Corbyn did win, what's next?

[ddt]

Yes, they were objectionable. Perhaps not to the same extent as Nazism, but they still violated the freedom and dignity of the individual, even in their idealized, unrealized form.

Furthermore, at this point in history one cannot assert with a straight face that Marxism merely failed to achieve its goals. In all of its incarnations, it leads to despotism and slaughter, without fail. One may excuse the ignorance of some of its original proponents, but to advocate for Marxism now is to advocate for the horrors that it actually produces.

What you're talking about is actually Marxism-Leninism. Lenin introduced the Vanguard theory, that a highly-trained and organized communist party must lead the way and effectively organize the proletarian revolution, popular support or not. Marx never advocated that and thought that the proletarian revolution would come about spontaneously, as a consequence of the continuing immiseration.

There are very few examples of the latter. Do you think the Paris Commune of 1871 led to despotism and slaughter? (Slaughter sure, but by Thiers' troops, not by the communards).

 

[WildCat]

What you're talking about is actually Marxism-Leninism. Lenin introduced the Vanguard theory, that a highly-trained and organized communist party must lead the way and effectively organize the proletarian revolution, popular support or not. Marx never advocated that and thought that the proletarian revolution would come about spontaneously, as a consequence of the continuing immiseration.

There are very few examples of the latter. Do you think the Paris Commune of 1871 led to despotism and slaughter? (Slaughter sure, but by Thiers' troops, not by the communards).

"No True Marxist".

 

[angrysoba]

That Corbyn needs a public appeal to change his position is a sad commentary. That others support homeopathy is no consolation.

I didn't bring up Jeremy Hunt as "consolation", whatever that is supposed to mean, but to demonstrate that people can change their minds when they are reasoned with. That self-described skeptics would find excuses for not engaging politicians who believe in quackery is a "sad commentary".

This and other positions he takes make him unsuitable for high office. Indeed, it makes him unsuitable for opposition leader.

"Unsuitable" in this case meaning someone you don't like.

 

[ComfySlippers]

If I was in charge of the ban hammer...

This started out as a discussion about Corbyn.
It has turned into the applying of petty labels.

Silly me though this would be a grown up discussion.

Seriously, friends, this is NOT the U.S. Political thread.
Life is not black or white.
Stop hurling childish labels.

Talk about the subject matter.
Not silly nonsense about Marxism.

Come on. I know you can do it.

 

[uk_dave]

Well, this is an improvement.....

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell has apologised for saying in 2003 that IRA members should be "honoured".
The MP, appointed by new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, said the comments had clearly caused offence and apologised "from the bottom of my heart".
He said he had been urging militants to "put their weapons away".
Speaking on BBC Question Time, he also said he was sorry for an "appalling joke" about former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
In 2010, he said that if he could go back in time he would "assassinate Thatcher".
Challenged on this remark by a member of the audience, he said: "It was an appalling joke. It's ended my career in stand-up, let's put it that way, and I apologise for it as well."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34285308

Would have been better to have apologised prior to his position as shadow chancellor was announced, but at least he's done it (though he's tried to spin some kind of justification for the IRA comment as well)

Also on Question Time, Mr McDonnell was asked about Labour's policy plans after apparent differences between Mr Corbyn and some of his shadow cabinet.
Mr Corbyn was not advocating pulling out of Nato, said Mr McDonnell.
He also confirmed Labour backed a return of the 50p income tax rate.
"On income tax, it's an issue for us, the Tories reduced it from 50p to 45p and we'd just like to go back to 50p. We think that's reasonable but that will be a debate within the Labour Party and we will come back with our concrete proposals on that," he said.
Mr McDonnell added the party also wanted to clamp down on companies that were using legal loopholes to avoid paying corporation tax.

So, we stay in NATO too.

I'm not opposed to the implementation of the 50p tax.

Was interesting on the 'daily politics' just prior to PMQs where Andrew Neil was grilling the Labour spokesperson (don't know her name) for the environment (?) about some £98 billion they have apparently identified as savings if corporations lose government grants. As Neil pointed out, several billion of that are subsidies for companies in the renewable energy sector and a large chunk of the £98B are grants for training and investment etc. She didn't have a response but invited him to put the question to the shadow cabinet.

So, improvements, but must do better.

 

[Darat]

The IRA comment should never have been made - it's simply wrong.

As for the Thatcher one, can't see any reason not to treat that like all the other jokey comments about her from those that did not admire her.

 

[Aber]

As Neil pointed out, several billion of that are subsidies for companies in the renewable energy sector and a large chunk of the £98B are grants for training and investment etc. She didn't have a response but invited him to put the question to the shadow cabinet.

As I understand it most of that £98bn relates to capital allowances ie tax deductions companies get (instead of being allowed to charge depreciation) for investment in fixed assets. Removing capital allowances would be disastrous for industry and almost impossible to implement.

 

[Ambrosia]

He's labeled himself as a friend of terrorists, and he boycotts Israel and supports those who want a genocide of the Jews.

again. please define what you mean by supporting.

If the above quote was accurate then he'd have been castigated in the media in the runup to the leadership election for being anti-semetic and would never have won the leadership election.

And history is full of thoroughly evil people who were firm in their convictions. It's not having firm convictions that should be admired, but the substance of the convictions.

I agree with you here, and I don't see anything evil in Corbyn.

I think he's wrong about some stuff but I wouldn't characterise what he believes in as evil.

 

[Ambrosia]

Well, this is an improvement.....

I'd expect continued improvements over the coming weeks. Corbyn has been an backbench MP since forever and has had complete freedom to speak his mind. Consequently there are a million and one soundbites people can pick and choose from to attack him with, some of them more relevant than others, and most of them are going to need some kind of explanation.

I'd expect that in a few more weeks we'll have a much better measure of what the Labour Party now actually stands for and how it's going to oppose DC and the Tories.

I was quite impressed with the first PMQs - though as others have noted I'd like to see him take things a bit further with followup questions to initial responses.

 

[Craig B]

"No True Marxist".

That is meaningless. There is no point in discussing this. Corbyn is not a Marxist. He may be described as a left "socialist" for want of a better term. Such a doctrine is reasonably normal in Western democratic political systems. It consists of things like public ownership of rail transport, health care free at the point of use, trade union rights, and so on. It does not usually provoke mass slaughter by those who introduce such ideas.

If you want to discuss such "socialist" policies, fine. If you want to post meaningless things suggesting that social security is the same as slave labour camps, then you're wasting your own and other people's time.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Is this a long way of saying I was right and that money is created when banks lend money? And thus the money supply grows naturally, without the government just printing it like the Weimar Republic did?

Of course the money supply grows when banks lend (notice how I already mentioned that in post #256). Central banks also create money, naturally. And so does the government, naturally. And that kind of dilutes the meaning of "natural" when all these institutional actors do it, all the time, as a normal function of an intertwined monetary economy. It's also fantasy to think that the current financial system would even work without safe assets provided by the government in terms of securities or guarantees (didn't you notice the recent financial crisis and the after play?).

Here's the money supply when "everyone" does it, "naturally":

Btw., it wasn't just the government printing in the Weimar case.

Feel free to show examples of infrastructure being built without outlays of money...

What part of "PQE" being about infrastructure investments financed by bond issuance (where the central bank would buy the bonds) have you not understood? From an inflation standpoint it is irrelevant whether the bond ends up at BoE's balance sheet or some other agent's balance sheet. Why is basic accounting so difficult to comprehend? Here's something that could help you understand the basic mechanism.

And by what criteria do you and Corbyn conclude that borrowing on the scale he wants to do it is sustainable?

That depends entirely upon economic conditions and how near full employment the economy operates at. So let's see some figures: net investment spending has been around £30 billion as of late. Now compare that to GDP and you get a figure of about 1.7 % of GDP. That's the economic scale.

Say the central bank bought all the bonds, so the government would owe itself £30 billion. The horror! Say we doubled that to £60 billion… 2.5 % compared to the broad money supply. Hyperinflation? No, of course not. Tenfold increase up to £300 billion? Would that cause hyperinflation? No. But let's be real here, there's not going to be a tenfold increase, which makes your previous statement all the more amusing (you're not even talking about figures but solely about the financing mechanism):

Printing money so the government can spend more "for the people".

When has this ever not resulted in hyperinflation?

And this one:

Have you never taken a basic economics course?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The IRA comment should never have been made - it's simply wrong.

As for the Thatcher one, can't see any reason not to treat that like all the other jokey comments about her from those that did not admire her.

Because she is a Tory God. that means we should all revere her

 

[uk_dave]

Because she is a Tory God. that means we should all revere her

No, it means that you should expect your elected representatives to set a good example and not be so free with their tongues as to make themselves look stupid and raise questions about their ability to hold high office.

I once again would like to draw your attention to exhibit A : Donald Trump.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Why is that, because if they had a currency of their own they could just print more? Because I could have sworn you just said that wasn't the plan...

Because of balance of payments constraints; inflation possibly rising and imports becoming way too expensive, thus forcing a necessary correction in the current account and interest rates. Greeks could have tried to borrow in a foreign currency, but not on the scale they did during the euro era. Don't get me wrong… Greece would still be a mess, but not in the way as it is now.

Much of Greek government debt/GDP has risen after it became clear it was insolvent. A defining feature of that kind of insolvency is not having any say about the currency it uses. Greece is like a colony or a household, not a sovereign currency issuing nation.

 

[Lothian]

In 2010, he said that if he could go back in time he would "assassinate Thatcher".
Challenged on this remark by a member of the audience, he said: "It was an appalling joke. It's ended my career in stand-up, let's put it that way, and I apologise for it as well."

As for the Thatcher one, can't see any reason not to treat that like all the other jokey comments about her from those that did not admire her.

That he was joking when he said that lowers his rating in my opinion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That he was joking when he said that lowers his rating in my opinion.

Why is she sacred?
I laughed out loud when I heard she was dead.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, it means that you should expect your elected representatives to set a good example and not be so free with their tongues as to make themselves look stupid and raise questions about their ability to hold high office.

I once again would like to draw your attention to exhibit A : Donald Trump.

What a load of crap.

 

[uk_dave]

What a load of crap.

Thank you. You'll go far.

 

[GlennB]

No, it means that you should expect your elected representatives to set a good example and not be so free with their tongues as to make themselves look stupid and raise questions about their ability to hold high office.

They all do it. Just put "[name] gaffe" into google.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Quick! Wrap the daily debate up before the sun shines plenty over the land of the free and the home of the brave!