Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

I know it was from 2017 , an answer to a hypothetical question for which I had given no thought to or needed to give any thought to. All I knew about Cameron was that he was PM of the UK, that's about it, wasn't one bit interested, wasn't even aware of the referendum promise till afterwards. I didn't vote in the referendum either but it doesn't mean I can't have an opinion..
Yet over a year later you still said you would have voted for that tory manifesto. Also I never said you can't have a opinion just that your opinion was stupid.

people pretending they're voting for the good of society is bollox. I've only ever voted what will benefit me or my family whether it's Labour Tory or the Monster Raving Loony Party - I have no political favourites.

I call people stupid for voting Brexit - not for the fact that I disagree with it but because they are voting for something that is going to make their own lives a whole lot worse - that is stupid - only people like JRM are going to benefit from it.
Er sounds like you care Paul ? But if not cheers for proving my point.
So the idea of politics having wider repercussions and effects to people other than yourself is a concept that seems impossible for you to understand.(Don't worry your not alone as plenty of other tories have the same issue).
(Also I wasn't talking about the good of society simply the effects that voting for certain polices have.)


You have an obsession with public school and class - the only reason I went was not because my parents were rich but because I won a place otherwise I would have been at the local Grammar School or Comprehensive.
Since my parents were born Cockneys I wouldn't call myself upper class. A friend of mine who joined the school at the same time and we have remained friends ever since lived in a wooden hut with his divorced OAP father who couldn't afford the uniform, suppose he was an upper class twit as well.
Thats not how class works.

I am sick of the whingeing young people , instead of moaning and being jealous do something about it. You all think you're the first to suffer hardship but your uncle Jeremy isn't going to solve it for you.
But Paul I sold my iPhone but I still can't buy a house. Seriously we might as well be talking a different language at this point.
 
Last edited:
Depends what you want to reform. If Corbyn wants to reform it so that he can nationalise everything, especially lost causes like British Steel, then he has no chance. Nor if he wants to split the 4 freedoms.

However, if he wants to reform anything he can't reform it from outside, the Tories do not control the EU. First of all the UK system needs to be reformed.

Yes the referendum was a Tory ploy that backfired but the people fell for it and went along with it and believed all the lies and they are going to suffer for it. Difficult to have sympathy with people who have voted for their own downfall.
Ignorance is no excuse.

All the things Corbyn wants to do for the UK that he says the Tories have ignored, welfare, NHS ,police etc, he's got to have money for it and not backing wholeheartedly remain means the UK will leave probably without a deal. If the UK get through it better than the 2008 crash they'll be doing well.

Corbyn's actions do not add up and trying please everyone will eventually lead to pleasing no-one.

Sorry for the late reply.

Did not know he wanted to nationalize British Steel.
Water, Energy and the railways I have heard about. These serve the public directly and should not be For Profit. So they should be nationalized.

If you elect a government you would expect them to represent the interests of the people. Should it not negotiate with the EU?
Or perhaps the EU dictates to us. Or so we are told.

Golden Rule.
You never blame people for how they vote.
The government's obligation is to represent the interests of the majority without harming the minority.
The Tories harm everyone except the very few at the top.

Oh. they also scapegoat. Always a good strategy to distract especially when they are not doing what they are supposed to do.

Ahhh. How do you pay for it??

Welfare, NHS etc. you pay for it with progressive taxation. You certainly do not let people fall through the cracks.
 
Yet over a year later you still said you would have voted for that tory manifesto. Also I never said you can't have a opinion just that your opinion was stupid.

Er sounds like you care Paul ? But if not cheers for proving my point.

(Also I wasn't talking about the good of society simply the effects that voting for certain polices have.)


Thats not how class works.

But Paul I sold my iPhone but I still can't buy a house. Seriously we might as well be talking a different language at this point.

You missed out the word probably - had I actually looked into it, read the manifestos, knew the personalities involved etc etc maybe I wouldn't, who knows, it didn't happen.

Just think I voted against Blair and he was involved in an illegal war. Your favourite leader of party supposedly knows the actions of a policy will be severely detrimental to the country and especially the poor people of the country but he continues to go along with ensuring that those people will be much worse off than they are now. Instead of standing up and saying that Brexit should be stopped at all costs he'd rather say nothing because he's frightened of losing votes, which of course is much more important to him.

The IPhone was a tiny example, as you well know but continue to be obtuse if you so wish.

So what is class for you, bosses versus workers, power to the people, share everyone's wealth to everybody whether they deserve it or not. Everyone can be equal , except for a few who are more equal-that doesn't make everyone's life better and push them upwards to a better life , it drags everyone downwards, except of course for the select few more equal ones.
 
Sorry for the late reply.

Did not know he wanted to nationalize British Steel.
Water, Energy and the railways I have heard about. These serve the public directly and should not be For Profit. So they should be nationalized.

If you elect a government you would expect them to represent the interests of the people. Should it not negotiate with the EU?
Or perhaps the EU dictates to us. Or so we are told.

Golden Rule.
You never blame people for how they vote.
The government's obligation is to represent the interests of the majority without harming the minority.
The Tories harm everyone except the very few at the top.

Oh. they also scapegoat. Always a good strategy to distract especially when they are not doing what they are supposed to do.

Ahhh. How do you pay for it??

Welfare, NHS etc. you pay for it with progressive taxation. You certainly do not let people fall through the cracks.

In the EU the State can own industries, for example in France the railways(SNCF) are owned 100% by the State. The State cannot stop a company like British Steel going bust by nationalising it. It's a question of unfair advantage which probably other people on this forum know more about.

Yes the government should negotiate within the EU but the EU is depicted in the UK as some abstract faceless monstrosity whereas it is a group of countries deciding between them and the UK had one of the top 3 most influential places at the table.

Having not followed UK politics other than Brexit over the last 10/15 years difficult to comment but the EU have always been a scapegoat for whichever governments failings for the past 40 years.

Progressive taxation I agree but the taxes in the UK are low but not many people seem keen to pay more at any level and lowering taxes is always a vote winner.
 
Just think I voted against Blair and he was involved in an illegal war. Your favourite leader of party supposedly knows the actions of a policy will be severely detrimental to the country and especially the poor people of the country but he continues to go along with ensuring that those people will be much worse off than they are now. Instead of standing up and saying that Brexit should be stopped at all costs he'd rather say nothing because he's frightened of losing votes, which of course is much more important to him.
Er I don't get the Blair stuff your doing but anyway we can go over this a million times but 1)Corbyn can't actually stop brexit by himself(There is no stop brexit button)2) if your just simply going to ignore what Corbyn is saying then this is just pointless.


So what is class for you, bosses versus workers, power to the people, share everyone's wealth to everybody whether they deserve it or not. Everyone can be equal , except for a few who are more equal-that doesn't make everyone's life better and push them upwards to a better life , it drags everyone downwards, except of course for the select few more equal ones.
I view class in a more marxist way but there are many other ways as well but what your parents were/did isn't one of them.

As for the everyone can be equal thing(Although I'm not sure how everyone can equal, except for a few who are more equal. What does more equal even mean ?)- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx.
 
Er I don't get the Blair stuff your doing but anyway we can go over this a million times but 1)Corbyn can't actually stop brexit by himself(There is no stop brexit button)2) if your just simply going to ignore what Corbyn is saying then this is just pointless.



I view class in a more marxist way but there are many other ways as well but what your parents were/did isn't one of them.

As for the everyone can be equal thing(Although I'm not sure how everyone can equal, except for a few who are more equal. What does more equal even mean ?)- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx.

The Blair thing is a reference to anyone who has ever voted Tory is supposedly evil ergo anyone who has voted Labour is evil too. But then one could be sensible. Pigeon holing.

Corbyn cannot stop Brexit although he could have stopped no deal which is now even more certain than ever. He could have been more active in opposing Brexit if that's what he really wants, he could have been more persuasive towards his voters and others who may switch over to Labour that he is fully behind stopping Brexit if there is possibly a way.

For example if there was a GE before the UK leaves the EU a) will the Labour manifesto again be we respect the will of the people and it doesn't matter if the poor people are worse off or b) we recommend that Brexit is cancelled forthwith so that the country doesn't become poorer and we can initiate reforms to the UK system that the Tories have damaged and you will all be better off.

Or will he say we will look at the situation at the time.

When people ask what Labour's position is the usual answer is why don't you listen to Corbyn, sorry can't hear him. Just spell out Labour's position in a very concise clear way, no?

I was hoping no-one wanted to follow the soviet success story where people were supposedly equal but weren't.
I'm not saying everyone can be equal, no-one is equal, people should be free to do and act as they wish as long as they don't break the law.
As you won't spit out what you mean by class - from your quote presumably you mean that if someone is talented he can progress through life and make loads of money and no-one will mind.

What does not compute is why someone should envy someone else. I don't mean people who have physical or mental problems who should without question be cared for by the state.
 
The Blair thing is a reference to anyone who has ever voted Tory is supposedly evil ergo anyone who has voted Labour is evil too. But then one could be sensible. Pigeon holing.

Corbyn cannot stop Brexit although he could have stopped no deal which is now even more certain than ever. He could have been more active in opposing Brexit if that's what he really wants, he could have been more persuasive towards his voters and others who may switch over to Labour that he is fully behind stopping Brexit if there is possibly a way.

For example if there was a GE before the UK leaves the EU a) will the Labour manifesto again be we respect the will of the people and it doesn't matter if the poor people are worse off or b) we recommend that Brexit is cancelled forthwith so that the country doesn't become poorer and we can initiate reforms to the UK system that the Tories have damaged and you will all be better off.

Or will he say we will look at the situation at the time.

When people ask what Labour's position is the usual answer is why don't you listen to Corbyn, sorry can't hear him. Just spell out Labour's position in a very concise clear way, no?

I was hoping no-one wanted to follow the soviet success story where people were supposedly equal but weren't.
I'm not saying everyone can be equal, no-one is equal, people should be free to do and act as they wish as long as they don't break the law.
As you won't spit out what you mean by class - from your quote presumably you mean that if someone is talented he can progress through life and make loads of money and no-one will mind.

What does not compute is why someone should envy someone else. I don't mean people who have physical or mental problems who should without question be cared for by the state.
In the politest way possible Paul I have no fecking idea what your on about. I've lucky never had the dreaded political conversations with conservative family members that so people many have to go through but right now I feel like I am.

Evil for voting tory ? The Soviet Union ? Envious of other people ?

All of this reads like a right wing bingo card or Facebook memes.

Like I've said before we might as well be talking a different language.

I don't think bollocks is technically a language tbf.
:lol:
 
Last edited:
In the politest way possible Paul I have no fecking idea what your on about. I've lucky never had the dreaded political conversations with conservative family members that so people many have to go through but right now I feel like I am.

Evil for voting tory ? The Soviet Union ? Envious of other people ?

All of this reads like a right wing bingo card or Facebook memes.

Like I've said before we might as well be talking a different language.


:lol:

It's all so predictable , never answer a question with a straight answer. You're still doing it , right-wing, conservative.... you can't help yourself and because you can't answer a straight question you try to mock people. Where does facebook and bingo come into it. Sad really. Young man shouts at clouds.
 
It's all so predictable , never answer a question with a straight answer. You're still doing it , right-wing, conservative.... you can't help yourself and because you can't answer a straight question you try to mock people. Where does facebook and bingo come into it. Sad really. Young man shouts at clouds.
I've literally gave you the answer

- Class
I view class in a more marxist way but there are many other ways as well but what your parents were/did isn't one of them.


After I gave you this answer you went onto talk about the soviet union and people being envious of others.
 
What is the marxist way, please enlighten?
Must admit I'm going off a dusty old memory but basically 2 classes
Bourgeois and workers?

I think the petit bourgeois was added by Engles but it's a dusty old memory

1409511796.jpg
 
What is the marxist way, please enlighten?

Read this lot and get back to me

md30319140320_3.jpg


But seriously

Class - A group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production.

"In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place.

"These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production.

Karl Marx
Wage Labour and Capital
Chpt. 5: The Nature and Growth of Capital


The notion of class, as it is used by Marxists, differs radically from the notion of class as used in bourgeois social theory. According to modern capitalist thinking, class is an abstract universal defined by the common attributes of its members (i.e., all who make less than $20,000 a year constitute a "lower" class); categories and conceptions that have an existence prior to and independent of the people who make up the class.

For dialectical materialism however, the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labour process and the means of production.

Gender and Race: Gender and race issues are often compared to class, but gender and race struggle have their own material bases in society distinct from class, but exist within the class structure. The existence of the working class is created by the capitalist mode of production – capitalism could not survive without wage labor – therefore the political emancipation of the working class as a whole can only be achieved through revolution. Capitalism can survive, and in fact necessitates the need for completely free labor, with equality between workers of all races and genders; thus women and minorities, through tremendous and painful struggles, slowly gain political emancipation through reformist movements ("women's liberation", "civil rights", etc.). The struggle of gender and race are critical political and social issues, because without these struggles and victories there can be no real unity between workers. Unity is imperative for workers to free all humanity from exploitation, so long as workers are divided, we will continue to be conquered. For further readings see the subject section on Marxism on Women.

Class Struggle: Classes emerge only at a certain stage in the development of the productive forces and the social division of labour, when there exists a social surplus of production, which makes it possible for one class to benefit by the expropriation of another. The conflict between classes there begins, founded in the division of the social surplus, and constitutes the fundamental antagonism in all class. As capitalism was just beginning to create itself, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels explained the processes they had witnessed:

"Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army, they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, in the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

"The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

"Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes.

Karl Marx
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Chpt 1: Bourgeois and Proletarians


What is the breaking point? When does the class struggle reach such a height that the increasingly backward structure of capitalist production is overthrown?

"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production.

"Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.

Karl Marx
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Chpt 1: Bourgeois and Proletarians

Marx showed that all class struggle will be resolved in communism, which can be achieved only after a period of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Class struggle underlies most political struggle. But class struggle certainly is not the only form of struggle in society! Race and gender related oppression and struggle are some of the foremost examples of struggle that is not based on class. While these struggles happen in a definite class environment, race and gender oppression is not always based on economic reasons, but also can exist as a result of archaic social understanding. For example, in the 18th-century United States, Negro slavery was imperative for the survival of the cotton and tobacco industry in the south – thus, racial discrimination had a definite class basis: the maintenance of a class of slaves. In the struggle for their emancipation, a Civil War was necessary to break Negroes out of slavery and into proletarian existence. Continuing racial discrimination in the 21st century in the United States, no longer based on economic necessity, stems from deeply ingrained social racism of the past.

Historical Overview: In “primitive communism” there may be a highly developed social division of labour and even social inequality, but no classes, because each appropriates the product their own labour in its entirety, and division of labour and distribution of the product is determined by kinship relations.

In Slave Society, the productivity of labour is such that a slave-owning class is able to hold in bondage another class of slaves who are themselves the property of the slave-owners. The status of the main class of producers themselves as property, is the characteristic of slave society; slaves are not citizens, have no rights and are not regarded in slave society as human beings at all.

In Feudal Society the Nobility expropriate a definite proportion of the product of the producing classes, such as the Serfs, according to a system of traditional obligations, which define the rights and responsibilities, most particularly in relation to the land, of all classes in feudal society. Although the peasantry own their own land, and are recognised as citizens with rights, they are not free to change their station in life which is determined by traditional systems based on kinship. The producers in feudal society own the product of their own labour, except labour given under a specific requirements determined by traditional obligations, such as having to work the Duke's estate every second Saturday, give one-tenth of their crop to the priest or fighting in the army when there's war, etc., etc.

In bourgeois society the producing class, the Proletariat, are “free labourers” in the sense that they are free from any compulsion on the part of any other person as to how, where and when they work. However, the means of production are the private property of the Bourgeoisie (or Capitalists), while the Proletariat (or Working-class) has nothing to sell but its own capacity to work (unlike the peasantry of feudal society who labour on their own land), and must sell their labour power to the capitalists in order to live. The slave-owner was obliged to feed his slaves even when he had no work for them; the peasant always had his own land to work; but the proletariat is entirely free of these restraints, and if there is no work or if wages are too low, she must starve.

In a future Communist Society private property in the means of production will be non-existent and will be used in common by the producing class, marking the dissolution of all classes. This is not, of course, to say that there would be no differences or conflicts or that there would be no division of labour – on the contrary. But the means and products of labour would not be private property, and consequently, the conflicts between different people and groups of people would not be antagonistic.

In all these social formations (and there are others, only the most classic forms are basically mentioned above) there are other classes apart form the two basic classes – the Owners of the Means of Production, and the Producers. These other classes may be intermediate between the two basic classes or may be dependent upon one or the other.


https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm

I would also add in The Class Struggles of France, 1848 to 1850 & The Eighteenth Brumaire by Marx(Its him doing a class analysis and its actually somewhat useful for todays politics) -

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/index.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/18th-Brumaire.pdf
Edit as I said bosses and workers? Let's all be workers
No as you'll see in the stuff above. As for lets all be workers,

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production.

Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx
 
Last edited:
Read this lot and get back to me

md30319140320_3.jpg


But seriously



I would also add in The Class Struggles of France, 1848 to 1850 & The Eighteenth Brumaire by Marx(Its him doing a class analysis and its actually somewhat useful for todays politics) -

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/index.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/18th-Brumaire.pdf

Thanks for that which was basically as I thought.

Noting especially: In a future Communist Society private property in the means of production will be non-existent and will be used in common by the producing class, marking the dissolution of all classes. This is not, of course, to say that there would be no differences or conflicts or that there would be no division of labour – on the contrary. But the means and products of labour would not be private property, and consequently, the conflicts between different people and groups of people would not be antagonistic.

Which was why I was referring to soviet and some people being more equal than others. The 20th century has seen the abject failure of the fascist regime in Germany and the abject failure of the soviet/communist regime , the USSR. The happiness of the proletariat under the non-capitalist communist society was untold. By that's another massive topic.

The assumption that all business owners and management are exploitative I find personally insulting. Of course it is true in certain cases as is true that certain unions exploit the companies.

What I find slightly ironic is that there is an idea circulating that a percentage of a company's shares be given to the workers which surely then turns them into the bourgeoisie.
Of course under a capitalist system anyone could rise from nothing to achieve what they want to achieve if they had the ability and ambition.

How depressing is marxism? Any happy or successful or functional countries you can name throughout history that adopted marxism?
 
Thanks for that which was basically as I thought.
The assumption that all business owners and management are exploitative I find personally insulting. Of course it is true in certain cases as is true that certain unions exploit the companies.
Oh dear.

Of course under a capitalist system anyone could rise from nothing to achieve what they want to achieve if they had the ability and ambition.

All of this reads like a right wing bingo card or Facebook memes.
:lol:

Anyway cheers for wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
Don't see what's funny about that
I know its slightly troubling.

As I said it's all so predictable, just cannot answer anything.

I've answered your questions over and over again and you keep coming back with Facebook meme arguments. We are at the point now were I would have politely told one of my cousins to warm up the car and to bring you back home and we wouldn't see each other until following christmas.
 
I know its slightly troubling.



I've answered your questions over and over again and you keep coming back with Facebook meme arguments. We are at the point now were I would have politely told one of my cousins to warm up the car and to bring you back home and we wouldn't see each other until following christmas.

You've answered almost nothing , just a few snide remarks.

I'm still waiting for :
Corbyn's concise Brexit position.
A successful/prosperous/happy/functional nation that has adopted marxism at any time in history. You have a whole selection of time and the whole world to select from.
Why someone can't make a success of their lives without having a silver spoon , so to speak.
Doesn't wanting shares distributed to workers make them capitalists and bourgeois?


Other questions
Do you want to be a serf
Why do you follow an ideology from the 19th century which has zero success rate
Do you aspire to be a homeowner or look forward to sharing a four room flat with three other families , private property being a no-no.
Do you want a society where there is absolutely no incentive to improve yourself because if you do you turn into a bourgeois and we musn't have that.

Why do you keep mentioning Facebook? It's the pits.

This is like Brexit - hoping for a utopia which is complete fantasy and unworkable.
 
you know, the odd thing is.....Corbyn has never said that he wanted Britain to be Marxist so this entire back and forth has been completely bloody pointless.
 
You've answered almost nothing

Your question -
So what is class for you, bosses versus workers, power to the people, share everyone's wealth to everybody whether they deserve it or not. Everyone can be equal , except for a few who are more equal-that doesn't make everyone's life better and push them upwards to a better life , it drags everyone downwards, except of course for the select few more equal ones.

My answer -
I view class in a more marxist way but there are many other ways as well but what your parents were/did isn't one of them.

Your question
What is the marxist way, please enlighten?

My answer
Read this lot and get back to me

md30319140320_3.jpg


But seriously



I would also add in The Class Struggles of France, 1848 to 1850 & The Eighteenth Brumaire by Marx(Its him doing a class analysis and its actually somewhat useful for todays politics) -

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/index.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/18th-Brumaire.pdf

No as you'll see in the stuff above. As for lets all be workers,



Why do you keep mentioning Facebook? It's the pits.


My answer
Do you want to be a serf
Why do you follow an ideology from the 19th century which has zero success rate
Do you aspire to be a homeowner or look forward to sharing a four room flat with three other families , private property being a no-no.
Do you want a society where there is absolutely no incentive to improve yourself because if you do you turn into a bourgeois and we musn't have that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly this conversation has felt like I'm talking to someone with extreme memory loss or someone who has been in a car accident(Or honestly just someone who is very old). The jumping from one topic to the next, the constant contradictions within the same single post, completely ignoring replies back, the random mentioning of well random things(I still have no idea why you kept talking about Tony Blair).

Anyway I'm off to microwave my brain in a effort to save whatever brain cells I have left after our interaction.
 
Last edited:
The assumption that all business owners and management are exploitative I find personally insulting. Of course it is true in certain cases as is true that certain unions exploit the companies.

The marxist point re. exploitation (very simply) is that you wouldn't hire someone if they didn't produce more value than you were paying them. e.g You wouldn't hire a chef in a restaurant for £10 p/h if they only produced £5 p/h of value for you. You do it because they produce £15 p/h of value and as the business owner that £5 difference is your profit. In this way the labour of the chef is 'exploited'.

Of course it gets much much more complicated than this in the real world, but the essence of capitalism is those with capital exploiting the labour of those without capital by rewarding them less for their work than the value it produces.

It's not insulting.
 
The party is a mess at the moment tbh. But so was it in 2017. The problem is the Tories have United behind Hard Brexit. Meanwhile, Labour is still divided.
 
Your question -


My answer -


Your question


My answer







My answer



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly this conversation has felt like I'm talking to someone with extreme memory loss or someone who has been in a car accident(Or honestly just someone who is very old). The jumping from one topic to the next, the constant contradictions within the same single post, completely ignoring replies back, the random mentioning of well random things(I still have no idea why you kept talking about Tony Blair).

Anyway I'm off to microwave my brain in a effort to save whatever brain cells I have left after our interaction.


OK you can't answer any questions - like your mate Corbyn, just stupid snide remarks. Not because you are trying to avoid them but you don't know what to answer. I do know what marxism is I just thought you might elaborate a bit yourself but seemingly only insults are possible. Good luck.

Like Corbyn with Brexit , stupid Tory deal, right Jeremy what's yours . er oh um , er , six tests that don't work but they're red instead of blue. Pathetic.
 
The marxist point re. exploitation (very simply) is that you wouldn't hire someone if they didn't produce more value than you were paying them. e.g You wouldn't hire a chef in a restaurant for £10 p/h if they only produced £5 p/h of value for you. You do it because they produce £15 p/h of value and as the business owner that £5 difference is your profit. In this way the labour of the chef is 'exploited'.

Of course it gets much much more complicated than this in the real world, but the essence of capitalism is those with capital exploiting the labour of those without capital by rewarding them less for their work than the value it produces.

It's not insulting.

Thanks, yes I get the principle that there should be no profit. In the real world of course this is not possible because not everything is profit based and of course not everything that is profit based produces a regular profit, some people make losses - who produces the taxes to fund the state.
Surely the collectivisation, starvation and failure of Lenin and Stalin should have taught a lesson of how people suffered because of ridiculous idealism , likewise with populism and nationalism. Sadly not.

It's not exploitation it's a contract - not a compulsory contract.
If I sell something to another company at a profit I am theoretically exploiting the other company which could be owned by a multibillionaire.

What really makes me laugh is the idea of companies having to give shares to their workers, although some companies do it voluntarily as an incentive scheme - proletariat becomes bourgeois.

Basically "I want what you've got."
 
you know, the odd thing is.....Corbyn has never said that he wanted Britain to be Marxist so this entire back and forth has been completely bloody pointless.

He's never really said anything. Nobody knows, it's a secret which will be revealed at the appropriate time.

It was in connection with what is the marxist interpretation of class.
 
The party is a mess at the moment tbh. But so was it in 2017. The problem is the Tories have United behind Hard Brexit. Meanwhile, Labour is still divided.

I would imagine Corbyn will want an immediate election, before the next party conference, so he can put his own Brexit fudge in the manifesto, and not be mandated by the rank and file. And his falling popularity might be another good reason for him to want it now, rather than later.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/28/corbyn-worried-boris-johnson-election-labour-brexit

Corbyn said he was “not in the slightest” bit worried about going up in an election against Johnson, who is the third Conservative leader he has faced. He said Labour would campaign for a second referendum and to remain in the EU if Johnson was proposing a no-deal Brexit. But Corbyn said the party was not necessarily in favour of remaining in the EU if Labour could negotiate its own Brexit deal.

Asked personally whether he would prefer to remain in the EU or to leave with a Labour-backed deal, Corbyn declined to make a choice.

Is that in, out or shake it all about , just so that we're sure.

Investment, jobs, trade and equality, both in or out of the EU. I want those things,” he said. “What we proposed was actually a very credible deal. A bespoke customs union with the EU and the trade arrangements would have achieved those things. It didn’t go through parliament, that was the problem.

To who? What a joke. Umm....
 
OK you can't answer any questions - like your mate Corbyn, just stupid snide remarks. Not because you are trying to avoid them but you don't know what to answer. I do know what marxism is I just thought you might elaborate a bit yourself but seemingly only insults are possible. Good luck.

Like Corbyn with Brexit , stupid Tory deal, right Jeremy what's yours . er oh um , er , six tests that don't work but they're red instead of blue. Pathetic.
:lol:

And there we have it. Complete and utter confidence in a subject that only yesterday you were asking for help on. Truly this is the conservative brain working at its highest form.

fecking hell, I'm done.
 
Last edited:


You shouldn't always believe what people say.

If you had noticed I'd already given you the answer.
Are you waiting for clearance from Labour HQ before answering any other questions in case you get deselected.

That was fun but now the old man below wants to have a nap whereas I shall continue to exploit a few serfs.
GettyImages-936269420-640x400.jpg
 
Last edited:
The marxist point re. exploitation (very simply) is that you wouldn't hire someone if they didn't produce more value than you were paying them. e.g You wouldn't hire a chef in a restaurant for £10 p/h if they only produced £5 p/h of value for you. You do it because they produce £15 p/h of value and as the business owner that £5 difference is your profit. In this way the labour of the chef is 'exploited'.

Of course it gets much much more complicated than this in the real world, but the essence of capitalism is those with capital exploiting the labour of those without capital by rewarding them less for their work than the value it produces.

It's not insulting.
So 'exploited' = value created? What if the business owner is self employed? They exploit themselves?

Also, can the chef create the value they do without 'exploiting' the business? For example, the business provides the resources the chef uses to create the value.

I am sure many business do exploit employees, but this is a flawed way to define exploitation.
 
You shouldn't always believe what people say.
Well if there's one thing I will take away from my conversation with you, it's this. (Oh and also "I want what you've got." isn't marxism, a bit mad that I need to say this to a grown adult)
 
Last edited: