Off Topic Political Debate

Socialism means something different to everyone on here SH. for you it means anyone left of Genghis Khan ! As far as I know Corbyn has only spoken about renationalization of railways and power - which would surely be more sensible if Co2 reduction is going to be achieved in any planned way. There is no mention of anything else falling under state ownership and as long as he believes in a mixed economy then he does not merit the title 'comrade Corbyn' as some on here would like to label him. If you ask me 'what is Socialism' then you will receive a definition which excludes Corbyn completely.

 

I don not know why socialism per se is previewed of by some in such a derogatory manner.

I mean it did bring NHS free education social welfare etc

There are clearly different forms. Just looking up etc

I seem to be more drawn to ethical socialism:

wiki:
Ethical socialism is a political philosophy that appeals to socialism on ethical and moral grounds as opposed to economic, egoistic, and consumeristic grounds.[1] It emphasizes the need for a morally conscious economy based upon the principles of service, cooperation, and social justice while opposing possessive individualism.[2] Therefore, in contrast to socialism inspired by rationalism, historical materialism, neoclassical economics and Marxist theory which base their appeals for socialism on grounds of economic efficiency, rationality, or historical inevitability; ethical socialism focuses on the moral and ethical reasons for advocating socialism.

Ethical socialism is a form of liberal socialism closely related to Christian socialism, and had a profound impact on thesocial democratic movement and reformism during the later half of the 20th century, particularly in Great Britain.[3][1]Ethical socialism is distinct in its focus on criticism of the ethics of capitalism, and not merely criticism of the economic, systemic, and material issues of capitalism.[1]

The term "ethical socialism" initially originated as a pejorative by the Marxist economist Rosa Luxemburg againstreformist revisionist Marxist Eduard Bernstein and his supporters, who evoked Kantian liberal ideals and ethical arguments in favor of socialism.[4] Soon self-recognized ethical socialists arose in Britain, such as R. H. Tawney, a British Christian socialist, and its ideals were connected to Christian socialist, Fabian, and guild socialist ideals.[5] Ethical socialism was an important ideology within the British Labour Party.[6] Ethical socialism has been publicly supported by British Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald,[7] Clement Attlee,[8] and Tony Blair.[6]

When the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) renounced Marxism during the Godesberg Program in the 1950s, ethical socialism became the official philosophy within the SPD.[9]

Not so sure about association with Mr Blair though..

 

My definition is anything left of IDS.

 

Although Comrade Corbyn and his immediate front line have not openly proposed the renationalisation of the railways and energy, the group that propelled him to the leadership openly discuss adding Steel and Coal to this list - they consider these are economically, strategically and even culturally part of the country and thus should be in "public" ownership. There would be a gradual move to adding more - things like the Milk Marketing Board and other key food production and distribution.
As I have stated on here before, I call JC Comrade because that is how this group of people address each other. Check out some of his meetings on Youtube and it's Comrade and Brother all the way. So if the cap fits.....

 

I asked you for proof of this and you swerved.

Please provide a link to at least one video proving this?

 

Comrade Corbyn does rather roll off the tongue. He joins comrade Scargill, comrade Foot and comrade Serwotka, all equally damaging to the UK in their own way.

 

We use these labels often in a non analytic way to describe anything which we do not like. So, some are called Commies, Reds under beds, Socialists etc, and I, in turn, have used expressions such as Fascist, without thought, to describe people who had nothing to do with Mussolini. We see what we want to see - so, if Corbyn was once in the company of Castro, he would immediately be a 'Commie', ignoring the fact that Thatcher was a friend of General Pinochet. Many people also use the expressions 'socialist' and 'communist' interchangeably - so that they can class Corbyn together with Kim Jong il. In a Marxist sense Socialism is nothing other than a transition phase with Communism being the end product. Socialism being an intermediate period of state control over the means of production before the workers themselves can take over their own workplaces etc. the end goal is the dissolution of the state, where all power, both economic and political, has moved to the base of the pyramid, together with all forms of decision making. Needless to say, no country has yet reached this stage - most simply extending the period of state control until it became an end in itself - often alien to the population they were meant to serve. There are hundreds of schools of Communism, but there has never been a 'Communist' state as such (in fact the name is a contradiction in itself) because Communism can only come from below. The closest we have seen to this were in Catalonia, the Basque regions, and parts of Andalusia which were influenced strongly by Anarcho Communist thought (Spanish Civil War) - and the Catalonian region still has a higher percentage of Workers Cooperatives than anywhere else. The Kropotkin school believed that the intermediate period of state control would only lead to top heavy structures which would become permanent - and believed in the direct transition to Communism, albeit on a small and local scale. Maybe we should ask 'what is an anarchist', is it a person who throws bombs ? Or someone who thinks that all authority from above is repulsive to him and will only accept the criticism of his peers on an equal (and local) basis ? The end goals of both Communism and pure Anarchy are direct democracy (and the necessary abolition of private - but not personal, property) - and the socialist (at least in Marxist terms) would have this as their end goal. So now try to tell me that Corbyn is a socialist.

 

I wish I hadn't asked!!

 

I had a feeling that might be too much for you - just keep on using the expression 'socialist' for everything you don't like, in true McCarthyist fashion, if it amuses you.

 

Whatever one thinks of most politicians, Michael Foot was a true and honest man. You wouldn't have caught him fiddling expenses or voting for MP payrises, when other public servants face payfreezes.

As for referring to Corbyn as Comrade, isn't that a bit like titling Osbourne as
Obergruppenführer?

 

Can I use it for Lib Dems? I don't suppose it matters anymore as they are almost extinct now.

 

Can someone explain to me why in the vote for the European Union the Irish from the Republic of Ireland living in United Kingdom, the Cyprus people in Britain and the Maltnese have a vote also? That does not look right to me they could be the difference between leaving or remaining.

And will Scotland want another referendum if their vote is different against the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

I laughed when I saw the photograph of Barak Obama under a picture of Fidel Castro with all the Republicans making noises. What about Ronald Reagan with Chairman Mau, George Bush and Lenin?

 

This just shows that who ever you vote for very few give a r$%s a$%e about much. Most are "Ratas de dos patas."

 

In the interests of fairness and to show that I do not favour left or right I have decided to post this media expose of Corbyn's darker side... i think it does match the level of debate set out by some colleagues on this thread

https://markfiddaman.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/6-links-jeremy-corbyn-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about/

 

Charles Clarke, a former Labour home secretary has accused Jeremy Corbyn of giving 'tacit support' to terrorists.

Corbin, McDonnell and Diane Abbott refused to back UK government move to list al-Qaeda as a terror group just six months before 9/11.

 

I realize this may be a sense of humour tester for some.....

 

I bet the locals avoid you in the pub with that humour!!

 

Corbyn believes in keeping dialogue open with others - when dialogue ends then there is no hope left. Would you condemn every person who ever shared a platform with George Bush or with certain members of the Israeli government, and hold them as also being responsible for their atrocities and illegal wars (state terrorism in all but name). More particularly directed to you is the question of whether Thatcher was guilty of all the crimes committed by General Pinochet because she classed him as 'her good friend'. When will you finally quit the pathetic attempt to defame Corbyn by any means - is it because you have no rational arguments left ?

 

(I think you are replying to content I am not seeing )

There still is a continued move by some posters on this thread to make defamatory comments about anyone left of Ken Clark. Doesn't really open it out for a fair discussion.

We could make impassioned comments about the current Govts dialoguing/trading with some very dodgy regimes..

I find it very difficult with China for example knowing what goes in in their treatment of minorities...... the human rights situation is awful