The Labour Party

What I am trying to say is that I have set up my arguments in order for people to challenge them with alternatives. It shouldn't be difficult to those on the right, there are plenty of alternative views to choose from.

Morning nig do you agree with my description so far? If not I would really like to hear your critique, it helps the debate swing along.

Labour and left wing movements then grew out of the effects of the 19th century.

It has of course changed and developed over the past century, until we arrive at what we have today.

Now I am sure other more knowledgable grans will be able to describe today's Labour movement.

But really I think it is important to address the socialist concept as there seems to be so much misinformation and misunderstanding of it.

I would argue that Socialism in today's Labour movement is a term used to describe society as a community, where support for the weaker members of society is given. It recognises that each member has a stake in their society, and each pays according to their ability. If accepting that the weaker members should be supported, then you could describe yourself as a socialist.

It is has nothing to do with Communism, and to suggest it does is simply wrong, both factually and intellectually.

No, I am irritated by off-topic, irrelevant comments and personal sniping in what is an interesting thread.

Are you suggesting d.d that roses isn't up to your intellectual standards?!! Goodness me I'm astounded at you making that rather offensive observation about somebody you know so little about. Actually it's a pretty high handed remark to make about knitting circle ladies! Is knitting only for people of low intelligence?!!
I presume this thread is only for university graduates, with socialist leanings? Other people outside this cloistered world do have valid opinions you know! Even knitted ladies!!!

Yes bags I agree, and that is what is I would argue happened. Ordinary folk fought for the right to be heard at every level.

I think that the Labour movement in the UK now accepts the benefits of a capitalist system, but that the state should mitigate against its excesses.

Of course where this line of mitigation falls is basically what the argument is about.

Capitalism is not going to go away. But if those in society who provide the means, by their labour, for others to profit are not part of the equation then that is abuse certainly.

So the 'profit' has to be less for those at the top and more evenly distributed to those who work. Yet, at the same time there has to be consideration given to the fact that, with modern technology, less people might be needed to produce the service or the 'goods'. This is especially difficult when our manufacturing industries are collapsing at the same time as technology is reducing the numbers of workers needed.

This is not a new problem

So sufficent monies need to be made available, through taxation, to run public services which return no profit such as the NHS and education, and to pay those workers.

Then there arises the question of those who cannot or will not find work and how to meet their needs.

Solely in order to increase the wealth of a few, I should say.

Is there a case for saying that any system that abuses the rights of some people in order to increase the wealth of others is not "efficient". I suppose it's efficient in making some people rich but it's not efficient at improving the general lot of the majority in society. I think this is why the second half of the nineteenth century saw so much social reform (I'm thinking of the Gladstone and Disraeli governments) and later the emergence of the trades unions and Labour Party.

I think a society based on the benefits of capitalism and on justice for everyone is what I'd call efficient.

I shall stop now as I'm going on too much!

So for example during the 19th century, we can see capitalism in its most "efficient" state. Profit was accumulated and constantly pursued. In order to achieve this worker's wages were kept as low as possible without actually starving the workforce to death, children were put to work for even less. Capitalism needed the raw materials and so expanded the market throughout the world but paying as little as possible for the materials. Democracy did not exist, the only voice heard - with a few altruistic exceptions -was that of those pursuing profit.

Interestingly, Friedman was also a proponent of negative income tax and a basic living wage.

To mitigate the effects of the pursuit of profit by the few, at tne expense of those who make that profit possible by their labour.

The so called socialist principles and intellectual argument has an extremely long and varied history. We can go back to movements like the levellers or Quakers and many others. But what we have today, whilst built on so many of the ideas conceived throughout the centuries, is as a result of attempting to mitigate the effects of the pursuit of profit.

That is true Whitewave

Just catching up with this debate.

So pleased to see that the moderate right (I wouldn't dare call them anything else) contributed with such intellectual and challenging ideas.

People like economists such as Freedman describe Capitalism with its raw pursuit of profit, as the driver of individual happiness. In order to achieve this utopian state, there should be little or no interference in this pursuit of profit from the state. The state should be as small as possible. The idea is that left entirely to its own devices every individual will benefit from it -someone once described it as the trickle down effect. The individual is the key - remember -there is no such thing as society? Within this very traditional philosophy, it is accepted that some individuals will do well and some will lose big time. But the the state should not interfer, it is accepted as the natural way of being. Nothing should interfer with the market.
This is what the Tory party accepts as its world view. It is the utopian model that it constantly aims towards.

Now I have outlined the above because the Labour movement grew as a reaction to the result of the raw pursuit of profit and all its resultant effects.

i have no need to justify or elaborate on my socialist principles for the sake of those who would inevitably pick holes in them. But they include the right for others to hold opposing views without being the subject of vitriolic comment or persecution. Or ridicule.

Obviously the persecution does not refer to GN, but to wider global issue.

My principles have nothing to do with religion. I have no belief in a god and have little experience of religion being a force for good, historically or in the present day, though I acknowledge a few religious individuals who sought to improve life for others.

Getting back to the Labour Party, I think the coming local elections will be interesting. I wonder if there will be a swing back in favour of the LibDems as people realise that they did exert some sort of restraint on the Tories?

Re Corbyn, I have said several times in GN I have no objection to the man, in fact I admire many of his qualities and deeply held principles. But he is not strong or savvy enough to hold the party together. He reminds me of Old Major.

One of two things will happen, depending on how Labour does in the May elections.

Good post @ daphnedill Wed 20-Apr-16 23:05:20

Why? Because your agenda has always been to smear?

<Sigh> It would be good to have a proper discussion. Unfortunately that's not possible when people with no intellectual contribution join in!

Have you thought of joining a knitting circle, roses_sont_roses? You might find that the intellectual level is about the same as your own?

Which is why Anya's thread was doomed from the start.

Some of us have to give another point of view now and then, otherwise it really does become a cosy little club ( I realise that is what some of you prefer.)

Your wit is up to the usual standard I see ab

Daphne, Rosesarered doesn't bother or interest me , sadly she only posts to stir up disagreements but doesn't contribute anything of interest on the topic, well not quite true, she did contribute a lot to Corbyn 's vest discussion which was held some months ago.

Any chance of getting back to the OP?

Btw you may not actually be a Gran yet ( or ever) but this is Gransnet after all.We are all Grans on here.