Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 100

Thread: This is what the Brexiteers feared. People losing faith in leaving Europe

  1. #71
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,661
    Thanks
    3,267
    Thanked 3,218 Times in 2,452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Major Sinic View Post
    Marxist economic theory is the most discredited in the world, and indirectly responsible for the loss of millions of Russian lives through the abject poverty it caused.
    And that's a rather discredited theory in itself. Marx himself never envisaged anything like that which happened in the Soviet Union, nor in any of the other supposedly 'Marxist' dictatorships that we have seen around the world. The Soviets took his theories, distorted them and used them to brutalise and massacre their citizens.

    If there were a real Marxist government, but not a brutal one, I shouldn't like to see that either, because I disagree with rather a lot of Marxist theory. But blaming him for the actions of brutal despots is nonsensical. Not to mention, there is quite a bit in Marxist theory that makes some sense, and can still be applied today, so there is no shame in admiring his philosophy. Likewise, one can legitimately admire much of Adam Smith's theories without necessarily thinking we should follow them all, or that those who do are right.

    It provides a cure which is far worse than any disease and yet McDonnell unambiguously stated in 2013 'I am an unapologetic Marxist.'
    Which he has since said was a joke. You didn't mention that last time either.

    That he and Corbyn have attempted to withdraw or modify their more extreme views, as the corrupt whiff of potential power washes across their nostrils, does little more than show them up as political opportunists. They claim they have learned alot from 'Das Capital'; they may have done but it is the fact that they have learnt nothing of economic realities in the 134 years since Marx died which should disqualify either from high office.
    Lots of economists, even right-wing ones, have learned a lot from Das Capital. I don't agree with a lot of Corbyn's economic policies, especially as regards taxation of higher earners, but when was the last time a Conservative Party showed understanding of economic realities? Since I was born in 1968, I give you only John Major's government, and even then, they only got there after some crippling errors at the start of their term.
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to uganda For This Useful Post:

    Expounder (15-11-2017)

  3. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leaving the EUSSR
    Posts
    7,261
    Thanks
    1,571
    Thanked 1,317 Times in 1,059 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by uganda View Post
    And that's a rather discredited theory in itself. Marx himself never envisaged anything like that which happened in the Soviet Union, nor in any of the other supposedly 'Marxist' dictatorships that we have seen around the world. The Soviets took his theories, distorted them and used them to brutalise and massacre their citizens.

    If there were a real Marxist government, but not a brutal one, I shouldn't like to see that either, because I disagree with rather a lot of Marxist theory. But blaming him for the actions of brutal despots is nonsensical. Not to mention, there is quite a bit in Marxist theory that makes some sense, and can still be applied today, so there is no shame in admiring his philosophy. Likewise, one can legitimately admire much of Adam Smith's theories without necessarily thinking we should follow them all, or that those who do are right.



    Which he has since said was a joke. You didn't mention that last time either.



    Lots of economists, even right-wing ones, have learned a lot from Das Capital. I don't agree with a lot of Corbyn's economic policies, especially as regards taxation of higher earners, but when was the last time a Conservative Party showed understanding of economic realities? Since I was born in 1968, I give you only John Major's government, and even then, they only got there after some crippling errors at the start of their term.

    Sorry I'm in a mood and pedantic to boot.....it's Das Kapital.
    A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth can get its trousers on.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cromwell For This Useful Post:

    Expounder (15-11-2017), uganda (14-11-2017)

  5. #73
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,661
    Thanks
    3,267
    Thanked 3,218 Times in 2,452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by cromwell View Post
    Sorry I'm in a mood and pedantic to boot.....it's Das Kapital.
    Yes, it is!
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  6. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Anglia, Formally London
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks
    571
    Thanked 184 Times in 156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Major Sinic View Post
    I think that Witchfinder can be forgiven for describing Corbyn, and perhaps his henchman the Shadow Chancellor McDonnell also, as Marxists or perhaps the Marx Brothers.

    Afterall both are admirers of Marx; Corbyn describes him as a 'great economist' despite the fact that Marxist economic theory is the most discredited in the world, and indirectly responsible for the loss of millions of Russian lives through the abject poverty it caused. It provides a cure which is far worse than any disease and yet McDonnell unambiguously stated in 2013 'I am an unapologetic Marxist.' That he and Corbyn have attempted to withdraw or modify their more extreme views, as the corrupt whiff of potential power washes across their nostrils, does little more than show them up as political opportunists. They claim they have learned alot from 'Das Capital'; they may have done but it is the fact that they have learnt nothing of economic realities in the 134 years since Marx died which should disqualify either from high office.

    I would be interested in your evidence for claiming that if Osborne had followed Keynesian based economic policy we would not now be 'in this sorry state'. It is at best a guess and a poor one at that. We do not know what would have happened with a different economic policy. Others may be interested to know that had Labour won the 2010 general election they shared the same basic economic strategy of austerity as the Tories but less extreme. In reality the Tories austerity measures were far less draconian than they had originally planned to and also as it happens less than Labour had planned to cut.
    Marx analyzed how Laissez faire capitalism works and used this to project what it's eventual outcome would be, simply, monopoly capitalism. This is exactly what is happening now, Large conglomerates which have merged from smaller conglomerates. It's the natural progression assisted by state of the art technology which will continue until we have the very same situation develop as George Orwell's animal farm but used by the opposite extreme that Orwell had in mind. The world will eventually be controlled by a handful of conglomerates maybe even less. Don't laugh at this as money, and the power it brings, speaks louder than national politics. Politicians will lose their influence to individuals with international power. The evidence of this in the emergence of people like Rupert Murdoch I could go on but don't want to bore you with the obvious as you are one of the minions who support this unhealthy development.
    Advocates of capitalism believe : "The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate"

  7. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    3,518
    Thanks
    346
    Thanked 305 Times in 263 Posts
    We don't fear anything that politicians throw at us,their time is limited anyway,if Jeremy Corbyn is such a rebel,why doesn't he start it all off,start a mass exodus from Parliament.Then we wouldn't have to play the game.The bankers would have no one to play with the media would be up the creek without a paddle and the British people would be free of Politicians.
    17,410,742 people said LEAVE!

  8. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    3,427
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 359 Times in 299 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Expounder View Post
    Marx analyzed how Laissez faire capitalism works and used this to project what it's eventual outcome would be, simply, monopoly capitalism. This is exactly what is happening now, Large conglomerates which have merged from smaller conglomerates. It's the natural progression assisted by state of the art technology which will continue until we have the very same situation develop as George Orwell's animal farm but used by the opposite extreme that Orwell had in mind. The world will eventually be controlled by a handful of conglomerates maybe even less. Don't laugh at this as money, and the power it brings, speaks louder than national politics. Politicians will lose their influence to individuals with international power. The evidence of this in the emergence of people like Rupert Murdoch I could go on but don't want to bore you with the obvious as you are one of the minions who support this unhealthy development.
    If “Capitalism” is so powerful, how come any state can nationalise the local company of any of the world’s largest multinationals — eg, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, etc, taking over Energy, Oil, Telecoms, Railways...
    The poster reserves the right to amend or completely change any opinions he has posted at any time — meanwhile, still waiting for the whip hand that Enoch forecast...

  9. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    1,651
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 622 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Expounder View Post
    Marx analyzed how Laissez faire capitalism works and used this to project what it's eventual outcome would be, simply, monopoly capitalism. This is exactly what is happening now, Large conglomerates which have merged from smaller conglomerates. It's the natural progression assisted by state of the art technology which will continue until we have the very same situation develop as George Orwell's animal farm but used by the opposite extreme that Orwell had in mind. The world will eventually be controlled by a handful of conglomerates maybe even less. Don't laugh at this as money, and the power it brings, speaks louder than national politics. Politicians will lose their influence to individuals with international power. The evidence of this in the emergence of people like Rupert Murdoch I could go on but don't want to bore you with the obvious as you are one of the minions who support this unhealthy development.
    Oddly enough this post did not bore me and furthermore you make some valid observations about the abuse of power by large international conglomerates. First of all I have long accepted that largely unfettered capitalism, as perhaps typified by the USA, is rarely in the interests of the majority of any population. However we do not live in an unfettered capitalist economy but a mixed economy system which has provided both the UK and elsewhere in Europe and the West with massive social and economic advancement over the last six decades. To replace it with a neo-Marxist or socialist economic system, which has never provided a successful long term economic solution in any democratic society, is frankly economic insanity.

    There is room for considerable reform which could benefit our society both socially and economically but it is not going to come from a lame duck government of any hue and that includes the current Tory administration and any leftwing neo-Marxist led Labour government.

    So you are not altogether right is claiming that I support the present economic status quo, but I do support a mixed economic system albeit subject to some reform. The political situation at the moment is dire with no political entity capable of providing the government our nation so desperately needs. I am not sure there is a clear cut solution but if there is I feel that it must be based on the renaissance of a strong political centreground, proportional representation and a mixed economy system.


    “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
    ― Milton Friedman

  10. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    1,651
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 622 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by uganda View Post
    And that's a rather discredited theory in itself. Marx himself never envisaged anything like that which happened in the Soviet Union, nor in any of the other supposedly 'Marxist' dictatorships that we have seen around the world. The Soviets took his theories, distorted them and used them to brutalise and massacre their citizens.

    If there were a real Marxist government, but not a brutal one, I shouldn't like to see that either, because I disagree with rather a lot of Marxist theory. But blaming him for the actions of brutal despots is nonsensical. Not to mention, there is quite a bit in Marxist theory that makes some sense, and can still be applied today, so there is no shame in admiring his philosophy. Likewise, one can legitimately admire much of Adam Smith's theories without necessarily thinking we should follow them all, or that those who do are right.

    If I was blaming Marx personally for the collapse of the Russian economy post 1917, which I am not, and the brutal excesses of the communist regime, which I am not, I would not have referred to the Marxist economic system and would not have said indirectly responsible. You may wish to argue that black is white, but you will find few economic historians who would not agree that Marxist economic theory as largely adopted by the communist regime was a massive economic failure resulting in the collapse of the economy, particularly the rural economy and the subsequent loss of millions of lives through malnutrition, starvation, deprivation and ill health. Of course neither he nor it were responsible for the loss of life claimed through the brutal excesses of a totalitarian regime.


    Which he has since said was a joke. You didn't mention that last time either.
    He said it! That four years later his claim to be 'an unapologetic Marxist' was coming to haunt him, just as some of the outrageous statements by Corbyn and Abbott have done, resulting in wholly unconvincing (to many, if not you) retractions and reinterpretations is not evidence that they were not said and meant! I do not accept his retraction that it was a joke. It is therefore entirely legitimate for me to quote such quotes from people who wish to be elected to high office and I will continue to do so.


    Lots of economists, even right-wing ones, have learned a lot from Das Capital. I don't agree with a lot of Corbyn's economic policies, especially as regards taxation of higher earners, but when was the last time a Conservative Party showed understanding of economic realities? Since I was born in 1968, I give you only John Major's government, and even then, they only got there after some crippling errors at the start of their term.
    I didn't say they hadn't. I said, and stand by my statement, that they had learned nothing of economic value which has occurred in the 134 intervening years between Marx's death and today.
    Last edited by Barry; 15-11-2017 at 07:29 PM.

  11. #79
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,661
    Thanks
    3,267
    Thanked 3,218 Times in 2,452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Major Sinic View Post
    If I was blaming Marx personally for the collapse of the Russian economy post 1917, which I am not, and the brutal excesses of the communist regime, which I am not, I would not have referred to the Marxist economic system and would not have said indirectly responsible. You may wish to argue that black is white,
    I have never attempted to argue black is white, or anything like it. Your words were:

    Corbyn describes him as a 'great economist' despite the fact that Marxist economic theory is the most discredited in the world, and indirectly responsible for the loss of millions of Russian lives through the abject poverty it caused.
    That links him personally with what happened, and also, by the way (as you will see I have widened the quote slightly), links Corbyn with it personally too, whereas Corbyn, even in the days when he was very left-wing, was perfectly aware of the excesses of the Soviet Union, particularly under Stalin (you may remember he got stick for wanting Trotsky's history rehabilitated, because he had wanted to overthrow Stalin, but of course that made him a 'Trotskyite' even though he was not espousing his policies...) So it's great that you are saying you were not implicating Marx, and if that is what you meant, of course I accept it. But you did give me a bad lead by linking him personally to what followed, and additionally you used that to make it look like Corbyn approves of the outcomes you stated, whereas he obviously doesn't. My main point of course, is that what the Soviets were doing wasn't Marxism - or even Communism - so it is rather unfair to blame Marxism for the butchery that occurred. And if it was Marxism, and Corbyn doesn't support it, then he can't be a Marxist, can he?

    but you will find few economic historians who would not agree that Marxist economic theory as largely adopted by the communist regime was a massive economic failure resulting in the collapse of the economy, particularly the rural economy and the subsequent loss of millions of lives through malnutrition, starvation, deprivation and ill health. Of course neither he nor it were responsible for the loss of life claimed through the brutal excesses of a totalitarian regime.
    Yes, 'as largely adopted' is the operative phrase here, and I thank you for using it. Can you not now see how it wasn't any kind of Marxism intended by Marx (I know you have answered this, but I just want to be clear), nor is it any kind of Marxism adopted by Corbyn?

    He said it! That four years later his claim to be 'an unapologetic Marxist' was coming to haunt him, just as some of the outrageous statements by Corbyn and Abbott have done, resulting in wholly unconvincing (to many, if not you) retractions and reinterpretations is not evidence that they were not said and meant! I do not accept his retraction that it was a joke. It is therefore entirely legitimate for me to quote such quotes from people who wish to be elected to high office and I will continue to do so.
    By all means quote him, but when you do, I will reserve the right to point out that you are not telling the whole story. That you do not accept his retraction is hardly surprising, as it would mean that you would have to give the benefit of the doubt to a man you hate. I must admit, I don't like him much either, and I would never vote for him, but I prefer to restrict my criticism of him to that which I know.

    I didn't say they hadn't.
    And I didn't say you had said they hadn't. I just wanted to be sure we all understood that there is nothing sinister about giving credence to Marxist philosophy, nor does giving such credence make one a Marxist.

    I said, and stand by my statement, that they had learned nothing of economic value which has occurred in the 134 intervening years between Marx's death and today.
    By all means stand by it, but what are your reasons for believing it? Too many to mention? How about just three? Thanks.
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  12. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    1,651
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 622 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by uganda View Post
    I have never attempted to argue black is white, or anything like it. Your words were:



    That links him personally with what happened, and also, by the way (as you will see I have widened the quote slightly), links Corbyn with it personally too, whereas Corbyn, even in the days when he was very left-wing, was perfectly aware of the excesses of the Soviet Union, particularly under Stalin (you may remember he got stick for wanting Trotsky's history rehabilitated, because he had wanted to overthrow Stalin, but of course that made him a 'Trotskyite' even though he was not espousing his policies...) So it's great that you are saying you were not implicating Marx, and if that is what you meant, of course I accept it. But you did give me a bad lead by linking him personally to what followed, and additionally you used that to make it look like Corbyn approves of the outcomes you stated, whereas he obviously doesn't. My main point of course, is that what the Soviets were doing wasn't Marxism - or even Communism - so it is rather unfair to blame Marxism for the butchery that occurred. And if it was Marxism, and Corbyn doesn't support it, then he can't be a Marxist, can he?



    Yes, 'as largely adopted' is the operative phrase here, and I thank you for using it. Can you not now see how it wasn't any kind of Marxism intended by Marx (I know you have answered this, but I just want to be clear), nor is it any kind of Marxism adopted by Corbyn?



    By all means quote him, but when you do, I will reserve the right to point out that you are not telling the whole story. That you do not accept his retraction is hardly surprising, as it would mean that you would have to give the benefit of the doubt to a man you hate. I must admit, I don't like him much either, and I would never vote for him, but I prefer to restrict my criticism of him to that which I know.



    And I didn't say you had said they hadn't. I just wanted to be sure we all understood that there is nothing sinister about giving credence to Marxist philosophy, nor does giving such credence make one a Marxist.



    By all means stand by it, but what are your reasons for believing it? Too many to mention? How about just three? Thanks.

    Sorry , but I'm not really interested in going through your responses and correcting your misunderstandings and/or distortions of what I did actually say. It just isn't rewarding enough to make the effort worthwhile.

    Just one point which I will pull you up on is your statement, stated as a truth and for which you have no evidence at all, that I hate McDonnell. I don't hate McDonnell, he is not worthy of hatred, but I do despise him, distrust him, question his integrity and principles and reject his political and economic beliefs as outdated and likely to be immensely damaging to the UK economy in the event he ever become the titular tenant of No 11.

Similar Threads

  1. Conservatives' last-minute climb as ‘Leavers’ losing faith in Labour
    By Borchester in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-06-2017, 03:32 PM
  2. Those evil right wing Brexiteers
    By Sheepy in forum Brexit
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13-03-2017, 03:48 PM
  3. UK 'losing fight' against e-crime
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30-07-2013, 01:13 AM
  4. PM 'losing control of party over EU'
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19-05-2013, 09:10 PM
  5. Five Britons feared dead in Algeria
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19-01-2013, 09:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •