Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
There has been some confusion, over quite a long time on GN, by posters who suggest or state that the Labour Party has Communist policies
This is so incorrect, I decided to explain what Communism actual was both in theory and in the "Communist" states we have had/do have.
. My parents were Communists - and have also studied politics and economics at uni.
We haven’t ever had a ‘true” Communist society, but these are the features:
No one, no one at all, owns any private property, nor owns any businesses, nor own any land, nor the means of production, nor goods beyond their needs.
All run by the state, which in theory was post a workers revolution, and workers co-operatives.
In the original communist theory:
People are paid not according to their abilities, but their needs.
All health and education and similar services are run by the state, no private opportunities at all.
All receive a state pension/welfare is necessary however much they have paid in, ie, again, according to need, not savings and so on.
Of course, the societies called Communist did not reach this theoretical Communism, but there was certainly no private ownership or other kinds of ownership as described as above: and health, education and welfare all run by the state.
Note - meals were provided at work, and schools and all welfare places, but there was only a few years when meals were communally provided for those who wanted
Most people, as we do, wanted to eat at home except for lunch or other work breaks, where food was still supplied, and did so, once the turmoil of revolution ended
*But States we called Communist were was not run by Worker’s Co-operatives, they were run by supposedly free elections -
- hence the rise of those in power as we have known them, and the KGB et al*
I suggest we stop using the term Communist unless it is accurate.
It as happened so many times I decided to explain, and will again.
So.....hence this thread.
Allira
John McDonnell;
“Hello, are you looking forward to having a Marxist in No 11?” was how McDonnell greeted a business executive. The MP has long spoken of his admiration for revolutionary socialist thinkers. In 2006 he named Marx, Lenin and Trotsky as his most significant intellectual influences (Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, has confessed to not reading “as much of Marx as I should have done”).
No, the present Government is not Communist!
😄
Maybe Corbyn was more of a ‘Trot’
nanna8
Just incompetence not communism though I believe Starmer is a Marxist at heart. Most here support him so he must have some (very) hidden talents along with his front bench.
"Starmer a Marxist at heart" is a subjective characterisation reflecting a particular perspective or opinion rather than an established fact. Keir Starmer is generally viewed as a center-left politician who has emphasised party unity, moderate policies, and a pragmatic approach to politics.
He has expressed support for social justice and workers' rights, but labeling him a "Marxist at heart" would require an extreme right-wing perception of British politics.
Different commentators and political analysts may have varying interpretations based on their perspectives, but publicly available information suggests Starmer doesn't identify as a Marxist.
I should have added that Starmer has strongly championed Devolvement of Power and is following through with it. That would be an anathema to the extremists (including Communists), of either left or right. It's more like a democratic-centrists view.
nanna8 - fwiw, about 18 months ago, I did think about setting up a chat thread for n&p.
I dont want to do it myself currently, but I know what you mean about not being quizzed/asked/almost demanded to provide endless links and justifications.
Which, again fwiw, never pleases and will please, some askers, even if 50 were provided. Literally.
If it helps, I would join it.
It could be an ongoing, if sporadic, long running thread over time.
For whatever the politics of the day are.
fancythat
If it helps, I would join it.
It could be an ongoing, if sporadic, long running thread over time.
For whatever the politics of the day are.
Go for it fancythat - I'd join it too
Me too.😃
fancythat
nanna8 - fwiw, about 18 months ago, I did think about setting up a chat thread for n&p.
I dont want to do it myself currently, but I know what you mean about not being quizzed/asked/almost demanded to provide endless links and justifications.
Which, again fwiw, never pleases and will please, some askers, even if 50 were provided. Literally.
It's quite ironic in fact 😂😂😂
fancythat
If it helps, I would join it.
It could be an ongoing, if sporadic, long running thread over time.
For whatever the politics of the day are.
Good idea.
Just don't mention trouser suits!
I really don’t think a N&P chat thread would work. Even threads about much frothier subjects stray into heated discussion, and people can’t resist joining in, with ensuing conflict.
Whitewavemark2
What you are describing wyllow3 though bears no relation to the Marx description of communism.
Yes, Marx was a theoretician: (like others here, I've read and discussed him as in his original books)
He described what he saw as an inevitable end of Capitalism and a rising up of the working classes to demand what I laid out in the first part of the O/P ie pure "Communism" as in totalled mutual communality.
It was Lenin who came around to writing about the practicalities of building a Communist Society. ie "Marxist Leninism".
Other leaders in the early days of the Russian Revolution were for example Trotsky, who tended towards Anarchism (tho not an anarchist) : he was defeated by Lenin and left Russia): the other major example is of course Stalin, who was a pretty horrific hardliner and of course had the Gulags: he took advantage of Lenin dying fairly young.
So describing someone as a "Marxist" doesn't really work too well as it covers a rather wide range of ideologies.
There is a far left party that are basically Trotskyist - they are the Socialist Workers Party.
You will find them practicing "entryism" where they join a more mainstream group - for example the Unions, or other organisations, the Gaza issues, some strikes, to forward their aims.
If you look up "Socialist Workers Party" and see their campaigns then it's fairly clear.
I experienced them for example in the "Black Lives Matter" campaign locally and I have no doubt nationally. In this small organising group if you didn't follow "the line" you were gaslighted or quietly not informed of this or that.
I know this is tedious unless you are interested, but it does throw light on how careless accusations of "Communism" or "Marxism" are short on knowledge in making those same accusations.
Ie, they make the terms meaningless.
Maremia
According to Lady Google,
Communism is a social organisation in which all property is owned by the community, and each person contributes according to their ability and needs
Hope this helps
In theory, in practice it’s much different, an authoritarian command economy is more accurate.
The Labour Party now seems to be a directionless mix if socialism and liberalism, the prospects for the economy is poor so will resort to higher taxation to balance the books, that going to loose them a lot of votes in the next GE
Wyllow3
We owned a rental property in Transylvania. Stunningly beautiful region.
I have been inside that building 😱
I once had a Romanian traffic cop kiss my hand. We exceeded the speed limit. In Romania they take your license there and then so my partner offered him €50. Of course he took it with a big smile on his face.
He came over to our car and kept thanking us and kissed my hand.
Ah, so you have experienced just how corrupt yet poignant that man was Petra - think of those awful those orphanages were:
Yet Czechoslovakia was on the whole a benign society, many people just waiting to tip over into democracy. (After the invasion by the Russians in 1968, no surprise - the "Prague Spring")
It's a total illustration of how very different the societies people think of as "Communist" actually were!
Spinnaker
fancythat
If it helps, I would join it.
It could be an ongoing, if sporadic, long running thread over time.
For whatever the politics of the day are.Go for it fancythat - I'd join it too
Well I would let nanna8 do it.
It was her idea.
I think there is room in N and P for the whole gamut of types of discussion, from the never to be forgotten "The Trouser" thread to detailed informed discussions - and everything in between.
I don't like it when spite or malice appear, game playing, is all, really.
I'm not sure what what Communism/Marxism/Trotskyism/Stalinism are (nor ever have been, to be honest). Am currently reading Sarah Rainsford's eye opening book Goodbye to Russia. If you want a good grounding in how socialist systems can be corrupted and end in disaster do read this by the BBC's former Russian correspondent, who, along with her husband were deported by the Putin government. Truly horrifying and to my mind getting all too close.
Spite and malice seem rife to me on this forum on just about any thread and any subject.
A more chatty news thread would be a good idea, separate from politics where frivolous comments are not frowned on and there are no demands for links.
No, it doesn't.
Labour/ Communist/Socialist confusion is actively spread by ignorant factions in USA ( including Trump).
Betony
I'm not sure what what Communism/Marxism/Trotskyism/Stalinism are (nor ever have been, to be honest). Am currently reading Sarah Rainsford's eye opening book Goodbye to Russia. If you want a good grounding in how socialist systems can be corrupted and end in disaster do read this by the BBC's former Russian correspondent, who, along with her husband were deported by the Putin government. Truly horrifying and to my mind getting all too close.
You are so right. It's appalling in Russia now: is Putin better than Mikhail Gorbachev would have been?
butterandjam yes!
You only have to look at the total paranoia of the MCarthy witch hunts in the USA of the late 1940's well into the 1950's, echoed by the hunting out of people who do have a right to remain in the USA right now, and ignorance is rife - lets not let it happen here.
Casdon
I really don’t think a N&P chat thread would work. Even threads about much frothier subjects stray into heated discussion, and people can’t resist joining in, with ensuing conflict.
I don't know why News and Politics should exclude chatting about those subjects.
Allira
Casdon
I really don’t think a N&P chat thread would work. Even threads about much frothier subjects stray into heated discussion, and people can’t resist joining in, with ensuing conflict.
I don't know why News and Politics should exclude chatting about those subjects.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t, but I am sure in reality it won’t happen like that. It’s the nature of the forum for disagreement to be part of every discussion, and for the discussion to go in unplanned directions.
Chatting is not the same as agreeing, and threads do wander off in many directions.
I know, but if you can name a political thread that has ever been just chatting I’d be surprised, it’s just not the nature of them - wishing things were different won’t change it I don’t think.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
