Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:18 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

That could be said of a lot of people who call themselves a Marxist .

It could indeed.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:24 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Marxism is a vile ideology that has been rejected by the vast majority of countries in this world. The fact that the North Koreans choose to display large posters of Karl Marx on government buildings tells you all you need to know about its messed up aims and values. These same aims and values are incompatible with British values of democracy and freedom.

Ralph Milliband was a staunch Marxist whose views didn't appear to change much between the age of 17 and when he died. Whether he 'hated Britain' or not is unclear - I suspect the only man who can answer that definitively is the man himself who is dead. What is clear however is that Marxism is incompatible with British values. Whether this equates to him hating Britain is debatable.

As someone who knows little of Marxism, can you list out the vile aspects of Marxist ideology for me so that I may comment? Likewise is our modern version of democracy democratic? In what ways is it and are there any ways in which it is not? All all Britons equally free or are some more free than others by virtue of their economic status?

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:02 am  

Dally wrote:

As someone who knows little of Marxism, can you list out the vile aspects of Marxist ideology for me so that I may comment? Likewise is our modern version of democracy democratic? In what ways is it and are there any ways in which it is not? All all Britons equally free or are some more free than others by virtue of their economic status?

Don't hold your breath. I asked him four pages back to define socialism and I'm still waiting

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:45 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

Marxism is a vile ideology that has been rejected ..<snip> etc etc.

That post didn't contain a single grammatical, spelling or constructional error.
Who is writing your posts for you now?

Others have asked for your definition of Marxism (which I don't expect you'll fulfill without using cut and paste) but I'd like you to tell me what it is about being Marxist that equates with hating Britain.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:37 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

That post didn't contain a single grammatical, spelling or constructional error.
Who is writing your posts for you now?

Others have asked for your definition of Marxism (which I don't expect you'll fulfill without using cut and paste) but I'd like you to tell me what it is about being Marxist that equates with hating Britain.

I think the problem in all this derives from the definition of "Britain."

For example, "Britain" would seem to me to primarily be an areal concept. It seems clear to me that Mr Miliband Snr did not hate that Britain, else he would have moved elsewhere, eg the USA.

"Britain" could refer to the "British" people, ie the nation. It seems clear to me that Mr Miliband Snr did not hate that Britain, or else he would have gone elsewhere and probably not be held in such esteem by people who knew him, including senior Conservatives.

"Britain" could refer perhaps to so called British values of fair play, integrity and free speech. Clearly, he did not hate those. He benefiited from British decency as a refugee, he enjoyed free speech and was clearly a man of integrity because as that great organ of decency and democracy, the Daily Mail, tells us he did not change his views or bend his principles from those he held as a 17 year old. A great virtue in my opinion.

So, maybe "Britain" here means certain instruments of the state and establishment so beloved (joke) of the Daily Mail itself? The thing is those beloved insitutions are in reality exclusive to the elite and wholly divorced from the man in the street. The people who belong to them and love them tend, in my experience, to be hypocritical people and not the sort of people one could rely on in a time of need. If he felt an intellectual revulsion towards that Britain I'd suggest that is one that the majority of our nation feels (whether in a conscious or unconcious way).

Going back to AJW 71, "Britain" of the last 70 years has been, in its reality and its collective mind, defined primarily by WW2, its suffering and role therein. That war, in Europe, involved a fight for survival against the tyranny of fascism. A tyranny that did not tolerate that great British virtue of freedom of speech and thought. What was the Daily Mail's stance on fascism pre-WW2? Was that compatible with "British" values and freedoms? On the other hand, what did Mr Miliband Senior do in his newly adopted country's hour of need?

As to hating Britain and its institutions - as other has said - the Daily Mail on an almost daily basis espouses 'hatred' of the BBC, the Labour party, the trades union movement, recent immigrants, single parents, the poor, the NHS, schools, local authorities, working mothers (where not wealthy), The EU (when it supported it previously) etc, etc. Now, think how many millions of people belong to / work in some of the groups I have mentioned. It would seem therefore that the Daily Mail 'hates' the majority of Britons and the majority of "Britain" whichever way you look at it. On the other hand, is there any evidence whatsover that Mr Miliband Snr "hated" on such a scale? If he "hated" anything it seems to me that it may have been the hypocrisy of a small group of self-serving, smug Britons. Possibly the sort of people who may have senior influence within the Daily Mail?

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:42 am  

Dally wrote:

I think the problem in all this derives from the definition of "Britain."

Fair point. Perhaps Geoffrey Levy and "The Cowardly Lion" Dacre would be able to answer that one. After all, they're the ones who, in publishing the articles, decided that RM hated Britain, when the evidence seems to be somewhat opposite to that.

Perhaps the Britain he hated was the one he foresaw, when a dead man's reputation could be smeared and, when his family complain, the person smearing could respond by refusing to apologise and repeating the claim. I know I find that pretty hateful.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:14 pm  

Dally wrote:

I think the problem in all this derives from the definition of "Britain." <snip> So, maybe "Britain" here means certain instruments of the state and establishment so beloved (joke) of the Daily Mail itself? ...

For the Daily Mail to define "Britain" in that way (if it does) is utterly vacuous.
To label someone, purely on the on the basis of having different views, as a hater of Britain is indefensible.

I happen to loathe the Daily Mail, the concept of monarchy, unelected peers, the class system and many aspects of Parliament.
I also dislike the Church of England, Association football, reality television and the Conservative party's values.
Does that mean I hate Britain?
No, of course it doesn't.

[DaveO]

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:17 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

You have to admire the stinking hypocrisy of Dave O.

Today he says:

and

But on April 11, when talking about the recently deceased Margaret Thatcher he said:

and....

Please remind me Dave O, when did Margaret Thatcher have the opportunity to defend herself against your comments?

Is it ok for you to slate the dead? Just not anyone else right? Is that how it works?

Disagreeing with policies of former PM's is not slating the dead. It is not libelling of slandering them either.

Saying R Miliband hated Britain is libellous and would land you in court merely for the headline if he were still alive.

You obviously don't know what libel is as your feeble attempt to catch me out shows.

[DaveO]

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:56 pm  

Ajw71 wrote: Marxism is a vile ideology that has been rejected by the vast majority of countries in this world. The fact that the North Koreans choose to display large posters of Karl Marx on government buildings tells you all you need to know about its messed up aims and values. These same aims and values are incompatible with British values of democracy and freedom. North Korea isn't a Marxist state whether they have posters of him on the walls or not. Do some research and you will find that out. Ralph Milliband was a staunch Marxist whose views didn't appear to change much between the age of 17 and when he died. Whether he 'hated Britain' or not is unclear - I suspect the only man who can answer that definitively is the man himself who is dead. What is clear however is that Marxism is incompatible with British values. Whether this equates to him hating Britain is debatable. Not only do you not understand what libel is, you don't have any understanding of R Milibands views on Marxism either. For example he was against revolutionary Marxism and was against dictatorships despising the Soviet version of it (Marxist-Leninism) and was very much for tolerance and free speech. He gave money to Czechoslovakian freedom fighters resisting Russian oppression. From one of my earlier links: The Times also published a series of letters from Ralph Miliband to the newspaper which undermined the Mail's claim that he opposed free speech and failed to stand up to repression in the Warsaw Pact. In one letter he spoke out in favour of Czech dissidents. The information is all there that shows R Milliband did not hate Britain and could not be accused of supporting anything like the kind of Marxism the Mail (and you!) assert he did. If you have any interest at all in educating yourself on R Miliband rather than believing the drivel written in the Mail read this: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/daily-mail-distorted-book-ralph-miliband If you do you may even conclude if Ed Miliband has been influenced by his Father, it might be a very good thing. R Miliband was clearly not only a towering intellect but also an extremely fair and just man. The people lauding Alastair Campbell are embarrassing. How this bloke gets airtime on serious television programmes is beyond me. He doesn't destroy anyone by political debate. He shouts them down and doesn't let his 'opponent' answers any questions he puts to them. If this kind of 'debate' leads you to think he has somehow won the argument / beaten his opponent you are somewhat mistaken. Cambell had the guy on the ropes. When repeatedly pressed about the assertion R Miliband "hated Britain". He was reduced to repeating the rather pathetic phrase that Milibands Marxists views made him "antipathetic to the views and values of other British people". Antipathetic means strongly disagrees with by the way. Now saying he hated Britain because he strongly disagreed with the views and values of other British is like saying Norman Tebbit "hates Britain" because he hates the Trade Unions. There is no connection between being a socialist and hating Britain any more than there is being a right wing Tory.

Ajw71 wrote: Marxism is a vile ideology that has been rejected by the vast majority of countries in this world. The fact that the North Koreans choose to display large posters of Karl Marx on government buildings tells you all you need to know about its messed up aims and values. These same aims and values are incompatible with British values of democracy and freedom. North Korea isn't a Marxist state whether they have posters of him on the walls or not. Do some research and you will find that out. Ralph Milliband was a staunch Marxist whose views didn't appear to change much between the age of 17 and when he died. Whether he 'hated Britain' or not is unclear - I suspect the only man who can answer that definitively is the man himself who is dead. What is clear however is that Marxism is incompatible with British values. Whether this equates to him hating Britain is debatable. Not only do you not understand what libel is, you don't have any understanding of R Milibands views on Marxism either. For example he was against revolutionary Marxism and was against dictatorships despising the Soviet version of it (Marxist-Leninism) and was very much for tolerance and free speech. He gave money to Czechoslovakian freedom fighters resisting Russian oppression. From one of my earlier links: The Times also published a series of letters from Ralph Miliband to the newspaper which undermined the Mail's claim that he opposed free speech and failed to stand up to repression in the Warsaw Pact. In one letter he spoke out in favour of Czech dissidents. The information is all there that shows R Milliband did not hate Britain and could not be accused of supporting anything like the kind of Marxism the Mail (and you!) assert he did. If you have any interest at all in educating yourself on R Miliband rather than believing the drivel written in the Mail read this: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/daily-mail-distorted-book-ralph-miliband If you do you may even conclude if Ed Miliband has been influenced by his Father, it might be a very good thing. R Miliband was clearly not only a towering intellect but also an extremely fair and just man. The people lauding Alastair Campbell are embarrassing. How this bloke gets airtime on serious television programmes is beyond me. He doesn't destroy anyone by political debate. He shouts them down and doesn't let his 'opponent' answers any questions he puts to them. If this kind of 'debate' leads you to think he has somehow won the argument / beaten his opponent you are somewhat mistaken. Cambell had the guy on the ropes. When repeatedly pressed about the assertion R Miliband "hated Britain". He was reduced to repeating the rather pathetic phrase that Milibands Marxists views made him "antipathetic to the views and values of other British people". Antipathetic means strongly disagrees with by the way. Now saying he hated Britain because he strongly disagreed with the views and values of other British is like saying Norman Tebbit "hates Britain" because he hates the Trade Unions. There is no connection between being a socialist and hating Britain any more than there is being a right wing Tory.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:40 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

The people lauding Alastair Campbell are embarrassing. How this bloke gets airtime on serious television programmes is beyond me. He doesn't destroy anyone by political debate. He shouts them down and doesn't let his 'opponent' answers any questions he puts to them. If this kind of 'debate' leads you to think he has somehow won the argument / beaten his opponent you are somewhat mistaken.

He "shouted him down" by asking him to answer the question put (similar to Paxo and Michael Howard). He wasn't in position to let the guy on Newsnight answer as he had no intention whatsoever of answering. He won the argument because the "opponent" couldn't/wouldn't answer or explain why he had been sent in in place of the person who is ultimately responsible and who is STILL hiding away, sending out minions by the bucketload to speak for him.

Campbell by plenty.