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.
Yeah, but that wasn't solely the fault of the Murdoch-Blair-Cameron axis. Some unions assisted the process by fighting losing battles, being corrupt, and failing to serve their members and pissing off their actual or potential membership.
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?
Pfft, whatever. Unions are powerless in private workplaces and the UK's labour laws are among the most flexible in the world. And isn't it the case that manufacturing produces just as much (inflation adjusted) value as ever, just with a smaller and more efficient workforce?
konabunny - Memberisn'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'.
This is complete pish. Neither the Nazi system nor ideology (practice and theory, in other words) put much value in public ownership of the means of production. The essence of fascism in economics is the co-ordination of private capital and labour blocs by the state as they inherently conflict.
dannyh - MemberIt 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.
You had to feel for poor old Ed. So here was a momentous occassion in which he was going to lay out a new relationship between Labour and the Unions and the news carried the story after a Coronation Street actors acquittal! How odd.
rudebwoy
I actually agree with a lot of that last post.
The ideals of marxism are to be applauded, truly, I am not taking the piss.
The slight flaw in the plan (as Blackadder would say) is, was, and awlays will be, human nature. So long as you can reinvent humans into societal beings who do not favour their own race, gender, religion, family etc, then you can achieve utopian marxist nirvana.
Unfortunately you can't. Then all the utopian ideals become warped, very quickly, into potentially monstrous policies.
Marx realised that for his doctrine to survive, it had to be exported globally, achieving a critical mass.
During the Stalin years, it became apparent that this was not going to be possible. He then expressly forbade trying to export communism, using Comintern to subvert rather than 'educate' for want of a better word.
Anyway, I won't detain you any further. You've got nearly 7 billion people to convince..............
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.
Which brings me back to what I was saying earlier. My point being that you can't defend the current system as better than 'dictatorial communism' when the end result is not much different.
The slight flaw in the plan (as Blackadder would say) is, was, and awlays will be, human nature. So long as you can reinvent humans into societal beings who do not favour their own race, gender, religion, family etc, then you can achieve utopian marxist nirvana.
I think that's a misrepresentation of socialism and communism. The real reason that socialism is a realisable goal is that it is fundamentally about self interest not the interests of others.
Capitalism is about doing things in the interests of others - those who hold the capital - to the detriment of you and everyone like you.
Socialists don't support other people because they are nice, they do it because it is in their self interest - if other people are allowed to be persecuted then what is there to stop me being persecuted? If other people's wages are slashed what is there to stop my wages being slashed - I fight to defend my wages, but I support other people fighting to save theirs as well - because I'll be next, and it would be nice to get support. It's not about some utopian Nirvana where everyone cares about everyone else - it's about a functioning state of being where people look out for themselves, and not capital.
bokonon.
Is this solidarity at a global level or do you draw a line around your own country?
If you are in the 'developed' world and you truly want equality across the whole population, you'd better brace yourself for a substantial fall in your living standards.
If you are in the 'developed' world and you truly want equality across the whole population, you'd better brace yourself for a substantial fall in your living standards.
If it meant genuine equality, I'd be up for it.
Most people on here could certainly stand to sell a few bikes/Audis/coffee machines or go on a few less expensive holidays.
If it meant genuine equality, I'd be up for it.Most people on here could certainly stand to sell a few bikes/Audis/coffee machines or go on a few less expensive holidays.
Me too.
The problem is that you can't rely on everyone to do likewise.
Back to the problem of human nature.
Blah, blah, blah.
Endless circular arguments about what is the best way to address inequality.
Yes, I am a cynic. History is on my side.
(Please appreciate my plagairism of a Khrushchev quote if nothing else)
Especially not my spelling...............
🙁
If you are in the 'developed' world and you truly want equality across the whole population, you'd better brace yourself for a substantial fall in your living standards.
It needn't be a race to the bottom. What you call 'western living standards' is really just pointless consumption of useless rubbish which does very little to enhance our lives. If you take all that away and actually concentrated on the real things, like security, housing, clean water, food, communications, rewarding work, clean environment etc then yes I think you could achieve some sort of global equality without it having to mean a massive drop in the quality of life of us rich westerners. The whole western quality of life thing is a myth.
dazh.
I feel a sort of uneasy group hug coming on.
Unfortunately, the rest of the 'western' world is not as enlightened as you and I. A lot of people do consider TV, a new range of clothes every year, a new car every three years etc as 'essential'.
The question then is:
"Do you implement a programme of enforced 'enlightenment' where consumer goods are requisitioned at the state's behest? Perhaps at gunpoint?"
