In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On February 08 2018 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What precisely is your point? You say that there is a crisis in our democratic institutions, but you are zigzagging across a broad range of issues. So please be clear and direct us towards your prefered avenue of debate.
My point is that our democratic structures are evidently unable to handle Brexit. As often happens on the internet, that discussion then got mauled by different posters into the more boring 'is Brexit good or bad, should we reverse it or not?'. My argument there is that without reform of our democratic institutions, whether Brexit happens or not to specifically 'take back control' is irrelevant, because this reform is the most important thing that could happen.
So you think a discussion based around a need to reform the democratic institutions is more interesting? When was the last reform? You can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there has been one for a very very long time. And a blanket statement of "we must reform our democratic instiutions" is the definition of vague. You think it would be beneficial to reform them in what way exactly? "We need change" is not really a jumping off point.
On February 08 2018 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What precisely is your point? You say that there is a crisis in our democratic institutions, but you are zigzagging across a broad range of issues. So please be clear and direct us towards your prefered avenue of debate.
My point is that our democratic structures are evidently unable to handle Brexit. As often happens on the internet, that discussion then got mauled by different posters into the more boring 'is Brexit good or bad, should we reverse it or not?'. My argument there is that without reform of our democratic institutions, whether Brexit happens or not to specifically 'take back control' is irrelevant, because this reform is the most important thing that could happen.
So you think a discussion based around a need to reform the democratic institutions is more interesting? When was the last reform? You can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there has been one for a very very long time. And a blanket statement of "we must reform our democratic instiutions" is the definition of vague. You think it would be beneficial to reform them in what way exactly? "We need change" is not really a jumping off point.
House of Lords reform was just a few years ago.
21 Years ago. Thanks for the contribution.
The amount of time since the most recent reform is literally completely irrelevant. Regardless, thanks for the contribution.
I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
Corbyn is socialist, not communist lol. There is nothing communist in McDonnell's proposition.
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
Corbyn is socialist, not communist lol. There is nothing communist in McDonnell's proposition.
When they say services should be owned by community then that's pretty much communism. Read words again. They have a common root.
Also, Corbyn wanted to nationalise railway and banks. If that's not communism, I don't know what is.
Edit: At best, lines are blurry between communism and socialism. It's a wrong decision regardless how you call it. Banks shouldn't be touched at all.
My personal opinion is railway and banks are perfectly fine when they're privatised. Are you really going to ask taxpayer to support them as well? It's already difficult with NHS (I don't think healthcare should be privatised). If you add more to responsibilities, then things might collapse. With business, it's a bit easier - burden is on them. If they fail, someone else will buy and develop them.
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
Corbyn is socialist, not communist lol. There is nothing communist in McDonnell's proposition.
When they say services should be owned by community then that's pretty much communism. Read words again. They have a common root.
Also, Corbyn wanted to nationalise railway and banks. If that's not communism, I don't know what is.
Edit: At best, lines are blurry between communism and socialism. It's a wrong decision regardless how you call it. Banks shouldn't be touched at all.
My personal opinion is railway and banks are perfectly fine when they're privatised. Are you really going to ask taxpayer to support them as well? It's already difficult with NHS (I don't think healthcare should be privatised). If you add more to responsibilities, then things might collapse. With business, it's a bit easier - burden is on them. If they fail, someone else will buy and develop them.
Nationalized railways -> Communism?
In that case you should color large parts of the world red, Communism clearly won and Adam Smith must have been a communist.
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
Corbyn is socialist, not communist lol. There is nothing communist in McDonnell's proposition.
When they say services should be owned by community then that's pretty much communism. Read words again. They have a common root.
Also, Corbyn wanted to nationalise railway and banks. If that's not communism, I don't know what is.
Edit: At best, lines are blurry between communism and socialism. It's a wrong decision regardless how you call it. Banks shouldn't be touched at all.
My personal opinion is railway and banks are perfectly fine when they're privatised. Are you really going to ask taxpayer to support them as well? It's already difficult with NHS (I don't think healthcare should be privatised). If you add more to responsibilities, then things might collapse. With business, it's a bit easier - burden is on them. If they fail, someone else will buy and develop them.
Nationalized railways -> Communism?
In that case you should color large parts of the world red, Communism clearly won and Adam Smith must have been a communist.
It's not the only requirement, but it's a step towards communism, yes. I see nationalised railway fail in my country. I'm happy if it's privatised because it's such a joke right now. What's the point of nationalised railway anyway? How does it help? Privatised railway in the UK is much better than nationalised railway in my country.
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
Corbyn is socialist, not communist lol. There is nothing communist in McDonnell's proposition.
When they say services should be owned by community then that's pretty much communism. Read words again. They have a common root.
I once heard some right-wingers in my country say that "companies are a common good," they're communist too?
Also, Corbyn wanted to nationalise railway and banks. If that's not communism, I don't know what is.
Communism is the abolition of the capitalist private property, i.e. no more individual private owners of means of productions, no more shareholders, and no more market/profit logic for the whole economy, or most of it. It has little do with nationalisations, which are a classic of socialist (or even social-democrats a few decades ago) programs, but can also happen under right-wing governments. In France the railway is nationalized and (most of) banks were too in the beginning of the 1980's, and the country was not communist at all for all that. When some key sectors are nationalized in a capitalist economy, what you get is a mixed economy with a strong public sector, but not "communism".
Edit: At best, lines are blurry between communism and socialism. It's a wrong decision regardless how you call it. Banks shouldn't be touched at all.
My personal opinion is railway and banks are perfectly fine when they're privatised. Are you really going to ask taxpayer to support them as well? It's already difficult with NHS (I don't think healthcare should be privatised). If you add more to responsibilities, then things might collapse. With business, it's a bit easier - burden is on them. If they fail, someone else will buy and develop them.
No offense but from here, the UK railway is pretty much seen as the best example of why railway should not be privatized. As for banks; their behavior, their responsibility in the 2008 crisis but above all the fact that money is so critical in a monetary economy like capitalism cries for stronger public control over them.
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
Corbyn is socialist, not communist lol. There is nothing communist in McDonnell's proposition.
When they say services should be owned by community then that's pretty much communism. Read words again. They have a common root.
Also, Corbyn wanted to nationalise railway and banks. If that's not communism, I don't know what is.
Edit: At best, lines are blurry between communism and socialism. It's a wrong decision regardless how you call it. Banks shouldn't be touched at all.
My personal opinion is railway and banks are perfectly fine when they're privatised. Are you really going to ask taxpayer to support them as well? It's already difficult with NHS (I don't think healthcare should be privatised). If you add more to responsibilities, then things might collapse. With business, it's a bit easier - burden is on them. If they fail, someone else will buy and develop them.
Nationalized railways -> Communism?
In that case you should color large parts of the world red, Communism clearly won and Adam Smith must have been a communist.
It's not the only requirement, but it's a step towards communism, yes. I see nationalised railway fail in my country. I'm happy if it's privatised because it's such a joke right now. What's the point of nationalised railway anyway? How does it help? Privatised railway in the UK is much better than nationalised railway in my country.
Its funny because a lot of countries regret privatizing public transport. Less service, lines cut for not being profitable enough, more delays, higher ticket costs.
The supposed goal of public transport. Cheap, reliable transport even to remote area's to help those less mobile ect don't match well with maximizing profit.
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
Corbyn is socialist, not communist lol. There is nothing communist in McDonnell's proposition.
When they say services should be owned by community then that's pretty much communism. Read words again. They have a common root.
Also, Corbyn wanted to nationalise railway and banks. If that's not communism, I don't know what is.
Edit: At best, lines are blurry between communism and socialism. It's a wrong decision regardless how you call it. Banks shouldn't be touched at all.
My personal opinion is railway and banks are perfectly fine when they're privatised. Are you really going to ask taxpayer to support them as well? It's already difficult with NHS (I don't think healthcare should be privatised). If you add more to responsibilities, then things might collapse. With business, it's a bit easier - burden is on them. If they fail, someone else will buy and develop them.
That's sort of the point. Natural monopolies, like railway lines, power lines, water lines, can't be allowed to fail. If you don't have water to your home for a few months, it's not the same as your local hardware store closing down or a social media platform closing down.
I think you've articulated the argument against this position quite well. "You're a communist", is a good one, although if you want to dig a little deeper you might consider something that confuses market competition with democracy and freedom and public ownership and/or regulation with facism.
Hey sc-darkness. I know there are a lot of things that are handled the "I take my own definitition for things" kind of way. But please stop. Communism is not defined by similarity to the word community. All the aspects brought up in the speech have just abut nothing to do with what communism means. State control of means of production is a typical socialist idea, oftentimes employed by social democrats. For communism you need fundamentally different societal surroundings. And i am not sure UK is very happy with their privatised railways as is. I don't know where you are from but what kind of argument is that? The nationalised railways in your country are worse (which country anyway?) than privately owned UK ones? So what? I am pretty sure nationalised healthcare in the uk is better than in ur country as well (even though Thatcher ruined it).
I won't comment on Diaper_Cad's post because it's just a silly attempt to sound funny.
Well, isn't Japan's railway private? They're famous for railway, so maybe it's an example that privatisation can work? As I said previously, NHS is already underfunded. Why do you think there are enough funds for nationalised railway, banks, etc? Also, what does it mean that Thatcher ruined NHS? Even if she did, that was 30 years ago. Plenty of time to fix it.
And, though I'm sure noone is interested, it took me a little while to work out where John McDonnell said these things. it was at the "Alternative Models of Ownership Conference"
Personally I find it heartening that we have a major party looking at radical changes to the economy.
I hold the view that we are on a course for the complete collapse of democracy due to the current state of the international economy - the channelling of wealth into the hands of a few at the cost of the many, the way wealth is created for those few through violence and chaos in the form of war and exploitation of the most vulnerable through fraud (The city of London and it's satellite secrecy jurisdictions being a prime example, see: https://financialsecrecyindex.com/ ) and the complete paralysis of the international community on the issue of climate change to name 3 - and so I see some sort of radical change as being needed.
On February 10 2018 22:04 sc-darkness wrote: I won't comment on Diaper_Cad's post because it's just a silly attempt to sound funny.
Well, isn't Japan's railway private? They're famous for railway, so maybe it's an example that privatisation can work? As I said previously, NHS is already underfunded. Why do you think there are enough funds for nationalised railway, banks, etc? Also, what does it mean that Thatcher ruined NHS? Even if she did, that was 30 years ago. Plenty of time to fix it.
Understood about socialism and communism though.
Japan is incredibly urbanized which is a great situation for railways. High volume traffic, short distances, limited 'waste' on lines. A quick check tells me its rural railways are still publicly owned, because there is where the low volume lines that cost money are.
In the Netherlands with its privatized railways the lines between the major city centers are great, constant trains with little to no waiting. few delays, modern trains. But the further away you get the worse it becomes, because thats not where the big profit is.
The problem in the UK is that fairly small, incompetent companies have been put in charge of vital services and aren't able to run them effectively or efficiently.
I recommend watching this video which explains the UK's railway debacle pretty well:
On February 10 2018 22:04 sc-darkness wrote: I won't comment on Diaper_Cad's post because it's just a silly attempt to sound funny.
Well, isn't Japan's railway private? They're famous for railway, so maybe it's an example that privatisation can work? As I said previously, NHS is already underfunded. Why do you think there are enough funds for nationalised railway, banks, etc? Also, what does it mean that Thatcher ruined NHS? Even if she did, that was 30 years ago. Plenty of time to fix it.
Understood about socialism and communism though.
If a certain company (e.g. a rail company) can make profit when it's private it can also make profit when it is state owned. The main difference is that for a private company the profit is what (mostly) matters while a state owned company can be backed up from other areas when it has to operate at a loss to achieve its purpose.
Take water or power for example, it's more obvious there. Some areas in every country simply aren't profitable to maintain because they're out of the way. To get power or water to the people in those locations anyway you can either use state-owned companies (that finance this project from income elsewhere) or private companies who are, for example via laws and regulations, forced to do these things even when they're not profitable.
If we instead would let capitalism "sort it out" then water/power being turned off suddenly becomes a valid scenario in these cases.
Analogue examples apply to anything that is in public interest and where competition might not be viable for various reasons. Hospitals, railways, fire fighters, police, military, roads, prisons and so on. Privatizing these areas comes with a huge risk since if the company goes bankrupt the state has to bail them out or risk that citizens lose access to critical infrastructure.
Since the state has to assume the risk in these cases no matter what it's reasonable to nationalize them, at least in parts. Otherwise all we give to private companies are huge opportunities for profit while making them too important to fail at the same time - a recipe for a disaster that in the worst case everyone has to bail out with their taxes.
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn.
I think you need to read this; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism In all urgency please. There are a lot of things that I woulds say in reply to your blatantly ignorant statement. But instead I'll just say you made me physically face palm.
Privatising railways may seem like a good idea, but not if you sell entire rail lines to one company. If multiple private companies were running on the same line that they paid the government to for the upkeep of you could make the argument that the competition would decrease rail prices/increase services (like the airtravel industry). However the UK literally did the dumbest thing possible which is why it has one of the most expensive and lowest service quality rail services (if not the) in all of at least Western/Northern Europe (I haven't been to Eastern Europe, I think it depends on which country- I'm under the impression that some of them offer amazing rail services...).
Even worse than selling off the railways was the selling of the Royal Mail to seemingly preselected buyers at 1/3 of the real share market price...
On February 10 2018 22:04 sc-darkness wrote: I won't comment on Diaper_Cad's post because it's just a silly attempt to sound funny.
Well, isn't Japan's railway private? They're famous for railway, so maybe it's an example that privatisation can work? As I said previously, NHS is already underfunded. Why do you think there are enough funds for nationalised railway, banks, etc? Also, what does it mean that Thatcher ruined NHS? Even if she did, that was 30 years ago. Plenty of time to fix it.
Understood about socialism and communism though.
If a certain company (e.g. a rail company) can make profit when it's private it can also make profit when it is state owned. The main difference is that for a private company the profit is what (mostly) matters while a state owned company can be backed up from other areas when it has to operate at a loss to achieve its purpose.
Take water or power for example, it's more obvious there. Some areas in every country simply aren't profitable to maintain because they're out of the way. To get power or water to the people in those locations anyway you can either use state-owned companies (that finance this project from income elsewhere) or private companies who are, for example via laws and regulations, forced to do these things even when they're not profitable.
If we instead would let capitalism "sort it out" then water/power being turned off suddenly becomes a valid scenario in these cases.
Analogue examples apply to anything that is in public interest and where competition might not be viable for various reasons. Hospitals, railways, fire fighters, police, military, roads, prisons and so on. Privatizing these areas comes with a huge risk since if the company goes bankrupt the state has to bail them out or risk that citizens lose access to critical infrastructure.
Since the state has to assume the risk in these cases no matter what it's reasonable to nationalize them, at least in parts. Otherwise all we give to private companies are huge opportunities for profit while making them too important to fail at the same time - a recipe for a disaster that in the worst case everyone has to bail out with their taxes.
I'd agree, I'd only add that I think you have it backwards. The technologies and infrastructure that underpin these businesses are historically the result of public investment and laws and standards enforced by the state, so I think you begin by assuming they are state run, while acknowledging that it can make sense to move well regulated portions of them into competitive markets. In other words, using markets as tools, rather than worshipping them as gods.
I'd also like to point out that the news that started this conversation - John McDonnell calling for localised worker-run co-operatives for nationalising rail, water and energy, is a new take for Labour on the question. Traditionally these sectors were centrally run by monolithic government bodies - British Gas, British Ration, National Power.
On February 08 2018 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What precisely is your point? You say that there is a crisis in our democratic institutions, but you are zigzagging across a broad range of issues. So please be clear and direct us towards your prefered avenue of debate.
My point is that our democratic structures are evidently unable to handle Brexit. As often happens on the internet, that discussion then got mauled by different posters into the more boring 'is Brexit good or bad, should we reverse it or not?'. My argument there is that without reform of our democratic institutions, whether Brexit happens or not to specifically 'take back control' is irrelevant, because this reform is the most important thing that could happen.
So you think a discussion based around a need to reform the democratic institutions is more interesting? When was the last reform? You can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there has been one for a very very long time. And a blanket statement of "we must reform our democratic instiutions" is the definition of vague. You think it would be beneficial to reform them in what way exactly? "We need change" is not really a jumping off point.
House of Lords reform was just a few years ago.
21 Years ago. Thanks for the contribution.
The last major reform bill was introduced by the coalition Con-Lib government, but didn't pass. But House of Lords reform has been an ongoing discussion for ages.
But if you want more recent reform, there has been a shift of constitutional powers from Royal Prerogative to the House that was solidified by Cameron over intervention in Libya.
The UK has an uncodified constitution, it is constantly evolving. The "last" reform is the last time that Parliament met, that's how it works.
Honestly I feel like if you don't know this then you don't know the first thing about British politics. There is no constitution to be reformed, the constitution is based upon Parliamentary practice and Parliamentary practice is not static.
EPT
