A whole article about capitalism without recognising that neolibralism is the actual problem.
Capitalism doesn't exist without the state, how do you think GBP gets into private hands? It's not born out of the financial markets!
In fact where the article goes wrong is not acknowledging capitalism assumes infinite growth and resources. That's a busted flush. So it's not really the only game in town. In fact it's on its uppers in terms of our market-led approach.
There are so many naive and ignorant vantage points these days about how the economy actually functions.
That said, neolibralism is dying.
Shortage of labour and products is going to turn everything inside out. Stock market operating completely out of synch with growth in companies. Interests rates at all time low. Etc.
There is only one way out of this and it's massive fiscal stimulus from central Governments - green, infrastructure etc.
The problem with leftist ideology is that it tries to perfect humanity, Its worse than religion in that respect, in that religions generally recognise that wwe’re evil little shits at heart and that we have to be moderated rather than corrected.
No it doesn't, it seeks to readdress the balance of labour over capital and improve inequality and welfare.
Socialism is not a busted flush - it's simply a hard sell. Socialism is wheeled out when things go wrong - such as the pandemic because the market can't offer a solution.
Socialism is actually the only game in town in times of crisis.
Suggested reading instead of relying on Cambridge educated comedians for economic commentary (See the film Margin Call for better explanation of Mitchell's out of date vantage point.) read some fairly easy to digest books on modern economics?
Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Stephanie Kelton etc.
You might see better a route out of this
Suggested reading instead of relying on Cambridge educated comedians for economic commentary…
He’s just writing a column, and I don’t think anyone is suggesting he should be anyone’s sole source of economic or political reading or understanding. Predictable patronising tone, suggesting that others don’t read widely. And what’s so wrong with being educated at Cambridge?
The problem with leftist ideology is that it tries to perfect humanity
And the prize for most ridiculous statement of the week goes to.. 🙂
Honestly this is such a load of bollocks I don't know where to start. WTF is 'leftist ideology'? All we're talking about is trying to give a bit more power and wealth to normal people who don't sit at the top of the tree. That's not ideology, it's just plain fairness. It's not the people who want more fairness and social justice who are the ideologues, it's the people with all the money and power who conspire with each other to protect their undeserved status. And you're supporting them by making such a stupid point. Have a think FFS.
Capitalism is what happened when we stopped raiding and stealing and started trading.
No it's absolutely not. What you're describing is trade and commerce, which are entirely different to capitalism. People have traded goods forever, whereas the system of capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years as a political-economic construct which bestows power on people who have money as opposed to people who 'own' land. Even within capitalism there have been many phases. What we have today is vastly different to what existed 60 years ago, and that was different to the pre-war period and 19th century, and we're currently in the early stages into the next phase which again will be very different. This monolithic 'capitalist' system is not nearly as monolithic, stable or permanent as you think.
A great article in today’s Observer by David Mitchell on why capitalism is the only real game in town, and why everyone needs to deal with it as such
Really? Its a piss poor piece which uses generalisations so wide you could get a bus through them.
Lets just start with "It’s no good expecting people to be nice. "
Ermmm. Who does? Aside from some rightwing ideologues who argue that we should rely on the philantrophy of the billionaires?
The disconnect between "their basic shtick is to make rules compelling people to be nice" and " Within a properly enforced and mutually understood legal " is odd. I thought having rules compelling people to be nice is bad or is it just rules compelling people to be slightly nice which is okay?
Not seeing the link between a David Mitchell column and Kier Starmer? Are they friends, is Starmer getting advice from Mitchell?
Not seeing the link between a David Mitchell column and Kier Starmer?
I think the link is that they appear to have about the same depth of thinking and ambition to change a self-evidently deadend political and economic system.
Wow there is a really spectacular level of BS being talked in this thread now, and as for that David Mitchell article, well... it sounds very much like it was written by a 6th former.
We live in a new age of robber barons essentially, and the best we think we can do is just to ask them to please be a bit nicer? Capitalism is currently leading us ever faster towards massive environmental disaster, but it's 'lefties' that are the problem (and David Mitchell has the answer, which is mostly just to accept capitalism's current form as the way things have to be).
Jeez.
Jeez
Indeed, I think we've strayed somewhat from Sir! Kier! Stamer's! sphere of possible influence.
and the best we think we can do is just to ask them to please be a bit nicer?
That wasn't the point of the article at all, quite the opposite. Yes, it was very Ed Miliband circa 2013, and so feels very much like a retread of old ground. And yes, very superficial and 'sixth form' like in its language (know your audience). But he still has a point, there are those in the Labour movement (or increasingly those that have returned to hectoring from outside it) still wanting to overturn capitalism, rather than accepting that all (real) politics is now differing meldings of capitalism and socialism, never a pure version of either (note, that is not an accusation I'd be directing at a past leader or shadow chancellor, or any past front benchers).
Well at the risk of mentioning JC yet again even what he was offering was still essentially capitalism, so the idea that there are significant numbers of people way to the left of him seems absurd, and even more absurd that they are apparently a significant problem for SKS.
What JC and JMcD were offering was a far better balance than what we have now. Far better. One of the reasons I voted for their party (having never done so before they stepped in). As for the "significant numbers" comment... I agree... it's about noise not numbers. Noise that makes it harder for Labour to appeal to many of the voters it needs to win over. They are a problem because they make "the Left" an easy target by allowing our opponents to paint all those who want a system reconfigured to work for all as anti-capitalist and against our current way of life (rather than wanting to improve on it).
still wanting to overturn capitalism
What do you mean by 'overturn'? All I want is to see capitalism reformed so that those with lots of money don't have disproportionate power over those who have little, and that we live within our natural means as defined by a finite planet. The major bit of capitalism which requires 'overturning' is the assumption of endless economic growth and consumption. Anyone who doesn't want that is either an idiot or a psycopath.
We (sadly) need leaders who are willing to say this because most of the public don't understand or don't have the time to care. Unfortunately in leaders such as Boris and Starmer (and all the others) we have the opposite, only interested in short termism and their own irrelevant careers.
All I want is to see capitalism reformed so that those with lots of money don’t have disproportionate power over those who have little, and that we live within our natural means as defined by a finite planet.
I agree. How? (Is where it gets fiddly.)
All I want is to see capitalism reformed so that those with lots of money don’t have disproportionate power over those who have little
That's essentially the argument that David Mitchell is making in his opinion piece.
That’s essentially the argument that David Mitchell is making in his opinion piece.
And yet according to binners I'm a 6th form utopian idealogue and David Mitchell is a sensible pragmatist? Anyone care to explain the difference?
Anyone care to explain the difference?
calling you a 6th former is (slightly) funnier than calling you a slightly chubby smug middle class comedian...is my guess.
allowing our opponents to paint all those who want a system reconfigured to work for all as anti-capitalist and against our current way of life
It seems to be our 'comrades' doing that most vociferously. On this thread we can see numerous examples.
It seems to be our ‘comrades’ doing that most vociferously.
It comes back to the careerist thing. The labour membership (ie 'the left') pose far more of a direct threat to those running the party and the power and influence they enjoy than the tories do. It's why I keep saying Starmer et al have no interest in government, they're happy where they are, and to stay there they need to focus attention on their own members rather than the tories.
They have bugger all power or influence.
But he still has a point, there are those in the Labour movement (or increasingly those that have returned to hectoring from outside it) still wanting to overturn capitalism, rather than accepting that all (real) politics is now differing meldings of capitalism and socialism, never a pure version of either
But aren't those people a very small minority, in reality? Reducing the argument to only talk about 'loony' lefties' just drags it down to playground level, and ignores so much more nuance and depth of debate and ideas. Corbyn, for example, was nowhere near the 'extremist' position some commentators and media barons etc want to portray him as, the reality is he's far more 'centrist' in terms of economic theory. This is certainly the perspective that many commentators outside the UK had. And ultimately, should Labour only be about the interests of a small elite minority within the party, or represent those for any many members as possible? That the current leadership seems intent on only indulging the former, explains who the party is where it is. Perhaps Labour has become to much of a 'broad church'; this has happened because of that swing towards the right, with its laissez-faire neoliberal economic ideology, which has led us to the disaster we see now. So maybe it's for the elite right of the party, to give way to the greater majority of the membership? Because this standoff isn't helping anyone, not least those who most need protecting from the brutality of the tory regime.
David Mitchell, whilst not saying anything original at all, is an extremely privileged white male, and as such, clearly has little real understanding or empathy of and with the majority of working people in the UK. That's not to say his views should be dismissed, but he enjoys the privilege to have his voice heard, when millions don't. So perhaps he should step aside and let someone else speak; he has had more than his fair share of his 15 minutes.
But aren’t those people a very small minority, in reality?
Absolutely they are.
Corbyn, for example, was nowhere near the ‘extremist’ position...
I agree.
Perhaps Labour has become to much of a ‘broad church’
Not even close. UK politics, like USA politics, requires a broad coalition within a party (and its supporters and voters) (or in the UK between parties), to get to form a government. The Democrats managed to hold it together long enough to win in the USA, and to their credit have mostly continued to hold it together to start implementing very broadranging reforms and direction shifts over there (which we are already starting to feel the benefit of in the rest of the world). Labour needs to either work cross party, or widen the idea of who and what the party is, if intends to ever hold high office again. Clive Lewis is one of a few Labour MPs pushing this point hard, because he long ago woke up to the fact that it needs to happen right now... there is no point waiting.
And yet according to binners I’m a 6th form utopian idealogue and David Mitchell is a sensible pragmatist? Anyone care to explain the difference?
Binners simply described it as a "great article", I didn't read it but I assume the principal reason it is a great article is that it was published in the Observer.
For binners the Guardian/Observer provides him with the gospel truth ..... a gospel which he can believe in.
Even when it's in an article written by an unqualified unelected comedian who has made a very comfortable living spouting nonsense whilst attempting to convince gullible punters that it's true.
Edit: For the record I am a huge fan of David Mitchell. I particularly liked his story concerning how his shoes were accidentally sold whilst he was trying a pair of cowboy boots in a charity shop. A hilarious story, even if it wasn't true.
I didn’t read it
Did you read Binners' post? He cut the article down to its essence to save you the bother of heading over to the Guardian website. You could address the point he* was trying to raise, rather than attacking the man*.
[ * either Binners or Mitchell, you choose ]
Did you read Binners’ post?
I always read binners posts. They are generally the only ones which are actually interesting.
I would go as far as to say that binners writes "great posts"
Absolutely they are.
So why has that tiny elite group got so much power and influence, within the party and beyond?
I agree.
As I've said before; you'd be an idiot not to.
Not even close. UK politics, like USA politics, requires a broad coalition within a party (and its supporters and voters) (or in the UK between parties), to get to form a government.
Erm, the current Labour party has members from the centre-right neoliberals, all the way to the 'hard' left Marxists, Trots, even some communists. I'd say that's the exact definition of a 'broad church'. The Labour party even has a good number of quite right wing members and voters; many of those 'red wall' voters espouse some pretty right-wing and xenophobic views, hence Starmer's need to appeal to those as well, according to some on here at least. In my view, that's perhaps too broad a church; isn't it better to convince people it's stupid to be racist, rather than pandering to them? Many of those 'racists' are just ignorant and scared, yet I don't see much if any effort from Labour's elite, to actually address those issues. So; Starmer needs to speak to those type of people, yet some here think he needs to cut away from the 'left'. What's it to be?
It's interesting to note that this crises hasn't triggered coordinated Labour Front Bench resignations, or even any threat of Front Bench resignations.
Quite how Starmer has managed to reach this level of unpopularity even without Labour MPs queuing up to stab him in the back I honestly don't know.
Nor do I understand why Labour MPs are so content with a leader who is clearly a loser.
It would appear that for the Blairite cult ideological purity is more important than winning elections. They simply can't admit that they are wrong and that the British people need to be offered a radical alternative to the Tories.
They seem to be determined to make the Labour Party as irrelevant as Nick Clegg made the LibDems when he decided to make them almost indistinguishable from the Tories.
Sir Keir beats Mr Johnson for honesty (by 29 per cent to 22) but the Tory leader is ahead for patriotism (60 versus 38), for having lots of personality (61 to 16). Mr Johnson is seen as more out of touch (by 56 to 41 per cent).
Patriotic personality (doesn’t matter if they are dishonest and out of touch). Depressing and unsurprising. Starmer is too dull. That really matters. No idea who can convince voters that Labour are patriotic when even Starmer’s meek efforts result in so many ‘flag shagging’ jokes.
It should be a piece of piss for a Labour Party with a sense of community to be seen as patriotic.
isn’t it better to convince people it’s stupid to be racist
Better, yes
Possible, no
Racist people are not rational
Patriotic personality (doesn’t matter if they are dishonest and out of touch).
Yep, I have been saying that for years. That is the audience.
Ignore the audience, get nowhere as proven by Starmer.
No idea who can convince voters that Labour are patriotic when even Starmer’s meek efforts result in so many ‘flag shagging’ jokes.
Because using the flag as an ornament and prop makes you patriotic? Odd really I thought it was just the opposite that its something to be respected not used as camouflage whilst flogging the country off to the lowest bidder who also donated to the tory party.
Perhaps instead of being a shite copy of the tory plastic patriotism he could display an actual vision himself of what it means to be patriotic.
I don't know why this was so hard to fathom when half of the forum were bringing down Corbyn and suggesting Starmer as this amazing speculative leader of a Government of national unity.
What leadership skills did you think he actually possessed? What charisma? What ideology? You thought he would be a good manager?
Joined the Communist and Marxist bashing club? How did that work out when your leader has nothing on the table and he's plummeting without all the shit that was thrown at Corbyn.
Time and time again the approach that would be served up by liberals is caught out with the misunderstanding that this will somehow push against the Tories.
It won't.
Also Stateside - what's brewing in the background if Biden doesn't deliver? (Democrats are rowing back on all sorts of stuff.) - it will be an opening for Trump voters. Let down again.
I See my stupid MP(Brendan Clarke-Smith) is going about the knee being like a salute to Hitler. Thing is, that is all he needs to do to stay elected.
Never mind fixing the community.
They simply can’t admit that they are wrong and that the British people need to be offered a radical alternative to the Tories.
And if the British people don't want a radical alternative to the Tories ?
And if the British people don’t want a radical alternative to the Tories ?
Don't call it radical just better. Who doesn't want better? The means can be radical.
And if the British people don’t want a radical alternative to the Tories ?
Is that some sort of trick question?
The British people need to feel that they are being offered something which is significantly different to the Tories otherwise they will simply vote for the real thing.
Have the lessons really not been learnt from Nick Clegg's political suicide strategy?
The British people need to feel that they want something which is significantly different to the Tories
There's ya problem. The British people (or enough of them), think the Tories are what they need. You can offer something radically different all you like, but if enough people want what the Tories are offering, they'll win, simple as.
The British people need to feel that they are being offered something which is significantly different to the Tories otherwise they will simply vote for the real thing.
And if the British people want to vote for the "real thing"?
At least IHN gets it....
And if the British people want to vote for the “real thing”?
Are you really asking that question?
I would have thought the answer was obvious....... they vote Tory.
It is not the Labour Party's role to offer fundamentally the same policies but delivered by different people.
Politics is not a team game where the only goal is to win.
The Tories are now offering at least the appearance of giving a large proportion of the electorate what they want (the older part that actually goes out and votes anyway), which seems to be fiscally liberal and socially conservative, and genuinely patriotic(/nationalist).
Labour's constant attempts to criticise the Tories without offering significantly different policies or vision just comes across as hollow and unconvincing and rather petty.
Politics is not a team game where the only goal is to win.
This. I don't know how many times I've said the exact same thing and I'm genuinely baffled why people can't understand this simple point. If the voters want the tories, which I would despute given only 28% of the electorate voted for them in 2019, then they are within their rights to vote for them. Or they could vote for something different, and if that is preferable then labour and/or some other parties would be elected. The singular purpose of the labour party is to give voters that choice. By imitating the tories they massively undermine democracy, and as we've seen over the past few years, that results in all sorts of unintended consequences. If people feel like they have no voice, then they will turn to populists and snake oil merchants, and that's the underlying driver of everything that's going on today.
You don't have to become "tory-lite" to offer... patriotic personality. It is not an inherently Conservative Party idea. I can see why people can think that way though, because Tony Blair was the last Labour leader to successfully offer the public a strong vision of Britain "on the up", paired with the charisma needed to carry people with him. I never voted Labour under Blair, and I don't want the Labour party offering the public what he offered way back then in terms of policies, but can see that without addressing the public's vision of Labour as not being patriotic, and without finding a leader who can charm the voters, the Conservatives are literally the party of power for the foreseeable. And if you're thinking "that's alright then", than quite frankly, shame on you, because they will ruin the lives of millions while they are there, and feel safe in their position there.
but can see that without addressing the public’s vision of Labour as not being patriotic
The problem with Starmer is he is allowing the tories to define patriotism in a very narrow and, in my opinion, profoundly unpatriotic way. Just dressing yourself up in a flag isnt patriotism its a cynical disregard for it. Neither is waffling on about greatness without doing anything useful to create it.
Politics is not a team game where the only goal is to win.
Yes it is, the party that wins is the party in power. With Labour as permanent opposition what are they actually achieving in comparison to what they could achieve if they won/were in power?
It is not the Labour Party’s role to offer fundamentally the same policies but delivered by different people.
It is their role to offer policies that people actually want. People want Tory policies so they need to appeal to those people rather than offering "radical" policies that the likes of you or me would want.
One day you will come to the realisation that you live in a Tory country. The only blip in the last 40+ years has been when Blair did exactly what you are suggesting shouldn't be done.
One day you will come to the realisation that you live in a Tory country.
Let me repeat, 28% of the electorate voted tory in 2019. The tories and their billionaire paymasters want everyone to think that we live in a tory country, but it's a lie, and you appear to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
