Corbyn and the Monarchy and Armed Forces.

POGS I imagine to distance themselves from Hard Right. It's not clear what orientation you think unions have, but since most working people can join one and have a vote which counts for as much as anyone else's, I would have thought they were democratic organisations and as such reflect their membership. If people choose not to join they can't complain about the poilitical complexion of those who do.

Do you consider John McDonnell is Far Left/Hard Left of politics when he says 'I am a Marxist'?

I think you would still have to consider whether what they said is what you consider to be Marxist. 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.

So for me it is not the political name you give yourself but the policies you work for.

(Also I haven't heard John McDonnell say 'I am a Marxist')

GG MK2

Your point re;-

" 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."

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

John McDonnell has stated ' I am a Marxist ' , he is therefore a Marxist. Oddly as with the term Far Left the likes of McDonnell et al have dropped being associated with.
They only fool some of the people some of the time.

I am unclear if and in what context McDonnell stated that he is a Marxist. I am also unclear how you can define him as a Marxist from his contribution to the manifesto and his comments on various interviews.

Yes, he did say he was a Marxist - but it was back in 2013. There is video footage if you want to google.

Marxism. Hmmm that went well....

youtu.be/9lCcFjRhiaw

He said it in the context of: he was very pleased that the financial crash happened.
of course non of his young supporters didn't, it was only us older ones who had money in the banks. And before someone says it: yes, I do know how lucky I was to have money to loose.

Don't forget a lot of charities suffered because of the crash. Not that a Marxist would give a stuff about them.

Not feeling any inclination to Google, thank you Ana. As I said I will judge by the things a person supports or challenges, particularly after seeing where some people on here see themselves by comparison to what the party is actually standing for or opposing.

I get the feeling that the silent majority would like a middle ground government (I don't mean liberal), not far left and not far right. There are a lot of extremist views on here that do not reflect the vast majority of people. I feel it is a case of empty vessels make most noise!

If you don't have the words to express your thoughts clearly then there's always a cliché or a handy idiom.

My post was actually in reply to whitewave's, GGMk2, but of course your opinion is always welcome.

GG, no need to google, I have posted a link

I don't think it is a matter of expressing clear thought, it is a matter of being able to see both sides and having sympathy, to a certain extent, with others in a different situation. Idioms are often true.

I've just watched that short clip ana

Without wanting to go into vast explanations, Marx provided us with the best explanation of the capitalist system, there has ever been. All other economic explanations have been built on it but always with reference to Marx whether overtly or not.

Frankly I think he is right when McDonnell describes the banking crash as something that Marx described as the inevitability of the capitalist system. Even neo-liberals accept that !!

To go from there to say that McDonnell is Marxist in his political stance however is simply wrong. He isn't.

McDonnell is Marxist in his acceptance of Marx's economic description of the capitalist system but he certainly isn't a Marxist when addressing Marxian philosophy. There is a difference not understood.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.