Corbyn and the Monarchy and Armed Forces.

they are not hard left...I think most of you forget that the Blair government was fairly right wing so anything left of that you believe to be far left,and THAT is nonsense ,even the SNP are more left leaning than Labour...or Corbyn and they can hardly be called marxist

Does one need a superior back ground to vote conservative ?

Are some in denial here about McDonnell? Or Corbyn, come to that.Why does anyone think that anniebach a staunch Labour supporter dislikes them ( let alone anybody else) it's because they are hard left which is why many (160) Labour MP's also dislike them.They are taking the Labour Party into the wrong direction.If a moderate Labour Leader ( instead of Corbyn) had been at the helm, they would have won this last GE hands down.IMHO.

Actually I feel we should take this seriously. Really, is T May's background really superior enough for her to be a Tory, let alone leader. Has she had the training to stick her nose in the air far enough and blame all the ills of the world on the poor?

Luckylegs did you get to choose your school? Or your parents. Why can't people from a privileged background have a social conscience and believe in socialist principles? You'll be telling us next that some of the people on here are too poor to be Tories next.

Ye gods and little fishes. Has the world gone mad?

Let's face it, wherever his background, Corbyn and all Labour politicians will be criticised - because they are Labour. £137,000 a year is a lot of money but it pales into complete insignificance when you consider people like Martin Sorrell, the CEO of marketing company WPP, who was paid £70million for the year 2015 - and there are many others like him.

If Corbyn had been born into a non-professional family, had a regional accent, lived in a council house and had gone to a "bog standard" school, some people would most certainly be accusing him of the "politics of envy" or of having a "chip on his shoulder".

So there you are. If you are Labour you can take your choice from being "a hypocrite/champagne socialist" or "envious".

Corbyn earns £137.000.00 per year, went to a top private school, lived in a huge house and had a privileged life's style. How can he spout on about workers rights. Look at the salary of Mcdonneld and Abbot,( whose only songoes to a top private school) they are more conservative in their life style than most Tories.

WW

Silly how?

I wouldn't have thought that McDonnell was a liar unless he was telling people he was a Marxist just to be a crowd-pleaser

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lCcFjRhiaw

Don't be silly pogs

WW

Ye Gods you accuse me of 'intransigence '.

You can't make Gransnet up sometimes.

You will be telling me to go off and have a chat with my right wing friends as you were having a cosy chat next . AGAIN.

GG MK 2

"POGS do keep your knickers on. ". Sigh.

Why would I report you?

I am more than happy for posters to read your words and make their own decision as to what you mean by stating

" After all we have seen people on here say "I'm a Labour Party member" or "I'm a Lib Dem" where, in my opinion, they eschew the politics of each of those parties and actually push the politics of the Tories.".

I stand by what I think of your comment but it is in no way reportable and I don't do that anyway. I gave you my opinion and you don't like it that's all.

As you wish pogs but sticking to such intransigence means that you are in danger of misunderstanding Labours policies.

John McDonnell often comments how he has formed his views on Karl Marx books , especially Das Kapital.

His throwing the Communist Chairman Mao Tse-tung Little Red Book at George Osborne in the House of Parliament was so telling. He tried to be passed it off as another one of his ' jokes ' but it told a story of who he is and what influences him. Well he had to say afterwards it was a another of his ' jokes ' because they were laughing at the irony of what he had just done and you could see his his back benchers cringing.

If McDonnell says he is a Marxist , I am more than happy to believe him , after all it was his mouth that said it.

Oh well, Marx used the term when developing a theory about how a classless society would come about and how each class would contribute to this type of society. He argued that the lumpenproletariate had in fact no class consciousness and therefore contributed to nothing to society and its economic production.

I won't bore you any more, but I think it is obvious that this theory has been overtaken by history!!!

I did take it at face value because I don't know a great deal about Marxist theory. I read that he was referring to gangsters and petty criminals, but also to addicts, the unemployed and prostitutes. It sounded like a pretty harsh way of referring to people who had fallen on hard times or who had possibly never experienced anything but hard times.

eole

I think what we mustn't forget is the historical context of Marx writings. And he used the term in a very particular context. So it can't be taken in such a literal sense.

I read this on a website exploring political theories, in particular relating to poverty:

"The various explanations of poverty can be seen more simply as two opposing perspectives:

"Explanations of poverty, which concentrate on the poor themselves. These include; dependency theory; the culture of poverty thesis and the cycle of deprivation.

"Explanations which focus on the social structure. These are Social Democratic and Marxist theories.

"Each perspective is associated with opposite ends of the political spectrum, with those on the right tending to individualise social problems, and those on the left tending to socialise them. Very different policy implications flow from each."

Marxist analysis of the origins and operation of the capitalist system is one that many political theorists, whilst disagreeing with several aspects of it, find insightful and useful. As I understand it, Marx didn't urge the overthrowing of capitalism but believed it would eventually reach crisis point and destroy itself.

Marx appears primarily to have been a theorist, interested in political structures - why they were formed, how they operate and whom they primarily benefit.

His description of what is now often referred to as "the underclass" as: "the lumpenproletariat, the dangerous class', the social scum" is one that I can't imagine John McDonnell, or most people who think of themselves as "socialists", espousing.

I had to have a look in the end whitewave and you are quite right. Interestingly though a couple of the clips - from the same speech - are clipped just before he gets to talking about economics. Now I wonder which little parties members would think that might be a good idea?

The trouble I think that the ground has moved so far to the right that we talk in terms of the centre when in fact from almost every political system in Europe and indeed our system both Tory and Labour pre-Thatcher would still consider our so called centre ground as right wing.

We need to get back to the sort of social contract that those people in Europe enjoy and indeed as we did before the neo libs came into existence.

Teachers, social workers and NHS workers all to blame for.....???

I have friends I've known for over forty years who would describe themselves as socialist, some who would say they are a Marxist in accepting his description of the capitalist system.
They certainly do 'give a stuff' about charities. they raise money, some work within the charity section and without exception support those in need. That often includes family members.
AsarahG speaks for many in expressing a wish for what she calls a middle ground government.
Theresa May tried to claim that Ground in her first speech outside number ten. Sadly, nothing changed, far from helping less fortunate, struggling middles etc, austerity continued. The electorate sent a clear message that they'd had enough of destroying public services, helping the rich and making life more difficult for the rest. Yes, I know they won the election but lost their majority. I've heard any number in of Conservative MPs say they got the message on the door step.
We can only hope that things improve

Well, it came straight after whitewave's, which should be a clue. Still, as long as you both found it useful...

My post was actually in reply to whitewave's

Sadly it wasn't directed to anyone Ana so we are all left guessing aren't we.

POGS do keep your knickers on.

That is a statement which as you say is your opinion and is simply a personal attack basically accusing fellow posters of deceit.

Of course it isn't or, if you think it is report it and stop making such outlandish statements. I have an opinion; they have an opinion. That is the way of the world.