Jeremy Corbyn

Personally I see little difference between Corbyn and Stalin's ideas of Socialist democracy.

Seriously .. lol. You'll have to take us through the similarities ..?

Personally I see little difference between Corbyn and Stalin's ideas of Socialist democracy.

Is this jamba's update on Godwin's Law ?

Ninfan - no - they were never socialist. Now come on you must have read a bit about it. A totalitarian state cannot be socialist - the two are fundamentally different. You can keep a cat in a kennel and call it rover but it will never be a dog 🙂

Nicaragua under the sandinistas is about the best attempt at a socialist state - of course under constant military and economic attack from the US but even so in a decade took literacy rates from (IIRC) low teens to nearly 90% Halved child mortality etc etc. There is no doubt at all that average standard of living rose significantly and that is despite the US continual destabilisation and military attacks.

A totalitarian state cannot be socialist - the two are fundamentally different.

The Soviets and the Chinese certainly think you can be (Russia is Corbyn's idol state wise and beyond rapproach). Vietnamese too (btw used to do quite a bit of business in Vietnam, senior execs at bank had been ex military, highly decorated against the US ... clearly they where best qualified for the roles. Socialist principals at work eh ? Jobs for the boys more like)

(Russia is Corbyn's idol state wise and beyond rapproach).

So there are all of the capitalist models that don't work and all of the non-capitalist models that don't work.

The difference is the capitalist models are doing what they are intended to do whereas the non-capitalist models have failed for all sorts of reasons.

Better to try a fairer, non-capitalist, non consumerist model and get it to work that continue with models that bring about massive inequality as a key part of their approach.

Of course, people would need to realise it would be good for them and understand why - looking at 2016 people are not very good at that....

Of course, people would need to realise it would be good for them and understand why

And what if they disagree?

Reeducation camps? A trip to the Gulag?

History tells us that a socialist state can only be sustained through subjugation of the masses. TJ is simply wrong bout the Soviet Union being totalitarian instead of socialist, it was totalitarian [i]because[/i] it was socialist, as i) socialism in one country is impossible (Marx was clear that in order for socialism to thrive it required worldwide replication), and ii) constant revolution in the Trotskyist model is unsustainable.

Russia is Corbyn's idol state wise and beyond rapproach

You ****ing wot?

Citation please!

And what if they disagree?

More of what we have now, I suppose - people voting for random protest candidates/causes, probably becoming ever more bizarre til we end up electing the Monster Raving Lunatic Party.

Better to try a fairer, non-capitalist, non consumerist model and get it to work that continue with models that bring about massive inequality as a key part of their approach.

The Labour party is a front for the Fabian Socialists - the central dogma is based on deception - Even their emblem is a wolf in sheeps clothing - Only useful idiots Shills or Trillionaires support their policy proposals. I want the Labour Party to die not because I support the Conservatives - they are repugnant in equal measure - we need new political parties - the left/right paradigm over ..

Jobs for the boys

Lucky that sort of thing never happens here then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38466990

Without wanting to get into this deep philosophical argument, anyone who thinks you can measure the success/failure of socialism with any single nation state is an idiot. A more interesting measure is to look at what happens in places where socialist principles have been implemented. The postwar consensus in Western Europe is arguably the best example of socialist principles being successful.

socialist principles

Socialism is defined by social ownership of the means of production

All the other stuff that it claims predates its creation

(Education for the masses, social support and free to access healthcare were pioneered by the church long before socialism 'claimed' them - just look at the history of the word 'dole' and why we use it, it goes back nearly a thousand years)

[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-team-rejects-call-9031006 ]For Molgrips[/url]

Which would they be then?

The deliberate and systematic redistribution of wealth from the few to the many. There's a huge difference between that and the ad-hoc charity you're talking about.

The deliberate and systematic redistribution of wealth from the few to the many. There's a huge difference between that and the ad-hoc charity you're talking about.

Tithes were not deliberate and systematic?

Cranberry - give me a break. Actual evidence please not political insinuation.

You **** wot?

Citation please!

Look at Corbyn and Labour's responce to Syria/Allepo - criticism directed at US, silent on Russia. Something numerous commentators have challenged them on.

Anti-Capitalist and thus anti-US sentiment is at the core of Corbyn's Labour Party. Russia is their soul mate and kindred spirit. Cuba under Castro too.

So dazh, sounds like you are describing our progressive tax system.

Anti-Capitalist and thus anti-US sentiment is at the core of Corbyn's Labour Party. Russia is their soul mate and kindred spirit.

So, political insinuation then, not actual information. Or bollocks as it's also known. This kind of talk is what is so very wrong with the world.

Tithes were not deliberate and systematic?

🙂

Molgrips did you read the first paragragph, have you followed McDonnells various outbursts or Momentums agenda or Stop the War which is simply one gigantic anti-American coalition including some very very unsavoury people and groups.

The Toires are silent on all this currently as it's electoral gold dust.

So, political insinuation then, not actual information. Or bollocks as it's also known. This kind of talk is what is so very wrong with the world.

you'll never find a smoking gun where you could quote Corbyn as saying "Russia is fantastic I wish the whole world could be just like them". But the cumulative effect of his whole career suggests he has a soft spot for the place.
Thee BBC link is just a tiny part of that.

Yes, I have Jam, but not being a raging fact-blind Tory I realised that like I said, insinuation is damaging to political debate.

I strongly doubt a lifelong pacifist is going to be supporting a Putin led state. And also, they aren't communist any more, did you know that?

And also, they aren't communist any more, did you know that?

Russia no, Corbyn I am not so sure 😉

McDonnell said he was a Marxist, he's the Shadow Chancellor FFS. Corbyn is totally blind when it comes to Russia just like his idiotic statement on Castro. Capitalism and America is the great Satan as far as Corbyn's Labour Party is concerned.

Jamba is now as beyond parody as the chewbot. It's funny but it's sort of serious as this sort of debate by invention has now largely replaced real discussion, with judges labelled "enemies of the people" and whatnot. It can't be beneficial for our democracy.

McDonnell said he was a Marxist, he's the Shadow Chancellor FFS.

Do you really not understand the difference between supporting Marxism and supporting the Soviet state? Which does not even exist any more anyway!

You know, people like you who deal in insinuation and suggestion often can't understand that some people do simply talk straight. So when Corbyn said that perhaps we should look at the USA's actions, maybe that's what he actually meant, rather than "I love Russia".

Blah blah blah 😉

See you al in 2020 it's going to be carnage.

Corbyn is an anti-Capitalist and wants to take people's money and give it to others. Labour are going to be absolutely crucified. He of course has his £1.6m pension, lucky him. 30 years in finance and I have no chance to accumulate such a pension due to penal tax rates on pension pots. Pot vs Kettle.

Jamba is now as beyond parody as the chewbot. It's funny but it's sort of serious as this sort of debate by invention has now largely replaced real discussion, with judges labelled "enemies of the people" and whatnot. It can't be beneficial for our democracy.

Of course in the Marxist state the free press is at the heart of the rights of the individual.........

The odd thing about newspapers is that they are a great way of looking at the country as they are low cost and widely distributed.

What's the circulation of the Morning Star?

Of course in the Marxist state the free press is at the heart of the rights of the individual.........

Feel free to back up this claim with a reference to the relevant passage in Marx's writing.

Anti-Capitalist and thus anti-US sentiment is at the core of Corbyn's Labour Party. Russia is their soul mate and kindred spirit. Cuba under Castro too

McDonnell said he was a Marxist, he's the Shadow Chancellor

Corbyn is an anti-Capitalist and wants to take people's money and give it to others.

Both positives to me. Are you saying it is a problem, and to who - the fortunate rich people who have been lucky?

Feel free to back up this claim with a reference to the relevant passage in Marx's writing.

Why? I talked of the Marxist state, I'm sure you have a long list of them and the free press enjoyed there

Why? I talked of the Marxist state, I'm sure you have a long list of them and the free press enjoyed there

Indeed - so please tell us which aspect of Marx's philosophy has anything to do with your claims about free press. Or are you just spouting ignorant blx?

[url= https://chomsky.info/20150205-2/ ]USA vs Cuba[/url]

The USA has done more bad in the world than Russia. Corbyn is right to treat Russia and the USA the same.

sounds like you are describing our progressive tax system.

Indeed. This is my point. Saying that socialism is a failure whilst capitalism is a success is silly. There are many aspects of our 'capitalist' system which are straight out of the 'socialist' rule book. Some people like ninfan would rather we do away with things like the welfare state and go back to charity based welfare, but the fact that this is still a fringe opinion would suggest that 'socialism' is more successful than people think.

Would I now? You learn something every day don't you!

Read what I said, the 'welfare state' isn't a socialist concept, it predates socialism by centuries.

Well chaps you have a few years yet to practice your doorstep winning arguments about the differences between Marxism/Trotskyism/Communism/Corbynism. That and how he's not a terrorist sympathiser, how submarines with no missiles are a good idea and how Momentumites are not going to steal the Middle Class's savings. There's quite a long and growing list but there is time, 3.5yrs to be precise. Currently he's making new problems faster than Labour can create solutions but that has to stop eventually surely ?

I did have the biggest laugh earlier about the coverage of Corbyn's upcoming 2017 "rebranding" as the anti-establishment candidate. The man of great principals and a "new kind of politics" is getting a rebrand. How very Saatchi and Saatchi. Brilliant. 🙂

@dazh what we have in the UK is modern socialism. This is what it looks like. Welfare state, health provision, progressive tax system etc.

Indeed. This is my point too. Saying that capitalism is a failure whilst socialism is a success is silly. There are many aspects of our 'mixed' system which are straight out of the 'capitalistt' (sic) rule book. Some people would rather we do away with things like the market and go back (?) to state allocation of resources, but the fact that this is still a fringe opinion would suggest that 'our mixed model' is more successful than people think.

The odd thing is that if you look at reality versus rhetoric, supposed RW parties often do more LW things and vv - the latter best illustrated in Scotland where a supposed L of centre anti-austerity party does things that would make the Tories blush!

Well chaps you have a few years yet to practice your doorstep winning arguments

This again (and again and again and again) We aren't talking about how to get votes - that is obviously to promise tax cuts and to "send the ******* back home".

Saying that capitalism is a failure whilst socialism is a success is silly.

And vice versa.

Indeed Hurty. Don't forget George Osbourne happily nicking most of Millibeans ideas as well

Where to start with Jeremy's 'populist' relaunch? Given that the most successful populist of recent times - Farage - did so with his grinning bloke down the pub routine, pint in one hand, fag in the other, can you see Jezza doing that?

He looks like he's never been near a pub in his life, and the permanent furrowed brow and generally dour, humourless manner are going to make that a pretty hard sell.

Remember when they tried to get Gordon Brown to smile? But instead of being reassuring, he looked like a serial killer?

I expect this attempt to be far far more sinister looking, and transparently weirder than that. Be afraid. Be very very afraid....

what we have in the UK is modern socialism.

No, what the Swedes have is closest.

We have private companies making a profit out of basic needs and human rights, and a government that wants to cream off even more to private companies whilst standards are squeezed by commercial pressures and the needy suffer. Not socialism.

And vice versa.

woosh, Doc 😀

woosh, Doc

whoosh, TM

TM

sorry have you trademarked (whoosh) missing the earlier point? 😉

ZZzzzzz......

We have private companies making a profit out of basic needs and human rights

Where do you draw the line?

Presumably you don't mind [i]people[/i] making a profit out of basic needs and human rights? You know, we pay the police, the doctors, the nurses for their work, none of them are working for free, they all make a profit in return for their services.

Perhaps not, perhaps police work and nursing should be community responsibilies and people should do them unpaid as a way of serving the community? like police specials, mountain rescue, lifeboats etc?

Is it ok for companies selling food to make a profit? Food is a basic human right isn't it? How about the farmers who grow the food? Can they make a profit? Or do you expect them to produce at cost?

What qbout the people who sell stuff to the NHS? Are they allowed to make a profit? The computers, paper tissues and cleaning chemicals, do they need to be provided at cost?

Where do you draw the line as to who is allowed to make a profit from services?

Where to start with Jeremy's 'populist' relaunch?

Announcement of the policy details for nationalisation of GP services and Dentistry seems an ideal start. Got to get the private sector out of the NHS!

We have private companies making a profit out of basic needs and human rights, and a government that wants to cream off even more to private companies whilst standards are squeezed by commercial pressures and the needy suffer. Not socialism.

Interesting, the utility nationalisations provided massive off balance sheet finance for infrastructure investment, have social obligations, provide subsidised bills for the poorest in some sectors.

Scotland and NI which didn't nationalise some uilities has had to resort to PFIs because the public money isn't there and have a massive future investment headache

England and Wales also subsidise the local gas bill in Thurso, Oban, Wick and Campbeltown massively

But, nationalise away, adding more pension liabilities, infrastructure investment and running costs to the public accounts is the way to go!!

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Sums it up really, when is it going to be announced by Corbyn?

But, nationalise away, adding more pension liabilities, infrastructure investment and running costs to the public accounts is the way to go!!

I'm not advocating any of that, quite clearly.

Where do you draw the line as to who is allowed to make a profit from services?

Yes of course. Those evil public sector workers profiting from everyone else getting ill and stuff. It's all just a profiteering racket isn't it? You really do say some of the daftest things I've ever seen on here.

Binners, Jezza has been in a pub. He did so after winning the leadership, stood on a chair and sang The Red Flag. Don't worry you'll see the footage in 2020.

DrJ unless you can win votes and form a Government then arguing about the shortfalls of Capitalism is just intellectual masterbation which is basically the point made to Labour voters about electing Corbyn in the first place.

You know, we pay the police, the doctors, the nurses for their work, none of them are working for free, they all make a profit in return for their services

Making a profit as in a company profit is not the same as being paid for employment. Making profit is above and beyond wages.

It's possible to pay wages and the profit to be nominal.

I'm not advocating any of that, quite clearly.

What are you advocating when you say this?

We have private companies making a profit out of basic needs and human rights, and a government that wants to cream off even more to private companies whilst standards are squeezed by commercial pressures and the needy suffer.

You know, people like you who deal in insinuation and suggestion often can't understand that some people do simply talk straight.

You seemed to be suggesting that nationalised industries necessarily include onerous pension liabilities, is that true?

You seemed to be suggesting that nationalised industries necessarily include onerous pension liabilities, is that true?

If you nationalised companies with pension deficits you get a liability. Transferring everyone to public sector defined benefit pensions adds a second layer of deficit

Anyway are you going to answer the question or continue with insinuating and suggesting which would be disappointing

DrJ unless you can win votes

Nobody is trying to win votes here - it's a chat forum. It's possible to talk about things and discuss ideas without always needing to prop up your ideology with lies and propaganda.

I'm not insinuating or suggesting. I never do that. I'm trying to get to the bottom of this pension thing.

Transferring everyone to public sector defined benefit pensions adds a second layer of deficit

Why does public owner ship mean defined benefit pensions?

Why does public owner ship mean defined benefit pensions?

What are you avoiding the question?

To answer yours, the significant majority of public sector employees are on a defined benefit scheme. To transfer in large numbers of defined contribution employees will weaken the position of the DB staff which the Union's (whose staff are on DB schemes) won't stand for

If part of Corbyns revolution is to change public sector pensions to DC then he will be braver than anyone else

Nobody is trying to win votes here - it's a chat forum. It's possible to talk about things and discuss ideas without always needing to prop up your ideology with lies and propaganda.

Well there was me thinking this was a discussion about policies which might have even a remote chance of being put into practice. As we've said all along you are agreeing its a utopian fanasty being discussed here.

@rone businesses have to make a profit to pay their shareholders a return, shareholders want a return which reflects the significant risks they are taking. Businesses fail, shareholders loose everything. So successful businesses have to pay a return which compensates for the ones that fail. You have to have shareholders (inc "sole traders"), the government cannot own everything. Communism (where govt owns everything) doesn't work. In a situation where Govt owned the "means of production" anyone with a remotely good idea wouod setup abroad (in a capitalist country) produce there and export to the UK.

Why does public owner ship mean defined benefit pensions?

It frequently (almost always) does as that way the Govt can fudge the true cost by reducing the annual wage bill. The alternative is the govt would have to pay in 25% (or even more) extra to a private (defined contribution scheme) to try and match the pension benefits. A perfect example is the EU where there are around £6bn of future pension liabilities for UK MEP's which are totally unfunded, not a single penny has been put aside. Their true cost has been massively understated, a good word is [b]hidden[/b].

Well there was me thinking this was a discussion about policies which might have even a remote chance of being put into practice.

It's a discussion about many things - including what is desirable to do even if it is unlikely in the current climate poisoned by people like yourself who simply peddle lies in order to advance their cause.

What are you advocating when you say this?

I'm advocating public ownership of essential utilities and services.

Re pensions: if we were renationalising companies we could set the pensions up any way we like. We could set the companies up however we want, just without private shareholders. We don't need to repeat the 70s.

True, but I'd say that the majority of voters look at Jezza and the gang around him, and assume (with some clearly stated justification) that repeating the 1970's is exactly what they'd set about doing

DrJ - Member

It's a discussion about many things - including what is desirable to do even if it is unlikely in the current climate poisoned by people like yourself who simply peddle lies in order to advance their cause.

Lies and criticising him for policy that they have made up in the same post.

True, but I'd say that the majority of voters look at Jezza and the gang around him, and assume (with some clearly stated justification) that repeating the 1970's is exactly what they'd set about doing

Yes, almost as if they have already made up their minds and are twisting what they hear to back themselves up.

Not a good way to run a political debate, but a great way to run a mud-slinging competition.

Has Corbyn advocated renationalising anything other than railways?

I'd say that his stated policies are so vague, often contradictory and confused, or in a lot of cases non-existent, that people will draw their own conclusions Molls. And when they look at the likes of john McDonnell and len McClusky apparently dictating policy, then it's not hard to see where the 70's rerun assumptions come from

Not yet but his Chancellor is an avowed Marxist who believes in state ownership of all major enterprise. Also he couldn't nationalise anything whilst in the EU as it's against the law. The railways he can just decline to renew / rebid the franchise.

I had the eye opening experience of working for a state owned German Bank for 6 months, there is not a worse combination than a bank (with a fat cheque book for loans) and politicians. Some of the biggest Financial crises disasters where the German state banks with a mandate to support local business but which in fact had truck loads of US subprime.

70's Labour delivered 18 years of Tory governments. There is a message there.

Please carry on with the state ownership stuff it's a guaranteed vote loser.

Chancellor is an avowed Marxist who believes in state ownership of all major enterprise.

Yes, but an intelligent person could easily see the difference between an ideal and a practical possibility, don't you think?

Also he couldn't nationalise anything whilst in the EU as it's against the law

Good job we're leaving then, isn't it! 😆

The EU making laws that actually reinforce your position? Priceless 🙂

Some of the biggest Financial crises disasters where the German state banks with a mandate to support local business but which in fact had truck loads of US subprime.

And some others were the fault of private banks. So clearly public or private ownership wasn't the problem.

You are shockingly bad at analysing and debating , Jam, you really are.

and assume (with some clearly stated justification) that repeating the 1970's is exactly what they'd set about doing

Then it would be a false assumption. Expansion of the cooperative sector, universal basic income, democratising the bank of england, people's QE, green investment banks. These are hardly 1970s ideas. The only 70s things they've talked about is free higher education and renationalising of the railways, which have mass popular support.

You are shockingly bad at analysing and debating , Jam, you really are.

Well my 30 years in the finance would suggest otherwise. I matters not whether I am good at debating in your view does it as I keep picking the winning side. The major FU banks where the regional wannabes here in the UK and the regional state banks in Germany.

It doesn't matter whether you think a person could understand the differences in policy, as I asked its whether you could explain them on the doorstep in the marginal constituencies. I have my view.

We could set the companies up however we want

So no consultation with the staff and unions then?

Has Corbyn advocated renationalising anything other than railways?

The NHS

Hence the challenge to you on GP services and Dentistry, when should they be nationalised?

You are shockingly bad at analysing and debating , Jam, you really are.

A pot, a kettle, and the colour black come to mind

So no consultation with the staff and unions then?

Well depends on who you define as 'we' but if I were in charge then however I wanted would include exactly that, consultation with those involved and who might know what they are talking about. In stark contrast to most Tory governments.

A pot, a kettle, and the colour black come to mind

No comment.

Mass slave labour, sweatshop labour, child labour; the subjugation of most of the world's people to sustain the lifestyles of the few.

Article in the Sunday Times today about The Messiah at some shindig for striking train workers or something. Someone piped up from the back, and The Messiah apparently asked, "Which comrade said that?".

Now, it's not so much what the piper up said that is interesting, but what The Messiah himself spake. Does anyone [i]really[/i] use "comrade" unless taking the piss? I mean, it's satire, right, comrade? Isn't it?

Nothing can be as bad as Miliband taking questions in the G.E debates.
"and what's your name sir?"
"Lee"
"ok thankyou Gary"
"LEE"
"sorry, Barry?"
"Lee (ffs)"
"ok um good question"

Corbyn answering question:
"Thankyou Comrade..."

Better imo