Would Labour turn this country into a communist state?

I think the term communist conjures up an image akin to dictatorship, because that seems to be the reality.
True communism is nigh on impossible to adhere to other than in a small community. All things can never be & will never be equal & or fair.

I don’t think we could be turned into a communist country, but we can be frightened into thinking that we could be run by a government which may have communist sympathetic leanings

"I think the term communist conjures up an image akin to dictatorship"
Good point Bridgeit. I know Corbyn used to rant and rave when he was young, but I can't see him turning out like eg Stalin, Putin, Ceausescu, Mao or Castro. Though I believe Castro mellowed a bit when he was older.
And their equivalents on the right such as Franco,Mussolini, Hitler or Kim Jong-un ( or is he a communist too?)

Does the old Clause 4 sum up "Communism" for some. Was that why the LP got rid of it?

Old Clause 4
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

I’m not surprised that the LP got rid of it, the first sentence reads very positively,but then becomes unclear of how this would work in actuality.

Well, me neither Fennel

But I am still rather confused about the terms being used. As far as I could tell, Blair and government were social democrats, Corbyn, McDonnell, Momentum are 'democratic socialists' but please correct me if this is wrong.

Robert Rynn, political education officer of Carlisle Labour Party (personal capacity), claimed that bringing about socialism would require "violent revolution", and that the best system is a "mixed economy" with the state controlling basic services such as energy and the railways, while private industry was left to "innovate" in other areas.
www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/26876/14-02-2018/carlisle-debate-socialism-or-social-democracy

so it sounds as violent revolution has been thought about but considered not to be a practical solution.

The old Clause 4 was written in 1918 from what I can see. We may need a knowable LP member to put us right on this, but that may be why it's clunky Bridgeit.

Blair and the party under him were "democratic socialists" (which sometimes seems to be interchangeable for social democrats and sometimes not). The LP under Blair changed the old Clause 4 I quoted to this in 1995.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect'.

Dates, etc., are thanks to Wikipedia so I am sure someone will have more detail than this.

so it sounds as violent revolution has been thought about but considered not to be a practical solution.

It doesn't really need to be 'thought about', Jalima. Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history must know that the imposition of 'communism/socialism' has, so far, only happened after a violent revolution. I can't see that anyone (barring a few maniacs) would consider such an option for even one second.

Are you seriously suggesting that the idea may have been considered by people in the LP?

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

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;

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 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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

The present labour leader puts the individual first?

For the many, not the few

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.

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.