Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[belboid]

You didn't even mention the increased productivity etc

That's because I dont need to repeat every single part of somebody's post when replying to it, it's already in the quote. 99.99% of people have no problem understanding this, its just you that doesnt.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

What are you doing now then, ya daft cunt?

You're just a shit troll

 

[belboid]

Anyway, on ignore you go, should've done it ages ago.

Ohh you great big fibber you. Again.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

You're on ignore where you belong Belboid

 

[belboid]

Certainly transitory, conditional upon the perceived threats/needs of capital.

everything is fucking transitory. So what?

 

[belboid]

You're on ignore where you belong Belboid

pants on fire

 

[brogdale]

everything is fucking transitory. So what?

deep.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Something that is capitalist certainly is. Anyway, on ignore you go, should've done it ages ago.

Explain how the NHS is a capitalist venture, please. And not 'because capitalism needs healthy workers'. The world is better with healthy people full stop, so that won't cut it.

 

[belboid]

The RCP used to say that anyone defending the NHS was defending capitalism. And that is precisely the logic of some one here.

Fuck the NHS for the sake of socialism! Not great logic.

 

[teqniq]

Its not plagiarism, thats ridiculous, I cited my source. Its not a blog either, it was originally a pamphlet from the early 1990's.

Only when asked and you provided no link. Nor did you attribute the words you posted to the blog/pamphlet in the post that I originally quoted.

and then there's this post from yesterday. All unattributed:

Notable features of the Atlee government were the building of the British atomic bomb and Hydrogen bomb, the rising of the cost of living by 30% and the demand that workers exercise ‘restraint’ and not ask for pay rises. Wartime rationing was kept in place, which ensured that money was spent not on consumption but on investment. This meant not only less for workers, but a drabber, more monotonous existence. In fact between 1947 and 1951 working class people suffered a drop in their real wages./quote]

The Atlee government gave little to the working class. In this it revealed once again just whose side it was on. This time its membership began more closely to reveal this fact too. In 1945 more than 40 of the Labour MPs were lawyers...... ‘ between 20 and 30 were business men, and a good sprinkling of farmers, accountants, consulting engineers and other professions’ were among the rest. Arthur Greenwood, the Labour Lord Privy Seal, said at the time, ‘I look around among my colleagues, and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers. We are a cross-section of the national life, and this is something that has never happened before.’ A party originally set up to protect the unions had acquired a constitution written by middle class intellectuals and was now being run by a coalition of union bureaucrats and traditional members of the ruling class./quote]

Nationalisation is not socialism. Socialism means the common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It means getting rid of the bosses, getting rid of working for a wage or salary, getting rid of the whole rotten buying and selling system. It means that people will freely come together to produce what is needed and will freely take from the abundant products of their labour. It will involve the abolition not only of the ruling class, but also their state. It will not mean that state being replaced by a new state. Nationalisation is just one form of state capitalism./

It is hardly surprising that the Labour Party and the unions ended up as the firmest supporters of state capitalism. Trade unions do not exist to change society, they are to get a larger slice of the capitalist cake, not take over the bakery. Indeed, without the buying and selling economy, based on wage labour, there is no role for a trade union. With no role for a trade union, there is no job for a union official. However, the power, privileges and status of the union bureaucrats are very much determined by how much their status is recognised by the capitalist class. To protect their position, it is natural for unions to look for a more regulated capitalism, a capitalism based on partnership between employers and labour organisations. It was to achieve this that the Labour Party was set up in the first place./

Their position was recognised and they were welcomed as junior partners in the state machine during the First World War. It was a logical step for them to go beyond mere regulation and favour full blown state ownership, with the state as the major employer working in partnership with the unions. Thus Clause Four was adopted as a means of selling this to the working class at the same time as the Unions’ control over the party was established. Their function as part of the state machine was re-emphasised during the Second World War, and continued afterwards with the various tripartite commissions, quangos like the National Economic Development Corporation, and the routine appointment of Trade Union General Secretaries to the House of Lords./

As part of the state wanting more state control the party attracted to itself those sections of the ruling class who would benefit from it. This helps explain the number of lawyers and other professionals in the Attlee governing party. By the 1940s even the leaders of the party came from this social group.

In 1951 there was another General Election. This time Labour lost. It was followed by 13 years of Tory government.

So that answers your question about the Atlee government.

source

 

[belboid]

deep.

exactly as deep as your trite claim, i think you'll find

 

[brogdale]

exactly as deep as your trite claim, i think you'll find

Ouch

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The rest of war-ravaged Europe was having a great big party in the late 40s, of course.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Seems to me that AmateurAgitator has prompted an interesting discussion in here.

Thankyou. For various reasons I've been very tired lately so thats why alot of what I've posted was mostly not in my own words (and why I keep leaving the discussion and then coming back), it was just easier doing it that way. And as I say I did cite my source when asked.

 

[Supine]

There's a reason why life expectancy is in decline, we're getting unhealthier and education has been dumbed down in a narrowed curriculum.

Is there some data to support that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, kids are getting smarter as well, generation on generation.

 

[brogdale]

Yeah, kids are getting smarter as well, generation on generation.

That's an interesting claim.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's an interesting claim.

IQ tests are pretty rotten things, but the way they are set up, 100 has to come in the middle. They have to redo the marking scale every few years to keep it that way because the scores keep going up.

 

[brogdale]

Is there some data to support that?

View attachment 334768

Thought this widely known?

Life expectancy falling in parts of England before pandemic - study

 

[brogdale]

IQ tests are pretty rotten things, but the way they are set up, 100 has to come in the middle. They have to redo the marking scale every few years to keep it that way because the scores keep going up.

So, are the kids getting smarter as well, generation on generation, or not?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, are the kids getting smarter as well, generation on generation, or not?

That is certainly one explanation for the rising scores on IQ tests.

 

[brogdale]

Gotta say, normally when I find myself in arguments with people telling me that things are getting better and better all the time, they tend to be unhinged libertarian types.

 

[brogdale]

That is certainly one explanation for the rising scores on IQ tests.

FFS

 

[Pickman's model]

Is something that benefits capitalism inherently ‘capitalist’? That's quite a blurring of terminology. Is a healthy workforce capitalist? It obviously has its uses, but a healthy workforce also benefits the anti-capitalist fight - because we are actually healthy enough to fight. Once again, it seems there is an inability to understand contradiction and how it applies to capital.

The benefits to capital from the NHS are unambiguous. The benefits to the anti-capitalist fight are potential. But the state does not introduce a service like the nhs, like education, like welfare benefits, unless there is a clear benefit to it and to the industry of the country. The benefit to the acf - if that is in fact a thing - has been an unintended consequence. There has been a constant struggle for many years to retain some semblance of the NHS ethos, more than sufficient to burn out many many good militants.

 

[JimW]

Gotta say, normally when I find myself in arguments with people telling me that things are getting better and better all the time, they tend to be unhinged libertarian types.

Improved childhood nutrition in the sort of countries who test for IQ. (No idea really)

 

[Pickman's model]

Gotta say, normally when I find myself in arguments with people telling me that things are getting better and better all the time, they tend to be unhinged libertarian types.

Or not paying attention

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Gotta say, normally when I find myself in arguments with people telling me that things are getting better and better all the time, they tend to be unhinged libertarian types.

And when I hear people talking about dumbed-down education, I get suspicious. Education generally is way better now than it was when I was at school. And my schooling was way better than that of my parents.

 

[belboid]

The benefits to capital from the NHS are unambiguous. The benefits to the anti-capitalist fight are potential. But the state does not introduce a service like the nhs, like education, like welfare benefits, unless there is a clear benefit to it and to the industry of the country. The benefit to the acf - if that is in fact a thing - has been an unintended consequence. There has been a constant struggle for many years to retain some semblance of the NHS ethos, more than sufficient to burn out many many good militants.

No, the benefits to the working class of good health are actual, not potential. And you are just repeating the point that the NHS benefits capital (no disagreement with that) without advancing your claim that that makes it capitalist.

As for your last sentence, oh dear. It does make it sound like you think we shouldn’t try to defend the NHS, for fear of burn out. Anything can cause burn out, so we shouldn’t fight for anything by that logic.

 

[Pickman's model]

And when I hear people talking about dumbed-down education, I get suspicious. Education generally is way better now than it was when I was at school. And my schooling was way better than that of my parents.

2010 ‘Functionally illiterate and innumerate’
2017 Lecturers Are Hitting Out At Their Own Unis For Giving Places To 'Almost Illiterate' Students
2022 www.cityam.com/bad-at-maths-cost-britain-poor-numeracy-skills-no-laughing-matter/

E2a there's been similar stories about people entering university for many years. When gcses were introduced they weren't as hard as the o levels that preceded them, and that's a simple statement of fact.

 

[brogdale]

And when I hear people talking about dumbed-down education, I get suspicious. Education generally is way better now than it was when I was at school. And my schooling was way better than that of my parents.

Again, very debatable. Nearly half a century of neoliberal curriculum determination and 'marketisation'/privatisation of education has certainly produced results, but claiming things are way better is a very bold claim.