The Labour Party

I suppose those grans who asked the far left in my argument would be those who argue that society should take back entirely the control of production from the wealthy capitalist.
The far right would be groups like Marine Le Pen, and various other nationalist groups.

In between these two stances we have by far the majority of the political parties meeting somewhere in the middle sometimes to the right of the middle and sometimes to the left. Voters behave exactly like that as well. But they have to put up with all the propaganda put out by vested interests, which can muddy the waters to the extent that it impossible to know what to believe, particularly as there are many vested interests who are not above lying about their real intentions.

Has Jeremy Corbyn modified his views? He made it very clear that the party made the policies and I can't see any change in that view. I do think he has drawn on other strands of his character and is beginning to fit the job well. I like what he has brought to PMQs and feel it is good that he doesn't descend to the snide and denigrating remarks we often hear from the government benches (and sadly on GN) - but then I don't like the sort of nastiness and one upmanship that goes on in these situations; I prefer to hear them discuss the country, the people in it and the way forward not one another so I am probably prejudiced

Reading the OP, who is to say what a moderate Labour supporter is? It will vary from the standpoint of the person looking on and the person saying they are so it seems pointless to ask a specific section to answer imo. Wherever I sit - I would have said just left of centre - I do not agree that the Labour Party is being torn apart but I would agree that there are changes happening in the Labour Party, other UK parties and in other political parties in the world. I wonder where it will take us? Not into my future - I am going into the autumn of my life - but I do hope it will be better for my children and their children than it has appeared it was going to be.

tricia I think to understand where the US and France stand you have to look at their history. US was built on the enlightenment and people like Thomas Payne. The enlightenment was very big in individual freedom. I am sure other people can talk about it with more knowledge than me. But it is interesting how the socialist intellectual debate varies from country to country.

A bit of thread drift perhaps, but it interests me that the American view of socialism is so different from ours, they're so terrified of commies. Even democrats like Obama are more like our Tories. And there's a lot of support for the KKK.
The french view too, Sarkozy's "rightwing "party is more like our moderate socialists, and their FN is to the centre of our NF. There's a lot of support for the communist party too in France.
And I agree with what Nonnie says about JC - once you're in the hot seat you modify your views.

I got to the end of page 4 and then lost all I'd written so am giving up on all that but do want to say that I think JC has changed since he became leader. I suspect he has discovered that it is fine to have all sorts of strong views until you are actually at the point when you could be in a position for them to be examined. Once you are in the spotlight and realise the practicalities you need to modify your views or lose the job.

It is so easy to say what would be an ideal world, we would all want pretty much the same but when you are in a position of power and know how big the cake currently is all you can do is decide how to divide that cake and what is the best way to increase the size of it.

It is very easy to attack others when it is not your responsibility to make the decisions - give to one and take from another - as there is not enough to just keep giving. Those of us who have had to manage budgets at work know how difficult it can be, especially during a slow down when cuts have to be made.

Is a 'moderate' voter much different to another 'moderate voter' of any other party? I wonder.

What is interesting is when you introduce the concept of nationalization like the NHS. You can understand why it is an anathema to the capitalist system as it is taking away potential profit. But some governments have taken the decision that some industries or services are so basic to society that they should not be subject to the vagaries of the market.

Yes I agree with both your points. It isn't as simple as I outlined but it is a start.

jalima moderate socialism or democratic socialism could arguably be seen as a moderate capitalism. A system that ensures capitalism thrives , but the pursuit of profit does not get out of control by exploiting anything and everything that it needs to in order to accumulate ever more wealth.

Yes of course businesses should be able to expand and thrive this providing ever more jobs. jane But the basic premise must remain. Businesses would not exist without profit.

I don't think its as cut and dried as Whitewave states- ie its not just a matter of two sides: those who provide the capital and those who provide the labour. Sometimes it is by providing the labour (working) that capital is accrued. This can then be reinvested to help to develop industry/services which create jobs for people to work at. Its all so interrelated that its hard to untangle thus leading to confusion and misunderstanding.

We need wealth creators, risk takers to provide work for other people who are not prepared to take risks. Everyone in work should pay their taxes to provide our public services and to aid those who need help from society.

Those prepared to take the risk may lose everything, therefore they deserve extra if they succeed over and above those who are not risk takers and are happy to work in return for a wage. The wages should be such that the workers are not exploited and can provide for their families.
Is that moderate socialism or capitalism?

And how do committed socialists feel about buying goods from overseas where the workforce is exploited far more than any person living and working in the UK?
Do they investigate the provenance of every single item before purchasing it?

PS. I would just like to add that the wealthy also use their wealth to by-pass democracy.

And the next person who says they are not a socialist I shall hit as it matters not a jot what you see yourself as.

I must now do some housework and plant the plants (I didn't need) that I bought yesterday.

So one of my arguments is that captalism could not exist without both sides of the equation, I.e. those that provide the capital and those that provide the labour. Those providing the labour, to assist the wealthy to get richer and are paid a salary to do so. I accept that this system works, provided the worse excesses of capitalism are mitigated by various means, and I don't just mean welfare support, but also adjustment to the system where possible to avoid the boom and bust which is inevitable in the economic cycle.
The problem comes when we look at who holds the power. I would argue that it is entirely in the hands of the wealth holder. It uses this power in a number of ways, and the most recent manifestation of it, although it has always been there, is the realisation that the wealthy have in fact opted out of society, by putting the wealth beyond the reach of society. It pays nothing back to society, although I would guess it would expect society to support them by giving their lives in times of war etc.

So that in a tiny and somewhat ignorant nutshell is some of argument.

This OP is asking the opinion of moderate socialists, and I'm not a socialist, so my opinions are not relevant n this instance! However, I am interested, and will lurk with anticipation!

Onwards and upwards?

It is not you, whitewave but daphnedils posts.

We are not having problems with the intelligent and informative posts, just the ones that tell us to go to bed, or get on with our knitting instead of posting on this thread! Also it would be good to answer the actual OP ( although Whitewaves last post on Socialist/ Labour values was a good one.)

The fact that you are a citizen of the U.K. Entitles you to an opinion * nig* and why do you think you have nothing to contribute - of course you do. I would absolutely hate to think my comments lecturing with the presumption I know best. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply outlined an argument or description of how the left view society, and expect to be criticised in my description. What is wrong in that?

All I argue is let's keep it impersonal and try to avoid the "he said, she said" syndrome as it gets us absolutely nowhere.

As I've said before daphnedills posts are intelligent and informative [not to mention extremely eloquent]. I honestly can't see why some posters are having problems with them.

I was thinking more of daphnedil than you whitewave actually.

Obviously I shouldn't enter into this debate as I'm not a Labour voter. dd's comment was just unbelievably patronising, and frankly rude. Yes I agree, the tone of a lot of the discussions on these threads are often reminiscent of a yesterdays school teacher, lecturing in tone and the presumption of always knowing best! Any deviation warrants a scornful put down and attributed to intellectual weakness. I'll leave it at that as my credentials don't qualify me for any further comments.

My reply was to the idea of "far left" and "moderate" and far from lecturing, I have simply acted as an Aunt Sally - setting up an argument to be knocked down by anybody from whatever political persuasion. Even the left wing grans may well disagree with my description.

We can of course discuss this at one level, but it always ends up like a playground scrap, or we could try to raise the tone and address each other as adults without implied or actual criticism other than of the arguments put forward.

Teaching was not my profession.

Perhaps a good idea for all to read the OP and then to answer it.

I think we may have a few ex- teachers on here, there is an element of lecturing going on, knitting, what's that about, I certainly can't do it.
What I would genuinely like to know , is , if Miliband had got into power two elections ago, or somebody else ( not Corbyn) but obviously a Labour Leader, would that have satisfied everybody, or would they be hankering after the sort of policies that Corbyn and McDonnell will surely go for?
This thread was not set up by Anya for Lib Dems/ Conservatives to air their views, but for a particular purpose, ie. Moderate Labour voters, to say if they agreed with all the glorifying of Corbyn et al, which apart from the odd comment that Corbyn would not make a good PM, hasn't really materialised.
A pity, as I was interested in the subject.

Sorry,'knitting'.