You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 9 2026 4.41pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Jeremy Corbyn


Page 13 of 279 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 14 Aug 15 1.10pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 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.

Actually I think you hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph, systems that rely on individual good judgement, personal ethics and individual morality are doomed to failure and exploitation.

Abuses of capitalism don't occur because of capitalism (similarly for socialism) but because of the convenience by which you can justify those abuses, or disguise them. I've always believed that the best system lies somewhere between capitalism and socialism, where in the production of profit and wealth is curtailed by the necessity and benefit of all parties involved (ie that in return for cheaper child labour in the third world, those same companies should be spending a fix share of the profit generated on providing those same children with a western education - I've long be a fan of the approach of the John Lewis partnership towards its employees).

Rather than maybe spending most of it on advertising, marketing, branding and sponsorship.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 14 Aug 15 1.17pm

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]

Why would you be sure? My politics run very anti-authoritarian. Or is it the normal assumption that any one who isn't right wing, must be a hardline authoritarian communist / Stalinist.

I'm more interested in Kropotkin, Goldman, Thoreau and Chomsky; Anarchism and the freedom, well being and opportunities of each individual citizen.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 14 Aug 15 1.29pm

We live in a democracy, so if the good people/members of the Labour party want Jeremy Corbyn then they should have him.....ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!


 
fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 14 Aug 15 1.35pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.17pm

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]

Why would you be sure? My politics run very anti-authoritarian. Or is it the normal assumption that any one who isn't right wing, must be a hardline authoritarian communist / Stalinist.

I'm more interested in Kropotkin, Goldman, Thoreau and Chomsky; Anarchism and the freedom, well being and opportunities of each individual citizen.



It does run both ways though Jamie, anyone who isn't left wing is usually branded a facist, racist, mysogynist, BNP or Britain First supporter.

In fairness to you I think you make reasoned arguments and make some good points. You seem pretty neutral to me and are able to look at things without bias. Just an observation.

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 1.48pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?

Has Corbyn said he wants a socialist state? No. What he has said is that he wants those that caused the financial crash to pay for it, not people living on the breadline.

 
Sedlescombe Flag Sedlescombe 14 Aug 15 1.51pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?


But it is not as simple as capitalist v Socialist is it. There is the US brand of capitalism where they basically leave the poor to rot - something Cameron would appear to want to emulate. Or there are the Scandi, French or German models; all of whom are richer than we are; and have a far more generous attitude towards welfare provision.

 
fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 14 Aug 15 1.52pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?[/quote]


Socialism doesn't work. How many times in recent history have they (Labour) recked the country and the Tories have had to sort out the mess left behind by socialism. Whoever leads the Labour party will be a disaster as their policies simply don't add up. All they're good for is spending other peoples money, to excess.

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 1.53pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?


But it is not as simple as capitalist v Socialist is it. There is the US brand of capitalism where they basically leave the poor to rot - something Cameron would appear to want to emulate. Or there are the Scandi, French or German models; all of whom are richer than we are; and have a far more generous attitude towards welfare provision.

Well put.

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 1.57pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?


But it is not as simple as capitalist v Socialist is it. There is the US brand of capitalism where they basically leave the poor to rot - something Cameron would appear to want to emulate. Or there are the Scandi, French or German models; all of whom are richer than we are; and have a far more generous attitude towards welfare provision.

I agree with you. Having a better benefits system within a capitalist economy is not socialism - the country is still essentially capitalist. What I am trying to put to bed is full-blown socialism as a viable system. Even China is now a capitalist economy. Unfortunately it still has the trappings of authoritarian socialism but hopeful as the people get prosper they will form unions etc and push for personal and political freedom.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Sedlescombe Flag Sedlescombe 14 Aug 15 1.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 1.53pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?


But it is not as simple as capitalist v Socialist is it. There is the US brand of capitalism where they basically leave the poor to rot - something Cameron would appear to want to emulate. Or there are the Scandi, French or German models; all of whom are richer than we are; and have a far more generous attitude towards welfare provision.

Well put.

I know this will irritate the f*** out of everyone but Sweden Germany and France also take in more asylum seekers than we do

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 1.59pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.57pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?


But it is not as simple as capitalist v Socialist is it. There is the US brand of capitalism where they basically leave the poor to rot - something Cameron would appear to want to emulate. Or there are the Scandi, French or German models; all of whom are richer than we are; and have a far more generous attitude towards welfare provision.

I agree with you. Having a better benefits system within a capitalist economy is not socialism - the country is still essentially capitalist. What I am trying to put to bed is full-blown socialism as a viable system. Even China is now a capitalist economy. Unfortunately it still has the trappings of authoritarian socialism but hopeful as the people get prosper they will form unions etc and push for personal and political freedom.


I'm surprised you write about forming unions as it's a good thing.

 
johnfirewall Flag 14 Aug 15 2.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 1.48pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?

Has Corbyn said he wants a socialist state? No. What he has said is that he wants those that caused the financial crash to pay for it, not people living on the breadline.

He's on the deluded side who say that overspending wasn't the problem, as opposed to the more reasonable Labour supporters who are willing to balance the books.

He's talking about renationalising everything. Maybe he could start with the Royal Mail, paying 50% more at the current price than it was sold for.

Blame whoever you want for our debt but that sort of idealism will make things a lot worse.

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 2.11pm

What did labour over spend on?

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 2.14pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 1.59pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.57pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?


But it is not as simple as capitalist v Socialist is it. There is the US brand of capitalism where they basically leave the poor to rot - something Cameron would appear to want to emulate. Or there are the Scandi, French or German models; all of whom are richer than we are; and have a far more generous attitude towards welfare provision.

I agree with you. Having a better benefits system within a capitalist economy is not socialism - the country is still essentially capitalist. What I am trying to put to bed is full-blown socialism as a viable system. Even China is now a capitalist economy. Unfortunately it still has the trappings of authoritarian socialism but hopeful as the people get prosper they will form unions etc and push for personal and political freedom.


I'm surprised you write about forming unions as it's a good thing.

I fully support unions. It is just a shame that many of their leaders these days play at politics rather than trying to improve the wages and conditions of working people. They should try harder to protect the interests of working people - should speak out about uncontrolled immigration lowering wages and taking jobs from their members for example.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
johnfirewall Flag 14 Aug 15 2.17pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 2.11pm

What did labour over spend on?

That's not my argument but ask Liam Byrne.

The significant part is doing something about it, which he's not interested in, separating him from the other 3 candidates who have sided with the electorate in accepting the problem rather than concentrating on who's to blame.

Edited by johnfirewall (14 Aug 2015 2.22pm)

 
Stuk Flag Top half 14 Aug 15 2.20pm

Quote johnfirewall at 14 Aug 2015 2.17pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 2.11pm

What did labour over spend on?

Ask Liam Byrne.


Be quicker to work out what they didn't over spend on.

 

Optimistic as ever
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 2.21pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 1.53pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?


But it is not as simple as capitalist v Socialist is it. There is the US brand of capitalism where they basically leave the poor to rot - something Cameron would appear to want to emulate. Or there are the Scandi, French or German models; all of whom are richer than we are; and have a far more generous attitude towards welfare provision.

Well put.

I know this will irritate the f*** out of everyone but Sweden Germany and France also take in more asylum seekers than we do

How many asylum seekers do socialist countries take? Or for that matter, muslim countries? Are the Scandinavian, French and German countries socialist by the way.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 14 Aug 15 2.23pm

Quote johnfirewall at 14 Aug 2015 2.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 1.48pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm

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.


Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?

Has Corbyn said he wants a socialist state? No. What he has said is that he wants those that caused the financial crash to pay for it, not people living on the breadline.

He's on the deluded side who say that overspending wasn't the problem, as opposed to the more reasonable Labour supporters who are willing to balance the books.

He's talking about renationalising everything. Maybe he could start with the Royal Mail, paying 50% more at the current price than it was sold for.

Blame whoever you want for our debt but that sort of idealism will make things a lot worse.

Overspending was definitely an issue after they bailed out a number of national banks. Prior to the credit crunch and crisis the debt wasn't an issue.

I largely think that blaming different groups, misses the point, that we're here now due to a combination of reasons, and the question really is about resolution of the problem, and how to best affect the balance between between fiscal necessity and state responsibility.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 2.26pm

Quote johnfirewall at 14 Aug 2015 2.17pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 2.11pm

What did labour over spend on?

That's not my argument but ask Liam Byrne.

The significant part is doing something about it, which he's not interested in, separating him from the other 3 candidates who have sided with the electorate in accepting the problem rather than concentrating on who's to blame.

Edited by johnfirewall (14 Aug 2015 2.22pm)

Nicely dodged. But really, what did they over spend on?

 
Page 13 of 279 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

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