Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

You know you're dealing with the hard left when they use phrases like 'Tory 2nd XI' or 'Tories with red rosettes' when referring to the Blarite wing of Labour

Indeed!

I think the 'swing' (is that a bingo!?) from the LP membership and the wider potential electorate support, is away from neo liberal New Labour, and back to what the party was founded on and for. Originally founded because the Tories and Liberals of the day did not represent working class people. Why would the vast majority of people vote for candidates that support big business and not fight for the needs of ordinary people? Blair's moronic grin worked for a while, but that time is gone.

Indeed it is gone - a bit like the support for Labour
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Seriously, Corbyn is just too far left to appeal to enough of the electorate to win Labour a general election. Ironically you slag off Blair, but he got Labour into power - three times in a row. The only way they have a hope of getting back into power is to go back towards the centre ground.

That was then, times have changed.

I remember canvassing the door steps for Militant (insert looney left jokes here...) pre Blair. There was massive support for him and LP because of an ingrained ageing loyal base. We explained how the LP was going to sell out to the bosses and the ruling class, but of course, it fell on deaf ears, drowned out by D:Reams sound track, and de-ideologising (my made up term) and a move towards personality politics and the lies of social democracy. Trickle down economics LOL. An Americanisation of politics ensued, which is of course, how the ruling class want it. No real ordinary people involved, leave it to the pro's. Distract by which man or woman is nicer or not.

The point being, that loyal base has evaporated. Leaving millions of working class people unrepresented in government. Corbyn got the leadership in an anomaly of incompetence by the PLP. He slipped through kind of un-noticed. But now that he is here, confidence in a different ideology to the status quo is growing. Hence the working class are not looking back to new labour, but looking now, for a genuine alternative.

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class?

A new workers party?

Why on earth should they purge those not considered sufficiently pure socialists? It's not some sort of sect.
If they/you want to consign the party to oblivion then insisting on a very narrowly defined set of political views is a good way to go about it. There are also plenty of working class people who quite happily vote Conservative, LibDem, UKIP or whatever. There is no law that says working class people must be socialists or that the Labour Party is exclusively for working class people (as if there was some virtue in being from one class or another).

meursault

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class??

You're not listening. Not to posters on here, not to the voters, not to reality.

There are two answers to your question.

Firstly, "The Working Class" have decided, in large numbers, not to subscribe to an abstract political construct which is chiefly pushed by political types hoping to lord it over a mass of cannon fodder for the advancement of their own ideology (and careers). Not a lot of people wake up in the morning thinking "I'm working class, I am". There's no such thing as a distinct and homogenous tribe called "The Working Class", never mind one that automatically owes loyalty to left-wing politicians just because they say they should.

The simpler answer? They're voting for UKIP.

Yes, I'm listening, calm down, it's just an internet discussion.

Marx explained how capitalism is a class system, nearly two hundred years ago. Marx has not been forgotten because his analysis of this system is the best available. If it wasn't we would have forgotten Marx a long time ago.

Just because Thatcher said we don't live in a class system, doesn't make it so. It was in the interests of who she was representing that she spread that illusion.

Where there is an ideological vacuum (abscense of alternative to capitalism) some sections (lumpen) of the working class will adhere to what publications like The Daily Mail say. Everything is the immigrants fault etc. But the vast majority of the working class will not, give them some credit.

meursault

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

You know you're dealing with the hard left when they use phrases like 'Tory 2nd XI' or 'Tories with red rosettes' when referring to the Blarite wing of Labour

Indeed!

I think the 'swing' (is that a bingo!?) from the LP membership and the wider potential electorate support, is away from neo liberal New Labour, and back to what the party was founded on and for. Originally founded because the Tories and Liberals of the day did not represent working class people. Why would the vast majority of people vote for candidates that support big business and not fight for the needs of ordinary people? Blair's moronic grin worked for a while, but that time is gone.

Indeed it is gone - a bit like the support for Labour
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Seriously, Corbyn is just too far left to appeal to enough of the electorate to win Labour a general election. Ironically you slag off Blair, but he got Labour into power - three times in a row. The only way they have a hope of getting back into power is to go back towards the centre ground.

That was then, times have changed.

I remember canvassing the door steps for Militant (insert looney left jokes here...) pre Blair. There was massive support for him and LP because of an ingrained ageing loyal base. We explained how the LP was going to sell out to the bosses and the ruling class, but of course, it fell on deaf ears, drowned out by D:Reams sound track, and de-ideologising (my made up term) and a move towards personality politics and the lies of social democracy. Trickle down economics LOL. An Americanisation of politics ensued, which is of course, how the ruling class want it. No real ordinary people involved, leave it to the pro's. Distract by which man or woman is nicer or not.

The point being, that loyal base has evaporated. Leaving millions of working class people unrepresented in government. Corbyn got the leadership in an anomaly of incompetence by the PLP. He slipped through kind of un-noticed. But now that he is here, confidence in a different ideology to the status quo is growing. Hence the working class are not looking back to new labour, but looking now, for a genuine alternative.

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class?

A new workers party?

Why on earth should they purge those not considered sufficiently pure socialists? It's not some sort of sect.
If they/you want to consign the party to oblivion then insisting on a very narrowly defined set of political views is a good way to go about it. There are also plenty of working class people who quite happily vote Conservative, LibDem, UKIP or whatever. There is no law that says working class people must be socialists or that the Labour Party is exclusively for working class people (as if there was some virtue in being from one class or another).

New Labour is some sort of sect. :twisted:

I'm not sure about 'plenty' and 'oblivion' isn't necessarily the only outcome, and I see that the concept of class is too alien for this discussion, and I have said something about it in the other reply.

It's all good, we all have our opinions and I welcome the discussion. Better than burying our heads in the sand.

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

There might not be an identifiable group of "working class" people these days. But there are a heck of a lot of people who are tired and dissatisfied with the status quo (see the Brexit/UKIP vote). History suggests that dissatisfied people tend to turn to more extreme ends of the political spectrum...So perhaps Corbyn shouldn't be written off too readily.

For all Stevo's talk of "wealth creators" the provinces away from London have had a fairly miserable time since 2008, regardless of the amounts of money being generated in the city.

Why do you assume wealth creators are in the London/the City? They can include any entrepreneur/business owner.

rjsterry

Google 'uk voting by class' and have a look at some of the graphs. It's complicated

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

There might not be an identifiable group of "working class" people these days. But there are a heck of a lot of people who are tired and dissatisfied with the status quo (see the Brexit/UKIP vote). History suggests that dissatisfied people tend to turn to more extreme ends of the political spectrum...So perhaps Corbyn shouldn't be written off too readily.

For all Stevo's talk of "wealth creators" the provinces away from London have had a fairly miserable time since 2008, regardless of the amounts of money being generated in the city.

Why do you assume wealth creators are in the London/the City? They can include any entrepreneur/business owner.

Well, growth stats would suggest that wealth creation is concentrated towards London.

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class??

You're not listening. Not to posters on here, not to the voters, not to reality.

There are two answers to your question.

Firstly, "The Working Class" have decided, in large numbers, not to subscribe to an abstract political construct which is chiefly pushed by political types hoping to lord it over a mass of cannon fodder for the advancement of their own ideology (and careers). Not a lot of people wake up in the morning thinking "I'm working class, I am". There's no such thing as a distinct and homogenous tribe called "The Working Class", never mind one that automatically owes loyalty to left-wing politicians just because they say they should.

The simpler answer? They're voting for UKIP.

Yes, I'm listening, calm down, it's just an internet discussion.

Marx explained how capitalism is a class system, nearly two hundred years ago. Marx has not been forgotten because his analysis of this system is the best available. If it wasn't we would have forgotten Marx a long time ago.

Just because Thatcher said we don't live in a class system, doesn't make it so. It was in the interests of who she was representing that she spread that illusion.

Where there is an ideological vacuum (abscense of alternative to capitalism) some sections (lumpen) of the working class will adhere to what publications like The Daily Mail say. Everything is the immigrants fault etc. But the vast majority of the working class will not, give them some credit.

You might think that if there were a workable alternative to capitalism that created comparable levels of wealth, somebody might have found it by now and made it work?

bompington

mersault wrote:

Marx has not been forgotten because his analysis of this system is the best available. If it wasn't we would have forgotten Marx a long time ago.

Have you peeked outside your curtains any time in the last 25 years?

mersault wrote:

some sections (lumpen) of the working class will adhere to what publications like The Daily Mail say. Everything is the immigrants fault etc. But the vast majority of the working class will not, give them some credit.

Ah yes, the good old communist strawman - if you're not one of us you must be one of the evil fascists. FWIW I suspect that more working class people agree with the Mail than with Marx, but I don't share your (typical of the way the "vanguard of the proletariat" looks down on the real working classes) low opinion of them - I subscribe to the view that they're capable of making their own minds up

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class??

You're not listening. Not to posters on here, not to the voters, not to reality.

There are two answers to your question.

Firstly, "The Working Class" have decided, in large numbers, not to subscribe to an abstract political construct which is chiefly pushed by political types hoping to lord it over a mass of cannon fodder for the advancement of their own ideology (and careers). Not a lot of people wake up in the morning thinking "I'm working class, I am". There's no such thing as a distinct and homogenous tribe called "The Working Class", never mind one that automatically owes loyalty to left-wing politicians just because they say they should.

The simpler answer? They're voting for UKIP.

Yes, I'm listening, calm down, it's just an internet discussion.

Marx explained how capitalism is a class system, nearly two hundred years ago. Marx has not been forgotten because his analysis of this system is the best available. If it wasn't we would have forgotten Marx a long time ago.

Just because Thatcher said we don't live in a class system, doesn't make it so. It was in the interests of who she was representing that she spread that illusion.

Where there is an ideological vacuum (abscense of alternative to capitalism) some sections (lumpen) of the working class will adhere to what publications like The Daily Mail say. Everything is the immigrants fault etc. But the vast majority of the working class will not, give them some credit.

You might think that if there were a workable alternative to capitalism that created comparable levels of wealth, somebody might have found it by now and made it work?

Wonder if people said similar about the feudal system!

bompington

I expect they probably did: so they tried capitalism, and found that it worked. A few hundred years later some people fancied a change so they tried socialism, but found out it didn't work very well, so most have given up on it.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Yep, the max wage point will create a lot of noise.

It's a poor idea which will be full of loopholes - I've already thought of a a few - even the French dropped their 75% tax as a bad idea. It raised next to nothing, prompted a genuine threat of exodus of wealth creators: although the final straw (and this could only happen in France) was French footballers threatening to go on strike

Surprisingly steve0 i dont agree with a max wage but we also have to address growing levels of inequality too.

i think Cameron proposed a earnings ratio for people heading public bodies didnt he? clearly something adrift when the CEO of Cornwall council earns far more than the PM, though i m sure signing off an upgrade to the A390 is as important as Brexit or direct rule for NI.

the pity is that Corbyn chooses to raise this as an issue for consultation just as we ve got a crisis in the NHS needs to concentrate on one issue at a time, instead of being all things to all men and failing to convince anyone.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Yep, the max wage point will create a lot of noise.

It's a poor idea which will be full of loopholes - I've already thought of a a few - even the French dropped their 75% tax as a bad idea. It raised next to nothing, prompted a genuine threat of exodus of wealth creators: although the final straw (and this could only happen in France) was French footballers threatening to go on strike

Surprisingly steve0 i dont agree with a max wage but we also have to address growing levels of inequality too.

i think Cameron proposed a earnings ratio for people heading public bodies didnt he? clearly something adrift when the CEO of Cornwall council earns far more than the PM, though i m sure signing off an upgrade to the A390 is as important as Brexit or direct rule for NI.

the pity is that Corbyn chooses to raise this as an issue for consultation just as we ve got a crisis in the NHS needs to concentrate on one issue at a time, instead of being all things to all men and failing to convince anyone.

It's a red herring IMO The more imporant point is that there is reasonable minimum level, not how big the gap is. The former is covered by the benefits system and The minimum wage. The latter is just the politics of envy. People should be free to get rich, that's what drives wealth creation for the country.

mamba80

yes for me an you, easy to say politics of envy but for the people claiming working benefits despite working a 40hr week.... people are getting pe d off being told be grateful you ve a job etc for them its not a red herring and if we go one ignoring it, we ll end up with more Trumps and Brexits.

May says she recognises this too, though whether she ll do anything about it is another matter.

Of course people should be free to earn whatever they like, via their own hard enterprise but that also inc the responsibility to pay their taxes and for the Gov to make sure they do pay what is owed, rather that what is "fair".

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

yes for me an you, easy to say politics of envy but for the people claiming working benefits despite working a 40hr week.... people are getting pe d off being told be grateful you ve a job etc for them its not a red herring and if we go one ignoring it, we ll end up with more Trumps and Brexits.

May says she recognises this too, though whether she ll do anything about it is another matter.

Of course people should be free to earn whatever they like, via their own hard enterprise but that also inc the responsibility to pay their taxes and for the Gov to make sure they do pay what is owed, rather that what is "fair".

Agree with you on your last paragraph :shock:

I don't see how it is fair on the many small businesses who have to work hard to make a profit to pay more than the market rate. It's a market for jobs and supply and demand applies above the legal minimum. If you want to earn more, do something about it rather than expecting someone else to just give it you. Thats one of the big problems for current day UK, the sense of entitlement.

mamba80

paying Market rate is a bit like "these people should pay their fair taxes" its all in the eye of the beholder!

the min wage has obv raised the market rate yet still our eco has grown, so clearly businesses can pay more than the so called market rate - but blanket increases in min wage as you implied, are not fair on new/small businesses, a more imaginative solution is needed - regional based or on taxable profit?

Corbyn clearly had an excellent op to put Labours vision to the public and messed it up, its not that i disagree with him so much, its that he cant lead from the front, same with BJ, at least he realised it and withdrew.

rolf_f

mamba80 wrote:

i think Cameron proposed a earnings ratio for people heading public bodies didnt he? clearly something adrift when the CEO of Cornwall council earns far more than the PM, though i m sure signing off an upgrade to the A390 is as important as Brexit or direct rule for NI.

Not really. Lets be honest, a Prime Ministers earnings are not about what they earn whilst in office; it's the earning potential post resignation that makes the difference.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

paying Market rate is a bit like "these people should pay their fair taxes" its all in the eye of the beholder!

the min wage has obv raised the market rate yet still our eco has grown, so clearly businesses can pay more than the so called market rate - but blanket increases in min wage as you implied, are not fair on new/small businesses, a more imaginative solution is needed - regional based or on taxable profit?

Corbyn clearly had an excellent op to put Labours vision to the public and messed it up, its not that i disagree with him so much, its that he cant lead from the front, same with BJ, at least he realised it and withdrew.

No, market rate is the price agreed between willing buyer and seller. It is effectively self defining and dependent on specifics. There is no morality in it such as the concept of what is fair.

You cant make sweeping statements that all business can afford to pay more - again it is down to specific circumstances. The market rate for the job is still very relevant here as well.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

paying Market rate is a bit like "these people should pay their fair taxes" its all in the eye of the beholder!

the min wage has obv raised the market rate yet still our eco has grown, so clearly businesses can pay more than the so called market rate - but blanket increases in min wage as you implied, are not fair on new/small businesses, a more imaginative solution is needed - regional based or on taxable profit?

Corbyn clearly had an excellent op to put Labours vision to the public and messed it up, its not that i disagree with him so much, its that he cant lead from the front, same with BJ, at least he realised it and withdrew.

No, market rate is the price agreed between willing buyer and seller. It is effectively self defining and dependent on specifics. There is no morality in it such as the concept of what is fair.

You cant make sweeping statements that all business can afford to pay more - again it is down to specific circumstances. The market rate for the job is still very relevant here as well.

i didnt, i agreed with you that increases in min wage across the board are clearly unfair on small/new businesses, as you said, it comes down to specific industries.

unfortunately the balance of power in any neg is with the employer in un skilled work, sure me an you can negotiate pay to some extent, but many cannot and thats where the problem is most apparent.

mamba80

Rolf F wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i think Cameron proposed a earnings ratio for people heading public bodies didnt he? clearly something adrift when the CEO of Cornwall council earns far more than the PM, though i m sure signing off an upgrade to the A390 is as important as Brexit or direct rule for NI.

Not really. Lets be honest, a Prime Ministers earnings are not about what they earn whilst in office; it's the earning potential post resignation that makes the difference.

of course, but it still stands that earnings for council leaders and other in the public sector have far out stripped that of their employees.
there also seems to be a merry-go-round of failed heads of said bodies, moving around to other public service organisations, such as the head of Southern health, the board even arranged the job for her on same TC's ffs!

tangled_metal

Class system/class war? Aren't there 7 classes these days if not more?

Class war is old hat socialism. It never worked and never will. Any system you can devise will lead to haves and have nots. Those succeeding and those falling. Or rather those succeeding no matter how incompetent and those failing now matter how much potential they have.

My view on Corbyn socialism is that it is a complete lie. Modern unionism is too. It is easy to claim to be for the working class and spew out the old comrade speech but the truth is they're still acting in their own interests. If union bosses are true socialists pay them the average pay of their members not their high pay. Afterall if they're putting on the same amount of effort as their lowest paid member then why should they get so much more?

Socialism but only as far as it doesn't affect the quality of my life!!!

mamba80

i dont agree with that at all.

Unite leader earns 140k, RMT GS is on 130k, if Steve0 is a half decent accountant in the city, he wont be far off that.

these are not huge multiples of their members avg salary are they?

compare to a council leader and the multiple they earn compared to the avg salary of a council worker, yet thats all ok?

i can chose to be a union member but cannot chose to pay CT or not.

its about balance, and at the mo imho, the balance is too far in favour of the wealthy and as i sadi earlier, May recognises this, so hardly a lefty politics of envy view lol!

meursault

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class??

You're not listening. Not to posters on here, not to the voters, not to reality.

There are two answers to your question.

Firstly, "The Working Class" have decided, in large numbers, not to subscribe to an abstract political construct which is chiefly pushed by political types hoping to lord it over a mass of cannon fodder for the advancement of their own ideology (and careers). Not a lot of people wake up in the morning thinking "I'm working class, I am". There's no such thing as a distinct and homogenous tribe called "The Working Class", never mind one that automatically owes loyalty to left-wing politicians just because they say they should.

The simpler answer? They're voting for UKIP.

Yes, I'm listening, calm down, it's just an internet discussion.

Marx explained how capitalism is a class system, nearly two hundred years ago. Marx has not been forgotten because his analysis of this system is the best available. If it wasn't we would have forgotten Marx a long time ago.

Just because Thatcher said we don't live in a class system, doesn't make it so. It was in the interests of who she was representing that she spread that illusion.

Where there is an ideological vacuum (abscense of alternative to capitalism) some sections (lumpen) of the working class will adhere to what publications like The Daily Mail say. Everything is the immigrants fault etc. But the vast majority of the working class will not, give them some credit.

You might think that if there were a workable alternative to capitalism that created comparable levels of wealth, somebody might have found it by now and made it work?

It does mystify me how it's assumed that all there is, and ever will be is capitalism. Seems very unimaginative to me. There have been other modes of production in the past and there should be others in the future.

Full real communism (not USSR Stalinism) would have no wealth, no private property. Society produces and receives to need.

meursault

bompington wrote:

mersault wrote:

Marx has not been forgotten because his analysis of this system is the best available. If it wasn't we would have forgotten Marx a long time ago.

Have you peeked outside your curtains any time in the last 25 years?

mersault wrote:

some sections (lumpen) of the working class will adhere to what publications like The Daily Mail say. Everything is the immigrants fault etc. But the vast majority of the working class will not, give them some credit.

Ah yes, the good old communist strawman - if you're not one of us you must be one of the evil fascists. FWIW I suspect that more working class people agree with the Mail than with Marx, but I don't share your (typical of the way the "vanguard of the proletariat" looks down on the real working classes) low opinion of them - I subscribe to the view that they're capable of making their own minds up

I gave up my membership of neighbourhood watch when Doris stopped making cucumber sandwiches.

What strawman? I didn't say you are either a communist or a fascist. I would equate 'give the working class some credit' as the same as making their own minds up.

meursault

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class??

You're not listening. Not to posters on here, not to the voters, not to reality.

There are two answers to your question.

Firstly, "The Working Class" have decided, in large numbers, not to subscribe to an abstract political construct which is chiefly pushed by political types hoping to lord it over a mass of cannon fodder for the advancement of their own ideology (and careers). Not a lot of people wake up in the morning thinking "I'm working class, I am". There's no such thing as a distinct and homogenous tribe called "The Working Class", never mind one that automatically owes loyalty to left-wing politicians just because they say they should.

The simpler answer? They're voting for UKIP.

Yes, I'm listening, calm down, it's just an internet discussion.

Marx explained how capitalism is a class system, nearly two hundred years ago. Marx has not been forgotten because his analysis of this system is the best available. If it wasn't we would have forgotten Marx a long time ago.

Just because Thatcher said we don't live in a class system, doesn't make it so. It was in the interests of who she was representing that she spread that illusion.

Where there is an ideological vacuum (abscense of alternative to capitalism) some sections (lumpen) of the working class will adhere to what publications like The Daily Mail say. Everything is the immigrants fault etc. But the vast majority of the working class will not, give them some credit.

You might think that if there were a workable alternative to capitalism that created comparable levels of wealth, somebody might have found it by now and made it work?

Wonder if people said similar about the feudal system!

Exactly. Modes of production so far
Primitive communism
Slavery
Feudalism
Capitalism
?

meursault

Tangled Metal wrote:

Class system/class war? Aren't there 7 classes these days if not more?

Class war is old hat socialism. It never worked and never will. Any system you can devise will lead to haves and have nots. Those succeeding and those falling. Or rather those succeeding no matter how incompetent and those failing now matter how much potential they have.

My view on Corbyn socialism is that it is a complete lie. Modern unionism is too. It is easy to claim to be for the working class and spew out the old comrade speech but the truth is they're still acting in their own interests. If union bosses are true socialists pay them the average pay of their members not their high pay. Afterall if they're putting on the same amount of effort as their lowest paid member then why should they get so much more?

Socialism but only as far as it doesn't affect the quality of my life!!!

There are three main classes, but strata within those.

I don't know what new hat socialism is. It hasn't worked yet and it might do in the future, never say never.

It's difficult to imagine what a true communist/socialist society would be like, because we are so used to this one. It would be completely different in lots of (better) ways.

Agree about Union workers and MP's pay. Socialist party demand is for a skilled workers wage.

tangled_metal

meursault wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Class system/class war? Aren't there 7 classes these days if not more?

Class war is old hat socialism. It never worked and never will. Any system you can devise will lead to haves and have nots. Those succeeding and those falling. Or rather those succeeding no matter how incompetent and those failing now matter how much potential they have.

My view on Corbyn socialism is that it is a complete lie. Modern unionism is too. It is easy to claim to be for the working class and spew out the old comrade speech but the truth is they're still acting in their own interests. If union bosses are true socialists pay them the average pay of their members not their high pay. Afterall if they're putting on the same amount of effort as their lowest paid member then why should they get so much more?

Socialism but only as far as it doesn't affect the quality of my life!!!

There are three main classes, but strata within those.

I don't know what new hat socialism is. It hasn't worked yet and it might do in the future, never say never.

It's difficult to imagine what a true communist/socialist society would be like, because we are so used to this one. It would be completely different in lots of (better) ways.

Agree about Union workers and MP's pay. Socialist party demand is for a skilled workers wage.

I was comparing union workers wages with union bosses wages. Are you putting more value on the efforts of Len McCluskey over that of the lowest echelons of his union? MPs get less than the £100k+ salary IIRC. One departing union baron got £239k in his last year.

Add in the fact that unions act like investment vehicles for members. By that they take members money and invest it in managed funds. Popular investments seem to be mining companies. I read once the RMT invested in mining companies that are in serious union disputes in south America IIRC. We're talking disputes over safety in mines that were as bad if not worse than the days of the industrial revolution in the UK. Life is cheap to those mining companies but at least Bob Crow and his union gets their wedge of the capitalist pot. Their response is a mealy mouthed politician's reply of saying they'll not invest in a company if they get a request from another union. Or words to that effect. Like an underfunded union in Brazil or Zambia is going to know the RMT has an investment in the company they are fighting.

Unions are hypocritical organizations with a very narrow area of interest. That is their leader's interests. YMMV of course.

bobmcstuff

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

And I see Corbyn will use his first speech of the year to say that we can be better off outside the EU. Well I suppose everyone thought he was pretty lukewarm on the EU, so no great surprise.

Strange bedfellows etc

Although as I read it he sees the opportunity to beef up employment rights, union rights and selectively prop up favoured industries. Not sure how that equates to 'better off'.

I thought one of Labour's and the unions main arguments against leaving the EU was that we were going to lose a load of employment rights?

Another thing to add to the 'Project Fear' list from the remain camp... :roll:

What Corbyn personally believes and what the Labour party position was prior to the vote are not the same thing...

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

I was comparing union workers wages with union bosses wages. Are you putting more value on the efforts of Len McCluskey over that of the lowest echelons of his union? MPs get less than the £100k+ salary IIRC. One departing union baron got £239k in his last year.

Add in the fact that unions act like investment vehicles for members. By that they take members money and invest it in managed funds. Popular investments seem to be mining companies. I read once the RMT invested in mining companies that are in serious union disputes in south America IIRC. We're talking disputes over safety in mines that were as bad if not worse than the days of the industrial revolution in the UK. Life is cheap to those mining companies but at least Bob Crow and his union gets their wedge of the capitalist pot. Their response is a mealy mouthed politician's reply of saying they'll not invest in a company if they get a request from another union. Or words to that effect. Like an underfunded union in Brazil or Zambia is going to know the RMT has an investment in the company they are fighting.

Unions are hypocritical organizations with a very narrow area of interest. That is their leader's interests. YMMV of course.

i d argue that a council leader on 250k is far more of an outrage as we ve no choice but to pay CT, i dont belong to a Union, i have a choice not to support their life styles.

Dont believe everything you read in the papers.....

tangled_metal

Actually the £239k figure was from a press release from the union concerned to correct a newspaper article. Just think how bad the newspaper figure must have been for the union to think over £200k sounded better!

One way i look at pay is partly related to how many depend on the boss's good decisions. For example a constituency MP is responsible for representing say 55k earns £75k. The chancellor is responsible for the government financial policy for the whole nation so may get £145k (my guess). So a union boss representing the interests of 1.1 million members (is that the size of unite) would be somewhere between the constituency MP and the chancellor IMHO. My issue is he's nearer the chancellor's pay than in think he should be.

Council leaders getting £250k or indeed more than the chancellor is disgusting. The only trouble is pointing out one disgusting case of overpaying a civil servant doesn't mean the case of overpaid union bosses can be forgotten or ignored. Finding a worse case doesn't make other cases ok. If anything union bosses representing their members often claim a higher moral purpose so their greed could be said to be worse. Just a thought. Claiming a moral high ground means they need to apply it to all aspects.

RallyBiker

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

You know you're dealing with the hard left when they use phrases like 'Tory 2nd XI' or 'Tories with red rosettes' when referring to the Blarite wing of Labour

Indeed!

I think the 'swing' (is that a bingo!?) from the LP membership and the wider potential electorate support, is away from neo liberal New Labour, and back to what the party was founded on and for. Originally founded because the Tories and Liberals of the day did not represent working class people. Why would the vast majority of people vote for candidates that support big business and not fight for the needs of ordinary people? Blair's moronic grin worked for a while, but that time is gone.

Indeed it is gone - a bit like the support for Labour
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Seriously, Corbyn is just too far left to appeal to enough of the electorate to win Labour a general election. Ironically you slag off Blair, but he got Labour into power - three times in a row. The only way they have a hope of getting back into power is to go back towards the centre ground.

That was then, times have changed.

I remember canvassing the door steps for Militant (insert looney left jokes here...) pre Blair. There was massive support for him and LP because of an ingrained ageing loyal base. We explained how the LP was going to sell out to the bosses and the ruling class, but of course, it fell on deaf ears, drowned out by D:Reams sound track, and de-ideologising (my made up term) and a move towards personality politics and the lies of social democracy. Trickle down economics LOL. An Americanisation of politics ensued, which is of course, how the ruling class want it. No real ordinary people involved, leave it to the pro's. Distract by which man or woman is nicer or not.

The point being, that loyal base has evaporated. Leaving millions of working class people unrepresented in government. Corbyn got the leadership in an anomaly of incompetence by the PLP. He slipped through kind of un-noticed. But now that he is here, confidence in a different ideology to the status quo is growing. Hence the working class are not looking back to new labour, but looking now, for a genuine alternative.

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class?

A new workers party?

Who do you actually class as the working class? Anyone who has a job would vote Conservative or UKIP. Students, luvvies and the rich celebs all vote "Labour". "Labour" needs to find itself a new name, cos they sure as hell don't represent me and my kind!