You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 9 2026 4.48pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn


Page 12 of 279 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >
Johnny Eagles Flag berlin 14 Aug 15 10.03am

Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 4.19pm

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 10.05am

Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 6.45am

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 1.26am

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)


Because of course there's only one way of interpreting economics isn't there

There are still loads of great socialist economists out there, from David Graeber to Paul Mason, and the idea that they haven't read economics is really just insulting.

If these 'household names' of socialist economic thought were so 'great', how can none of them have come up with a working, practical alternative to capitalism? Before you say they have, they clearly haven't as capitalism rules the planet.

Furthermore, 'Socialist economics' is an oxymoron performed by a bunch of elitist professors having a circle jerk about something that will never happen.


There are hundreds of libertarian economists and yet there isn't one country on the planet which is truly libertarian. Economic theory and economic reality are miles apart, and to suggest that only practical economics gets anywhere is to show a total ignorance to the history of applied economics. For example, Marxism only really rose to prominence with the Russian revolution, which occurred decades after Marx's death. Popular economists like Hayek and Rand were really fringe thinkers when they wrote.

There is a dogmatism to your posts which I find worrying. You assume that those with a different ideological standpoint to you are merely ignorant, hence claiming that no economists can be socialist even when this flies in the face of reality. Socialism has happened, is happening and will probably happen again, yet your last paragraph highlights that you aren't willing to engage on an intellectual level with its ideas, instead wishing to smear the views held be millions, purely because they are at odds with your own.

You love brandishing us on the left as totalitarian, fascist and blinkered, but I wonder what terminology you would use of your own views on tho thread if you were to take a step back?


The fact is, and it is a fact, that free enterprise and capitalism have empowered more people in the World than socialism. Free enterprise has given more people economic freedom, social mobility and power over their own destinies than socialism. Free enterprise empowers, socialism restricts.


Agree with this. If you define 'capitalism' as people interacting within a market economy, it is on the march. And a jolly good thing too.

 

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 14 Aug 15 10.05am

Quote npn at 13 Aug 2015 5.29pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.54pm

Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm


Indeed

At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs.

Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory).



As you've quite rightly said before, politics isn't about what you do so much as how you are perceived. As soon as you come out with bonkers ideas like nationalising energy companies and rail transport (at eye wateringly high sums that he's paying for by printing money, apparently), then you are of course going to be portrayed as a leftie.

See he's making a liberal point, a proper leftie would be talking about nationalizing without compensation two industries that have failed to deliver competition or price savings for the end user.

The advantage of state ownership of power companies is that you can control prices (if necessary by subsidization), so that power and transport for citizens is recouped through the taxation they pay, rather than privately (ie like the NHS, free at point of use). In terms of transport it encourages less use of vehicles, reduces traffic congestion etc.

It'd reduce the cost of taxation as well in terms of recouped 'milage' (because individual use of vehicles is massively reduced)

Personally I agree with a system where in the state actually owns operates and is accountable for the apparatus of state such as the utilities (essential functions for daily existence), and makes them available to all.

Things like water, electricity, gas, public transport, schools etc should be 'free at point of use'. They're essential to daily functionality of citizens and their lives.



Largely agree, though the last para gives me problems with efficiency. Make electricity/gas free to use, and you'll have thousands of households with the central heating on and the windows open. Sadly, people are largely selfish f*ckers!

Nothing prompts you more to remember to switch the lights off than the thought you actually have to pay for it.

So public ownership - yes
Free service - No

Maybe, but that's an assumption. Maybe the solution would be to allow up to a reasonable amount of energy provision FOC, with a surplus being purchased on top.

I'm not sure people will put the central heating on just because they can to the degree that it would be a problem. Of course you could offer a 'reward' to those properties that fall below a certain level of usage.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Johnny Eagles Flag berlin 14 Aug 15 10.06am

Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 4.36pm


Hitler, Pol Pot and Mussolini sold out a few stadia too.

Fact is, there are people who want to listen to Corbyn because he represents a shift away from what we've had for the past 30 or so years.

Fact is there are examples of mass movements of people who want to turn away from the neo-liberal agenda.
yes i know it went to s*** in Greece, but lets face it, their hands were tied somewhat and they were facing the very people for who neo liberal dogma is most important. Podemas in Spain are another example of a 'left' party coming to prominence.

The sell-out crowds and 'surge' in membership are interesting phenomena. And shouldn't be dismissed.

But I suspect it's a lot like those protests against student debt. Maybe 10% of the people actually thought deeply about it, the other 90% went along for the ride cos they thought it would be a laugh. I'll be surprised if 'Corbynmania' exists beyond the summer. It's a flash in the pan, I reckon.

 

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
dannyh Flag wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Aug 15 10.08am

Sorry but this was to funny not to.

lefty.jpg Attachment: lefty.jpg (38.72Kb)

 

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 14 Aug 15 10.13am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am

Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 4.19pm

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 10.05am

Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 6.45am

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 1.26am

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)


Because of course there's only one way of interpreting economics isn't there

There are still loads of great socialist economists out there, from David Graeber to Paul Mason, and the idea that they haven't read economics is really just insulting.

If these 'household names' of socialist economic thought were so 'great', how can none of them have come up with a working, practical alternative to capitalism? Before you say they have, they clearly haven't as capitalism rules the planet.

Furthermore, 'Socialist economics' is an oxymoron performed by a bunch of elitist professors having a circle jerk about something that will never happen.


There are hundreds of libertarian economists and yet there isn't one country on the planet which is truly libertarian. Economic theory and economic reality are miles apart, and to suggest that only practical economics gets anywhere is to show a total ignorance to the history of applied economics. For example, Marxism only really rose to prominence with the Russian revolution, which occurred decades after Marx's death. Popular economists like Hayek and Rand were really fringe thinkers when they wrote.

There is a dogmatism to your posts which I find worrying. You assume that those with a different ideological standpoint to you are merely ignorant, hence claiming that no economists can be socialist even when this flies in the face of reality. Socialism has happened, is happening and will probably happen again, yet your last paragraph highlights that you aren't willing to engage on an intellectual level with its ideas, instead wishing to smear the views held be millions, purely because they are at odds with your own.

You love brandishing us on the left as totalitarian, fascist and blinkered, but I wonder what terminology you would use of your own views on tho thread if you were to take a step back?


The fact is, and it is a fact, that free enterprise and capitalism have empowered more people in the World than socialism. Free enterprise has given more people economic freedom, social mobility and power over their own destinies than socialism. Free enterprise empowers, socialism restricts.


Agree with this. If you define 'capitalism' as people interacting within a market economy, it is on the march. And a jolly good thing too.

If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries.

I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods.

Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion.

When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem.

Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 14 Aug 15 10.20am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.06am

Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 4.36pm


Hitler, Pol Pot and Mussolini sold out a few stadia too.

Fact is, there are people who want to listen to Corbyn because he represents a shift away from what we've had for the past 30 or so years.

Fact is there are examples of mass movements of people who want to turn away from the neo-liberal agenda.
yes i know it went to s*** in Greece, but lets face it, their hands were tied somewhat and they were facing the very people for who neo liberal dogma is most important. Podemas in Spain are another example of a 'left' party coming to prominence.

The sell-out crowds and 'surge' in membership are interesting phenomena. And shouldn't be dismissed.

But I suspect it's a lot like those protests against student debt. Maybe 10% of the people actually thought deeply about it, the other 90% went along for the ride cos they thought it would be a laugh. I'll be surprised if 'Corbynmania' exists beyond the summer. It's a flash in the pan, I reckon.

I suspect Corbyn will be popular right up to elections, and then when they see that what they want actually comes with a tax rise, a large number will decide that they don't want 'social justice and fairness' if they have to pay for it.

The classic problem of old Labour. The policy and ideals often led to a lot of support and popularity, right up until the election manifesto, when it was clear that in order to have public services someone actually has to pay and be paid.

I think generally a truism, that people are generally orientated towards a lot of socialist ideals, but don't actually want to have to pay for them.

We all want great schools, amazing hospitals, great care services etc. But we don't want to actually pay for it.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
matt_himself Flag Matataland 14 Aug 15 10.21am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.01am

Owen Jones was going on about the 'surge' in membership and how, if Corbyn becomes leader, 'the Left' could again become a dynamic and influential movement. It would be like 1945 all over again.

Cloud bleeding cuckoo land, mate.

It is quite funny how lefties are deluding themselves that just because Corbyn might win a leadership contest that suddenly the whole world has become a lot more left wing. It HASN'T. You can fill up my Facebook feed with your guff all day long (indeed you are doing so), it won't change a thing.

Elect whoever you want, Labour isn't getting near power for a minimum of ten years. The leftier your leader, the further away power gets.

The attached link is interesting:

[Link]

I cannot help but think that the 'Corbyn surge' is a combination of wishful thinking and a trend, akin to wearing ripped jeans or being a so-called Hipster. It will die out, like wearing Grolsch bottle tops in your clunkers or happy hardcore did.

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 14 Aug 15 10.23am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.01am

Owen Jones was going on about the 'surge' in membership and how, if Corbyn becomes leader, 'the Left' could again become a dynamic and influential movement. It would be like 1945 all over again.

Cloud bleeding cuckoo land, mate.

It is quite funny how lefties are deluding themselves that just because Corbyn might win a leadership contest that suddenly the whole world has become a lot more left wing. It HASN'T. You can fill up my Facebook feed with your guff all day long (indeed you are doing so), it won't change a thing.

Elect whoever you want, Labour isn't getting near power for a minimum of ten years. The leftier your leader, the further away power gets.

Maybe. I guess that's the point of democracy, is that we'll have to see. Personally I'm inclined to think the world is no longer generally interested in Left and right wing politics, but identity politics and consumerist politics (and all three major parties in the UK have failed to realize this, resulting in a rise of support for the Green and UKIP, and maybe previously the lib dems).


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
OldFella Flag London 14 Aug 15 10.38am

Quote DanH at 14 Aug 2015 9.53am

Straw poll: If it meant Blair getting tried for war crimes at the Hague would you vote for Corbyn for PM?

For sure!


 

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..
Johnny Eagles Flag berlin 14 Aug 15 10.53am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am


Agree with this. If you define 'capitalism' as people interacting within a market economy, it is on the march. And a jolly good thing too.

If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries.

I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods.

Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion.

When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem.

Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny.


Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.

 

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Hoof Hearted 14 Aug 15 11.10am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am


Agree with this. If you define 'capitalism' as people interacting within a market economy, it is on the march. And a jolly good thing too.

If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries.

I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods.

Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion.

When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem.

Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny.


Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.


I'm sure Jamie and Serial would love to live in North Korea under Kim Jong Un....

[Link]

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 11.19am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am


Agree with this. If you define 'capitalism' as people interacting within a market economy, it is on the march. And a jolly good thing too.

If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries.

I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods.

Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion.

When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem.

Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny.


Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.


I'm sure Jamie and Serial would love to live in North Korea under Kim Jong Un....

[Link]


Absolutely f***ing bollocks. That's what the right wing argument is on here.

1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture.

2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism.


 
Hoof Hearted 14 Aug 15 11.24am

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am


Agree with this. If you define 'capitalism' as people interacting within a market economy, it is on the march. And a jolly good thing too.

If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries.

I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods.

Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion.

When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem.

Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny.


Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.


I'm sure Jamie and Serial would love to live in North Korea under Kim Jong Un....

[Link]


Absolutely f***ing bollocks. That's what the right wing argument is on here.

1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture.

2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism.



With regard to point 1.... Yvette Cooper said it this morning!

You'd all be in heaven not having to worry about decision making and eating bland soup!

 
Stirlingsays Flag 14 Aug 15 11.29am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.02am
Racist.

Racist.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 14 Aug 15 11.31am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am

Quote

Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.

People dying, suffer, enslaved and being oppressed / restricted, in the name of greater profit, is a problem of capitalism. When you have kids sowing Disney toys for a pittance or shoes, that are then sold for a mark up of 400% in the west, and those kids are living in poverty without education, you have a problem of capitalism. Especially when that company will influence that countrys politicians, to favour their business interests, you have a problem.

We would never accept those conditions in this country as legal. But in truth, we turn a blind eye, if its a world away. Just like we did in the Victorian age, when the poverty and exploitation and suffering was here.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 11.35am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.24am

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am


Agree with this. If you define 'capitalism' as people interacting within a market economy, it is on the march. And a jolly good thing too.

If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries.

I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods.

Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion.

When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem.

Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny.


Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.


I'm sure Jamie and Serial would love to live in North Korea under Kim Jong Un....

[Link]


Absolutely f***ing bollocks. That's what the right wing argument is on here.

1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture.

2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism.



With regard to point 1.... Yvette Cooper said it this morning!

You'd all be in heaven not having to worry about decision making and eating bland soup!


Did Cooper back her claim up with anything?

 
Hoof Hearted 14 Aug 15 11.39am

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.35am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.24am

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am


Agree with this. If you define 'capitalism' as people interacting within a market economy, it is on the march. And a jolly good thing too.

If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries.

I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods.

Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion.

When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem.

Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny.


Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.


I'm sure Jamie and Serial would love to live in North Korea under Kim Jong Un....

[Link]


Absolutely f***ing bollocks. That's what the right wing argument is on here.

1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture.

2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism.



With regard to point 1.... Yvette Cooper said it this morning!

You'd all be in heaven not having to worry about decision making and eating bland soup!


Did Cooper back her claim up with anything?


A very butch looking haircut and brightly coloured business suit.

 
Stirlingsays Flag 14 Aug 15 11.42am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am

Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.


Yeah, that worked out well in 2008 didn't it?

The very fact that state regulation of the banking sector was heavily relaxed led to a disaster that still threatens the world even now.

Capitalism without regulation 'eats itself'.....That is recognised by many economists. Pure self interest ends up drawing up the very ladder that supports itself.

The state doesn't need to run the economy as such.....But it definitely needs to assert the rules by which it can operate......And punish actions that endanger it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Aug 2015 11.43am)

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Stirlingsays Flag 14 Aug 15 11.46am

Personally I'm hoping Labour vote in Corbyn.

The biggest single reason why is just to stick it to all those posh Blairites in Labour who believe that they have a divine right to run the party.

They warm word their membership while treating them with contempt.

They have had their run.....Let Labour be Labour....Even if I think some of the policies are batty.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Johnny Eagles Flag berlin 14 Aug 15 11.54am

Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Aug 2015 11.42am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am

Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position.

Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.

What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.


Yeah, that worked out well in 2008 didn't it?

The very fact that state regulation of the banking sector was heavily relaxed led to a disaster that still threatens the world even now.

Capitalism without regulation 'eats itself'.....That is recognised by many economists. Pure self interest ends up drawing up the very ladder that supports itself.

The state doesn't need to run the economy as such.....But it definitely needs to assert the rules by which it can operate......And punish actions that endanger it.

What worked out well in 2008? The pre-2008 'heavily relaxed' financial regulation is not a good example of a free market. Governments were in the financial crisis up to their eyeballs. Who encouraged home-ownership among people who couldn't afford mortgages? Who guaranteed deposits up to a hundred grand? Out of the "heads we win, tails you lose" bets made by big banks, who fulfilled the "tails you lose" bit?

"Pure self-interest" can either support the market economy (cf. Adam Smith) or it can work against it (eg, price-fixing and monopolies).

Capitalism, defined as "people interacting in a market economy" does not "eat itself". It's greed, corruption and graft that eats up all the good stuff. The alternative, a planned economy, tends to encourage those things to the detriment of everyone.

 

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Page 12 of 279 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn