Turn on thread page Beta

how the working class have been betrayed by the modern left. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hello, i tried to start this thread before but i think it got removed it may have been because when i first posted i was a little tipsy and used some colourful language. but this is a serious issue so i will try and rephrase what i said before in more diplomatic tones......

    -

    in the past the socialism used to be a working class movement. today, socialism is increasingly dominated by the rich and middle class.

    the working class couldn't care less about the politically correct globalist agenda that is promoted by the modern left.

    the obsessions of the guardian reading modern left are simply a million miles away from the concerns of the sun reading working class. ( a paper which guardian readers sneer at. )

    socialism has become a fashion symbol it seems. it has become snobbish, remote and no longer represents the people it pretends to speak out for.

    wind farms. solar panels. carbon taxes. where the next banksy artwork will pop up. how many women or homosexuals work in ftse 500 companies. premium fair trade coffee beans. saving the toads of guatemala and on and on........

    the genuine working class simple could not care less about these intellectual fashion accessories.

    the genuine working class have been betrayed. their concerns are ridiculed, their habits are sneered at.

    labour peer lord glasman admitted as much when he said that the labour party had been openly hostile towards the working class. quote:


    ''......in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’


    the labour party is the ultimate example of how the left has changed from a working class movement into a movement dominated by the politically correct fashions of the rich and middle class.

    its as if the working class have simply been abandoned.




    labour peer lord glasman interview:


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tion-lies.html
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Of course, the modern left is no where near socialism (indeed, the last 13 years of Labour government was more centre, or even centre right).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    In b4 the lefties deny that Labour is socialist-Oh wait
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    In b4 the lefties deny that Labour is socialist-Oh wait
    Look at what socialism means and is.
    Look what Labour threw out of their ideals before they got elected and look what they did not do at all during their time in office.
    Labour were no where near socialist, and if you think they were then you have a false idea of what socialism is.
    The idea of common ownership was thrown out of the party by Blair (and so despite whatever words they want to use, that means Labour are not a socialist party anymore).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Look at what socialism means and is.
    Look what Labour threw out of their ideals before they got elected and look what they did not do at all during their time in office.
    Labour were no where near socialist, and if you think they were then you have a false idea of what socialism is.
    The means of production being owned by the people; state owned NHS, Education, State shares in businesses...:rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    The means of production being owned by the people; state owned NHS, Education, State shares in businesses...:rolleyes:
    Even the Tories support the NHS and state education and stuff.
    So will you try to argue that the Tories are also socialist?
    Thought not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting, I agree with the OP. Especially about the guardian and sun readers.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Even the Tories support the NHS and state education and stuff.
    So will you try to argue that the Tories are also socialist?
    Thought not.
    They are; any government which supports state ownership is socialist. It's not a discreet yes or no thing, it's analogue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Even the Tories support the NHS and state education and stuff.
    So will you try to argue that the Tories are also socialist?
    Thought not.
    do you pay attention to the news apparently not or you'd be watching all this getting like ninja privatised
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Look at what socialism means and is.
    Look what Labour threw out of their ideals before they got elected and look what they did not do at all during their time in office.
    Labour were no where near socialist, and if you think they were then you have a false idea of what socialism is.
    The idea of common ownership was thrown out of the party by Blair (and so despite whatever words they want to use, that means Labour are not a socialist party anymore).
    Socialism has different definitions, but the common economic one is "state ownership of the means of production". In that sense it's possible to say that Labour moved towards socialism, since government spending as a percent of GDP increased from about 35% to 45% while they were in power.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J1812)
    Socialism has different definitions, but the common economic one is "state ownership of the means of production". In that sense it's possible to say that Labour moved towards socialism, since government spending as a percent of GDP increased from about 35% to 45% while they were in power.
    Of course, government spending as a percent of GDP isn't the only thing you can look at.
    Labour also increased private involvement within the public sector. So while things may be funded by government, it doesn't mean the government owns it all.

    (Original post by kopite493)
    do you pay attention to the news apparently not or you'd be watching all this getting like ninja privatised
    Increasing private involvement in the public sector (which btw is something Labour also did an awful lot) does not mean you want to privatise those areas.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    They are; any government which supports state ownership is socialist. It's not a discreet yes or no thing, it's analogue.
    :confused:
    You say because the Tories support limited government ownership in a small number of areas, they are socialist. Yet then also say it isn't as simple as a yes or no, it is an analogue spectrum.

    To me, that is a bit hypocritical.
    Of course it is not as simple as a yes or not. And the very fact the tories only support limited state ownership is proof of that. They are not socialist just for supporting things like the NHS / state education.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    The means of production being owned by the people; state owned NHS, Education, State shares in businesses...:rolleyes:
    I'd argue that the state owned means of production means it is merely a state capitalist country like the orthodox communist regimes. The means of production are not owned by you and I, they are owned by a state.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    :confused:
    You say because the Tories support limited government ownership in a small number of areas, they are socialist. Yet then also say it isn't as simple as a yes or no, it is an analogue spectrum.

    To me, that is a bit hypocritical.
    Of course it is not as simple as a yes or not. And the very fact the tories only support limited state ownership is proof of that. They are not socialist just for supporting things like the NHS / state education.
    Tories are socialist to an extent, therefore they are socialist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Tories are socialist to an extent, therefore they are socialist.
    Yet that totally is in disagreement with what you said about it NOT being a discrete yes or not, and that in actual fact it is an analogue spectrum.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dahut)
    I'd argue that the state owned means of production means it is merely a state capitalist country like the orthodox communist regimes. The means of production are not owned by you and I, they are owned by a state.
    Surely state capitalism is more a system whereby the means of production are privately owned and operated (largely) for private gain; the state still maintains a great amount of control over the flow of resources etc (such as China).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When you want to make a meaningful statement, you usually back it up with evidence, rather than reword the title in 11 seperate sentences. Just saying...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Yet that totally is in disagreement with what you said about it NOT being a discrete yes or not, and that in actual fact it is an analogue spectrum.
    Ah I see what you. :cool:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Poor wording on my part; nitpicking on your's


    I guess specifying the degree to which they are socailist would be more meaningful than saying just socialist/capitalist.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    New Labour is closer to thatcherism than socialism. I doubt it will change that much...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Of course, government spending as a percent of GDP isn't the only thing you can look at.
    Labour also increased private involvement within the public sector. So while things may be funded by government, it doesn't mean the government owns it all.
    They seem to me to be part of the same substance, if you define the value of a capital good solely from the value of consumer goods it produces.

    Consider a single person with a machine. The machine produces 1 dollar (of consumer goods) a year infinitely. With an annual interest of 10%, the machine is worth $10 to someone buying it. If a government taxes 50 cents from each dollar produced, the machine is worth $5. If a government spends 100% of GDP, then (ignoring things like borrowing etc) the machine is therefore worth 0 to everyone, but 10$ to the government. In this highly theoretically/simplified/rational world, the government will take ownership of the machine for free (if they didn't already).

    The simplified assumption I'm making, if it isn't clear, is that spending 50% of the GDP requires taxing 50% of the GDP. It's the taxes which I think explain the "government ownership of means of production link" not what they spend it on.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.