Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
jakesmith said:
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
jakesmith said:
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
Burwood said:
jakesmith said:
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
MPs enacting decisions without proper debate and realisation of the consequences....
If “no deal” was the default position of unsuccessful negotiations, then why the f
k did Labour, the LibDems et al vote to invoke article 50 (Majority of 498:114)?It also makes interesting reading, to note the individuals who voted it through.....Take a look you may be surprised....some high profile names who now wish to remain....
Edited by wobert on Monday 19th August 16:26
Edited by wobert on Monday 19th August 16:27
Off the top of my head...they did nothing for me. The only changes to affect me worsened my tax position.
Increase in personal tax allowance. - Does not apply above 100k
Increase in higher rate threshold. Ditto
50p tax rate reduced. Only applies over 150k
Stamp duty changes removed cliff edges. In exchange for a massive increase over 1 million
Reduction in corporation tax. - No help to individuals
I would also add the reduction in life time allowance for pensions to 1million.
Increase in personal tax allowance. - Does not apply above 100k
Increase in higher rate threshold. Ditto
50p tax rate reduced. Only applies over 150k
Stamp duty changes removed cliff edges. In exchange for a massive increase over 1 million
Reduction in corporation tax. - No help to individuals
I would also add the reduction in life time allowance for pensions to 1million.
wobert said:
Burwood said:
jakesmith said:
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
MPs enacting decisions without proper debate and realisation of the consequences....
If “no deal” was the default position of unsuccessful negotiations, then why the f
k did Labour, the LibDems et al vote to invoke article 50 (Majority of 498:114)?So I simply don't understand why Labour voted against it other than for petty party politicking. A huge tactical blunder, as you rightly say, MPs voting without properly understanding the consequences. Putting a stick in the spokes of a soft Brexit is going to leave us with the hardest possible Brexit.
Still, such guiless gormlessness is scarcely surprising when you look at the lack of intelligence of the likes of David Lammy etc.
Andy Zarse said:
Exactly. I would like it explained as to why did Labour vote three times against TM's Withdrawal Agreement bearing in mind it was as pretty close to what they wanted as they were likely to ever get. The EU consistently stated the agreement was the only deal in town. There's no reason to doubt this is the case and there would be no other deal, Jeremy begging on bended knee or not.
So I simply don't understand why Labour voted against it other than for petty party politicking. A huge tactical blunder, as you rightly say, MPs voting without properly understanding the consequences. Putting a stick in the spokes of a soft Brexit is going to leave us with the hardest possible Brexit.
Still, such guiless gormlessness is scarcely surprising when you look at the lack of intelligence of the likes of David Lammy etc.
Wasn’t it because labour saw the conservatives in a weak position and fancied their chances in a general election?So I simply don't understand why Labour voted against it other than for petty party politicking. A huge tactical blunder, as you rightly say, MPs voting without properly understanding the consequences. Putting a stick in the spokes of a soft Brexit is going to leave us with the hardest possible Brexit.
Still, such guiless gormlessness is scarcely surprising when you look at the lack of intelligence of the likes of David Lammy etc.
El stovey said:
Andy Zarse said:
Exactly. I would like it explained as to why did Labour vote three times against TM's Withdrawal Agreement bearing in mind it was as pretty close to what they wanted as they were likely to ever get. The EU consistently stated the agreement was the only deal in town. There's no reason to doubt this is the case and there would be no other deal, Jeremy begging on bended knee or not.
So I simply don't understand why Labour voted against it other than for petty party politicking. A huge tactical blunder, as you rightly say, MPs voting without properly understanding the consequences. Putting a stick in the spokes of a soft Brexit is going to leave us with the hardest possible Brexit.
Still, such guiless gormlessness is scarcely surprising when you look at the lack of intelligence of the likes of David Lammy etc.
Wasn’t it because labour saw the conservatives in a weak position and fancied their chances in a general election?So I simply don't understand why Labour voted against it other than for petty party politicking. A huge tactical blunder, as you rightly say, MPs voting without properly understanding the consequences. Putting a stick in the spokes of a soft Brexit is going to leave us with the hardest possible Brexit.
Still, such guiless gormlessness is scarcely surprising when you look at the lack of intelligence of the likes of David Lammy etc.
Everyone can see that Corbyn and Labour would have done, and will continue to do, everything in their power to force a general election despite it conflicting with getting the best for result for leaving the EU. This also despite it in many cases individual MPs conflicting with the wishes of their constituents.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.
I can't remember where I read it. But I think the vast majority of Billionaires and Multimillionaires have made their own fortunes and not inherited them. 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
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.
Parklife!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.
Hilarious nonsense.
Agammemnon said:
2xChevrons said:
labour produces a certain value, capital takes most of that value and gives a portion back to labour as a wage.
Could you show your evidence to support that the majority goes to 'capital' and the minority to 'labour', please? I've not seen anything to support it.AstonZagato said:
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.
Parklife!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.
Hilarious nonsense.
Agammemnon said:
2xChevrons said:
labour produces a certain value, capital takes most of that value and gives a portion back to labour as a wage.
Could you show your evidence to support that the majority goes to 'capital' and the minority to 'labour', please? I've not seen anything to support it.Andy Zarse said:
Agammemnon said:
2xChevrons said:
labour produces a certain value, capital takes most of that value and gives a portion back to labour as a wage.
Could you show your evidence to support that the majority goes to 'capital' and the minority to 'labour', please? I've not seen anything to support it.jakesmith said:
I don't think the referendum was to address "the deep seated concerns of 17.4 million of the electorate", that's fantasy
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
Yeh, loads of people I know thought it was a laugh to vote leave, such funPut 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
dear oh dear oh dear
CustardOnChips said:
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.
I can't remember where I read it. But I think the vast majority of Billionaires and Multimillionaires have made their own fortunes and not inherited them. 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
Also the worlds richest men, Gates, Buffet, Bezos did not inherit billions they built companies that did that an along they way made 1000's of people better off via free employment. I suspect if you looked at the likes of Amazon you would find staff who went from Apple in the 80s Microsoft in the 90s google in the 00's an Amazon today all benefiting from the rise of these huge companies an the vision of their founders.
Tell me a hard left society that has achived such things all with freedom of expression and though, china is wealthy but not everyone is many ar eno better off than they were 50 years ago with no hope of change. That is not the case in capitalist countries with free an fair goverments
Warnings from history when you look at Zimbabwe’s white farmers. They were forced from their farms to give the land back to the people, only to find the people could not do the same job. So now everyone is poorer.
Not everyone is cut out to be employer and that’s ok but Labour need to learn that people are not equal. We have different skills and aspirations. What we do deserve is the same opportunity to succeed.
Not everyone is cut out to be employer and that’s ok but Labour need to learn that people are not equal. We have different skills and aspirations. What we do deserve is the same opportunity to succeed.
wormus said:
Warnings from history when you look at Zimbabwe’s white farmers. They were forced from their farms to give the land back to the people, only to find the people could not do the same job. So now everyone is poorer.
Not everyone is cut out to be employer and that’s ok but Labour need to learn that people are not equal. We have different skills and aspirations. What we do deserve is the same opportunity to succeed.
While I would accept there is an element of "white privallage in the US" - I think its fair to say the settlers from Euope who came to the US really did have the opportunity to succeed and the UK is similar. No system is perfect but a free an fair one does help level the playing field. In the UK the aristocracy are not the rich elite alone no more. Plenty of self made men an women out there who have made far larger fortunes in a short space of timeNot everyone is cut out to be employer and that’s ok but Labour need to learn that people are not equal. We have different skills and aspirations. What we do deserve is the same opportunity to succeed.
Camoradi said:
Corbyn's latest moves look like desperation to me.
He'd be happy for the UK to be a branch of the Ku Klux Klan as long as he could be branch secretary.
Yep, he seems to try and turn every conversation round to a general election being required, he wants the top job and the rest of it seems incidental and a means to that end.He'd be happy for the UK to be a branch of the Ku Klux Klan as long as he could be branch secretary.
It’s like Alan Partridge style machinations, and as subtle and sophisticated as a toddler after something.
El stovey said:
Andy Zarse said:
Exactly. I would like it explained as to why did Labour vote three times against TM's Withdrawal Agreement bearing in mind it was as pretty close to what they wanted as they were likely to ever get. The EU consistently stated the agreement was the only deal in town. There's no reason to doubt this is the case and there would be no other deal, Jeremy begging on bended knee or not.
So I simply don't understand why Labour voted against it other than for petty party politicking. A huge tactical blunder, as you rightly say, MPs voting without properly understanding the consequences. Putting a stick in the spokes of a soft Brexit is going to leave us with the hardest possible Brexit.
Still, such guiless gormlessness is scarcely surprising when you look at the lack of intelligence of the likes of David Lammy etc.
Wasn’t it because labour saw the conservatives in a weak position and fancied their chances in a general election?So I simply don't understand why Labour voted against it other than for petty party politicking. A huge tactical blunder, as you rightly say, MPs voting without properly understanding the consequences. Putting a stick in the spokes of a soft Brexit is going to leave us with the hardest possible Brexit.
Still, such guiless gormlessness is scarcely surprising when you look at the lack of intelligence of the likes of David Lammy etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff