I would agree with Karl, it is precisely the other way around - the confusion is deliberate and all yours and we know why. 'Democratic Socialism' is a contradiction in terms - a sugar coated fiction to enable the unpalatable reality of Marxism to be swallowed by the UK electorate.Once again George ... you are confusing Marxism and Communism with Democratic Socialism
The Russian state is no longer a de facto dictatorship roughly based on the ideals of Marx, its a pseudo fascist state based on the ideals of Putin.
Socialism is not afraid of the market, Lenin himself saw that the market could be a good thing as long as it was regulated accordingly. Labour want to regulate in the interests of the many not destroy capitalism for good. To think that is the plan is wrong headed mate, it is simply not going to happen even as much as I would like to see it. Its Social Marketisation based on the Nordic model rather than out right anti=capitalism.
And nor should you. It's not your wanting I have issue with. It's that the party you would prefer to lead the country have zero chance of achieving it, and in fact would make things much, much worse.
Do you think every other failed communist or hard left socialist state set out with the intention of ruining their economy and the impoverishment of millions of their citizens? Of course they did not, but that was the effect nevertheless.
That alternatives to capitalism fail every single time is beyond debate, and yet Marxist McDonnell wants to smash the capitalist system and bring about systemic change. The guy - and anyone of similar views - must be clinically insane. Either that or be on the payroll of the Russians or something.
That's far too heavy for him.The Russian state is no longer a de facto dictatorship roughly based on the ideals of Marx, its a pseudo fascist state based on the ideals of Putin.
Socialism is not afraid of the market, Lenin himself saw that the market could be a good thing as long as it was regulated accordingly. Labour want to regulate in the interests of the many not destroy capitalism for good. To think that is the plan is wrong headed mate, it is simply not going to happen even as much as I would like to see it. Its Social Marketisation based on the Nordic model rather than out right anti=capitalism.
Coming from one of the most erudite, well-read and balanced posters on the forum, I'd have to take that seriously. Luckily the opposite is true.That's far too heavy for him.
His political horizons end at Tories 1 Labour 0.
But what does the economy matter anyway? Brexit will bollox the economy and you now think it’s a good idea, so the save economy argument doesn’t really work. It’s just ideology and that’s never been a sound basis for decision making, by anyone.And nor should you. It's not your wanting I have issue with. It's that the party you would prefer to lead the country have zero chance of achieving it, and in fact would make things much, much worse.
Do you think every other failed communist or hard left socialist state set out with the intention of ruining their economy and the impoverishment of millions of their citizens? Of course they did not, but that was the effect nevertheless.
That alternatives to capitalism fail every single time is beyond debate, and yet Marxist McDonnell wants to smash the capitalist system and bring about systemic change. The guy - and anyone of similar views - must be clinically insane. Either that or be on the payroll of the Russians or something.
Fucking up the economy is not relevant to decision making? Well the Marxists certainly don't seem to give a toss, that is true.But what does the economy matter anyway? Brexit will bollox the economy and you now think it’s a good idea, so the save economy argument doesn’t really work. It’s just ideology and that’s never been a sound basis for decision making, by anyone.
But what does the economy matter anyway? Brexit will bollox the economy and you now think it’s a good idea, so the save economy argument doesn’t really work. It’s just ideology and that’s never been a sound basis for decision making, by anyone.
I would agree with Karl, it is precisely the other way around - the confusion is deliberate and all yours and we know why. 'Democratic Socialism' is a contradiction in terms - a sugar coated fiction to enable the unpalatable reality of Marxism to be swallowed by the UK electorate.
Brexit will worsen the economy for the next decades, sure but things will still continue, just as they did after the recession.
Completely ripping up the system itself is completely different.
really?Tell that to the population of Norway .... cos they've voted for it
Brexit is ripping up the system. It reverses 40 years of economic and industrial policy. To disengage our integrated economy and turn it into a more isolationist model is why someone like Corbyn would ordinary champion Brexit as it allows for a more Socialist model just as for the right it allows for a more ‘Singapore on Thames’ model.
The cost of remodelling our economy over the ten years or so it would take to do this irrespective of which model you choose and the need to trade with the EU is the likeliest barrier to either model. Also the fact you are unlikely to get either party in power for long enough to oversee such an extensive remodelling - both would reverse each other - and years of negotiating with the EU means you are more likely to get a hodgepodge of measures overlying the model we have today. A bit of public ownership here and a few ‘business friendly’ measures there.
Brexit is ripping up the system. It reverses 40 years of economic and industrial policy. To disengage our integrated economy and turn it into a more isolationist model is why someone like Corbyn would ordinary champion Brexit as it allows for a more Socialist model just as for the right it allows for a more ‘Singapore on Thames’ model.
The cost of remodelling our economy over the ten years or so it would take to do this irrespective of which model you choose and the need to trade with the EU is the likeliest barrier to either model. Also the fact you are unlikely to get either party in power for long enough to oversee such an extensive remodelling - both would reverse each other - and years of negotiating with the EU means you are more likely to get a hodgepodge of measures overlying the model we have today. A bit of public ownership here and a few ‘business friendly’ measures there.
If the WA passes, we agree a FTA, then life wouldn’t be too different. There will be job losses, the economy will slow but the capitalist system in which we operate and in which we trade with the EU, won’t change drastically.
Changing to a socialist system would be totally destructive.
What "remodelling"? We don't need to remodel our economy when we have a tariff-free, frictionless trade deal. Business will be very largely unaffected. You seem to have ignored this possible - I would even say very likely - outcome.
If the WA passes, we agree a FTA, then life wouldn’t be too different. There will be job losses, the economy will slow but the capitalist system in which we operate and in which we trade with the EU, won’t change drastically.
Changing to a socialist system would be totally different.
I’m not arguing for either here, I’m just highlighting the difference.
Fair enough but electing a Corbyn Labour Govt will not herald a socialist system. Taking the railways or some utilities into public ownership does not a Socialist State make. Every Labour leader has had this scary boogeyman nonsense and I can’t be arsed with it.
Agreed. And electing Hitler because "don't worry he won't be able to enact his policies" wasn't a good idea either.I’m not arguing whether Corbyn is or isn’t socialist or his manifesto is or isn’t, just that shifting to socialism is far greater a change than Brexit.
He wasn't elected, he was appointed.Agreed. And electing Hitler because "don't worry he won't be able to enact his policies" wasn't a good idea either.
That wasn't really the point though, was it. Someone (Bob I think) made the comment that so what if Corbyn (sorry "Liar Corbyn", for this is the new terminology for politicians we don't like) nationalises a few railways. Well that would be IMO idiotic, when you consider how utterly terrible the railways were *before* privatisation. But putting that to one side, it would not be so bad if it ended there, but it does not.He wasn't elected, he was appointed.