How much worse can it get ...??

[teamsaint]

Isn't democracy necessarily pluralist, recognising a need to represent competing views? Not all Tory governments have been bad, nor all Labour governments good. Should FPTP be a "given" given that it's generally recognised as democratically flawed? And shouldn't a democratic socialist support a change in the electoral system rather then condemn the country most of the time to a Buggins' Turn system to ensure they get a chance to be in power?

FPTP shouldn’t be a given, but for now it is. Yes, Labour should embrace electoral reform.
I can’t remember a Tory government that wasn’t bad, (and I wasn’t that keen on some Labour govts) but I am all ears, FF .

[Serial_Apologist]

FPTP shouldn’t be a given, but for now it is. Yes, Labour should embrace electoral reform.
I can’t remember a Tory government that wasn’t bad, (and I wasn’t that keen on some Labour govts) but I am all ears, FF .

Before your time, TS. The 1951-64 Tony government wasn't that bad, in retrospect: the main competing claims of the two main parties was in how many council houses each promised to build. That was because a consensus existed between all the bourgeois parties that embraced a mixed economy, in which a nationalised sector - albeit one top-down run, identically to privately owned businesses in terms of boss/employee relations - was seen as indispensable to an efficient capitalist economy. This was understood back then, following the disasters of the 1930s - lessons Thatcher and her successors on "both" sides were all too eager to unlearn in their faith in the "free market" [sic]. The Tories collapsed after the Suez crisis, eventually to be bundled from power following the Profumo scandal - which probably wouldn't be tyreated as a scandal were it to happen today.

[french frank]

I can’t remember a Tory government that wasn’t bad, (and I wasn’t that keen on some Labour govts) but I am all ears, FF .

Serial has answered that, but I should point out that in the 75 years since the end of the war, the Tories have been steering the ship for about 45, Labour for about 30 (of which 13 were the Blair-Brown era). If Eden was pretty much a disaster, the Macmillan and Heath governments were at least not of the same stripe as Thatcher and her descendants. So post-war you're talking Attlee and Wilson for Labour, and even Wilson was no unreconstructed socialist - he could enter a pact with the Liberals.

If Starmer can win, replace FPTP and get the country set on a different course, the last thing the left should do (in my opinion of course) is force some sort of split in Labour on the grounds that a Labour government isn't providing socialism (and Starmer isn't Corbyn). If Corbyn's star has descended, better to draw a line under his leadership and move on. I would prefer a good Labour government, but for me it doesn't have to be 'socialist' in any principled sense of the word. Just socialistically inclined but able to respond to 'events' in the most practical way. Siblinghood and steak-and-ale pie.

Also in my view, the reason why anyone would speak of socialism and totalitarianism in the same breath is the seeming unwillingness of the left to compromise their principles. Monte Carlo or Bust, and more often it's Bust.

And if your regular reading matter consists of Jacobin, Another Angry Voice, Tribune, The Clarion, Dissent, even Russia Today - it will be hard to take seriously any claim that the BBC is 'biased'.

[Dave2002]

It is hard to know which governments were “good” and which “bad”. Things didn’t seem so terrible in the 1950s and 60s, but most of Europe, including the U.K., was recovering from WWII. I thoroughly disliked Thatcher, and it wasn’t even fun living during her period in office. Some of the changes initiated under her leadership were probably necessary. Major was a surprise, but not terrible IMO. Blair was a great relief for a while until that went sour, and Brown sadly wan’t brave enough to face an early election which he’d probably have won. Cameron seemed reasonable, but set the seeds for the catastrophic B* word - which has led to the current shower. Wilson gets a bad press quite often, though I think he did a good job of holding the country together, and there were definitely outside pressures. He did also start the Open University - well at least in his time. I didn’t really like the Callaghan era, though perhaps he wasn’t as bad as I thought at the time. Oddly Wilson and Thatcher were friends, even long after they left office.

So far I think the current government is the worst - no, Maggie was equally bad - given the general circumstances, but perhaps my views are coloured by my opinion of the PM - in each case. The virus pandemic is a difficult one to crack, and any government would find it very hard. One concern might be whether a government is trying to solve the problems due to a virus, or use that as a smokescreen for other nefarious activities. I hope the former, but we need to be aware of other possibilities.

[Joseph K]

Don't get me wrong, I'll still vote Labour. But - I wouldn't want the money I pay them for membership going where it is, hence I quit (though that wasn't the only reason).

I think it's disingenuous, your assessment as to why anyone would speak of socialism and totalitarianism in the same breath - I'd say the most likely explanation is their dislike of socialism.

As for the BBC - well it is biased. Another Angry Voice etc. may well also be biased, though that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not also more accurate and willing to cover stories, for example about the deaths relating to austerity, that the BBC are not!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The Tories collapsed after the Suez crisis, eventually to be bundled from power following the Profumo scandal - which probably wouldn't be tyreated as a scandal were it to happen today.

Maybe Profumo would have been made PM, the way things are.

[LMcD]

Maybe Profumo would have been made PM, the way things are.

Surely a man who lied to his colleagues and/or the electorate could never become Prime Minister?

[french frank]

I think it's disingenuous, your assessment as to why anyone would speak of socialism and totalitarianism in the same breath - I'd say the most likely explanation is their dislike of socialism.

I wonder what you were intending by "disingenuous" which impies a degree of insincerity to which I might object. Ill-informed (frequently), incoherent (so I'm often told, though I understand what I'm getting at), naive (yes), but insincere? Not really. I can't understand why anyone would bother to express an opinion if it wasn't what they thought.

You could be right that the term is being flung around meaninglessly, like "elitist" or "fascist". Would I call socialism totalitarian? Not inherently. But if one looks around the world there have been regimes self-proclaimed as "democratic", "socialist" and "Marxist" that have ended up as totalitarian dictatorships. Did the Marxist Mugabe do anything for his people? No, he ruined the country, but did quite a bit for himself. And that's a common pattern for left wing regimes. But not in the UK?

So why would anyone link socialism and totalitarianism? Possibly a perceived intolerance of alternative views that clash with one's own? The opposite of pluralist is totalitarian, but tolerant democratic pluralism implies cooperation. It demands an electoral system which accurately reflects the multifarious views of the entire population, and for the rulers to live with the results. But the Labour Party has never stood up for a fairer voting system (I go back to the 1988 Fair Votes Campaign which 1,000,000 people signed calling for change). And since then they have regularly ruled out (nationally and locally) sharing power, forming pacts, cooperating with other democratically elected representatives. They've stood on the platform of "Our Way, or No Way." (And anyone else is evil). And it's a position that could lead to totalitarianism, even if it's a totalitarian opposition gaining power. Our system has prevented a takeover so far - it's stopped the Johnson coup, but faced with one side that's ready to overthrow the democratic norms, I'm not comfortable that the other side is too high-minded to try the same, given a change in personalities.

As for the BBC - well it is biased. Another Angry Voice etc. may well also be biased, though that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not also more accurate and willing to cover stories, for example about the deaths relating to austerity, that the BBC are not!

If you stand in between two "extremes" (shorthand) it's almost impossible to stick to an exact halfway point. You will always be castigated for erring in favour of one side or the other. Erring on one side is good/unnoticed, erring on the other is biased - and we have all the figures, the minutes, the chosen speakers; we can prove bias. The point is, the people who claim the BBC is biased are always biased themselves.

[Bryn]

The BBC is at times incredibly biased. For example, only alternative media outlets have been covering the ongoing torture of Julian Assange by Her Majesty's prison service, acting on the orders of UK intelligence services, in turn effectively acting on the orders of US intelligence services. BBC news (other conforming TV news outlets are available) hasn't touched this travesty with a barge pole.

Um, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48473898

and the other side of the coin: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51616077

[Joseph K]

You could be right that the term is being flung around meaninglessly, like "elitist" or "fascist". Would I call socialism totalitarian? Not inherently. But if one looks around the world there have been regimes self-proclaimed as "democratic", "socialist" and "Marxist" that have ended up as totalitarian dictatorships. Did the Marxist Mugabe do anything for his people? No, he ruined the country, but did quite a bit for himself. And that's a common pattern for left wing regimes. But not in the UK?

Yeah, I mean, Hitler called his party National Socialist. I don't consider Hitler to be a socialist. I do consider crucial aspects of Attlee's government, however, to be socialist. I once again would draw your attention to that not leading to totalitarianism.

As for Mugabe - or indeed any kind of dictator like Stalin et al. Yes, I admit that there is authoritarian state capitalism that calls itself socialist. But I fear we're getting away from the point here - the point was that Corbyn is not an authoritarian 'socialist', his is more along the lines of Scandinavian socialism

The trouble is that what left-wing governments have been elected around the world have tended to be seriously undermined by American Imperialism (which other Western countries have been complicit). Take a look at Allende in Chile, for example.

So why would anyone link socialism and totalitarianism? Possibly a perceived intolerance of alternative views that clash with one's own? The opposite of pluralist is totalitarian, but tolerant democratic pluralism implies cooperation. It demands an electoral system which accurately reflects the multifarious views of the entire population, and for the rulers to live with the results. But the Labour Party has never stood up for a fairer voting system (I go back to the 1988 Fair Votes Campaign which 1,000,000 people signed calling for change). And since then they have regularly ruled out (nationally and locally) sharing power, forming pacts, cooperating with other democratically elected representatives. They've stood on the platform of "Our Way, or No Way." (And anyone else is evil). And it's a position that could lead to totalitarianism, even if it's a totalitarian opposition gaining power. Our system has prevented a takeover so far - it's stopped the Johnson coup, but faced with one side that's ready to overthrow the democratic norms, I'm not comfortable that the other side is too high-minded to try the same, given a change in personalities.

Why would Corbyn, who is a democratic socialist, turn the country into a totalitarian state? What evidence do you have that he would overthrow democratic norms?

If you stand in between two "extremes" (shorthand) it's almost impossible to stick to an exact halfway point. You will always be castigated for erring in favour of one side or the other. Erring on one side is good/unnoticed, erring on the other is biased - and we have all the figures, the minutes, the chosen speakers; we can prove bias. The point is, the people who claim the BBC is biased are always biased themselves.

Right - so everyone is biased, but some have chosen the correct side, and some have not.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Um, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48473898

Quite:

and the other side of the coin: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51616077

I didn't have much of a position on Assange, other than disdaining his bail jump and consequent use of police resources. I don't see him as harmless, nor misunderstood and I don't see why he shouldn't be subject to the same legal processes as anyone else.

[Cockney Sparrow]

The necessary swing voters weren't going to, and didn't go for Corbyn MkII, so he wasn't going to get the chance of implementing pure socialism.

And even with a competent leader and party machine occupying the centre ground, Labour will be lucky to deny a Tory majority in 4 years time (almost no matter what Cummings/Johnson do). Labour will be lucky if it has enough MPs to muster a coalition - and if it does, I say lets have a referendum on a constitution that rules out the anti democratic moves which Johnson has and will continue to demonstrate, and enables a form of representation which changes, for ever, FPTP.

[french frank]

Take a look at Allende in Chile, for example.

A good example which makes all the recent cosying up to Putin and Kim Jong Un all the more incomprehensible. I can't explain it other than in thinking that 50 years ago during the Cold War (and Vietnam) the US was edgy about anything calling itself socialist or communist. On the other hand, look at Maduro now ruling 'by decree'.

Why would Corbyn, who is a democratic socialist, turn the country into a totalitarian state? What evidence do you have that he would overthrow democratic norms?

I was not considering Corbyn in particular, nor would I have seen him as a "failed totalitarian dictator", though I think somewhere in his clique there was an authoritarian streak which didn't tolerate dissent. In politics, when discipline and toeing the party/leadership line is invoked matters risk becoming authoritarian.

Right - so everyone is biased, but some have chosen the correct side, and some have not.

I have a sympathy for that view in the times in which we live, though I would not phrase it like that as some sort of natural law.

[Joseph K]

Yes, but not a high-profile TV news report, a much "safer" web page. Still hoping (in vain?) that aspects of his bizarre treatment (including solitary confinement, long-time denial of books or even a radio, denial of access to his case papers, limited access to medical care) might merit headline-status on the BBC's 10 O'clock News given we're a country which routinely calls out other nations' shortcomings on human rights.

[Serial_Apologist]

I wonder what you were intending by "disingenuous" which implies a degree of insincerity to which I might object. Ill-informed (frequently), incoherent (so I'm often told, though I understand what I'm getting at), naive (yes), but insincere? Not really. I can't understand why anyone would bother to express an opinion if it wasn't what they thought.

I would use "disingenuous" as a civilized way of saying that the person so described was overlooking the justifiability of his or her opponent's point of view as a whole, and that we all pick and choose, partly (in my own case) in a futile effort to curtail excessive detail in fear of putting off those who disagree with me on grounds, often rationalisations, that they have better things to do than waste their time on people such as myself! Are ingrained ideas and attitudes impervious to persuasion disingenuous or insincere? It depends of the vibe perceptible in the responses you get. You remain as open-minded as possible, but look at the picture over time and reach your own conclusions!

You could be right that the term is being flung around meaninglessly, like "elitist" or "fascist". Would I call socialism totalitarian? Not inherently. But if one looks around the world there have been regimes self-proclaimed as "democratic", "socialist" and "Marxist" that have ended up as totalitarian dictatorships. Did the Marxist Mugabe do anything for his people? No, he ruined the country, but did quite a bit for himself. And that's a common pattern for left wing regimes. But not in the UK?

The same is true of most religions - even most mainstream religions. Marxist can mean someone who holds to a Marxist interpretation of history without prescriptions for ideal governments beyond generalisations to the effect that socialism would transfer power from those who accumulate the most capital to those who create wealth, and those whose jobs are supportive of them. Or it can mean (and has popularly come to mean) those who actively engage in promoting the acceleration towards that objective. Mugabe described himself, and has been described by others, as a Christian! But I rather think we concur on the point.

So why would anyone link socialism and totalitarianism? Possibly a perceived intolerance of alternative views that clash with one's own? The opposite of pluralist is totalitarian, but tolerant democratic pluralism implies cooperation. It demands an electoral system which accurately reflects the multifarious views of the entire population, and for the rulers to live with the results. But the Labour Party has never stood up for a fairer voting system (I go back to the 1988 Fair Votes Campaign which 1,000,000 people signed calling for change). And since then they have regularly ruled out (nationally and locally) sharing power, forming pacts, cooperating with other democratically elected representatives. They've stood on the platform of "Our Way, or No Way." (And anyone else is evil). And it's a position that could lead to totalitarianism, even if it's a totalitarian opposition gaining power. Our system has prevented a takeover so far - it's stopped the Johnson coup, but faced with one side that's ready to overthrow the democratic norms, I'm not comfortable that the other side is too high-minded to try the same, given a change in personalities.

Possibly, because it is always easier to generalise about "reflecting the views of the electorate as a whole" than positing what those views are, and how and why they (can) change - although I have to question your assertion in the part which I have highlighted. That there are many ways of defining socialism is synonymous with saying there are excusable reasons for denouncing it as a poorly defined concept, over which there would seem to be little consensus, whether from the left, centre or right. For those of my persuasion, any system that refutes or suppresses democracy cannot by definition be socialist - even before we get onto saying what socialism can or does consist in - while for others not so distant from me, including people who left the various Communist parties of the west out of disillusionment, who still nontheless describe post-1917 Russia, the USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia and Cuba (have I left out any?) as socialist, these being (or having been) centralised planned economies which have largely done away with private ownership, but go on to call these examples of bad socialism in operation.

But there are more ways of conceiving democracy than our parliamentarily-based one, with its county, city, parish and district sub-divisions and bureaucracies. Those claiming continuity with some or other Marxist lineage would argue that the self-organisation of those who create the wealth in defense of collectively won rights and their extension into the democratic domain to the point where the question as to who runs society becomes a practicable proposition for taking power away from the class currently at the helm is the most important precondition for change and the subsequent consolidation of power. We've gone a long way from the original demands of "socialism now!" on the first Labour government under Ramsay MacDonald to understanding the process as a succession of incremental steps, underpinned by desiderata arising from a much more sophisticated, less faith-led understanding of the social, psychological and identity factors inhibiting or encouraging change.