Labour Leadership watch

I do from time to time.
I dont agree with insulting anyone. It is not nice behaviour.

soon nor me unfortunately in trying to use measured language in describing why I thought being insulting and name calling was not helpful, I get called "pompous"! What a shame, such silly remarks are made. Never mind ever onwards

POGS thank you for your apology which I am happy to accept in the good grace that I am sure it was made.

I think it is very easy to confuse the fact that some of the principles people believe in may have come from many different social theories and therefore label the individual rather the a view which is just a proportion of what one person believes. If nothing else this Labour Party leadership election has shown that many people may have more of an allegiance to a group of beliefs than to a party and that those beliefs may be drawn from several sources.

My issue was not with someone saying - but aren't these ideas ones that xyz put forward - but with people saying - well obviously abc is a socialist - or - mno is an xyz. This is a discussion, wherever it may go, is about politics, philosophy, thoughts and ideas and the structure of parties (although other may define it differently) not about individuals who post on here. When people descend to personalising their remarks it always seems to me we are loosing the point of the discussion and the idea that someone else can decide how to label me or anyone else on the basis of what we write here is taking quite a limited view.

You have put so much better than I managed to do gracegran

I agree with all of that Gracesgran.

How about the 40,000 union members who registered twice? On reading about that for a moment I thought I was back in Africa

Not labelling 'personally" though, is it, but labelling politically. Somebody is a Conservative, another one a Socialist, etc.as this is a political thread, people naturally do use labels, it makes it easier to understand.We can't be delving into strands of of political hair splitting ( I am basically a Lib Dem, but like certain aspects of Conservatism and also one or two Labour policies.)

Really, Grannyknot, 40,000 of them? Wow.

It has become a free for all vote.

Just rejoined this and was disappointed to see that my link had been used to give reasons why JC is a Marxist. In the interests of balance I had to post the reasons given as to why he isn't a Marxist. I do hate it when people read something and only take in, or use, the information that reinforces their pre-held prejudices. We read, hopefully, so that we can become more informed and aware. Otherwise why bother?
So Why JC isn't a Marxist-
If we mean the social aspects of
abolition of private property
The use of propaganda to teach people to abide by the ideals of communism
Then he does not support these.
If we take the economic aspect of Marxism-Leninism that:
Market forces should be replaced with scientific planning
That the value of a good or service should be determined by its use value
That wages should be set according to the skill and intensity of the work
That all industry should be under state ownership.
Then Corbyn couldn't be any further from this. As far as I am aware he has never advocated a change in the way that goods should valued or wages set. And although he believe natural monopolies and major infrastructure should come under public ownership, he seems to support the idea that private businesses and corporations should be allowed to exist.
If we take the political aspect of Marxism-Leninism that
The state should be controlled by a single-party of Marxism-Leninism principles
The use of a vanguard party to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat
Then Corbyn absolutely does not support this. If anything, he supports further reform to allow more parties to have influence.
tl;dr Discussions on whether someone is or isn't a Marxist are complicated by the fact that Marxism is an incredibly broad church of beliefs ranging from the very fringes of the far left, to aspects of the One Nation Conservative vision. Ultimately, its meaningless to call someone a Marxist in the 21st century as all being Marxist means is that you think capitalism leads to a significant chunk of people being worse off and that something should be done about it.

Not labelling 'personally" though, is it, but labelling politically.
Why should you believe you have the right to attach a label to someone else rosesarered. You have no idea of the depth or breadth of their views other than how you have chosen to read what they have put on here. We may choose to call ourselves a socialist, tory or whatever but it is not for anyone else to decide. Yours is a case in point. You say:

I am basically a Lib Dem, but like certain aspects of Conservatism and also one or two Labour policies.)

If I had to judge on what you have written on here I would say you are someone to the right of Margaret Thatcher. I have never seen you argue for liberal point of view nor do you come over, in your posts, as having a social democratic bone in your body. The party you espouse is made up of these two things. However, you have chosen to say you are a Liberal Democrat so I believe you. I would not dream of telling you that "no, you are what I perceive you to be". How arrogant that would be?

It is worrying to think that anyone would describe Donald Trump as a 'breath of fresh air'. He is a political dinosaur and I find it frightening that he has so much supposed support in the States.

I think the popularity of JC is a reaction to Blair and his brand of politics which my DF would not have considered true to the beliefs of the Labour Party he held dear.
If people do tend to move more to the centre or right as they get older, perhaps JC has mellowed in his beliefs, and left behind some of the more extreme views of his youth whilst still believing in the core values of the party as it existed pre- Blair, Brown et al.

I have almost convinced myself! DF would be proud.

The politicains in the USA answer to their sponsors. They then lobby them.
So issues like food and guns are effectively controlled by corporations and groups rather than the democratic votes of the people.

DT is not under their control.
Halleluya.

That is not to mean that he cant still make a hash of things, but American people know that he is not like probably all the politicians currently in Washington.
Hence I wrote "breath of fresh air".

He also answers questions directly, instead of giving pre determined answers no matter what question is asked.
Again, "breath of fresh air".

Would I vote for him? Probably not.

Fair enough, stb. However I find his views anachronistic.
In fact, JC could also be described in the same way.

Should both be voted into power that could bring an end to the supposed 'special relationship'!

Did someone earlier in this thread say they would vote for JC as 'leader of the Labour Party' not necessarily as PM?
Does that mean they would vote for him as leader but then not vote Labour at the General election? What would they vote for then?

I think if he is voted in as leader we could see a resurgence of the Lib Dems as people defect to them - or even a new party emerge to distance itself from his views. And if he loses would he break away and form a new party or just retire gracefully to the back benches?
Interesting.

Maybe a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is also anachronistic [in fact, probably more so].

POGS I was not "upset" - I was irritated.

I believe that I - and no doubt other Gransnetters' with a similar viewpoint - have much more nuanced and individual ideas about how a fairer society can be achieved than can be encompassed by a label which, frankly, is deliberately used by the right wing media to conjure up visions of bloody revolution and military might. As I have said before, I have no more admiration for Russia than I do for the United States - in my opinion, both are militaristic nations which have an unhealthy and disproportionate amount of power in the world - though as a country that purports to represent "freedom and democracy" it is interesting that the USA has been in a state of almost perpetual war in one part of the globe or another since its inception and has been behind several military coups that have overturned democratically elected governments.

You quoted from Trisher's post which stated that Marxism has been described as a broad church of beliefs ranging from the very fringes of the Far Left to aspects of the One Nation Tory vision. Therefore, how useful is it to describe anyone as a Marxist when elements of Marxist thought can be found in all but the most rabidly right wing political groupings?

I have given examples of countries that are Capitalist but which nevertheless have achieved a levelling out of extremes of poverty and wealth. Taking the measure of child poverty in 35 countries, for instance, the link below shows that Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden have the lowest levels of child poverty whereas Lithuania, Spain, Latvia, USA and Romania have the highest levels of child poverty. The country that most epitomises the Capitalist way - the USA - has the highest but one level of child poverty - but also a Capitalist country - Finland - has the lowest level of child poverty. Surely this suggests that Capitalism can take many forms and does not have to preside over a system where there are vast inequalities in wealth. Unfettered Capitalism is, I believe, very dangerous but there are those on the extreme right who still believe Capitalism should have no controls whatsoever, as the market can be trusted to regulate the way society operates.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th

rosesarered You say "I would never go to anything with the title of 'People's Assembly'" - why?

""""""durhamjen Mon 24-Aug-15 18:08:45
I voted for Labour until Blair showed he wasn't a socialist. I would vote for Labour again if it gets a socialist leader. I am not a communist, Trotskyite or Marxist as far as I know.
I agree with Whitewave, and find it worrying that anyone considered too left wing is being denied a say in the leadership of the party as it existed for a long time.
Things have moved on, but the basis of socialism, looking after the health and wellbeing of those who through no fault of their own have been denied a decent living, has not changed.""""

Ahh but when the right wing press and, and TV programmes like benefit street, are able to fill the tiny minded brains out there that the entire country is on the fiddle, while our MP's walk away with a 60 plus grand a year pay packet, plus non means tested perks and allowances, then this is a recipee for another Tory Government, because people just hate the idea that their fellows are getting something they cant get, while those very same people bow and scare to their Tory MP who is laughing all the way to the bank.

Don't you think, roses, you should find out about the People's Assembly against Austerity before you dismiss it out of hand?
The People's Assembly is trying to help those in poverty, save the NHS, and organised the Jarrow March last year.
If as you say you are a libdem, you should definitely be interested in the People's Assembly.
Somehow, you do not come across as a libdem, or in any way liberal or democratic.

GracesGran, back to your rude self I see.
Eloethan, sorry if I hit a nerve with the People's Assembly thing, it just sounds so....worthy and left wing, and a bit smug.

Djen that's ok, because to me you just come across as naive about the world and only interested in a narrow band of people.

If you dish it out, you should be able to take it.

Which narrow band is that, then, roses?
All those that have problems with the NHS, benefits, housing, jobs, minimum wage, education, etc.?
That narrow band?

rosesarered As you say "sounds", I assumed you haven't read anything about what it stands for so you are making a judgment based on very little. And how does the name People's Assembly suggest smugness?