its more a reaction to the right wing press and the whole red ed thing
which ultimately is controlled by the capitalist wright wing press corporations and their tory puppets

Unions won't be gone though. They may work in a different way, and be independent of political parties.

If I want to be represented by and be entitled to services provided by a union, I'll join one.

If I want to support a political party, I'll donate to or join one.

My voice in Parliament is represented by the guy who accrued the most X's regardless if it's the one who got my X.

And I'll never pay a penny to RMT after they got me an initial disciplinary warning in my first job, purely as a result of their greed, and protected status in law. Sure they were representing their members, but holding half the nation to ransom.

It's easier for Moribund to attack the unions than it is for him to attack the tories. That is a bitterly sad commentary both on him personally, and of the state of british politics in general.

I agree that we need unions more than ever

And to be fair to Millibean, at the same time as reforming the union links, he's also talking about the scandal of zero hours contracts, and a living wage (75% per cent of the jobs created in 'George's Economic Miracle' pay less than £7.50 an hour). So that looks promising, until you realise thats all it is. Talking.

The trouble with the present cowardly, pathetic leadership of the labour party is that they'll whimper about the injustice of these things, without coming up with a single proposal as to what they'd do about it.

Do I think that they would actually do a single solitary thing to address these very real problems? Not a chance! They'll just carry on being Tory-lite. The same policies to suit the rich, and punish the poor, just not obviously looking like they're actively enjoying the nastiness of it all, like the present lot

I am sure this is the best move for the Labour party and the political landscape in general.

The Unions represent a small and distinct section of society. The unions need a political voice more than a political party needs the unions.

Hopefully the funding of parties will become regulated and controlled more fairly.

Long term this will be a good decision.

Unions are stifling business in this county to such an extent that few companies would expand in this country anymore - certainly not the British company I work for who, in the last 5 or so years has set up about 6 or 7 new facility employing thousands of people and investing hundreds of millions of pounds in high tech, high value Manufacturing - none of it in the UK, and our UK operations and presence in the UK is reducing. Want to look for one of the key reasons big Manufacturing has declined in this country? look to the Unions. The sorts of tactics the Unions employ are not in the interests of the workforce or the company. For example, after negotiating more flexible working shift patters that ultimately reduced overtime, the Unions advised the workforce to 'go slow' such that the backlog of work built up over time and we had to re-introduce overtime to clear it. It is dispicable tactics such as this that prevents me from joining a Union, even though I see a place for them and would like to be represented, but I just don't agree with their approach. Also I don't want to fund the Laour Party.

Some don't understand why Unions are demonised? I don't know why hard working honest people are demonised in this country, where success and the desire to work and get on to improve yours and your families circumstances are frowned upon. We really are doomed in this country aren't we.

I don't know why hard working honest people are demonised in this country, where success and the desire to work and get on to improve yours and your families circumstances are frowned upon. We really are doomed in this country aren't we.

😆

Eh? Yeah the press is full of stories slagging off hard working honest people isn't it. WTF are you on about?

Wobbliscot: A turkey that did vote for christmas.

What have the unions ever done for us? They only look out for their own members right?

Anti-discrimination rules at work
Overtime pay
Occupational health and safety
40 hour work week
Worker’s compensation
Employment Insurance
Pensions
Public education
Collective bargaining rights for employees
Wrongful termination laws
Whistleblower protection laws
Anti-sexual harassment laws
Holiday pay

Oh....

Unions are stifling business in this county to such an extent that few companies would expand in this country anymore

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24018350 ]Yes... you're absolutely right![/url]

I don't know why hard working honest people are demonised in this country

They're not! They're deified!!! If you can find me a single example of a front-bench politician, of any colour, who's managed to get more than 2 sentences out of their gobs without referencing '[url= http://www.open.ac.uk/platform/blogs/society-matters/only-lazy-politicians-use-the-phrase-hard-working-families ]hard-working families[/url]' I'd be interested to see it.

Have you been living in a cave?

[i]I was listening to a recent radio interview with Theresa May, the Home Secretary. In 90 seconds she used the phrase 'hard working families' no less than six times. I was in danger of throwing something at the radio[/i]

I don't know why hard working honest people are demonised in this country, where success and the desire to work and get on to improve yours and your families circumstances are frowned upon.

It's like the "american dream" everyone's sold a dream that hard work and individualism will bring the rewards, but it only does for a small percentage. The vast majority of the country would be better off sticking together. But the right wing press keeps feeding the stories to blame each other, rather than turning attention to those who feed of our lives.

I was forced to join a union, the NGA, back in the bad old days of closed-shops, and, despite having one of the highest subs* of any union, when I was threatened with redundancy, they were utterly useless and offered virtually no help to me at all.
My opinion of unions has been somewhat poisoned as a result, it always seemed that union officials were happy to live off the earnings of their members, but actually cared little for them, just using them as cannon-fodder in their battles with the government of the day.
*At the time I was getting around £10/week, and my sub was £1.50, a fairly high percentage of my weekly wage.

Look, isn't it time to leave poor Ed alone. Its almost bullying.

He has already had to back down/hide on the "utter, utter disgrace" that was (apparently) nothing of the sort and he has Chuka Umunna and others breathing down his neck to get his job who is/are in favour of zero-hour contracts which he will dis-own today. Then Syria. Oh and the economy is recovering so that line of attack has to be watered down to the more nebulous and hard-to-define "living standards."

Poor guy - he will be turning grey soon (oops) or adopting George Osbourne's new "teenage/one direction" haircut!!! 😉

Oh and the economy is recovering

the continued rise in food bank use belies that statement

The economy is recovering. That's indisputable. About bloody time too! We're still way below where we were before 2008 though. And will be for some time

The benefits and proceeds of any 'recovery' are all going to a very small minority of people though, adding to the massive inequality in this country, as most people's living standards and real incomes have plummeted

So that's back-slaps all round for the Tories then. Job done!

Hence, the new Labour focus on "living standards"*. No doubt that economy has started to recover and that this is broadening out. But true, this is not reflected in real wages or equality of income. But neither are exclusive to the UK or to the Tories. They are global trends.

* which will be interesting come election from a psychology PoV - if absolute wages/incomes recover by 2015 will this be more important than relative wages/equality? Ed will have to hope not otherwise the Tories "joker" card just may become a "trump" one?!?

Flanders did a good summary of this in the BBC last night - interesting to see how she covers her old mate!! Pretty well last night IMO.

wobbliscott is Ed Milliband and I claim my £5.

I haven't a clue what this is all about. Has Ed decided he's too useless to fight the tories so he'd rather beat himself up? When David Cameron was standing opposite him saying "Yar boo, you take money from the unions", in what possible world was it not his job to stand up and say "Yes I do, we're funded by workers, but you're funded by investment bankers, so sit down and shut up, you bought and paid for ****"?

"Yes I do, we're funded by workers, but you're funded by investment bankers, so sit down and shut up, you bought and paid for ****"?

Exactly. I find it amazing that labour party goes to such lengths to deny and obfuscate it's union funding in response to attacks from the tories, rather than going on the attack about the tories own funding. At least the unions are democratic organisations, which is not something you can say about Ashcroft and the City of London.

well is it me or did he not really mention funding?

good stuff on 0-hr contracts (and some good tough uestions) and ensuring government contracts offer living wage

"Want to look for one of the key reasons big Manufacturing has declined in this country? "

It's cheaper to produce stuff abroad, where standards of living are lower, and companies don't have to worry about such inconveneinces and obstacles to rampant profiteering as workers unions.

So, if strong unions which campaign for better conditions and rights for workers are a disincentive for companies to invest, does that mean the unions are at fault, or the greed of those who put profit before people? Should we give up our employment rights, as fought for and won by many of our trade unions, just so companies will invest in the UK? Should we just roll over and become a sweatshop, where workers have little or no rights and will scarbble for any scraps the elite throw us?

Bollocks to that.

"Want to look for one of the key reasons big Manufacturing has declined in this country? "

It's cheaper to produce stuff abroad, where standards of living are lower, and companies don't have to worry about such inconveneinces and obstacles to rampant profiteering as workers unions.

So, if strong unions which campaign for better conditions and rights for workers are a disincentive for companies to invest, does that mean the unions are at fault, or the greed of those who put profit before people? Should we give up our employment rights, as fought for and won by many of our trade unions, just so companies will invest in the UK? Should we just roll over and become a sweatshop, where workers have little or no rights and will scarbble for any scraps the elite throw us?

Bollocks to that.

Quite right, but what's the alternative?

Nationalise industries we wish to protect and subsidise them to the hilt? Been there, done that, the unions killed their own golden geese by seeking to extort outlandish concessions from various governments, and in some cases, trying to bring said government down in the process.

Seek to differentiate ourselves by having the very highest standards of training and education in order to be at the top of the list for high-end manufacturing? This would be my preferred option, but the frankly dumbed down 'comprehensive' education system mitigates against excellence on a large scale.

Suck it up and take a hit on living standards to be able to compete? Undesirable, but will probably be the default result we get.

Subsidise foreign companies to base themselves here? Less extreme than nationalisation, but still has many of the same problems.

The problem is, a lot of people in this country have a sense of entitlement that is misplaced. They rant on about lack of jobs etc, but then steadfastly refuse to countenance anything that means they have to work harder.

"You mean I will only get two tea breaks instead of three? Well, I'm not doing it then".

Suck it up and take a hit on living standards to be able to compete? Undesirable, but will probably be the default result we get.

I think that's pretty much what we've all already accepted. Like we had an option? Best to be in a job, on reduced terms and relative salary, than the bleak hopelessness of unemployment. hence a grudging, weary acceptance of Osbourne's 'there is no Plan B' mantra

But profiteering employers have seized their moment. Hence the proliferation of part time work (with much less protection or duty on the employer), zero hours contracts, and the demise of pay rises for years.

And that was manageable to sell when there was no economic growth. But if things are starting to improve, but those at the top benefit massively, while nobody else sees any change to these conditions, then I doubt people are going to just take it on the chin, as they have done so far, without serious protest. If the minimum wage, since its introduction, had kept pace with exeutive pay, it would now stand at £19 and hour!

So its an opportunity for the labour party to seize the initiative and start doing what they were always meant to be doing, and fighting for more equal rights for workers.

Is this likely to happen? Well... what do you think?

[img] [/img]

it would now stand at £19 and hour!

busted - you read toynbee!!

Curses! I'd already read that stat somewhere else (more credible) before she emailed her copy in from Tuscany though 😉

So its an opportunity for the labour party to seize the initiative and start doing what they were always meant to be doing, and fighting for more equal rights for workers.

This is what p*sses me off the most. I'm convinced that if the Labour party came out all guns blazing on the attack about profiteering corporations, zero hours contracts, cuts in local services, the living wage, benefits cuts, demonisation of immigrants, housing shortages, the city of london, tax evasion etc, then a huge number of 'normal' people would be behind them and the next election would be a shoe-in. Instead what do we get? Mealy-mouthed half measures and tory-light rubbish about 'one nation', and endless navel-gazing about the link to the unions. It's just pathetic beyond words.

the labour party has long since been hi jacked by self serving middle class folk-- the latest whimpering from the millipede is as MSP states, a message to business and the ruling class , that they are a safe bet for no interference with the status quo--they foolishly think they can harvest the mythical middle england vote allied with the taken for granted working class vote( those that still bother)--his father would be disappointed....a vaccum is developing on the left in this country, and i am sure a new radical force would gather support pretty quickly with the right programme--not neccessarily parlimentary-- as that also is a three card trick...

rudeboy - exactly the point made in todays Guardian by [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/09/time-for-leftwing-ukip-labour ]John Harris[/url]

and i am sure a new radical force would gather support pretty quickly with the right programme

The trouble is that this appears to be UKIP. I know everyone goes on about the UKIP threat to the tories, but I actually think that they're more of a threat to the labour party, who will see a large section of it's support in the north moving towards the reactionary UKIP policies about benefits scroungers, europe and immigrants.

the labour party has long since been hi jacked by self serving middle class folk

T'was ever thus

[i]the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers[/i]

Lenin, 1920

😆

Heres a 100% serious question - why do we need both a 'living' wage and a 'minimum' wage?

Labour introduced minimum wage legislation, instead of promising us something else, why don't they pledge to increase the minimum wage to a rate that everyone can live on? I mean, isn't being able to live on a wage pretty much a minimum requirement?

Id agree about the UKIP thing, my parents are previous labour voters but have drifted into the clutches of that **** farage and its all thanks to the daily mail!

The old political model just doesn't fit the current shape of UK society, parties fail to have support because they have ceased to be relevant (Tories excluded as there will always be rich folks who want to remain rich by whatever means).

@ninfan - my 13 yr old communist will love that one, thanks.

Previous labour voters who read the Daily Mail? 😯

I think the labour party are in for a serious shock at the next election at just how many of their core voters, who they've taken for granted, and done absolutely nothing for, will just not bother voting this time out. Or, like you said, vote for UKIP

One thing smaller parties like UKIP (and unfortunately the BNP) are very good at is getting voters out to actually vote. Other than making sure that the Tories don't get in, there's no positive reason to vote labour whatsoever

binners - Member
Previous labour voters who read the Daily Mail?

oh my mum started buying it for the free dvds apparently but got slowly sucked in
we seem to have discussions now where my parents take a standpoint completely opposite to the values they taught me when I was younger 🙁

It would be great to see a new left wing party as it gets a little silly having people line Harriet Harman 'representing' (sic) the needs of workers and lower-income groups. Ditto those Labour MPs whose rhetoric is not matched by their actions (eg schooling etc) - almost as silly as CMD not sending his children to an independent school. WTF are they trying to prove? They are fooling no one.

So lets see the unions put their money where there mouths are. Ok, so there is a challenge of having only approx 50% of the members in 1979 but at least these numbers have stabilised and even risen recently. And then what of TU membership trends:

1. Women employees are more likely than men to be a member - so the womens' voice could be better represented
2. Members are increasingly older people - ditto their interests would be represented
3. Ditto UK born and black ethnic groups
4. The disabled " "
5. Highly educated " "
6. Full time employment

etc....so their is a powerful lobby to represent with important constituents to support you. Bob Crowe has been talking about it for far to long. Lets see some action!

3 million....affiliated [i]in name only[/i].....the bigger risk is carrying on as we are....after all it is you that has been telling me that the Labour Party isn't sufficiently connected with the lives of working people...

Ed Milliband 10 Sept 2013. There you go, enough said....

I find it very sad that unions have become so demonised in this country, that they are no longer seen as organisations which can (and have) actually stand up for ordinary workers.

Unions are stifling business in this county to such an extent that few companies would expand in this country anymore...Want to look for one of the key reasons big Manufacturing has declined in this country?

konabunny - Member

isn't it the case that manufacturing produces just as much (inflation adjusted) value as ever, just with a smaller and more efficient workforce?

Record high for UK manufacturing value was 2010, IIRC, it's climbed pretty steadily since the war. But yep, other sectors have outperformed it, and other countries have outperformed us

(which is completely inevitable, as larger countries elsewhere modernise- we punched above our weight because of the head start we had, not because of some ongoing right to be an industrial powerhouse- that said we are still IIRC the 7th or 8th most powerful manufacturing nation in the world.)

lots of thought for food-- but those right wing fools who think that their days in the sun are forever are in for an almighty shock n awe, the collective might of the masses has got us where we are today-- not some bourgeois trickle down nonsense or individual effort --some people really do live in their own comfy world....twas ever thus...as the big man said , many can describe the situation , our job is to change it !!

the collective might of the masses has got us where we are today

Free-market capitalism tinged with individual examples of extreme greed, then?

many can describe the situation , our job is to change it !!

*Holds fist in the air* 😀

rudebwoy - Member
the collective might of the masses has got us where we are today-- not some bourgeois trickle down nonsense or individual effort

Interesting take on how the UK or any economy works. How about ALL the factors of production coming together successfully instead? Labour without land or capital wont get you too far, nor will capital without land or labour.

Its been pretty gloomy in the Uk for the past few years - where were the days in the sun that are forever?

there are people who have done very well out of free reign(rigged) markets-- and those that get the crumbs off their table--some of whom pipe away on here --the status quo suits them fine--re distribution of wealth does not-- me , i would be very ruthless with all those ruling class lackeys....

Interesting take on how the UK or any economy works. How about ALL the factors of production coming together successfully instead? Labour without land or capital wont get you too far, nor will capital without land or labour.

That simply won't do. You cannot possibly expect comprimise from comrade rudebwoy. That would mean having to change world-view. Does not compute. 25 years in the gulag for you.

In the meantime, I'll be one of the first up against the wall come the revolution. It really doesn't do to have dissenting voices when you're trying to change the world 'for the better', you know!

Oh, and please refer to rudebwoy's comment above:

i would be very ruthless with all those ruling class lackeys....

For an indication of how he would like to implement a fairer society.

In the past, I had assumed that rudebwoy would just explain away mass deportations, executions, state terror and state-induced famine as 'the wrong [u]kind[/u] of communism'.

Now I'm not so sure - perhaps he just wants a re-run of the past - presumably with himself as General Secretary(?)

Steady on McCarthy.

In the past, I had assumed that rudebwoy would just explain away mass deportations, executions, state terror and state-induced famine as 'the wrong kind of communism'.

How would you explain them away in capitalist countries? The wrong kind of free market?

I know I have asked this before, but I am still waiting for answer....can anyone give me an example of a free market society? I can recall lots of mixed economies (such as the UK) that combine state and market mechanisms but I still can't find his mythical free market economy that seems to attract so much criticism.

In the past, I had assumed that rudebwoy would just explain away mass deportations, executions, state terror and state-induced famine as 'the wrong kind of communism'.

In this I don't see any difference between that sort of socialism and capitalism. The socialists are happy to do this sort of thing within their own countries, the capitalists export it to other areas of the world and then call them 'developing' countries whilst peddling the myth to their own populations that they are 'free'. It's rather clever really.

How would you explain them away in capitalist countries? The wrong kind of free market?

Yes, absolutely. In the narrow sense of the question, that is.

You'll notice (hopefully) that I haven't actually extolled any virtues of the 'free market' here!

You don't actually know what my position is, other than the fact that I am opposed to dictatorial communism.

You don't actually know what my position is, other than the fact that I am opposed to dictatorial communism.

What about dictatorial capitalism? I don't see much difference with communism and capitalism really, they're both based on authoritarianism. The main difference as I see it is that the capitalist flavour gives you a wider range of products to consume, and for some reason this keeps people happy enough to accept it.

I know I have asked this before, but I am still waiting for answer....can anyone give me an example of a free market society? I can recall lots of mixed economies (such as the UK) that combine state and market mechanisms but I still can't find his mythical free market economy that seems to attract so much criticism.

The Friedmanite economies coerced into south America in the 70's are as close to a free market as anything in the old eastern block was to communism.

MSP, can you expand?

Yep, I'm opposed to dictatorial capitalism as well. Although you tend to notice that dictatorial systems tend to be anti-competition whatever their stripe.

Far right groups seek to artificially enrich or preserve the wealth of an elite, more often than not defined on racial grounds. In this pursuit, they scapegoat, and indulge in the politics of the common enemy. It wasn't called Nationalism SOCIALISM for nothing, you know. It was socialism if you were in 'the club'. If you weren't in, then you were expected to die off, or be helped along the way.

In this sense, communism and Nazism are very similar, the only real distinction is how each system defines 'the enemy'.

It wasn't called Nationalism SOCIALISM for nothing, you know. It was socialism if you were in 'the club'.

dannyh - Member

It wasn't called Nationalism SOCIALISM for nothing, you know.

That's right, they named it that to make it easier to sell, because Insane Murderous Fascism isn't so catchy

In this sense, communism and Nazism are very similar, the only real distinction is how each system defines 'the enemy'.

Given that communists define the enemy as "capital" and the related extraction of surplus value from labour - both of which are abstract concepts and not people - it seems odd to even start to compare it to a system which explicitly outlines a group or groups of actual people as "the enemy".

Capitalists are only capitalists because they are the ones holding the capital (or more accurately, the capital is holding them...) there is nothing wrong with them as people and I would argue that it is in their long term (as in 7 generations and all that) interest for them not to be capitalists, they act against their own interests by advancing the interests of capital.

That's right, they named it that to make it easier to sell, because Insane Murderous Fascism isn't so catchy

Thats why they used communism instead of genocidal collectivism

Thats why they used communism instead of genocidal collectivism

Or rather that the genocidal collectivism was labelled as communism by the capitalists as it was a convenient way to poison the communist ideology in the eyes of the public. The Stalinist model of authoritarian socialism was a far cry from the communism envisioned by Marx and Lenin. What Stalin did with collectivism and the gulags had about as much to do with communism as Hitler did with capitalism. It's a pity these debates get so hung up on the labels rather than the actual ideas and policies.

Hmmm.

I think you might do well to do a bit more reading about what Lenin actually said and wrote about the 'necessary measures' to implement Marxism. And the now much-revered Trotsky for that matter.

Lenin's good fortune (in the eyes of journalism-history) was to die before the full ramifications of what he had created became apparent.

You are being disingenuous at best.

dannyh telling people to read more marxism--thats quite ironic-- for me its a choice between an ideology that promotes equality, and shares its resources amongst all its people, or the one we have now where a tiny minority benefit off the backs of everyone else-- even those who are exploited sometimes don't even realise it...

It's a pity these debates get so hung up on the labels rather than the actual ideas and policies.

By labels can we assume you mean historical fact ?

Wouldnt you think it fair to say that many of us get hung up on the fact that all of these failed ideologies end up the same ie. a lot of dead innocent people, misery and hardship followed by criminal/oligarchical rule
There will always be apologists for these regimes who will defend it saying it wasnt carried out as intended, even if it had been carried out as intended it would have possibly created more needless death and destruction.

Wouldnt you think it fair to say that many of us get hung up on the fact that all of these failed ideologies end up the same ie. a lot of dead innocent people, misery and hardship followed by criminal/oligarchical rule

How is that different to the current prevailing successful ideology? War after war after war, millions of innocent people dead in the service capital, the crushing misery of relentless enforced wage slavery, ruled by war criminals and their friends.

I'm not detecting a clear distinction between that which you criticise and the current situation - except perhaps that the real horrors are kept at arms length and justified through some backwards logic of helping.