Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Theresa May, dangerous Marxist Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The right in general doesn't inherently care very much about keeping its language consistent with the details of left wing academic discourse, no. It's not intellectually dishonest because we're obviously not really representing that, having conducted a detailed study of Marx's writings, we've concluded that the man himself would have supported this or that policy. It's used as a shorthand for 'overly interventionist' and is taken as such by its intended audience. It is possible that overuse of the term could be bad in other ways, in the same way that, as you say, SJWs have weakened the impact and meaning of the term 'far right', but that's a separate point.

    I deny your claim that 'practical' positions in politics are better than 'ideological' ones. I am also sceptical about the distinction in the first place. What you think is desirable 'practically' always has an ideological root, and the position that government intervention is justified for a given end is an ideological one in itself.
    Historically, it was definitely the Right who started the smearing trail, going back for example to Churchill after the war, who warned that we were about to become lackies of the USSR under mild mannered Mr Attlee. This was continued later by all Tory governments (right up to the present day), using phrases like 'dangerous socialist' and trying to portray even ridiculously right wing Labour politicians like Tony Blair as something like a British Hugo Chavez in waiting. So there's nothing new about their assault on Miliband and now Corbyn.

    By contrast, the left always tried to be careful in Britain at any rate about labels. The Far Right meant the racist, violent and extremist organisations like the then BNP. The big change came in recent decades when the Tory Party took on and sequestered aspects of the racist and xenophobic agendas previously reserved to the Far Right because the Far Right (via front parties like UKIP) was on the ascendant and they were panicky about it. So it isn't a mislabelling,

    The same is even more patently true of Trump's administration in the US, which has wholeheartedly and blatantly pandered to everyone on the Far Right from Neo-Nazis to the KKK via White Supremacists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Historically, it was definitely the Right who started the smearing trail, going back for example to Churchill after the war, who warned that we were about to become lackies of the USSR under mild mannered Mr Attlee.
    That isn't true. The political left in Britain was born smearing the owners of wealth.

    Moreover, in many ways Attleean state socialism was closer to Marxism than any government since. There was very little little regard for individual or collective rights.

    Look at the attitude of Lewis Silkin, the Minister of Housing, to the people of Stevenage (told to their face in their town hall):-


    "I want to carry out a daring exercise in town planning - (Jeers). It is no good your jeering it is going to be done - (Applause and boos). (Cries of 'Dictator' .... After all this new town is to be built in order to provide for the happiness and welfare of some sixty thousand men, women and children .... For a number of years we in this country stood together and suffered together, whilst fighting for an ideal, for a democracy in which we believed. I am sure that this spirit is not dead in Stevenage, and, if you are satisfied that this project is worth while and for the benefit of large numbers of your fellow human beings, you will be prepared to play your part to make it a success. The project will go forward. It will do so more smoothly and more successfully with your help and co-operation. Stevenage will in a short time become world famous - (Laughter). People from all over the world will come to Stevenage to see how we here in this country are building for the new way of life....No, in due course Stevenage will gain. Local authorities will be consulted all the way through. But we have a duty to perform, and I am not going to be deterred from that duty. While I will consult as far as possible all the local authorities, at the end, if people are fractious and unreasonable, I shall have to carryout my duty - (Voice: Gestapo!)."



    Can you imagine any politician of any party doing this today? That is the democracy of the German Democratic Republic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Can you define what you actually mean by capitalism in specific terms? Because just about everyone seems to have their own definitions for what socialism and capitalism are.

    Corbyn's manifesto certainly contained no policies which would overthrow capitalism, in my opinion.
    At its most loosest a belief in private property, that competition should play a role in the economy (except in nationalised sectors), that unchecked deficits are bad and that trade unrestrained by third parties is generally a good thing. Most labour MPs believe this btw INC Ed Miliband.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Historically, it was definitely the Right who started the smearing trail, going back for example to Churchill after the war, who warned that we were about to become lackies of the USSR under mild mannered Mr Attlee. This was continued later by all Tory governments (right up to the present day), using phrases like 'dangerous socialist' and trying to portray even ridiculously right wing Labour politicians like Tony Blair as something like a British Hugo Chavez in waiting. So there's nothing new about their assault on Miliband and now Corbyn.
    although Attlee wasn’t- plenty in the Labour Party were strongly sympathetic to the USSR esp before 1939, mainly through the academia.

    As for Blair that’s not quite true- New Labour radically shifted this country to the left via huge immigration (continued under the Tories), masses of legislation, dangerous multiculturalism etc

    [quote]
    By contrast, the left always tried to be careful in Britain at any rate about labels. The Far Right meant the racist, violent and extremist organisations like the then BNP. The big change came in recent decades when the Tory Party took on and sequestered aspects of the racist and xenophobic agendas previously reserved to the Far Right because the Far Right (via front parties like UKIP) was on the ascendant and they were panicky about it. So it isn't a mislabelling,[quote]

    What far right policies did the Tories implement? What agendas?

    Whilst I could think of a couple of examples to prove your point I don’t thinks it enough to castigate the party as far right any more than the number of anti Semitic incidents in labour proves that labour is anti Semitic.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    although Attlee wasn’t- plenty in the Labour Party were strongly sympathetic to the USSR esp before 1939, mainly through the academia.

    As for Blair that’s not quite true- New Labour radically shifted this country to the left via huge immigration (continued under the Tories), masses of legislation, dangerous multiculturalism etc
    I don't agree that mass immigration is left wing. If anything, it's liberal.

    The biggest supporters of it tend to be the centre left/right or even people like Dan Hannan on the libertarian right. Big business too supports mass immigration.

    Blair wasn't pro-immigration for left wing reasons.
    As for masses of legislation, well that depends on the nature of the legislation itself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Not clear what makes you think that. Corbyn isn't advocating nationalisation of the banks for example, or the expropriation of land. Perhaps he should be though, but that's a different matter.
    Also

    (Original post by BornBlue)
    b
    As said before, the policies in his manifesto were not that extreme- but that’s because he wasn’t the only one writing it. But as he is the leader he will still impact its implementation. For example the manifesto backs Trident yet Corbyn very clearly forest and has said he will never use it. So the manifesto on that point is garbage.

    Same with probably most of the other policies- when Corbyn has consolidated his power in the party We could well see things like bank renationalisation policies etc, or more likely ‘emergency powers’ to do that if he gets in power.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't agree that mass immigration is left wing. If anything, it's liberal.

    The biggest supporters of it tend to be the centre left/right or even people like Dan Hannan on the libertarian right. Big business too supports mass immigration.

    Blair wasn't pro-immigration for left wing reasons.
    As for masses of legislation, well that depends on the nature of the legislation itself.
    The far left is inherently pro open borders- workers of the world, unite! The idea that class is a far bigger factor if difference than nationality is a fundamental to left wing discourse.

    You’re right though, you don’t have to be far left to support open borders. Was Blair left wing/ far left? An interesting question: I would say no but he did have far left tendencies. I recall watching an interview with Michael Foot who said that Blair joined labour under him snd that he didn’t think Blair was right wing. The left is too eager to dismiss Blair as a pariah rather than as their own creation.


    I supppse for legislation the more topical ones like equality and diversity: eg- https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ocial-mobility

    I’ve written before about this, TLDR

    Whilst in principle it sounds nice, it’s also problematic and there’s an unmostakenable whiff of authoritarianism/ ‘big brother’ in it too.

    For instance, when during some mandatory training in this subject one question asked

    ‘Diversity and immigration are good for business and the UK’

    True/ False. (The answer was true and you’d fail if you put otherwise)

    Now- that’s not necessarily to say that I think otherwise but I could certainly write plenty about why it might not be so one sided. Which would probably put me in trouble.

    Not do I think it changes anything. Any genuine racist could see that tick true and not change their mind at all- in fact probably make them conspirational.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The far left is inherently pro open borders- workers of the world, unite! The idea that class is a far bigger factor if difference than nationality is a fundamental to left wing discourse.

    You’re right though, you don’t have to be far left to support open borders. Was Blair left wing/ far left? An interesting question: I would say no but he did have far left tendencies. I recall watching an interview with Michael Foot who said that Blair joined labour under him snd that he didn’t think Blair was right wing. The left is too eager to dismiss Blair as a pariah rather than as their own creation.


    I supppse for legislation the more topical ones like equality and diversity: eg- https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ocial-mobility

    I’ve written before about this, TLDR

    Whilst in principle it sounds nice, it’s also problematic and there’s an unmostakenable whiff of authoritarianism/ ‘big brother’ in it too.

    For instance, when during some mandatory training in this subject one question asked

    ‘Diversity and immigration are good for business and the UK’

    True/ False. (The answer was true and you’d fail if you put otherwise)

    Now- that’s not necessarily to say that I think otherwise but I could certainly write plenty about why it might not be so one sided. Which would probably put me in trouble.

    Not do I think it changes anything. Any genuine racist could see that tick true and not change their mind at all- in fact probably make them conspirational.
    Blair certainly wasn't far left, and i'd struggle to honestly say he was left wing. Yes he flirted with the far-left in his youth but lots of people did back then, including a fair few Tories. It was the cool edgy, rebellious thing back then.

    Blairism was, in my opinion, a kind version of Thatcherism. His approach was basically to let the free market do it's thing with more deregulation and privatisation, tax it and then spend the proceeds on public services and welfare.

    There was some red meat for the left certainly, such as employment rights, minimum wage, lgbt rights, tax credits etc, but overall I think it stretches the definition of left wing to say he would be included within it. Bear in mind that a few years ago Blair said he wouldn't want to win on a traditional left wing platform, even if he thought that was the way to win.

    Blair's biggest appeal to the left was electablility. The left gave up winning an election from the left and thought they had to compromise to win. Corbyn has suggested that it is possible to win on a left wing platform.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Blair certainly wasn't far left, and i'd struggle to honestly say he was left wing. Yes he flirted with the far-left in his youth but lots of people did back then, including a fair few Tories. It was the cool edgy, rebellious thing back then.
    Maybe as a student or a teenager. Not as a 35 year old former barrister trying to become a labour MP under Foot.

    Blairism was, in my opinion, a kind version of Thatcherism. His approach was basically to let the free market do it's thing with more deregulation and privatisation, tax it and then spend the proceeds on public services and welfare.

    There was some red meat for the left certainly, such as employment rights, minimum wage, lgbt rights, tax credits etc, but overall I think it stretches the definition of left wing to say he would be included within it. Bear in mind that a few years ago Blair said he wouldn't want to win on a traditional left wing platform, even if he thought that was the way to win.

    Blair's biggest appeal to the left was electablility. The left gave up winning na election from the left and thought they had to compromise to win. Corbyn has suggested that it is possible to win on a left wing platform.
    Everything I’ve heard Blair say on blairism suggests to me of Fabianism- which broadly speaking worked. Blairism’ as he has described it is not a fixed ideology but a shifting one.

    This is something that neo blairites have failed to understand and now why most of them are now Tories.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Maybe as a student or a teenager. Not as a 35 year old former barrister trying to become a labour MP under Foot.



    Everything I’ve heard Blair say on blairism suggests to me of Fabianism- which broadly speaking worked. Blairism’ as he has described it is not a fixed ideology but a shifting one.

    This is something that neo blairites have failed to understand and now why most of them are now Tories.
    Blair also brought the private market into healthcare and education which allows the Tories to go 'but Labour started it!' whenever you make an argument against it.

    Put it this way, I'd say Blair is closer to Cameron politically than he is to Corbyn.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The current system is working, just not the way a lot of people are happy with. Things are changing just through technological innovation rather than government action. Also global poverty and violence is falling. Whether or. It this makes people *happy* which is important is a difdeeent question altogether but certainly doesn’t prove Marx right.


    See above: Corbyn is in no way a capitalist in any loose definition of the word- and that’s including if you count Nordic models as capitalist. If Corbyn s a capitalust so was Castro.
    If Corbyn gets elected PM it will not magic into being a new none capitalist mode of production, no matter how socialist he is. That isn't how human society works. I don't know what Castro thought (he only seemed to latch onto communism in the process of national liberation rather than being a committed Marxist from the start), but the more honest and intellectual Marxists like Lenin were trying to make a form of state capitalism as part of the historical process of getting to communism.

    https://libcom.org/forums/theory/len...-ussr-23032011

    Referring to the various Leninist dictatorships as actually being socialist and communist was only ever a propaganda move by anyone who actually understood Marx and communism.

    I'm aware this all depends on what your definition of socialism is, and the kinds of economic polices perused by the likes of Castro can be considered socialist, especially in the classic statist socialist sense. But in the Marxist view of what socialism and communism is they were not. So yeah, Socialists and Communists definitely exist, but that doesn't mean they are effective and bringing about the changes they want.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The right in general doesn't inherently care very much about keeping its language consistent with the details of left wing academic discourse, no. It's not intellectually dishonest because we're obviously not really representing that, having conducted a detailed study of Marx's writings, we've concluded that the man himself would have supported this or that policy. It's used as a shorthand for 'overly interventionist' and is taken as such by its intended audience. It is possible that overuse of the term could be bad in other ways, in the same way that, as you say, SJWs have weakened the impact and meaning of the term 'far right', but that's a separate point.

    I deny your claim that 'practical' positions in politics are better than 'ideological' ones. I am also sceptical about the distinction in the first place. What you think is desirable 'practically' always has an ideological root, and the position that government intervention is justified for a given end is an ideological one in itself.
    I would hope that people across the political spectrum would be able to debate ideas without accusing anyone who disagrees with them or any policy they disagree with as being 'far-right', 'far-left', 'fascist', 'Stalinist' etc etc. More than anything, for intellectual honesty.

    If you don't like energy price caps or interventionist politics more generally, then fine, argue against it. Debate the proposals on their merits. But simply describing moderately left of centre politics as being 'Marxist' is more than anything, disingenuous. As for whether Marx would actually agree with the price cap, there's a very strong argument that he would not, in the same way that Marxists often do not agree with the NHS. They would see it as the left giving into the capitalist system by accepting a compromsie, rather than seeking real systematic change.

    But even as you say, your side are weakening the term and undermining your own argument. If you describe energy price caps as far-left, then you are unable to describe actual hard-left policies in any greater terms and people stop listening, just as they did with the SJW and their use of the term 'far-right'.

    -----------------------

    On to the pragmatism v idealism. Well, surely the best position should be the one which produces the best value for money and highest quality service. If the private sector can provide a genuinely better service then that's fine, but if the state can objectively provide a better service, then the state should run it.

    That's surely a better approach than the blanket 'the free market is always best' approach which simply dismisses any evidence that challenges that view.

    If state control of the energy industry can provide a cheaper and better service, it should be state run. If the private sector can, then it should be privately run.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Also



    As said before, the policies in his manifesto were not that extreme- but that’s because he wasn’t the only one writing it. But as he is the leader he will still impact its implementation. For example the manifesto backs Trident yet Corbyn very clearly forest and has said he will never use it. So the manifesto on that point is garbage.

    Same with probably most of the other policies- when Corbyn has consolidated his power in the party We could well see things like bank renationalisation policies etc, or more likely ‘emergency powers’ to do that if he gets in power.
    Apart from trident, there is very little in the manifesto which did not reflect Corbyn's actual views, in my opinion.

    The one body that could prevent nationalisation programmes would have been the ECJ under Competition Law.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Well, the populist right, which is now headed by May, is your, I mean radical leftist's, evil twin. The radical left in Greece is already in a governing coalition with the populist right.

    No surprise here at all. It's not as damaging to Theresa May as it is to your brand of politics.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Theresa May is about to announce price cap legislation on the utilities.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...b083989cb4958d

    This was previously trailed by Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn. Both times, the policy idea of price caps was dismissed as 'dangerous socialism', 'a threat to our national way of life', 'Marxist frenzy' and similar terms.

    Now it is mainstream, perhaps the right wing media will see fit to make a general apology for their previous denunciations?

    We're waiting. :bebored:
    Her Kahlo bracelet has possessed her and turned her into an ardent communist. I see no other explanation
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I don't know if anybody has it but Newsnight just had a picture of the face of Rudd, Hammond and Boris and the pain on it.

    I think Hammond helped himself rushing to her aid but i think Boris and Rudd are probably going to strike.
    This one (obviously minus the stuff edited over the top)?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This one (obviously minus the stuff edited over the top)?
    Yeah.

    Rudd especially must really resent May i imagine. From being handed the opportunity to impress in the debate to almost losing her seat and now being Home Sec in what she may see as a sinking ship.

    It's interesting reading today that five cabinet ministers are apparently prepared to move against May.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Yeah.

    Rudd especially must really resent May i imagine. From being handed the opportunity to impress in the debate to almost losing her seat and now being Home Sec in what she may see as a sinking ship.

    It's interesting reading today that five cabinet ministers are apparently prepared to move against May.
    There will be a lot of talk in the papers about her going but she won't, I doubt there are the 159 votes to get rid of her, even if there are the 48 willing to write to Brady. Where did you read 5 cabinet ministers?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There will be a lot of talk in the papers about her going but she won't, I doubt there are the 159 votes to get rid of her, even if there are the 48 willing to write to Brady. Where did you read 5 cabinet ministers?
    Reading again (there are a few news articles) it seems it's ex cabinet ministers (Vazey, Shapps and a few others).

    I too thought she would stay and generally thought it would actually be a good thing (i think the election message was far worse than the messenger) but i have to admit that May's speech was a bit cringe worthy and her refusal to sack ministers suggests she's too fearful.

    She's fortunate that there is a large not Boris group of MP's (i agree, i have seen no evidence in London or his role that he is able to do much beyond give a good speech) and also that Davidson is in the wrong parliament (subject to her cooling off the soft Brexit).

    It's unfortunate (if May was a bit more conservative on tax and spend she's be great) but i think the odds of her going have increased albeit i hope we get a long campaign and not a caretaker.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    If Corbyn gets elected PM it will not magic into being a new none capitalist mode of production, no matter how socialist he is. That isn't how human society works. I don't know what Castro thought (he only seemed to latch onto communism in the process of national liberation rather than being a committed Marxist from the start), but the more honest and intellectual Marxists like Lenin were trying to make a form of state capitalism as part of the historical process of getting to communism.

    https://libcom.org/forums/theory/len...-ussr-23032011

    Referring to the various Leninist dictatorships as actually being socialist and communist was only ever a propaganda move by anyone who actually understood Marx and communism.

    I'm aware this all depends on what your definition of socialism is, and the kinds of economic polices perused by the likes of Castro can be considered socialist, especially in the classic statist socialist sense. But in the Marxist view of what socialism and communism is they were not. So yeah, Socialists and Communists definitely exist, but that doesn't mean they are effective and bringing about the changes they want.
    So you agree with me then otherwise that doesn’t make sense.

    It’s like saying Proudhon was a monarchist because that was the prevailing social order.

    Ergo Corbyn is in no way a capitalist- it is merely the system he has to live in.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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