Brexiteers against free movement?

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
41

Grandpa:

Great so why would anyone want to pay more for effectively only being covered against ‘destitution’ and being paralysed from the neck down.When they can pay less for income protection insurance which covers unemployment or any type of illness stopping them doing their own job.You know just like the train drivers and pilots have and which you supposedly have no issues with them claiming on as and when they need to.

As for retirement make your mind up.First you’re saying that you have no problem with people retiring at 60-65.Then you say that too many are ‘dipping into the pot’,Yes obviously they are dipping into the pot because they’ve reached the bleedin age of 60-65. :unamused:

The fact is you’re just predictably using the National Insurance system as a political football to suit your own exploitative political prejudices and the irony is that the Labour movement hasn’t then met that by knocking the whole thing on the head and playing you at your own game.IE private insurance based income protection and retirement provision,‘regulated’/'recommended by the government and unions,to stop rip off abuses by the providers and wage demands tailored and ring fenced to pay for it.

At least until a point when we banish both the exploitative Thatcherite version of Capitalism and Socialism in favour of the type of progressive Fordist type Capitalist policies implemented by Kennedy in early 1960’s America.Oh wait suddenly Federalism doesn’t seem so bad after all given some clear level headed thinking at the top. :unamused:

You’re beginning to struggle Carryfast. :slight_smile: I said I have no problem with anyone claiming retirement at 60/65 if they’ve already been paying into the pot for decades. That’s completely different from people who claim and don’t pay in. I’m 100% for social security as a national insurance scheme, I’m against it being based on people helping themselves because they’re ‘entitled.’ I don’t have political prejudices, I detest all the main parties equally, but I’m also a realist. Private insurance is very different from government provided services. It wasn’t the rich that took your NI contribution money, it was successive socialist governments that decided someone else needed it more than you.

You will never take the exploitative content out of capitalism, it’s like having capitalism without private wealth ownership. Yet every country that abandoned capitalism or tried to use the profits of private wealth ownership to produce equality collapsed, without exception and capitalism was there long before Thatcher. You want progressivism? Do you know what progressivism really is if we take away the term ‘progress’ it disguises itself with?

https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Progressive-Movement

You’re never going to get your equal, fair and just society Carryfast, there’s no such thing and if you believe a government will make that kind of abstract a reality you’ll spend your life waiting for it to happen. If you look around the world today and look at what you have, you’re already in the 1%.

You say you’ve got no problem with anyone claiming their rightfully earned pension at 60 or 65 but they’ve raised the retirement age for precisely those pensioners.As for claiming your pension without paying in you do know about the qualifying conditions.IE you need a minimum of 10 years and the full pension is based on 35 years contributions which works out at £168 divided by 35 and decreases pro rata IE 20 years contributions gets £168 divided by 35 x 20. :unamused:

While Kennedy’s version of Capitalism was obviously a world away from Thatcher’s and it showed in the economic figures and directly contradicted your ideas.With the figures proving a massive relative increase in social security spending resulting in around 6 times the amount of economic growth which our austerity crippled economy can manage.To which your obvious answer is yet more social security funding spending cuts.That’ll fix it. :unamused:

42

@ carryfast and grandpa

Could you both state which side of the fence you sit because there’s a fair amount of arguing coming from the same side.

43

Grumpy Dad:
@ carryfast and grandpa

Could you both state which side of the fence you sit because there’s a fair amount of arguing coming from the same side.

For me it’s the Bennite/Shorite side of ‘Labour’ ( real Nationalist Labour ).As opposed to Blairite new labour and/or Callaghanite Soviet Socialism/Cultural Marxism.

While I’d guess that Grandpa fits into the Sun reader Thatcherite category.Who thinks that Thatcher was a Eurosceptic. :open_mouth: :laughing: As opposed to her being a raving Heathite Federalist who not only sold the country out to German interests and their quisling Brit banker elite investors.But,like her mate Reagan,also Chinese Marxism.Just like Blair.All being based on the exploitation of a dependent forced under class.Cultural Marxism indeed.

44

Franglais:

Harry Monk:
By all means give as long and detailed an answer as you want, but please just restrict yourself to the point I’m asking you about, namely how do you feel about your wages having not risen in line with inflation for some 15 years now due to the 2004 and 2007 eu expansions?

Yep. I’ll have a go in a bit. I promise not to mention too many extraneous subjects. The American Civil War won’t feature at all.

Any update on this? I mean, all I’m asking you is how you feel about your 15 year wage stagnation, how long can it take to type either “it’s good” or “it’s not good”?

45

You don’t have to state which side of a fence I’m on Carryfast, I’ll do that. Given the limited choice I’d be a Brexit Party supporter if they’re going to contest the elections. Apart from that I support none of them as I realize they’re both progressive. Thatcher did indeed turn into a EU Eurosceptic when she realized what it really was. What’s Chinese Marxism, there’s no such thing. Do you mean Maoism? Cultural Marxism has nothing to with class, or the underclass, its Marxism using identity politics, hence the word ‘cultural.’ What’s ‘Nationalist labour’? Labour has never been nationalist, it’s internationalist. Reading between the lines I know what you’re trying to say, but it’s a struggle sometimes. Politics is not your strongpoint. FYI Thatcher was a laissez-faire capitalist, as was Reagan. Nothing to do with Federalism and a non-existent Chinese Marxism.

They’ve raised the pension age because the pot is empty. It really is as simple as that. Unless it has gone up I’m told by the Pensions Department its 30 years and what’s wrong with that? What’s your suggestion? That some pay in but others don’t and everyone gets the same? When a contributory insurance scheme became an entitlement based on need instead of contributions, that’s when its original purpose started to collapse.

Perhaps I should explain how Britain got to where it is now, but somehow I think you’ve already made your mind up Carryfast. :slight_smile:

46

Grandpa:
You don’t have to state which side of a fence I’m on Carryfast, I’ll do that. Given the limited choice I’d be a Brexit Party supporter if they’re going to contest the elections. Apart from that I support none of them as I realize they’re both progressive. Thatcher did indeed turn into a EU Eurosceptic when she realized what it really was. What’s Chinese Marxism, there’s no such thing. Do you mean Maoism? Cultural Marxism has nothing to with class, or the underclass, its Marxism using identity politics, hence the word ‘cultural.’ What’s ‘Nationalist labour’? Labour has never been nationalist, it’s internationalist. Reading between the lines I know what you’re trying to say, but it’s a struggle sometimes. Politics is not your strongpoint. FYI Thatcher was a laissez-faire capitalist, as was Reagan. Nothing to do with Federalism and a non-existent Chinese Marxism.

They’ve raised the pension age because the pot is empty. It really is as simple as that. Unless it has gone up I’m told by the Pensions Department its 30 years and what’s wrong with that? What’s your suggestion? That some pay in but others don’t and everyone gets the same? When a contributory insurance scheme became an entitlement based on need instead of contributions, that’s when its original purpose started to collapse.

Perhaps I should explain how Britain got to where it is now, but somehow I think you’ve already made your mind up Carryfast. :slight_smile:

Politics is my strong enough point to know that you can’t be an ‘internationalist’’ without first being a nationalist.IE a mutually beneficial inter relationship ‘between’ nation states with the right to say no when it isn’t beneficial.Which ain’t the same thing as Soviet style Federation/Assimilation/dissolution of individual Nation states to create one singular collective centrally governed entity ( Soviet Union/Yugoslav Federation or for that matter USA or UK ).So there we have it Benn,Shore and Heffer were actually Nationalists not Socialists but who just didn’t know it.Just as the words of the Internationale are an oxymoron when used in the cause of collectivisation and dissolution of Nations to form a greater collective as part of that.As opposed to the same meaning of the Slovene national anthem ( friends with fences ).

As for Thatcher are you saying that she didn’t know about FCO 30/1048 when she supported Heath’s campaign to keep us in the EU ?.While if not are you saying that she suddenly only later found out about it at some point ?.While notwithstanding that why/how did Benn/Shore/Heffer all realise that the EEC was a threat to the country’s sovereignty just by reading the relevant treaties but Thatcher supposedly didn’t and only equally supposedly found out later ?.In which case no surprise at no point did Thatcher still ever call for us to actually Leave the EU.Like Cameron she just came home waving a bit of paper saying oh look I’ve got some of our own money back from the scam in the form of a token diversionary ‘rebate’. :unamused:

As for progressives are you saying that JFK wasn’t a Capitalist ?.

Although politics obviously isn’t your strong point.To the point of obviously thinking that Chinese Communism isn’t just another form of cultural Marxism and that both Reagan and Thatcher didn’t sell out the western economies to that exploitative agenda.Both seeing a mutually beneficial angle in doing so with their exploitative corrupt form of so called ‘Capitalism’ if not both being the perfect under cover closet elitist Marxists themselves.Reagan’s vomit inducing grovelling speech certainly suggesting the latter.Added to the convenient taking out of the Kennedy dynasty,on the basis of who gains from this.

On that note it seems strange how Marxists themselves see the Chinese Revolution as a Marxist agenda.It obviously helps knowing my enemy in that regard having been one of them before I realised that what Benn and Shore were saying and calling for was Nationalism not Marxism.On that basis my guess is that Reagan and Thatcher were the perfect operatives for a successful infiltration of the western governments and here we are with China a superpower and her supporters wanting to inflict the Chinese work ethic and living standards on Brit workers when they aren’t selling us out to German Federalism and elites along similar lines.Bearing in mind that Marx was part of the German elite. :unamused:

marxist.com/chinese-revolution-1949-one.htm

47

I’m neither a Tory nor a Labourite, I’ll admit to sitting on the right and much in favour of nationalism. I’m not sure there is a left sided nationalism Carryfast, left embraces socialism on various levels, and we all know where the last group of National Socialists set their sights and socialism cannot exist without their much hated capitalist idealism, how else would a nationalist country finance its socialism handouts.
The social support system was heading for failure from the start, initially the British population took pride in work, it was a matter of self respect and the idea of saving for the future wether illness, redundancy or retirement the thought of guaranteed financial support was perfect.
What politicians and the public never anticipated for was a massive population increase, economic markets closing factories and industries, and an ever increasing social handout dependant population.
Britain wasn’t the first to set up a social system, 1883 Germany brought in its equivalent of our NHS, a system that through two world wars, political upheaval and recessions is still in place today.
Most of Europe believe in You don’t pay You don’t get, but not Britain, it’s happy with its handout system.
The system needs an overhaul, our homegrown workforce need forcing into work and we need to halt immigration of unskilled workers.

48

Grumpy Dad:
I’m neither a Tory nor a Labourite, I’ll admit to sitting on the right and much in favour of nationalism. I’m not sure there is a left sided nationalism Carryfast, left embraces socialism on various levels, and we all know where the last group of National Socialists set their sights and socialism cannot exist without their much hated capitalist idealism, how else would a nationalist country finance its socialism handouts.
The social support system was heading for failure from the start, initially the British population took pride in work, it was a matter of self respect and the idea of saving for the future wether illness, redundancy or retirement the thought of guaranteed financial support was perfect.
What politicians and the public never anticipated for was a massive population increase, economic markets closing factories and industries, and an ever increasing social handout dependant population.
Britain wasn’t the first to set up a social system, 1883 Germany brought in its equivalent of our NHS, a system that through two world wars, political upheaval and recessions is still in place today.
Most of Europe believe in You don’t pay You don’t get, but not Britain, it’s happy with its handout system.
The system needs an overhaul, our homegrown workforce need forcing into work and we need to halt immigration of unskilled workers.

Firstly ‘left’ just means what’s good for the working class ?.Socialism has showed itself to be no better in that regard than the wrong type of Capitalism.Here’s a clue Kennedy was no Socialist but he was good for the US working class.Unlike you he obviously also rightly didn’t believe in ‘forcing’ anyone to do anything and as a result predictably crashing the labour market with a pool of desperate starving workers willing to do anything for peanuts. :bulb:

As for Brit ‘handouts’ have you actually ever found yourself needing to claim on its pathetic social security provision.Yes agreed you don’t pay you don’t get.So hand back all of my social security and pension contributions since I started work on the grounds of institutionalised mis selling of and forced enrollment into worthless junk so called national insurance provision.In which if anyone is looking for something for nothing it’s the government stealing my money to subsidise the tax liabilities and wage costs of the employer classes.Although nice try by the Tory tossers,in diverting the argument,from getting the country back from the EU elites.Only to have the agenda taken over by the bleedin Thatcherites again in the form of Farage’s circus.When we’ve been there done that with the 1980’s recession,smashing our industrial base to the benefit of the Germans and Chinese,making us a net importer of energy and the Poll Tax riots being the predictable result. :unamused:

49

The NIS was probably the best thing that ever happened to the working population in the UK, but unfortunately like all good things it became a political football. To understand what went wrong people need to know the difference between socialism and socialist. Socialism occurs in practically all countries; it’s providing the government with the means to keep a country ticking over. It’s money from private wealth gained through taxation to provide for schools, roads, the police, hospitals … Things that enable a society to work. Socialist policies on the other hand use private wealth taxation to fund political objectives. For example, a police force is socialism as law and order is needed. On the other hand, introducing minority quotas with gay police associations is socialist and part of a diversity agenda.

The aim of all socialist policies are to promote the state above the individual and make a population government dependent. That’s what successive labour governments did when they moved away from personal contributions to fund an insurance scheme and introduced government dependency equality to replace it. Lenin once famously remarked that socialism is the stepping stone to communism and what he meant was that the more dependency a government creates, the more authoritarian it becomes.

Likewise the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is a love of one’s country. Nationalism is an idea that one country is superior above others. Brexiteers aren’t necessarily nationalist in that they don’t consider themselves above or superior to European countries, but rather different from and don’t want to go into an EU socialist melting pot that has never worked anywhere it has been tried. Currently, the economies of France and Germany are stagnating, those of Greece, Portugal and Ireland are basket cases. We have Brexit and there are protests all over the Europe.

Socialist policies assume equal social ownership of wealth and are based on Marx’s ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’ Doesn’t that sum up the system now in place that was once an insurance scheme? For all their faults the rich didn’t raid the NIS, the drive towards equality and socialist policies did it and the introduction of open borders put the final nail in the coffin. Sweden as an example went top speed down the socialist road and has been warned by the UN that it faces third-world status in 15 years’ time if it continues on its present course. The socialist agenda behind the EU is what Britain has to remove itself from before it goes the same way.

There’s an amusing tale that explains the UK tax system that’s been doing the rounds for a long time, but if you adapt the ten men to countries the outcome is the same. Brexit is the tenth man.

https://cuffelinks.com.au/marks-and-the-tax-system-explained-in-beer/

50

@Carryfast

I accept that we can agree to disagree, but I taught political science amongst other subjects for many years. It doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it’s based on more than opinion. Opinions are fine, but I can tell you that you’re all over place.

Let’s correct you. Internationalism is the opposite of nationalism. To say you must be both is a bit like saying you have to be a Tory before you’re labour, or vis-à-vis.

You do not have the right to say no to the EU if you’re a member. It’s not a pick n mix choice.

Benn wasn’t a socialist but a nationalist? Are you sure you’ve got that right?

Thatcher originally was for the EEC and quickly changed her mind when she discovered that it was going to be an EU that would bleed Britain dry. There was no EU under Heath or Thatcher, it was the EEC, a trading block. A single market is very different from a political union.

Chinese communism (Maoism) has nothing whatsoever in common with cultural Marxism. Do you wonder why the Chinese have been so successful, with an estimated booming urban middle-class of 19% in 1980 to 58% in 2017? It’s because they re-introduced capitalism and abandoned socialist equality. The EU is going the other way so it’s no wonder it’s collapsing.

Insurance of any kind isn’t a ‘give me my money back if I don’t use’ contract.

Am I saying JFK wasn’t a capitalist? No, I didn’t even mention him. FYI, capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology. Can you point me to these ‘desperate starving workers’ you mention?

There is no doubt that for decades Britain has had a socialist and progressive agenda. What we’re seeing now are the consequences of that as the population rises and the capitalist source of private wealth taxation is failing to fund relative equality. The EU will eventually collapse and it won’t be replaced by ex-junkie Russell Brand’s underclass equality revolution. There are certain truisms in politics; Thatcher trying to drag Britain into a German Federalism which didn’t even exist at the time, or claiming that Benn a lifelong socialist was really a nationalist means that you’re conclusion is always going to sound odd.

And with that I’ll leave it for a while as I’m busy packing to come back to the UK on Monday and begin a new life as a driver. The government won’t do it for me, it’s something I need to do myself. :slight_smile:

51

Harry Monk:

Franglais:

Harry Monk:
By all means give as long and detailed an answer as you want, but please just restrict yourself to the point I’m asking you about, namely how do you feel about your wages having not risen in line with inflation for some 15 years now due to the 2004 and 2007 eu expansions?

Yep. I’ll have a go in a bit. I promise not to mention too many extraneous subjects. The American Civil War won’t feature at all.

Any update on this? I mean, all I’m asking you is how you feel about your 15 year wage stagnation, how long can it take to type either “it’s good” or “it’s not good”?

Sorry about the delay in responding.
I know you youngsters have all got this ADHD virus thingy, so sorry again. :smiley:

Your question isnt really so simple is it? You were quite specific in mentioning the 2004 and 2007 expansions of the EU and are clearly making causal links. I dont accept the premise made. This thread is about free movement of labour after all, so isn`t that what this question is about?
Firstly look at this:
ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab … s/ka2z/emp
This shows that earnings increases were bouncing along at 2% or 3% well before 2004, and were little affected by changes in 2004 and 2007. The biggest dip was clearly in 2009. So more to do with global recession than EU expansion, maybe?

Now look at this:
ft.com/content/c4437c9e-7ec … daf11b720d
Germany, France, and Italy, all with free movement of labour, same as us, are doing significantly better regarding wages, than us. So why are we doing worse, since the migration rules are the same, it cant be that can it? The FT suggests its more to do with investment.
And note this also, the FT says the UK had the strongest wage performance of the G7 countries in the 7 years before the 2007 crisis.

Is there a problem in the UK? Yes, is it simply due to immigration? No.

So, to your question:
“how do you feel about your wages having not risen in line with inflation for some 15 years now due to the 2004 and 2007 eu expansions”,

I feel ■■■■■■ off about the way various governments, of different colours, have mismanaged the economy by allowing profit taking, at the expense of under investment.
I feel theyve pulled the wrong levers to encourage short term investment, and not long term investment in both property and people. The labour laws are set for cheap temporary contracts, not long term stable employment. I feel its largely our national Gov that is responsible for our under performance compared to others in a similar situation.

Edit to add this link too:
fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-wages/
Not an open and shut supply/demand case at all.

52

Grandpa:
Sweden as an example went top speed down the socialist road and has been warned by the UN that it faces third-world status in 15 years’ time if it continues on its present course. The socialist agenda behind the EU is what Britain has to remove itself from before it goes the same way.

www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/ … hird-world

We can see that link is from 2014. The UN piece cited in that piece was dated 2010 and discusses HDI. HDI is the Human Development Index, and we can see here…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … ment_Index
…that Sweden is doing OK.
No need to look at dubious articles quoting 9 year old predictions really.
mediabiasfactcheck.com/christia … twork-cbn/

Grandpa:
For all their faults the rich didn’t raid the NIS

Why “raid”?
Who “raided” the NIS?
Poorer people with a need claim from it, yes. That is not a “raid”.
And doubtless, there are some who make illegitimate claims, but are they rich or not? You havent established that only non-rich people make illegitimate claims, so any "raid" could be from rich or non-rich people. In fact if its a successful “raid” the “raiders” will be well off!
Your use of biased language is showing, again.

53

Franglais:
Firstly look at this:
ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab … s/ka2z/emp
This shows that earnings increases were bouncing along at 2% or 3% well before 2004, and were little affected by changes in 2004 and 2007. The biggest dip was clearly in 2009. So more to do with global recession than EU expansion, maybe?

I’m asking you to restrict yourself to wages in the road transport sector, assuming that road transport is the industry we both work in. Are you saying that wages in road transport have not stagnated for the last 15 years?

54

Harry Monk:

Franglais:
Firstly look at this:
ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab … s/ka2z/emp
This shows that earnings increases were bouncing along at 2% or 3% well before 2004, and were little affected by changes in 2004 and 2007. The biggest dip was clearly in 2009. So more to do with global recession than EU expansion, maybe?

I’m asking you to restrict yourself to wages in the road transport sector, assuming that road transport is the industry we both work in. Are you saying that wages in road transport have not stagnated for the last 15 years?

I have already said I agree that International road transport wages are stagnating. (Tues 7th at 11hr13)

I tried looking for some stats about specifically that, but it aint easy. I do have a life outside of TNUK! Honest! So, I looked at the ONS general graphs. Road Transport is part of that, but variation in that sector could be hidden in the whole its true.
However I think the general case tells an interesting story. True, we cant just separate it to all constituent sectors equally, but I think the general case shows none of the much discussed depression in wages caused by immigration. I dont say this effect is non-existent, and yes, maybe transport is more affected than other sectors.

55

Grumpy Dad:
The social support system was heading for failure from the start, initially the British population took pride in work, it was a matter of self respect and the idea of saving for the future wether illness, redundancy or retirement the thought of guaranteed financial support was perfect.

That pride disappeared in the 1980s when large numbers of people simply couldn’t get a job, and also as pay and conditions and treatment at work have fallen to such poor levels that the pretense of it conveying social dignity can no longer be maintained convincingly or (perhaps more crucially) reproduced in the next generation.

What politicians and the public never anticipated for was a massive population increase, economic markets closing factories and industries, and an ever increasing social handout dependant population.

To which era do you refer? Certainly, all post-war politicians anticipated a massive population increase - they anticipated it would increase more than it actually has. It wasn’t until the 1970s (firstly in Japan iirc) that a crisis of reproduction first started to emerge in the developed world, and not until some time later that it started to emerge as a common feature that was actually afflicting all developed capitalist societies.

As for markets closing factories and industries, again that was fully anticipated in the post-war period. It was part of the reason for having a social security system, with robust redundancy and unemployment protection, to allow automation and reorganisation to take place without social upheaval. It was anticipated that this would eventually mean reduced working hours throughout society, because if the machines still produce what everybody needs, then the same standard of living can be achieved through less work, and what work is available would be distributed fairly.

The only thing in your list not anticipated was the current extent of in-work benefits, because it was never imagined that the bosses would be able to privatise profits whilst socialising the wage bill - it would have been assumed that bosses would have to pay the full cost of the labour they used (including the cost of reproduction), and that workers either through bargaining or through democratic laws would have been able to enforce that. It was never imagined that you would have a situation in which two parents work full-time and yet still require top-up benefits to attain a reasonable minimum standard of living.

Britain wasn’t the first to set up a social system, 1883 Germany brought in its equivalent of our NHS, a system that through two world wars, political upheaval and recessions is still in place today.
Most of Europe believe in You don’t pay You don’t get, but not Britain, it’s happy with its handout system.
The system needs an overhaul, our homegrown workforce need forcing into work and we need to halt immigration of unskilled workers.

If the inward migration of unskilled workers is halted, then in all likelihood the “homegrown” workforce will not need forcing into work, because they will be able to bargain for wages and conditions that attract them to work by consent. When the bosses say they cannot get settled workers to work, they often mean they have tried everything except putting up wages and conditions to attract more people.

56

Grandpa:
The NIS was probably the best thing that ever happened to the working population in the UK, but unfortunately like all good things it became a political football. To understand what went wrong people need to know the difference between socialism and socialist. Socialism occurs in practically all countries; it’s providing the government with the means to keep a country ticking over. It’s money from private wealth gained through taxation to provide for schools, roads, the police, hospitals … Things that enable a society to work. Socialist policies on the other hand use private wealth taxation to fund political objectives. For example, a police force is socialism as law and order is needed. On the other hand, introducing minority quotas with gay police associations is socialist and part of a diversity agenda.

What do you mean by “private wealth taxation”? Is it distinct from mere “taxation”? Or are there other forms of taxation that fit a template of “public wealth taxation”, or “private X taxation” (where “X” is something other than wealth)?

It seems to me that all “taxation” inherently means the appropriation of productive power or work products - that is, either the appropriation of the right to direct labour to some purpose determined by the state, or the appropriation of the results of labour (to then be distributed according to, or applied to, some purpose determined by the state). In practice, the state does both by appropriating money, with which it can then either buy labour or buy the results of labour. I cannot readily see, in this schema, what forms of taxation exist besides “private wealth taxation”.

And are you suggesting that having publicly-funded schools, roads, police, and hospitals, are not “political objectives”? And why is it an illegitimate political objective to ensure that broadly any of the citizenry can become police officers, rather than it being monopolised by straight police officers?

The aim of all socialist policies are to promote the state above the individual and make a population government dependent.

Is it? I always thought the (proper) aim of all socialist policies was to ensure that workers receive a fair share of the fruits of their work.

And what organised body of people aren’t dependent on their governance? Humans have never lived in circumstances of non-dependency between each other, nor in circumstances where their relations do not need to be governed.

That’s what successive labour governments did when they moved away from personal contributions to fund an insurance scheme and introduced government dependency equality to replace it. Lenin once famously remarked that socialism is the stepping stone to communism and what he meant was that the more dependency a government creates, the more authoritarian it becomes.

It was the Thatcher government that did most to decouple contribution from coverage.

And I don’t think that is what Lenin meant - the “stepping stone” between “socialism” and “communism” (in Marxist theory) was that, in the first place, it was necessary for workers to win the fruits of their labour rather than having a large part appropriated by the bosses. Having done so and thus gained control over their own lives and work, it was imagined that society would develop to the point where the need for precise accountancy of the work done and the wages paid would evaporate, and that in a properly-functioning society (that is, efficiently organised, morally healthy, and in which workers participate to decide the work to be done and the level of consumption) those able to do work would seek to do the work that was deemed necessary and those who needed goods and services for normal daily life would receive them.

The latter is not dissimilar I imagine to how the average well-functioning family unit works - the mother who cooks tea or the father who fixes the washing machine do not demand wages from each other or from the children for doing so, but rather it is seen that certain kinds of work need to be done and those who are capable of doing it do it, and there is no real compulsion involved in the adults applying their capacities or in reproducing those capacities (such as when children naturally take an interest in how adults run a household and seek to perform the same roles themselves in due course).

The correctness of the Marxist vision for a large civil society is of course another question entirely, but Lenin’s words don’t bear anything remotely what you contend for.

Likewise the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is a love of one’s country. Nationalism is an idea that one country is superior above others.

Like with your “private wealth taxation”, is there any real distinction in these concepts? Is it convincing to have a love of a country that one deeply believes to be inferior? Is it possible to believe that one’s country is superior without “loving” it?

Brexiteers aren’t necessarily nationalist in that they don’t consider themselves above or superior to European countries, but rather different from and don’t want to go into an EU socialist melting pot that has never worked anywhere it has been tried. Currently, the economies of France and Germany are stagnating, those of Greece, Portugal and Ireland are basket cases. We have Brexit and there are protests all over the Europe.

Clearly then, you do consider the British economy (or economic model) to be superior to those of France, Germany, Greece, Portugal, and Ireland!

57

Grandpa:
@Carryfast

I accept that we can agree to disagree, but I taught political science amongst other subjects for many years. It doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it’s based on more than opinion. Opinions are fine, but I can tell you that you’re all over place.

Nothing is really based on more than opinion. The crucial point to acknowledge is that opinions count.

Let’s correct you. Internationalism is the opposite of nationalism. To say you must be both is a bit like saying you have to be a Tory before you’re labour, or vis-à-vis.

You do not have the right to say no to the EU if you’re a member. It’s not a pick n mix choice.

You don’t necessarily have the right to say no if you’re not a member either.

Benn wasn’t a socialist but a nationalist? Are you sure you’ve got that right?

In my view Benn was a socialist in general terms, but he had a lot of ad-hoc nationalist views. It is probably best seen as socialist principles curtailed to the political reality of the time (including the continuing political reality that democracies are national in extent).

Thatcher originally was for the EEC and quickly changed her mind when she discovered that it was going to be an EU that would bleed Britain dry. There was no EU under Heath or Thatcher, it was the EEC, a trading block. A single market is very different from a political union.

She didn’t really change her mind. She simply wanted the neoliberal elements of the EU without the socialist elements, which is what most people are now rebelling against (although for the radical right, the problem is not that the EU is too neoliberal, but that it isn’t neoliberal enough and isn’t allowing the radical right to launch the attacks on workers that radical right would wish to).

Chinese communism (Maoism) has nothing whatsoever in common with cultural Marxism. Do you wonder why the Chinese have been so successful, with an estimated booming urban middle-class of 19% in 1980 to 58% in 2017? It’s because they re-introduced capitalism and abandoned socialist equality. The EU is going the other way so it’s no wonder it’s collapsing.

The Chinese are simply following a moderated Soviet model. The Soviet model itself charged ahead of capitalism in its early days - capitalism both learned a great deal, and had to make huge concessions to workers to avoid ideological default.

The problem later on was not only the cost of military competition (which meant huge economic resources were diverted, the cost of which the more developed capitalist nations could already bear more easily), but the amount of economic sclerosis and inertia induced by centralisation and advance planning.

The Chinese have learned from those mistakes. Their concessions to private enterprise have not only abated the military and ideological conflict, but by allowing in foreign investment they have hollowed out most of the Western capitalist economies with the consent of the capitalist ruling class. It also means the management of production is more devolved - the state still retains overall control and is interventionist, and closely controls industries which are mature and concern basic raw materials, but capitalist managers have a large degree of autonomy.

Put another way, China is pursuing a similar mixed economic policy to the post-war capitalist nations (in which free-market principles were largely abandoned in favour of massive state intervention and oversight). But additionally, it is reaping the surpluses generated by the fact that Western nations have abandoned those policies themselves, and by providing profit opportunities for Western capital it is buying off the ideological resistance that would otherwise result.

When the music stops (probably due to worker resistance in Western nations), the fact is that China will have masses of machinery and a skilled and healthy workforce habituated to all aspects of modern production, and the boot will then be on the other foot militarily if the Western free-market nations try to confront it (just as the Soviets had the advantage over the free-market capitalist nations, except the Chinese do not have the weakness of the Soviet model against the mixed model, because the Chinese are already pursuing the mixed model).

58

Grandpa:
Likewise the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is a love of one’s country. Nationalism is an idea that one country is superior above others.

Patriotism by definition can only also mean Nationalist.If not a patriot to what ?.It’s also quite possible for a patriot to believe that his country is superior to others and rightly in many cases.However by definition in the case of a patriot it stops there at his own borders.

A Socialist believes that his ‘ideology’ is superior.He doesn’t recognise any National border in that.He believes that superiority should be imposed across and regardless of National boundaries.He believes in Social Engineering to further that.IE every tin pot Federalist from the Roman Emperor to Stalin,Hitler and Tito including Lincoln and Churchill.Let me guess you believe that Churchill’s wish for a USE having tried to impose the 'British Empire on those that didn’t want it,and killing Irish people to keep Ireland a part of the ‘UK’,was ever going to exempt us from his latest Federal project.

Here’s a clue the Conservatives are an ideologically Federalist Party and as such are more Socialist than Benn or Shore ever were.Which is why we’re in this mess of the country illegally being taken over by/handed over to an equally illegal foreign power in the form of an illegitimate undeclared De Jure wannabee Federal Superstate. :unamused:

59

Grandpa:
@Carryfast

I accept that we can agree to disagree, but I taught political science amongst other subjects for many years. It doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it’s based on more than opinion. Opinions are fine, but I can tell you that you’re all over place.

Let’s correct you. Internationalism is the opposite of nationalism. To say you must be both is a bit like saying you have to be a Tory before you’re labour, or vis-à-vis.

You do not have the right to say no to the EU if you’re a member. It’s not a pick n mix choice.

Benn wasn’t a socialist but a nationalist? Are you sure you’ve got that right?

Thatcher originally was for the EEC and quickly changed her mind when she discovered that it was going to be an EU that would bleed Britain dry. There was no EU under Heath or Thatcher, it was the EEC, a trading block. A single market is very different from a political union.

Chinese communism (Maoism) has nothing whatsoever in common with cultural Marxism. Do you wonder why the Chinese have been so successful, with an estimated booming urban middle-class of 19% in 1980 to 58% in 2017? It’s because they re-introduced capitalism and abandoned socialist equality. The EU is going the other way so it’s no wonder it’s collapsing.

Insurance of any kind isn’t a ‘give me my money back if I don’t use’ contract.

Am I saying JFK wasn’t a capitalist? No, I didn’t even mention him. FYI, capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology. Can you point me to these ‘desperate starving workers’ you mention?

There is no doubt that for decades Britain has had a socialist and progressive agenda. What we’re seeing now are the consequences of that as the population rises and the capitalist source of private wealth taxation is failing to fund relative equality. The EU will eventually collapse and it won’t be replaced by ex-junkie Russell Brand’s underclass equality revolution. There are certain truisms in politics; Thatcher trying to drag Britain into a German Federalism which didn’t even exist at the time, or claiming that Benn a lifelong socialist was really a nationalist means that you’re conclusion is always going to sound odd.

And with that I’ll leave it for a while as I’m busy packing to come back to the UK on Monday and begin a new life as a driver. The government won’t do it for me, it’s something I need to do myself. :slight_smile:

You say I’m ‘all over the place’.No unlike you it’s the ability to think outside the box of ‘left’ means Socialist and Capitalist means Victorian style Thatcherite.

On that note as I said Kennedy was a Capitalist who was good for the left,far better than any Socialist model and that’s probably what got him killed.IE he proved that Capitalism could be good for the workers and thereby also removed the reason d’etre of Socialism creating a mutual two sided enemy with a mutual reason to get rid of him.Bearing in mind that a mob hit man has no allegiance only to the highest bidder.

Thatcher was a typical ideological Federalist as would be expected of being part of an ideologically Federalist Party.On that note all the information was there within the Treaty of Rome showing exactly what the ‘EEC’ was.As proven by Benn’s and Shore’s arguments against our membership of it in direct opposition to Heath and Thatcher.On that note like myself yes Benn and Shore were unarguably Nationalists certainly not Socialists,but unlike me,just didn’t realise it.I’ll reiterate you can’t possibly be inter nationalist without by definition also being nationalist on the basis that the definition of inter in that just means ‘co operation’ ‘between’ Nations.Obviously no individual sovereign nations then there can be no cooperation and no ‘inter’ relationship between them.

By definition a Federation doesn’t provide the ability for any individual state to unilaterally say no.In the form of the Sovereign right of Substitution or Opt Out as a Confederation of Sovereign States would.The EU,which unsurprisingly being ideologically Federalists Heath and Thatcher took us into,obviously being the former of those.It’s therefore not an inter nationalist organisation just as the UK isn’t and just as the Soviet Union wasn’t.

That’s what Kennedy unintentionally and unknowingly blundered into IE a mutual interest and link between Federalism,Socialism and Capitalism and that’s why we are where we are.Being taken over by a Federal Chinese Marxism friendly foreign power and that’s what Deng was referring to by the different ways of catching mice.Do you get it now ?.

60

Franglais:
I have already said I agree that International road transport wages are stagnating. (Tues 7th at 11hr13)

I tried looking for some stats about specifically that, but it aint easy. I do have a life outside of TNUK! Honest! So, I looked at the ONS general graphs. Road Transport is part of that, but variation in that sector could be hidden in the whole its true.
However I think the general case tells an interesting story. True, we cant just separate it to all constituent sectors equally, but I think the general case shows none of the much discussed depression in wages caused by immigration. I dont say this effect is non-existent, and yes, maybe transport is more affected than other sectors.

I guess the difference between us is that you base your views on graphs found on the internet, whereas I base mine on evidence I see with my own eyes. I take it you are unaware, for example, that twenty years ago there was a thriving British international transport industry but now this is to all intents and purposes non-existent?

That a load from Liverpool to Lisbon, Malmo to Madrid, Bergen to Bergamo will all be undertaken by eastern European hauliers nowadays because of their totally different cost bases?

And that this is the inevitable fate of UK domestic transport too if the eu ever finally manages to achieve its goal of free movement? I mean, why would anyone pay me or you £400+ a week to drive a truck if a Romanian/ Bulgarian haulier can get a driver to do it for £200 a week?

Is that what you really want? To be no better than a cold and hungry 1950’s Soviet peasant standing outside his hovel, cheering and waving his red flag when Stalin’s motorcade sweeps through his village? Why don’t you abandon this mindless forelock-tugging devotion to your political masters and base your opinions on what effect the eu has actually had on your own life?