I brought up Corbyn as a an example of what's possible and a suggestion as to why Socialists within Labour might stick with the party under Starmer. A Socialist government is only possible via a New Labour one.
The problem is that the current Labour leadership want to purge the party of any socialists…and seem hell bent on pandering to big business. But of course, as I think you are saying, if it’s a step away from Conservative values then a Labour Government wouldn’t be a bad thing and a definite step in the right direction.
Trojan Horse approach? I should stress that I certainly don’t want a ‘socialist’ government, it would be horrible. I’d prefer a bland Tory lite Starmer Labour (wouldn’t vote for it of course), though I’m pretty sure there will be way too much focus on identity politics under him. I’m just curious as to what the Labour Party actually is nowadays, and who would stand as a MP for it.
It’s something that I’m really torn on……I hate what Labour has become and see them as no more than a “Tory Lite” party……however I’m not naive enough to think that the population of this country is yet ready for a truly socialist government. Gonna be a difficult decision in 2 years time.
Its a whole different society now. I can’t imagine another punk era where people were prepared to stand up to government and give them two fingers. Materialism exists at the younger age group now and they hear ‘elders’ talk of old labour and strikes/unions etc. people haven’t known a labour government for so long they are, possibly, preferring to stick with the devil/what they know than a sudden switch (despite Tory and Labour being two cheeks of the same arse). I can only see a young vote pushing the change and I’m not sure they have the stomach for it. Have the last few years created a desire to change and try something different? Not sure. The recent past hasn’t shown that. Government has become a pig-sty with, as you say, snouts in the trough from every side. Short-term promises with no care if they achieve any of them. Career MP’s with only career aspirations in government. Civil servants coasting along in ‘Yes Minister’ style for decades. It’s a sorry state.
In my opinion, and I’m not going to have an argument about it, and of course I’m likely to be wrong, the core element of socialism is what is described as ‘public’ ownership of the ‘means of production’. In theory I’m all for this, but not in the way it would be implemented in our system. It would be state, not public ownership, and the state is a **** manager. We have example after example of this being the case here and elsewhere in the world. Plus I have a deep suspicion, mounting to fear, of any and all ‘we have the answer’ exclusive ideologies, either political or religious. As you know if anything I’m more of a syndicalist than anything else, but I have no interest (or energy) in trying to convert people or change the world. Because I’m also a cynical old git, I know it’s not going to happen.
With respect mate, that’s not the question I asked……(of course I know I didn’t ask you specifically)……I personally can’t see what would be wrong with a society and government that looked after our genuine most needy…..and taxed more from the ones who could afford it
No arguments or offence would be taken mate, as I respect you’re views for sure. But as I said to SW, I honestly don’t know why anyone would think a truly socialist government would be a bad thing……of course I’m talking of a utopia where no one in charge would be greedy and selfish, and genuinely want good for society. Yeah, I know it won’t ever happen…..history tells us that for sure
That’s it, a utopia. Nobody except those who believe that humanity is naturally vicious and totally self interested (and there are many who do believe that) would argue against the ideal. It’s the reality that scares me. what you describe here isn’t socialism though, it’s a way of looking after the poor and needy. I’ve heard Tories say very similar things (ok they might not mean it).
