The Pitters' Place

Is NOT a marxist nor socialist. He's UK's Bernie Sanders.

That's all.


Thank you!

What's a worlidst?

No one cares. Your politics is ridiculous and you're one of the elite in your own country. I repeat...no one cares

I made this thread to bait you, consider yourself baited.

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:What's a worlidst?

haha, the font of this crap is so little I can't barely tell when I make mistakes like that.

I know it was for me. There's probably one other person here, other than you, who has ever heard of Jeremy Corbyn.

Who's Jeremy Corbyn? Wait, never mind, I just remembered I don't care.

Blade Azaezel wrote:I know it was for me. There's probably one other person here, other than you, who has ever heard of Jeremy Corbyn.

I've heard of him. He's the reason the Labour party is going to stay in opposition for the next 10 years.

What Opiate said. If he wins the leadership election Labour will go back to their old values and all of the middle ground voters they gained under New Labour will desert them, that is if they haven't already.

I really hope the Lib Dems make themselves electable.

Just so you know, a marxist would never enter the democratic party or the labour party. A true marxist would enter in politics with a socialist party with the intent to dissolve private property and achieve a non-oppressive system for all. The world as it is will make any socialist state a failure.

It's rather difficult to come up with two more diametrically opposed ideas than Marxism and non-oppression.

My point is that those two idiots are selling themselves as marxists when they are not.

Your points change faster than you can keep up with since the point I addressed was:

A true marxist would enter in politics with a socialist party with the intent to dissolve private property and achieve a non-oppressive system for all.

It's about time now for DA to show up and claim you didn't say what you actually said.

Just so you know, a marxist would never enter the democratic party or the labour party.

Democrats and Labour are not socialist parties.

If they are marxists or socialists they will not be applying socialists' politics inside a non-socialist party. If they were socialists, they would go to a socialist party and go pretty much against private property rights which socialists think are oppressive. Jeremy kind of wants to do what with nationalization, but the Labour party is still an imperialist party.

It's rather difficult to come up with two more diametrically opposed ideas than Marxism and non-oppression.

Is not exactly what I was talking about. I don't view marxism as oppressive, if you do I really don't care. But is not what this thread was about.

But if you want to talk about it:
If Marxism is oppressive or not depends on how much value you give to private property. I believe that whomever holds private property holds power therefore oppression and the world would be better if the means of production were socialized. In other words communism is the most non-oppressive system. And is what socialist want to aim for.

Labour is not an imperialist party. Are you entirely sure you know what you're talking about?

As an aside, I hope Labour loses all its middle of the road, semi Tory supporters. Considering the huge influx of support from the left backing Corbyn, I think he has a shot. And if not, at least it's better than being Tory-lite, he has his morals and opinions, and he's stated them clearly and concisely where others have answered with vagaries and platitudes.

Dr_Liszt wrote:A true marxist would enter in politics with a socialist party with the intent to dissolve private property and achieve a non-oppressive system for all.

Thanks for the laugh.

Phe_de seems to agree with you, Cash, that's not a good sign.

Blade Azaezel wrote:Labour is not an imperialist party. Are you entirely sure you know what you're talking about?

As an aside, I hope Labour loses all its middle of the road, semi Tory supporters. Considering the huge influx of support from the left backing Corbyn, I think he has a shot. And if not, at least it's better than being Tory-lite, he has his morals and opinions, and he's stated them clearly and concisely where others have answered with vagaries and platitudes.

I know they will lose a lot of supporters if they swing to the left but I would seriously consider voting for them if they established themselves as anything other than Tories in Labour clothing.

The thing is, most of the people that will vote for them "because they've become more left wing" would have voted for them anyway because they're:

a. Not the Tories
b. There aren't that many other left wing parties to vote for that have a chance of getting elected

So they're not really going to gain any new votes that way.

On the other hand, some of the people who aren't that left wing will be put off by an extremist left wing Labour party and may well vote for another party.

So the Labour party loses votes.

The moral? You don't need to sell the Labour party to people who are going to vote for the Labour party anyway. No-one gives a shit what they think/want - they're voting Labour anyway. You want to appeal to the people who might vote Labour and who might not vote Labour.

And JC is not the man that will encourage that group of people put crosses next to Labour candidates at the next election...

Sad but true.

As it stands, Labour lost left wing voters to the Greens, Lib Dems and SNP. They lost middle of the road voters to the Tories and UKIP. Current Labour are bloody awful.

Dr_Liszt wrote:My point is that those two idiots are selling themselves as marxists when they are not.

Labour are unlikely to win another election by being red-Tories. They tried that and look what happened, they managed to lose an election to an unpopular government. They've already lost those middle-of-the-road-little-englanders. They need to change the public view of themselves and bring new voters out. The current government has a small majority and is pursuing a largely unpopular austerity program - it's pretty obvious to everyone outside the Blairite faction in Labour that trying to sell yourself as an alternative when you have mostly the same policies isn't going to fly just because you didn't happen to go to Eton.

I disagree. The reason Labour didn't win the last election - even though the Tories had presided over the last five years of cuts and were promising another five years of cuts - was because their economic plans made no sense and people could see what was happening to other countries that rejected austerity without having a sensible plan to replace it (and I have yet to actually hear of a sensible plan to replace "living within your means" - but that's a different debate).

So their best chance of winning another election is to be red-Tories (as you put it). Come up with a more compassionate plan to reduce the debt, balance the books and keep the economy from collapsing. But make the plan believable. Otherwise they'll never get enough popular vote to win. Because if the Tories can win when they're cutting services then how are they going to do when the economy starts to recover and the Tories can afford to start cutting taxes/increasing spending?