Would Labour turn this country into a communist state?

If communism takes over, it takes over. What form it takes you will not know until it happens - and what it may become is even more uncertain.

All this argument about the hows and whys of exactly what communism is, sounds like people on the Titanic arguing about what style of deck chair they want to cling onto when the ship sinks.

I bought the Observer for a change yesterday and will continue - a much more serious paper than the S.T. which is becoming more and more like the D. M.
There's an interesting article by Yasha Mounk about the worldwide increase of countries being taken over by authoritarian parties, whether from right or left.
The writer fears for the future of more moderate social democratic political groups.
The UK is by no means alone in the political shift.
He also says it's more the younger people who are looking for extreme solutions, because they've never experienced fascism. Does that apply in the UK?

You can almost picture stronger Unions backed by the hard left once again holding the country to ransom.

You would only be able to do that "again" if you felt it happened in the past. I didn't. Your "you" should be "I" or at least "some people". It a bit inappropriate surely, to assume you know how everyone would see it.

I would welcome stronger unions. What I don't want is a war between them and the government. If there was I would blame those with the greatest power and that would be the government for misuse of that power. Unfortunately, yet again, they have screwed people down so hard that it wouldn't surprise me if there was a backlash and the next government - of whatever flavour - was left to deal with it.

Soviet communism became self serving. There is always a ruling elite but some elite persons are interested mainly in conserving their political party.

We wouldn't have all out Communism but I think the way the Labour Party is reforming itself into a hard left group and excluding anyone with moderate views has to be worrying. You can almost picture stronger Unions backed by the hard left once again holding the country to ransom. Could there be an abuse of far left power if the New New Labour Party (once again transformed) ever got inside No 10?

For 'some elite persons' couldn't you name the hard left Lansman, McDonnel, Corbyn etc, maybe?

How democratic is the Labour party now after the January NEC elections?

Jeremy Corbyn’s hard-left cronies tighten grip on Labour’s ruling body

Ahead of the election result, Ms Lloyd (the deputy director of centrist Labour pressure group Progress )said: “To know what a nightmare it will be to have Jon Lansman on the NEC you only have to look at his determination to bring in mandatory reselection of Labour MPs, his recent calls to redo every London councillor’s selection with only months before polling day, and how he stopped all democratic discussion on Brexit at the Labour Party conference.”

My way or the highway for some life-long Labour supporters and workers it would seem? How would the public (all sectors) fare under a hard left government?

Maizie, I gather that strict party communism is as bad as strict party Conservatism. In other words there is reason to distrust any politician who put the rules and regulations of the party before the good of the country and the people.

Soviet communism became self serving. There is always a ruling elite but some elite persons are interested mainly in conserving their political party.

Religions, and big charities also become like that and need constant pruning.

But there are several different terms and the differences between the various forms are still not clear to many people.

That's why I was trying to ask people to explain what they mean by terms such as 'communism'.

In the US, even the Democrats have been called 'socialists' by the Republicans. In order to understand the word, you have to look at who is using it
But there are several different terms and the differences between the various forms are still not clear to many people.

Would really like you to put forward a proper argument though, if that is your opinion.

So the leader does not put the individual first because you ask a rhetorical question that suggests he doesn't Annie.

Logical fallacy Annie along the lines of "I suggest something therefore it is and I can, therefore reference my suggestion as proof".

It isn't.

Anniebach, I am not good at politics, but I do gather that Jeremy Corbyn's interest is in the welfare of the individuals in the country, and not the banks and the capitalist opportunists.

For the many, not the few

The present labour leader puts the individual first?

I think that what is wrong with communism actually is that as a political party it insists on keeping strictly to the party line. It's authoritarian, in other words. Unlike socialists who put the individual before any party line . Labour is not communist but socialist.

Two views from the Daily Mail, then and now.
Is Theresa May a Stalinist?

By the way, I loved the vision of May being walled in.

I presume you saw May's housing statement yesterday.
It was previously Miliband's policy.
This was a response to Miliband's policy from the Daily Mail.
So is it communist or fascist?

You can see why politicians only use the phrases that have been worked out for them can't you.

We have seen it on here. You only have to not attack someone and try and get a realistic view of things when suddenly you have been moved to an extreme by descriptions in posts. Trump did it a lot with Hillary Clinton.

I think this is a lot of why the word Communist has detached itself from it's meaning so that whatever people understand by it they know it meant to indicate that the person/movement it is used against is seen as untrustworthy and possibly dangerous.

In the US, even the Democrats have been called 'socialists' by the Republicans. In order to understand the word, you have to look at who is using it

There is not the least hint in there that Robert Rynn (the LP guy) had ever thought of violent revolution as a means to achieve the LP's ends. So why would it worry anyone?

I realise that, but I was just saying that it could if those words are used or re-used even in a dismissive manner.

Well unravelled Maizie. That makes a lot more sense with the rest that he said. So, no violent revolution for the LP but still the duel use of the word socialism.

Well, I read the 'violent revolution' as stating an historical fact, not an aspiration. What is wrong with me that I can't find it in any way threatening or worrying?

Now I've followed Jalima's link I've got the context

The item she cut and pasted from is on the Socialist Party (formerly Militant) web page. It is reporting on a debate which took place between speakers from the Socialist Party and the Labour Party (separate parties) and is reported from the Socialist Party viewpoint.

The bit Jalima posted is where the LP speaker pointed out ('claimed' in SP speak because they don't agree with what he said) that socialism (i.e the full blown Marxist /communist version, I'm assuming) would require a violent revolution (i.e.to bring it about).

It is clear from the rest of the report that the SP members think that they're not likely to achieve it any other way!

There is not the least hint in there that Robert Rynn (the LP guy) had ever thought of violent revolution as a means to achieve the LP's ends. So why would it worry anyone?

The people to worry about are the Socialist Party and even they, I suspect, are more talk than action... (and few in number)

I think the provisos work which every way you run an economy.

I notice that the "violent revolution" was not a quote but contextualised by the writer. It would be interesting to read exactly what he said as it seems a bit at odds with the mixed economy bit but I agree, strange words and will be worrying to many.

If people in the LP bandy these words around Gracesgran ie violent revolution it is no wonder that people become apprehensive.

A mixed economy would seem to be pragmatic as some public services are better being nationalised but others are more efficiently run and better for the consumer when an element of competition is introduced - provided they are run efficiently and not just for the benefit of those at the top.

I would agree with Robert Rynn, Jalima re "violent revolution" with regard to communism/socialism but not democratic socialism, which is why I am surprised at the seemingly casual use of the word.

I would also agree a mixed economy. The old Clause 4 seemed to point towards greater nationalisation and I think that upsets some people but it isn't necessarily communism.

I see myself as a social democrat but I am still trying to work out what LP members see differently - I don't think they want total nationalisation. I agree with this definition of Social Democracy

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest, and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes;

The sentiment is Brilliant Gracesgran, but the definition is a bit ‘fluffy’ for want of a better word.