Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Exactly what you would expect to happen under a succession of neo-liberal Government’s.
Oh Jeremy Corbyn (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter shmmeee
- Start date
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
but that doesn't mean that certain socialist ideas aren't worth incorporating into a more capitalist system.
There are things we take for granted which we wouldn't have without socialism.
Where would we be during this pandemic without the NHS?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Medicare for All In America is considered a communist idea.
I’m pretty sure that both the NHS and more recently furlough is the epitome of a socialist solution in a time of crisis.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Exactly “socialism vs capitalism” is the preserve of internet troll and YouTube “personalities”. We’re arguing over the mix not the extremes and always have been.
Was reading up on cults the other day and creating a binary “us vs them” is a key strategy. So frustrating that we spend all our focus on the 20-30% at the fringes and not the majority in the middle.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The very idea of a nation state is socialism. Roads, policing, the courts, education. “Socialism is finished” yeah OK mate, and the fact food regulations exist means capitalism is finished I guess?
It’sabatch87
Well-Known Member
Ok,Who of you left leaning people think there will be a socialist government again in your lifetime?
I’d like to know your views,I like Starmer and yes feel he needs to be centrist to get power.
I’d like to know your views,I like Starmer and yes feel he needs to be centrist to get power.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Corbyn was a social democrat, it's broadly central in the grand scheme of things but was labelled as being far right extremism by hard right bad faith actors, because to them it is.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I cannot find online a direct quote, only others stating it, but he is *not* a social democrat he is a democratic socialist. There is a very big difference. And I think your thoughts on the Overton window are very much skewed by your own views. Corbyn was very much more Left than the social democrats in the PLP and they hated him.
A Social Democrat works within capitalism and follows an incremental regime to decrease inequality and improve the situation for the poor without ever wanting to dismantle capitalism - as mentioned earlier it was started by Eduard Bernstein and is what is practised in Scandi countries inter alia.
A democratic Socialist wants a full-on Socialist state but rejects revolution as a way to get there. Think Chavez; Julius Nyerere etc.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What do you think a socialist is?
It’sabatch87
Well-Known Member
I asked the question not you,Why can’t you answer it?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, somebody who remained in the labour party for 25 years after they deleted Clause 4 is really a revolutionary. I'd suggest it is you who has a skewed Overton window, not me.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Depends on how big the next worldwide crisis is. Maybe the climate emergency will usher one in.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Ah, fixed definitions - the path to madness.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Tony, is that you?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Some places in the US would argue we are one and have been for ages. Stuff like the NHS is a socialist's wet dream in their eyes.
We're a capitalist state underpined with socialist policies and practices - welfare for the elderly/sick/infirm, support for the unemployed, universal healthcare.
Also funny how the biggest advocates for capitalism are the first in the queue when public money is being dished out and demand help from the state when their own practices get them in the shit. Without govt help last time out half the City and financial institutions would've gone to the wall.
If you want full on capitalism then we're looking far more at Georgian/Victorian times and all the exploitation that involves. Would you like to see that?
I don't want a full on socialist govt - it would be a nightmare. But a social conscience rather than unbridled greed is a far better goal to work towards. Capitalism with a conscience is fine. It needs only to learn one word - enough.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Well, the “left” apparently just won an election in the US. Apparently.
(Edit) just to clarify, when I say apparently I mean that the The Democrats are apparently left.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Absolutely! Life would be so much easier if words didn't mean anything... or if we could change their meanings whenever if was convenient to us.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
...or if we accepted that definitions are argued over, adapted, and interpreted by people far wiser than you or I
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
...or if we accepted that definitions are argued over, adapted, and interpreted by people far wiser than you or I
Not my definitions.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Well, they would be if you put them to said people
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
“This definition I am putting forward as the correct and only definition has nothing to do with me, my own biases and opinions in no way affected which definition I decide is the right one”
I feel like this thread has taken a direction where I can be patronising here
Words, and their definitions, are not set. There's often a collective acceptance of what words mean, but their meaning, naturally, changes over time. That can apply to the mundane, everyday language (the Gay Look was used as advertising for Rootes Group products, for example, in the 1950s and nowadays, that would be interpreted somewhat differently) but this certainly applies to political theory, where people spend decades of their lives debating meanings, directions of travel, and interpretations.
Now, some ideas of Marxism are pretty third rate and fixed. We've already gone through how Marx himself saw capitalism as progress, how the likes of Stalin appropriated the iconography, but departed somewhat from the principle. Of course, you then have the likes of Gramsci, and the concept of hegemony, building on Marx's work. Recently (and again, we've gone through this) we've had Stuart Hall (not the molesting one!) who defines at the edges. Socialism is used by the American far right for ideas which, to a European idea of political theory, would be seen as centrist at best. In this country, we see how the definitions slip from the 1970s (many of Heath's acts would be pretty 'socialist' in present times!) to today.
So when there's talk, paradoxically, of 'the Left' (interesting Othering there, an attempt to demean and diminish by grouping together and totalising a disparate series of elements in comparison to a view seen as superior) constantly splitting apart, yet constantly grouping together behind one big project, it seemsthere's an unwillingness to accept the broad gamut of political views within a body. It's interesting really because, I know certain people would be horrified to be seen as being part of the far right, of being part of a racist, bigoted, intolerant, abusive set of people... but they feel able to do similar to 'the Left'. I could go on about rhetorical strategies, and battling for cultural position and therefore being able to lead the direction of the political discourse but... I won't
Others in turn would be able to argue better than I - there's always somebody wiser than yourself out there (and don't I know it )While I'm here, I'll slip in some light reading if anybody wants to be enraged / delighted / befuddled
Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International
Prodigiously influential, Jacques Derrida gave rise to a comprehensive rethinking of the basic concepts and categories of Western philosophy in the latter part of the twentieth century, with writings central to our understanding of language, meaning, identity, ethics and values. In 1993, a...
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I feel like this thread has taken a direction where I can be patronising here
Words, and their definitions, are not set. There's often a collective acceptance of what words mean, but their meaning, naturally, changes over time. That can apply to the mundane, everyday language (the Gay Look was used as advertising for Rootes Group products, for example, in the 1950s and nowadays, that would be interpreted somewhat differently) but this certainly applies to political theory, where people spend decades of their lives debating meanings, directions of travel, and interpretations.
Now, some ideas of Marxism are pretty third rate and fixed. We've already gone through how Marx himself saw capitalism as progress, how the likes of Stalin appropriated the iconography, but departed somewhat from the principle. Of course, you then have the likes of Gramsci, and the concept of hegemony, building on Marx's work. Recently (and again, we've gone through this) we've had Stuart Hall (not the molesting one!) who defines at the edges. Socialism is used by the American far right for ideas which, to a European idea of political theory, would be seen as centrist at best. In this country, we see how the definitions slip from the 1970s (many of Heath's acts would be pretty 'socialist' in present times!) to today.
So when there's talk, paradoxically, of 'the Left' (interesting Othering there, an attempt to demean and diminish by grouping together and totalising a disparate series of elements in comparison to a view seen as superior) constantly splitting apart, yet constantly grouping together behind one big project, it seemsthere's an unwillingness to accept the broad gamut of political views within a body. It's interesting really because, I know certain people would be horrified to be seen as being part of the far right, of being part of a racist, bigoted, intolerant, abusive set of people... but they feel able to do similar to 'the Left'. I could go on about rhetorical strategies, and battling for cultural position and therefore being able to lead the direction of the political discourse but... I won't
While I'm here, I'll slip in some light reading if anybody wants to be enraged / delighted / befuddled
Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International
Prodigiously influential, Jacques Derrida gave rise to a comprehensive rethinking of the basic concepts and categories of Western philosophy in the latter part of the twentieth century, with writings central to our understanding of language, meaning, identity, ethics and values. In 1993, a...www.routledge.com
Ive got to be honest, I find all the waffle about ideologies a massive exercise in navel gazing. My eyes start crossing whenever someone brings up Marx or Gramsci. If you’re telling me that Janet the carer who loves Corbyn has read Marx, let alone based her views on him, I’m calling you a liar.
I actually think this was Corbyns big problem. Him, Abbott, McDonnell live for that navel gazing and thought that’s what “the youth” were into as well thanks to a few weirdos online, but mostly it was bog standard left/centre-left stuff with some new ideas (fully automated luxury gay space communism) as well. McDonnell tried calling it “socialism with an iPad” but that’s still too rooted in old ideas I think.
The modern left, which is count myself part of, has yet to find a congruent leader.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I suspect Corbyn hasn't read that many books on Marxism...
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Youre probably right. I’d argue Ayn Rand is probably the most read by modern politics nerds yet the right manages to avoid constant references to Randism (or even Thatcherism!) aside from the odd interview with the weirder members of the cabinet.
It’s all such a distraction from the actual ideas being floated.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
There's a place for the theory, in the academy. There's usually a reason academics don't become politicians and, of course, their role is to analyse the politicians, not be them.
A few dotted negative ideas about Marx or Socialism however, becomes a lazy trope rather than a critique...
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I found Corbyn inspiring because his Labour vision was to be unapologetic in calling out the cruelty of austerity, and actually having ideas of how to make people’s lives better - without the political bullshit and bluster I had seen for the previous 10 years.
I don’t really care where or what that belief is rooted to - I just want someone to take it forward and bring it to fruition, as he wasn’t able to.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
That's very kind of you. Just transfer the million into my account ta. But never say that about my mother again!
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
In 2015 he was the only one saying what needed to be said and the rest were busy abstaining and avoiding giving their opinion. Burnham who was my original choice went and said ‘the chancellor is being cunning and trying to make me give my opinion’. Corbyn was calling Iraq a mistake, that austerity was a mistake and the party should stop being ashamed of doing what it was set up to do.
In 2017 he very nearly did it
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah same, that’s what his attraction was and why he looked so good against the collection of random suits he was up against. But I dunno, I feel the new left that’s come about online isn’t exactly the same as the old left and he never quite got that. He went full bore for the social liberalism because that’s an easy win with that crowd, but when arguing for policy for example it always felt like he didn’t fully grasp it unless it was in 1970s socialist terms. Maybe it’s just me.
Stuff like the local energy companies wasn’t pushed the same way as staples like “nationalise Royal Mail”, same with UBI and other 21st century ideas that weren’t really around then.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I think he got over excited. 2017 indicated the public were receptive to some of his policies and it was like if he was elected he was going to try and cram fucking everything he wanted to do into 4 years.
Coupled with the ambiguity over Brexit and it was a mess.
To me it was just a bad manifesto and campaign.
Johnsons manifesto was a bag of shite as well but the clear Brexit message superseded everything.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Isn't some of that down to the simplism of the media and how it represents things (see "free broadband")?
I tend to agree with you that renationalisation whilst something that should happen is really secondary to more important 21st century stuff. The first thing Labour needs to do is expose the state budget = household budget myth. Rishi Sunak has given them the opportunity to do it through the covid spending. Unfortunately the dullard Starmer has as shadow chancellor seems to want to try and play the Tories at their own game. It's just really depressing.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
tbh, Johnson started offering to spend, so Labour decided they needed to spend even more. It was a bit like when Blair was in - Tories felt they had to go uber-right to compensate, so looked like total nutters as a result!
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I think they were desperately trying to take the conversation away from Brexit as they had fucked it up big style.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Broadband communism was the phrase I believe. Looking at what has happened since GE19 some of his ideas look visionary.
Starmer could really hammer the Tories post Brexit and Cov-ID if he had a plan that was invigorating and innovative - there is certainly appetite for it out there. But at the moment he just wants to stand near a flag...