Forum menu
Socialism is a step on the way to communism according to Marx
Oh right. Could you provide a reference because I'm not aware that he ever said that.
Had a dig around and some commentators say he used them interchangeably and some say he differentiates
Fairly irrelevant to my basic point tho.. indeed if you say they are the same thing then most folk on here are even further away from socialism.
Had a dig around and some commentators say he used them interchangeably and some say he differentiates
A direct quote would be the best way of supporting your claim.
Fairly irrelevant to my basic point tho..
Your basic point seemed to be reducing socialism to a Marxist definition. But you don't seem to know what Marx actually said.
My basic point is that on here thete are nany folk who claim to be socialists while saying no to anything that actually is socialist
My basic point is that on here thete are nany folk who claim to be socialists while saying no to anything that actually is socialist
Have you found that quote yet?
But you don’t seem to know what Marx actually said
I've read Marx; saddle soreness mainly...
Marx talked about socialism as a step towards communism in The Communist Manifesto.
I'd agree with Ernie that the most appropriate (and common) use of Marx' work is in relation to an analysis of capitalism and markets.
Marx talked about socialism as a step towards communism in The Communist Manifesto.
That's how Lenin saw it but Marx talked about two stages of communism.
Ah I think that I may be misremembering section 2 or 3 (the one that looks at different types of socialist ideas) in the communist manifesto. In my mind, they drew a similar conclusion to that which you're attributing to Lenin? Wasn't the earlier stage of communism some type of socialism (even if not explicitly called that?)
social democracy is not a form of socialism. ~This is really basic stuff.
Just because you don't see it as a form/variant of socialism doesn't mean that it isn't. A lot of people feel it is a form/variant which is clear from a quick Google but guess they are all wrong and you are right, again 🙂
Wasn’t the earlier stage of communism some type of socialism (even if not explicitly called that?)
He didn't differentiate... Marxist socialism and communism were the same thing. He critiqued other forms of socialism such as the utopians I referenced earlier so it's true that according to Marx, they are different to communism.
Ah right, maybe I need to reread! I don't find his writing particularly engaging tbf. David Harvey has an excellent series of videos working through Das Kapital which is how I accessed that book. I've read The Communist Manifesto a few times, got a hell of a lot of other stuff to read currently though!
https://twitter.com/AngusMacTout/status/1763870858358001889?t=AvU0RWWTsv-5nKpcwJ9z7g&s=19
How to not fix an economy.
I'm guessing her mum didn't have her own central bank.
Meanwhile, Rachel tries to run her household budget as if it was in the hands of a British government: “In order to balance the books I took my car off the road. Now I can’t get to work, and my car has depreciated hugely, but my bills are 15% lower. Next month I’ll turn off the heating and they’ll be another 20% less. Pretty soon we’ll be rich.”
Let's just hope this is to keep all those that don't understand how a countries economy and bank/currency works (95% ? of people) happy and not scare the horses as she must really know how it works so once in power will not be trying to 'balance the books' in her own office.
Wow, even with a generic picture statement she's getting a slating, i dare say Reeves, who has a masters in economics and 25 years experience in that game may know slightly more about it than most of us, who tend to use google as the way to solve all problems 🤣
i dare say Reeves, who has a masters in economics and 25 years experience in that game may know slightly more about it than most of us, who tend to use google as the way to solve all problems 🤣
Isn't that the problem though?
This is yet another example of total dishonesty by a senior politician. Reeves knows damn well that the role of a Chancellor of the Exchequer is nothing like her mum going through the shopping receipts on the kitchen table.
The whole suggestion that running a sovereign economy is like a family household budget is a myth originally made popular by Margaret Thatcher and perpetuated now by "centrists" in the Labour Party.
Reeves, as you point out, knows exactly what she is talking about.
And again the point is missed, shes not talking to people who have a vague understanding of how economies really work, shes talking to the other 90% of the electorate, you know the ones who might elect her party into power.
For people who claim to have such a detailed grasp of economics you all seem to have little understanding of how to get elected.
And again the point is missed,
I think you have, actually. She has the opportunity to stop perpetuating a myth but has chosen to do the same as Keir and essentially say nothing at all.
you all seem to have little understanding of how to get elected.
I am not disputing that telling lies can be an extremely effective way of winning an election, just look at the 'need to clear the deficit' lies in the 2010 general election, or Starmer's '10 pledges' lies to win the Labour leadership election, as good examples.
What I am disputing are the lies, not how effective they are.
What myth?
As for the story (which you can't read from the link), it was an anecdote from her early years to simplify a complex issue, not sure how balancing the books is a myth in any walk of life, from household to countries?!
No I stand by my assertion that she knows trying to explain complex economics to people that actually do struggle to balance their household budget is not going to get your party elected. Thanks for proving my point.
I know it would be nice if politicians could be honest and explain realities but after years of ever growing populist governments that's not realistic. To quote that film, you want the truth, you can't handle the truth.
The labour movement’s role was supposed to be to empower the working classes including through education and understanding. It’s a fundamental betrayal when the Labour Party instead conspires in keeping them ignorant and taking advantage of their ignorance. Reeves has been telling us for some time what she will do in government; we would do well to listen instead of pretending otherwise.
No I stand by my assertion that she knows trying to explain complex economics to people that actually do struggle to balance their household budget is not going to get your party elected. Thanks for proving my point.
I think it's great that you're close enough to her to know what she thinks, and aren't a no-mark sounding off.
I'm less contemptuous of the electorate than some on here, and believe that a leading politician saying that economies don't work like household budgets would be listened to, if only because it would be so different to the usual nonsense
Christ, if a statement could sound like it came straight out of 1984 it’s that 😂
Very funny. I wonder what Orwell would have made of the 2024 Labour Party.
it was an anecdote from her early years to simplify a complex issue,
It's a complex issue and Ms Reeves needs to find a way of showing the nuance, not dumb it down and patronise everyone. Using simpletons (Thatchers) approach got us in this mess and those who want to run the show should be pointing out that this is why we are where we are.
Yes heads may spin but showing your working is something we were all taught and need to be reminded of.
Its in the Telegraph
the readers opinions aren't for changing 😉
The household budget analogy is a populist simple answer to a complex question. You only ever create more populists with more alluring simple answers by adopting their answers. The most important point however is that their simple answers never work; the household budget analogy has made 99% of us (and virtually all Labour supporters) significantly worse off.
The absolute vapid irony of so called progressives joining in with the continuation of the failed Thatcher era economics and ideology is the most painful thing I've witnessed.
Just because Labour are doing it doesn't make it correct or honest.
Give your heads a wobble; spend 15 minutes looking at what has gone wrong in the last 40 years and what the basic mechanics are needed to address it.
The 'complex" economics guff that we keep hearing on here is also total distraction to make excuses for Labour's inadequate logic.
How difficult it is to tell people money can't be created by the private sector? (With the caveat that commercial banks create loans with a liability for your mortgages etc. under the license of the central bank.)
It's oh so complex. Dozy left-wingers will never get their head around it apparently.
Let's leave it to the right to exploit for military spending shall we?
Good God Labour are such pushovers, you don't get genuine Tories fearing their political choices.
Here it is: no useful growth or better services until Reeves pivots on her utter delusional economics.
It's a simple choice.
sure how balancing the books is a myth in any walk of life, from household to countries?
1) because it means no public money is left in the economy to spend. You've taxed out (removed) what you've put in.
2) how often are surpluses run in Western governments running Fiat systems? And on the odd occasion they do - follow the economic contraction. (Etc Clinton.)
I do feel like concerns about Tufton Street, Russian dark money etc. distract from the more fundamental corruption at the heart of British politics, which is the near total identity, in terms of interests, agenda and personnel, of our political and business elites. They don’t even see anything wrong with it, wouldn’t occur to them.
And in other news from the FT
“UK public trust in political parties collapses to 12%”.
No shit sherlock.
I had to look up sinecure, and how is this a good thing?.
Non exec directorships are usually used to reward your pals or as a payment for servuces rendered ie a bribe but promised when you do something and paid later.
Legalised corruption
As always, follow the money. When a company wants to pay someone £50K a year for one days work you have to ask what exactly are they getting for that money. When the person is ex government that is not hard to guess what is going on.
Pure lies from the Labour camp. Total lazy repetition of how it all works. And none of it is good for anyone.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1765301726565797934?t=b1pVEo25tmnrotco5KqYsA&s=19
Arghhhhhhhhhhhh . Whenever I hear the phrase “maxed out the credit card” or “balance the books” I have to remember that these utter ****ing ****s are relying on the fact that the average voter actually believes them.
What a day to be alive - even the BBC is agreeing with rone!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68494168
Scroll to the bottom of the article for commentary on 'maxing out credit cards' 😃
Lol at you!
Andy Verity of the BBC is a damn good financial journalist and he also agrees. In fact his own research led the BBC to challenge their own Journos to question the national debt in house-hold terms. Which is why you will see references to it in BBC articles.
I mean it's not even remotely complex or controversial to say that the UK Government owns a central bank and has its own current account - from which all spending flows.
A house-hold doesn't own a bank nor issues currency.
Back to the piece - Labour are that shoddy these days they don't realise they are pulling from David Cameron 2008.
"Labour has maxed out Britain’s credit card, says Cameron"November 9, 2008
Can't beat a bit of Tory-speak to generate your tag-lines from.
Maybe people will catch up soon, and start to realise that all this tax and spend, fiscal responsibility, financial black holes all strangely lead to a disintegrating state.
I mean you can't take the budget seriously - because they've got themselves in a mess equating tiny tax cuts with a power house economy.
For the Tories it looked like this was the case for a while during the big growth years when in fact all they've done is sell off state created assets to a few lucky people (created for free.)
Who'd have thought that selling something that is free to the government would generate a bit of money?
they don’t realise they are pulling from David Cameron 2008
I’m sure they are well aware that they are turning the Tory campaigning sound bites back on them.
I’m sure they are well aware that they are turning the Tory campaigning sound bites back on them.
So using well-trodden false Tory sound bites is good for whom?
Constantly trying to explain away Labour's appalling adherence to Thatcherism is not working Kelvin.
There is no excuse you can use that leads to a positive outcome.
You do realise people believe this crap because is repeated over and over without criticism?
I may have missed it but all Starmer has to say is that we will keep the non-dom change as that was out proposal but will use the money as we planned to improve public services and I don't think many people would be turned off by that.
That’s the trap kerley. Labour can’t promise to stop a tax cut for workers without being open to being painted as the party of tax risers (by the party that is still raising our taxes). They will have to make other changes to their plans. And move attention to their other tax changes aimed at those with capital and wealth. Which they may not have time for now, if the election ends up being called soon. A very smart political move by Hunt.
You do realise people believe this crap because is repeated over and over without criticism?
Of course. And while your attempts to change the narrative with your own repetition are admirable, Labour need to win an election, not win an argument. They won the argument in 2019.
A smart political move.
Labour could just come out and say that the Tories have ****ed over the economy for the last 14 years, it will take time and money to put it right, either back us or accept a Tory led dystopian future.
Now is possibly a good time for a bit of brutal honesty