Jeremy Corbyn's favorite Socialist paradise....

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:12 am

List of Nationalisations by Chavez up to 2012, provided by Reuters....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vene ... 1X20121008

Sproggy · Post by **Sproggy** » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:06 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
As for Corbyn and McDonnell, you're just cracking on with Tory Project Fear. Just keep calling them 'communists'

I think he called McDonnell a Marxist, not a communist. Which he is. Or isn't depending on the day of the week.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/w ... st-claims/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:58 am

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:44 am

An article on all that self-evident and clearly defined "capitalism" that's been going on in Venezuela.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/ven ... its-knees/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:38 am

: image.jpeg (98.52 KiB) Viewed 2654 times

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:42 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:
image.jpeg

Is the bottom socket for the capitalism fork?

Cirrus_Minor · Post by **Cirrus_Minor** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:31 am

Where is everyone’s favourite capitalist paradise?

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:18 am

Yet another attack on that washed-up, no-hoper Corbyn, you know, the bloke who everyone tells us hasn't a chance of winning the next election.........

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:41 am

Thatcherism - it's all fine until they run out of oil and state assets to flog off cheaply.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:42 pm

Meanwhile, Jeremy also has plans for a cosy relationship with the Press. Again, learning from his heroes...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45271286" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:54 pm

thatdberight wrote:Meanwhile, Jeremy also has plans for a cosy relationship with the Press. Again, learning from his heroes...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45271286" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Provided it supplements and doesn't replace journalism what's the problem with having a publicly-funded investigative journalism? The problem with journalism right now is that it's all corporate. Profits are more important than facts, which is why The Sun and the Daily Mail have been making bank without shame, and how the Independent is/has headed in the same direction.

As long as it is only investigative journalism and not partisan propaganda such as Russia Today or Fox News and is properly and transparently overseen by the public what's the problem?

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:05 pm

Sounds like he's worried about fake news, there's a lot of that about according to Donald. He could of course make journalists jobs a little easier by answering questions..

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 17226.html

And the idea about publishing BBC staff's social class.. it really must be a stretch now for even die hard Corbynistas to keep backing this guy. You backed the wrong horse, that's fine. We all do it. Just accept it, bin the daft scheming dullard off and let's win some elections.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:13 pm

NottsClaret wrote:
And the idea about publishing BBC staff's social class.

I missed that bit

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:14 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Provided it supplements and doesn't replace journalism what's the problem with having a publicly-funded investigative journalism? The problem with journalism right now is that it's all corporate. Profits are more important than facts, which is why The Sun and the Daily Mail have been making bank without shame, and how the Independent is/has headed in the same direction.

As long as it is only investigative journalism and not partisan propaganda such as Russia Today or Fox News and is properly and transparently overseen by the public what's the problem?

State funded, state owned, state controlled? What's the difference? All fail the "free press" requirement for democracy.

Perhaps the second socket is for the guy who says "all we need is state funded press and socialism will work."

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:15 pm

Paul Waine wrote:State funded, state owned, state controlled? What's the difference? All fail the "free press" requirement for democracy.

Perhaps the second socket is for the guy who says "all we need is state funded press and socialism will work."

There's quite a significant difference between investigative journalism and reporting the news.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:20 pm

Cirrus_Minor wrote:Where is everyone’s favourite capitalist paradise?

Is that what we think is the opposite of socialism?

Try a liberal democracy, people free to make their own choices, a "helping hand" for those that need, etc etc

And, Clarets in the Premier League and Europe.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:24 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:There's quite a significant difference between investigative journalism and reporting the news.

And, how much will the state fund for investigations into the state's own actions?

Let's keep the government/state away from the press.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:44 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Is the bottom socket for the capitalism fork?

No.

It's for the communism fork.

In the spirit of equality and egalitarian principles that are supposed to be a fundamental part of both, closely related political theories. Both get the opportunity to fail.

Again.

And again.....

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:48 pm

thatdberight wrote:Meanwhile, Jeremy also has plans for a cosy relationship with the Press. Again, learning from his heroes...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45271286" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well that'd rule out Corbyn and his far left, commie side kick Seamus Milne. Both privately educated from upper middle class families. In milne's case his father was a former Director General of non other than the BBC!

Every cloud.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:53 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:No.

It's for the communism fork.

In the spirit of equality and egalitarian principles that are supposed to be a fundamental part of both, closely related political theories. Both get the opportunity to fail.

Again.

And again.....

Where has capitalism succeeded without any socialism involved?

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:20 pm

Paul Waine wrote:State funded, state owned, state controlled? What's the difference? All fail the "free press" requirement for democracy.

Perhaps the second socket is for the guy who says "all we need is state funded press and socialism will work."

Would you describe the Sun or Daily Mail as "free press"? They're both owned by extremely rich men, and (surprise surprise) their editorial stances line up behind policies that favour extremely rich men. And this is the same for the majority of print media bought by the UK public. Meanwhile the BBC is generally trusted and considered unbiased, despite being state owned.

The second socket is for people who can't understand that we've had a combination of socialism and capitalism for over a hundred years now, and the mixed economy beats both capitalism and socialism by themselves.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:24 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Where has capitalism succeeded DESPITE socialism being involved?

Adjusted the question for you.

Answer - pretty much everywhere.

My turn.

Which socialist/communist country present or past, would you prefer to have lived in rather than present day UK?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:36 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Would you describe the Sun or Daily Mail as "free press"? They're both owned by extremely rich men, and (surprise surprise) their editorial stances line up behind policies that favour extremely rich men. And this is the same for the majority of print media bought by the UK public. Meanwhile the BBC is generally trusted and considered unbiased, despite being state owned.

The second socket is for people who can't understand that we've had a combination of socialism and capitalism for over a hundred years now, and the mixed economy beats both capitalism and socialism by themselves.

Just a quicky Andrew.

1 Would you describe the Daily Mail and Sun as having opposing political stances to yours? Yes or no?

2. When the Daily Mirror was owned by Robert Maxwell, an extremely rich man, did you share his papers political stance.? Yes or no?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:45 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Adjusted the question for you.

Answer - pretty much everywhere.

My turn.

Which socialist/communist country present or past, would you prefer to have lived in rather than present day UK?

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany. All these have the kind of socialism I want to life in. There is no country where capitalism (or communism) has been allowed to run amok that I'd like to live in. They lead to enslavement by either corporations who control the government, or by the government who control corporations.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:49 pm

And by the way Ringo, you like socialism too. Just to a lesser degree. Unless you're one of those moonbats who want a privatised police force, fire service, ambulance service, coast guard, army etc.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:01 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany.

What's stopping you?

Off you pop!

That concludes my interaction with you.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:06 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:What's stopping you?

Off you pop!

That concludes my interaction with you.

I knew i could get you to come out with something like "if you don't like it here you can leave".

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:09 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:What's stopping you?

Off you pop!

That concludes my interaction with you.

There was a vote a few years back that may hinder people who want to live in a different European country...

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:10 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote: I knew i could get you to come out with the truth

Bob on!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:12 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Would you describe the Sun or Daily Mail as "free press"?

Of course. they don't become less free just because you don't like them.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:12 pm

Paul Waine wrote:State funded, state owned, state controlled? What's the difference? All fail the "free press" requirement for democracy.

Perhaps the second socket is for the guy who says "all we need is state funded press and socialism will work."

Did you read the proposals? It sounds like he's trying to reduce political influence with suggestions such as:

BBC staff and licence-fee payers could elect some BBC Board members.
Responsibility for deciding the licence fee could be taken away from ministers and handed to an independent body.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:14 pm

aggi wrote:There was a vote a few years back that MAY MAY MAY?;hinder people who want to live in a different European country...

Britons have emigrated to countries all over the world.

That WILL continue after March 2019....

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:16 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Britons have emigrated to countries all over the world.

That WILL continue after March 2019....

So will immigration to the UK.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:17 pm

dsr wrote:Of course. they don't become less free just because you don't like them.

Sounds as if they become more free if you do agree with their political standpoint, even if they ARE owned by very rich men.

Strange that......

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:18 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So will immigration to the UK.

I agree.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:21 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I agree.

i thought you were done interacting with me.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:i thought you were done interacting with me.

Toodle pip.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:36 pm

dsr wrote:Of course. they don't become less free just because you don't like them.

They're not free. The way they report the news, and the editorial stances reflect the opinions and interests of the owners. In the case of Murdoch this is well documented. That's about ninety percent of print circulation owned by billionaires (or nearly billionaires), and they all hold very similar opinions on things. If Maxwell was different (I moved to the UK after he died), then he's the exception. Of course don't take my word for it. Test the theory out for yourselves. Of the Times, Telegraph, Sun, Express, and Daily Mail, how many times can you remember them calling for more tax on the rich? Did any of them support the minimum wage before it was introduced? Or paternity leave? Better yet, what examples can you provide to show any of these papers calling for anything that would even slightly prejudice the financial wellbeing of rich people?

It's why many younger people don't read newspapers anymore. Once the older readers die off those papers hopefully will too.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:40 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Britons have emigrated to countries all over the world.

That WILL continue after March 2019....

Erm, yes, it will. I didn't say otherwise.

There is a distinct possibility it will be more difficult though. Look at how difficult it is to move to Canada compared to how difficult it is to move to Germany to work (unless you're already in a well paid job).

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:45 pm

AndrewJB wrote:They're not free. The way they report the news, and the editorial stances reflect the opinions and interests of the owners. In the case of Murdoch this is well documented. That's about ninety percent of print circulation owned by billionaires (or nearly billionaires), and they all hold very similar opinions on things. If Maxwell was different (I moved to the UK after he died), then he's the exception. Of course don't take my word for it. Test the theory out for yourselves. Of the Times, Telegraph, Sun, Express, and Daily Mail, how many times can you remember them calling for more tax on the rich? Did any of them support the minimum wage before it was introduced? Or paternity leave? Better yet, what examples can you provide to show any of these papers calling for anything that would even slightly prejudice the financial wellbeing of rich people?

It's why many younger people don't read newspapers anymore. Once the older readers die off those papers hopefully will too.

No, you're totally misinterpreting what a free press is. A free press means that the newspaper can publish what it likes. There are restrictions, eg. libel, sub judice, and security D notices, but by and large our press is free.

If you tell the Daily Mail owner that his paper must include stories prejudicial to the financial wellbeing of the rich, you aren't making it more free, you're making it less free. There may be valid arguments for doing what you suggest, but don't fool yourself that they're arguments for freedom of the press - they are arguments for state control of the press.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:02 pm

aggi wrote:Erm, yes, it will. I didn't say otherwise.

There is a distinct possibility it will be more difficult though. Look at how difficult it is to move to Canada compared to how difficult it is to move to Germany to work (unless you're already in a well paid job).

I didn't say you did.

Fair play to Canada, New Zealand and Australia for having controls on who comes into their country, depending on what the econmy requires. Instead of having an open door policy that produces an over supply of cheap unskilled labour.

I watched newsnight last night. It showed Sweden where open door immigration has seen workers join the race to the bottom in wages. Surprise surprise a party that wants controls on it look set to make big gains. The Swedish versions of Mike Ashley presumably won't be voting for them.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:13 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I didn't say you did.

Fair play to Canada, New Zealand and Australia for having controls on who comes into their country, depending on what the econmy requires. Instead of having an open door policy that produces an over supply of cheap unskilled labour.

I watched newsnight last night. It showed Sweden where open door immigration has seen workers join the race to the bottom in wages. Surprise surprise a party that wants controls on it look set to make big gains. The Swedish versions of Mike Ashley presumably won't be voting for them.

So Britain leaving the EU may hinder British people who want to live in a different European country.

I'm not really sure what your point was.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:19 pm

aggi wrote:So Britain leaving the EU may hinder British people who want to live in a different European country.

I'm not really sure what your point was.

My point is. The referendum result will not not stop emigration to all corners of the world. For those that want to. As long as they fulfil the host country's requirements.

It should also help to control the over supply of labour into this country.

You confirmed that when you said "There was a vote a few years back that may hinder people who want to live in a different European country..." Which is also a consequence of the vote.

So we are both agreed. But it sounds as if only one of us is happy with it.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:11 pm

dsr wrote:No, you're totally misinterpreting what a free press is. A free press means that the newspaper can publish what it likes. There are restrictions, eg. libel, sub judice, and security D notices, but by and large our press is free.

If you tell the Daily Mail owner that his paper must include stories prejudicial to the financial wellbeing of the rich, you aren't making it more free, you're making it less free. There may be valid arguments for doing what you suggest, but don't fool yourself that they're arguments for freedom of the press - they are arguments for state control of the press.

What I'm saying is that a newspaper free from government interference is not free if the owner interferes and pushes a tight editorial line - not just through opinion pieces but through news reports as well. I haven't at all suggested these newspapers be forced to print things, and one can argue that as they own them, the newspapers should reflect their opinions; however when ninety percent of newspaper readers get their news from papers that all carry the same general political line, how is that good for democracy? There's hardly any diversity of opinion in that. It's more like Pravda.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:35 pm

Cirrus_Minor wrote:Where is everyone’s favourite capitalist paradise?

Grenada

Totally screwed up marxist revolution in 1979. Screwed up Marxist counter revolution in 1982. Still thanking the yanks for rescuing them.

Their words, not mine.

Barbados a close second.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:42 pm

AndrewJB wrote:What I'm saying is that a newspaper free from government interference is not free if the owner interferes and pushes a tight editorial line - not just through opinion pieces but through news reports as well. I haven't at all suggested these newspapers be forced to print things, and one can argue that as they own them, the newspapers should reflect their opinions; however when ninety percent of newspaper readers get their news from papers that all carry the same general political line, how is that good for democracy? There's hardly any diversity of opinion in that. It's more like Pravda.

You might as well say that you don't have free expression because you put post after post on here and none of them are in favour of fat cat capitalists. Or that I'm not free because I continually post in favour of Brexit and never against. Of course we have freedom to say those things; we just choose not to.

I think the word you are looking for is "balanced". Your arguments are tending towards the conclusion that the press is not balanced - the people who most often exercise their right to produce a newspaper are skewed in a certain direction. If you want to argue that the press is not balanced, then you can make a case.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:23 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Would you describe the Sun or Daily Mail as "free press"? They're both owned by extremely rich men, and (surprise surprise) their editorial stances line up behind policies that favour extremely rich men. And this is the same for the majority of print media bought by the UK public. Meanwhile the BBC is generally trusted and considered unbiased, despite being state owned.

The second socket is for people who can't understand that we've had a combination of socialism and capitalism for over a hundred years now, and the mixed economy beats both capitalism and socialism by themselves.

Hi Andrew, most people define a "free" press as one where the government / state doesn't place any restrictions on what the press chooses to publish, (as others have already posted). It doesn't matter whether we like or dislike their message. We should also be free to make our minds up about what they publish.

So, rich people own busineses that seek to make profits? No surprise there. They will not be rich people if they don't produce stuff that people want to buy - and pay more for than it costs to produce. The Internet is changing the costs of publishing - and reducing the number of people who buy printed newspapers. So, maybe these rich owners won't be rich much longer. Or, maybe they will find ways to continue to fund "good" journalism - ie journalism that people want to read and find valuable enough to pay for.

Reduce taxes, etc, etc : maybe these are good ideas? There are very few of us who argue that we ourselves should pay extra tax....... How would you think Jeremy Corbyn would get on at an election if his slogan was "I'm going to raise taxes for you all..."

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:30 pm

aggi wrote:Did you read the proposals? It sounds like he's trying to reduce political influence with suggestions such as:

BBC staff and licence-fee payers could elect some BBC Board members.
Responsibility for deciding the licence fee could be taken away from ministers and handed to an independent body.

Hi aggi, yes, I saw what was proposed. We should all worry about these ideas. Momentum are "experienced" in handling elections. Where do you think the ideas for the BBC come from? And, typical "for the many nor the few" a props al that license fee will be free for "poor" paid for by an ambiguous tax on amazon and isps.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:36 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany. All these have the kind of socialism I want to life in. There is no country where capitalism (or communism) has been allowed to run amok that I'd like to live in. They lead to enslavement by either corporations who control the government, or by the government who control corporations.

Hi IT, nice countries to live in. We could add Netherlands to the list. But, none of these countries pursue socialism. Generally, left of centre socialist policies, but also very strongly free market economies and "capitslism" to the extent that the state does not own or control the "means of production."

I doubt Jeremy Corbyn's labour party would be welcome in any of those countries.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:50 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi aggi, yes, I saw what was proposed. We should all worry about these ideas. Momentum are "experienced" in handling elections. Where do you think the ideas for the BBC come from? And, typical "for the many nor the few" a props al that license fee will be free for "poor" paid for by an ambiguous tax on amazon and isps.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm convinced by your logic there, it seems somewhat paranoid. You think it would be less political to have trustees definitely appointed by the government rather than elected where there is the possibility (just a possibility) that a small group would corrupt the election. Surely it would be easier to stick with the former.

Not really sure what you mean by "the ideas for BBC".

It's hardly the only break that the "poor" get. Plenty of other countries have an ambiguous tax on technology companies, France for instance. I seem to remembe you have some background in finance so I'm sure you're aware of the various "games" that these companies play to avoid tax. There's a reason that Amazon are based in Luxembourg and Apple in Ireland for instance (even if they did have far more staff in the UK).