The Labour Party

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.

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!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

Sorry,'knitting'.

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.

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

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.

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.

I was thinking more of daphnedil than you whitewave actually.

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.

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.

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.)

It is not you, whitewave but daphnedils posts.

Onwards and upwards?

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.