Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
It's important stuff like this that will ensure that Jeremy is in touch with everyone that is worried about the climate too
"I've written to the Icelandic PM Katrín Jakobsdóttir to offer my support for her efforts to win backing for a declaration of a climate emergency, including at next week's Nordic Council meeting.
We have the chance to act before it’s too late. It's our historic duty to take it."
Not only can he lead the nation and prevent the cataclysm of a no deal Brexit but he can also help save the planet.
Perhaps its best that if he does become PM of a temporary government that emergency measures are brought in to make the government a fixed term one.
El stovey said:
Calm down.
I’m just saying, I’ve got a job so I’m “working people” but I want to know where elites start? He did say multi millionaires, which I’m not. I’m not Jewish either so maybe that helps.
Is he still against private schools because a lot of his MPs went to them including him and their kids still go there.
Your reply doesn’t really shed much light on my questions tbh.
I suspect that Corbyn is using the classic Marxist two-class definition- if you need to trade your time and labour in order to earn money to live, you're economically working class ('the many'). If you own the means of production and your income is from capital (shares, investments, property) rather than you having to work for x-hours for someone else in order to earn y-amount then you're in the haute bourgeoisie/rentier capitalists ('the few') and so probably the 'elite' that he's referring to. I’m just saying, I’ve got a job so I’m “working people” but I want to know where elites start? He did say multi millionaires, which I’m not. I’m not Jewish either so maybe that helps.
Is he still against private schools because a lot of his MPs went to them including him and their kids still go there.
Your reply doesn’t really shed much light on my questions tbh.
Or if you trade your labour to someone else but don't actively take part in production, but rather perform administrative tasks for the rentier capitalists to help them manage their capital and their workforce then you're in the petit bourgeoisie/functional capitalist class, which also applies to tradesmen/artisans etc. who own their own businesses/means of production but still have to labour and produce in order to live. Because these people still have to use their time and labour to survive they are still the working class ('the many') under broad Marxist analysis.
In short - do you actively have to go and do 'a job' for someone else in order to earn money? Then you're not an elite. Can you sit on your backside all day and do no definable productive job while your income still arrives because you skim it off the labour, activity and needs of others? Then you're an elite.
swisstoni said:
Corbyns still got it. He had the folks of Corby whoopin 
Seemed a bit rent a crowd. He’s not really an inspiring orator. I doubt anyone will be listening to any of his great speeches in the future. “Here a have a letter from Mrs Smith in Wolverhampton . . “Do young people still like him? I think they need a new movement to get behind, like “the squad” or maybe a party actually made up of teenagers?
He’s the least revolutionary revolutionary. I just can’t see the attraction at all. He’s droning on about nothing and people are randomly shouting for him. Maybe it’s ironic or something.
2xChevrons said:
El stovey said:
Calm down.
I’m just saying, I’ve got a job so I’m “working people” but I want to know where elites start? He did say multi millionaires, which I’m not. I’m not Jewish either so maybe that helps.
Is he still against private schools because a lot of his MPs went to them including him and their kids still go there.
Your reply doesn’t really shed much light on my questions tbh.
I suspect that Corbyn is using the classic Marxist two-class definition- if you need to trade your time and labour in order to earn money to live, you're economically working class ('the many'). If you own the means of production and your income is from capital (shares, investments, property) rather than you having to work for x-hours for someone else in order to earn y-amount then you're in the haute bourgeoisie/rentier capitalists ('the few') and so probably the 'elite' that he's referring to. I’m just saying, I’ve got a job so I’m “working people” but I want to know where elites start? He did say multi millionaires, which I’m not. I’m not Jewish either so maybe that helps.
Is he still against private schools because a lot of his MPs went to them including him and their kids still go there.
Your reply doesn’t really shed much light on my questions tbh.
Or if you trade your labour to someone else but don't actively take part in production, but rather perform administrative tasks for the rentier capitalists to help them manage their capital and their workforce then you're in the petit bourgeoisie/functional capitalist class, which also applies to tradesmen/artisans etc. who own their own businesses/means of production but still have to labour and produce in order to live. Because these people still have to use their time and labour to survive they are still the working class ('the many') under broad Marxist analysis.
In short - do you actively have to go and do 'a job' for someone else in order to earn money? Then you're not an elite. Can you sit on your backside all day and do no definable productive job while your income still arrives because you skim it off the labour, activity and needs of others? Then you're an elite.
T-195 said:
768 said:
If you earn an income or have an asset, you're an elite and he's coming for you.
How exactly is that different to the last 9 years?Increase in personal tax allowance.
Increase in higher rate threshold.
50p tax rate reduced.
Stamp duty changes removed cliff edges.
Reduction in corporation tax.
If you can't see the difference between that and, just for one example, Old McDonald targeting "rich" people from £70k with income tax rises, then yes, there's no difference.
P5BNij said:
An open question to the right honourable multimillionaire for Islington North - how did the 'elite' become the 'elite', did they start as workers themselves, putting the hours in building a business from scratch and employing more workers, or were they all given it on a plate...? 
It's mostly the latter, when we're talking about the actual capital class, not the boogeyman "everyone who earns over £70k/annum" definition. That's part of the problem. If everyone in, say, the top 1% who possess 21% of the wealth (note not income) had got that much by starting from zero, putting in suitable effort and attaining success and being productive, then that would be fantastic. But that's simply not the case. I would almost go as far to say as that is **never** the case. And once you get to that level of wealth, you accumulate more at a simply fantastic rate, just through income begat by existing wealth. You can do literally nothing and accumulate wealth at a rate that is literally impossible to spend in a human lifetime. Which would be extravagant and pointless, but not really objectionable if it wasn't for the massive inequalities in basic human needs that result from the production and accumulation of said wealth. In the existing system it is, of course, better to have 'a job' than 'no job', because life is very difficult/impossible with no income. So, yes, the much-lauded and revered 'job creators' are neccessary and creating 'jobs' is good as opposed to 'no jobs'. But 'job creation' isn't a virtuous or selfless act. It's accumulating more labour for capital to exploit - labour produces a certain value, capital takes most of that value and gives a portion back to labour as a wage. Which is better than starving in a gutter, but is far from ideal. Even if you were the most kind-hearted capitalist who ever was, who came from nothing and built up everything by the literal sweat of your brow, you're still exploiting your workforce.
The ideal would be to cut out the parasitic middle man (capital) and just let labour own the means of production so it has full control over what it produces.
This is, of course, utopian thinking. And no one, even the most fevered right-wing fever-dream version of Jeremy Corbyn, is going to immediately introduce outright communism overnight. I don't think he'd do that even if he had all the time, power and ability in the universe. The fact that he's a member of a parliamentary party already means he's committed to the slower, more gradual and less radical path of social democracy rather than trying to forment a democractic socialist revolution. But it's not a bad lens to base less radical policy off, because whatever the veracity of Marx's solutions to the problems of capitalism, his study of those problems and their effect on society has always been absolutely spot on.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 19th August 13:08
Andy Zarse said:
By "Tory made problem", do you mean the party responding to the deep seated concerns of 17.4 million of the electorate about the way the nation was being sucked in further and further into the anti-democratic EU without let or hindrance?
I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation. I don’t believe a large number of Brexit voters cared about the issue at all before the referendum and all the rubbish that came with it. I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
jakesmith said:
I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation. I don’t believe a large number of Brexit voters cared about the issue at all before the referendum and all the rubbish that came with it.
I did, I don't care IF you believe me or not, MY vote was worth the same as yours, please remember that..2xChevrons said:
It's mostly the latter, when we're talking about the actual capital class, not the boogeyman "everyone who earns over £70k/annum" definition. That's part of the problem. If everyone in, say, the top 1% who possess 21% of the wealth (note not income) had got that much by starting from zero, putting in suitable effort and attaining success and being productive, then that would be fantastic. But that's simply not the case. I would almost go as far to say as that is **never** the case. And once you get to that level of wealth, you accumulate more at a simply fantastic rate, just through income begat by existing wealth. You can do literally nothing and accumulate wealth at a rate that is literally impossible to spend in a human lifetime. Which would be extravagant and pointless, but not really objectionable if it wasn't for the massive inequalities in basic human needs that result from the production and accumulation of said wealth.
In the existing system it is, of course, better to have 'a job' than 'no job', because life is very difficult/impossible with no income. So, yes, the much-lauded and revered 'job creators' are neccessary and creating 'jobs' is good as opposed to 'no jobs'. But 'job creation' isn't a virtuous or selfless act. It's accumulating more labour for capital to exploit - labour produces a certain value, capital takes most of that value and gives a portion back to labour as a wage. Which is better than starving in a gutter, but is far from ideal. Even if you were the most kind-hearted capitalist who ever was, who came from nothing and built up everything by the literal sweat of your brow, you're still exploiting your workforce.
The ideal would be to cut out the parasitic middle man (capital) and just let labour own the means of production so it has full control over what it produces.
This is, of course, utopian thinking. And no one, even the most fevered right-wing fever-dream version of Jeremy Corbyn, is going to immediately introduce outright communism overnight. I don't think he'd do that even if he had all the time, power and ability in the universe. The fact that he's a member of a parliamentary party already means he's committed to the slower, more gradual and less radical path of social democracy rather than trying to forment a democractic socialist revolution. But it's not a bad lens to base less radical policy off, because whatever the veracity of Marx's solutions to the problems of capitalism, his study of those problems and their effect on society has always been absolutely spot on.
Or he is using the machinations of state and orthodox process to seize power, straight out of the ‘extreme politics’ playbookIn the existing system it is, of course, better to have 'a job' than 'no job', because life is very difficult/impossible with no income. So, yes, the much-lauded and revered 'job creators' are neccessary and creating 'jobs' is good as opposed to 'no jobs'. But 'job creation' isn't a virtuous or selfless act. It's accumulating more labour for capital to exploit - labour produces a certain value, capital takes most of that value and gives a portion back to labour as a wage. Which is better than starving in a gutter, but is far from ideal. Even if you were the most kind-hearted capitalist who ever was, who came from nothing and built up everything by the literal sweat of your brow, you're still exploiting your workforce.
The ideal would be to cut out the parasitic middle man (capital) and just let labour own the means of production so it has full control over what it produces.
This is, of course, utopian thinking. And no one, even the most fevered right-wing fever-dream version of Jeremy Corbyn, is going to immediately introduce outright communism overnight. I don't think he'd do that even if he had all the time, power and ability in the universe. The fact that he's a member of a parliamentary party already means he's committed to the slower, more gradual and less radical path of social democracy rather than trying to forment a democractic socialist revolution. But it's not a bad lens to base less radical policy off, because whatever the veracity of Marx's solutions to the problems of capitalism, his study of those problems and their effect on society has always been absolutely spot on.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 19th August 13:08
A reminder of what the suddenly Pro remain and second referendum Corbyn thinks of the EU
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1163419...
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1163419...
jakesmith said:
Andy Zarse said:
By "Tory made problem", do you mean the party responding to the deep seated concerns of 17.4 million of the electorate about the way the nation was being sucked in further and further into the anti-democratic EU without let or hindrance?
I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation. I don’t believe a large number of Brexit voters cared about the issue at all before the referendum and all the rubbish that came with it. I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
jakesmith said:
Andy Zarse said:
By "Tory made problem", do you mean the party responding to the deep seated concerns of 17.4 million of the electorate about the way the nation was being sucked in further and further into the anti-democratic EU without let or hindrance?
I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation. I don’t believe a large number of Brexit voters cared about the issue at all before the referendum and all the rubbish that came with it. I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
A Winner Is You said:
A reminder of what the suddenly Pro remain and second referendum Corbyn thinks of the EU
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1163419...
I don't need to watch that to know that he's an extraordinary man of extraordinary principle. :-)https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1163419...
jakesmith said:
Or he is using the machinations of state and orthodox process to seize power, straight out of the ‘extreme politics’ playbook
Corbyn (and Labour) is only 'extreme politics' if you're using the very narrow and right-slanted spectrum of 'acceptable UK politics since 1994', which if you take the entire political spectrum barely got over to left-of-centre with Ed Miliband. Across that entire spectrum Labour is now somewhere just over the border of 'centre left' into 'left'. There is nothing objectively 'extreme' about the Labour platform - it's a socio-economic plan that has worked (and is working) very nicely under functioning democratic systems throughout the world. The only other way it could be seen as 'extreme' is if the viewer isn't reflecting their own politics properly - either they're right-slanted enough that the neoliberalism of the Conservative party isn't good enough, or they're so committed to worthless centrism that anything outside of "the problems we have in society are bad, but the causes are very good" seems extreme to them.
jakesmith said:
Andy Zarse said:
By "Tory made problem", do you mean the party responding to the deep seated concerns of 17.4 million of the electorate about the way the nation was being sucked in further and further into the anti-democratic EU without let or hindrance?
I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation. I don’t believe a large number of Brexit voters cared about the issue at all before the referendum and all the rubbish that came with it. I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
The referendum was the largest democratic exercise in the history of the world's (almost) oldest democracy. If nobody cared then why did so many participate?
Andy Zarse said:
jakesmith said:
Andy Zarse said:
By "Tory made problem", do you mean the party responding to the deep seated concerns of 17.4 million of the electorate about the way the nation was being sucked in further and further into the anti-democratic EU without let or hindrance?
I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation. I don’t believe a large number of Brexit voters cared about the issue at all before the referendum and all the rubbish that came with it. I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
The referendum was the largest democratic exercise in the history of the world's (almost) oldest democracy. If nobody cared then why did so many participate?
Andy Zarse said:
jakesmith said:
Andy Zarse said:
By "Tory made problem", do you mean the party responding to the deep seated concerns of 17.4 million of the electorate about the way the nation was being sucked in further and further into the anti-democratic EU without let or hindrance?
I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation. I don’t believe a large number of Brexit voters cared about the issue at all before the referendum and all the rubbish that came with it. I mean, I realise most of you socialists hate the idea of letting the little people have a say on anything, and you're sure the towering intellects of your Dear Leaders know best in all circumstances. Obviously we will ignore the inconvenient fact that Labour voted in favour of holding the EU referendum and that Labour voted to enact Article 50 with leaving with No Deal as the default position. The Tories quite rightly trusted the people to decide. Whilst I think Dave was pretty naive to think he'd win the referendum, I cannot understand why you think letting the public decide was a bad thing?
The referendum was the largest democratic exercise in the history of the world's (almost) oldest democracy. If nobody cared then why did so many participate?
Put on a referendum, drive a red bus around, give people the opportunity to sock it to the Torys after austerity etc, surprise surprise people go out and vote.
I'm sure there were plenty of those who did genuinely want to leave the EU before this became an issue on the scale that it is now too
I accept the result of course but to postulate that all those voters had deep seated concerns about EU membership is rubbish
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff