Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Are the Tories really the party of the working class? | General Election 2017" video.

Like the Guardian would know anything about the working class!
49
Christopher Stewart No. I don't want your political education. And people already have 'free thought'. Their free thought just happens to disagree with yours. And I don't trust anyone to 'impartially' educate others on politics. There is no such thing as political impartiality. People come to hold their political views due to their life experience. Therefore, impartial political education is impossible. And unnecessary. The only reason why you would want it, is to enforce your political beliefs on others.
10
''...I'm sorry, have you seen how much the Tories have borrowed?'' That's not an answer tho, is it? Either you consider national debt as being a problem, in which case something has to be done about it. Or you don't. In which case it doesn't much matter how much the tories have borrowed. So which is it? As for 'you have to have money, to make money' you seem to be under the impression that you simply feed in a £50 note one end. And get £100 out the other. As if its that simple. There are a whole load of factors that need to be right for massive government spending to produce beneficial economic results. Many outside the control of the government. And many people argue that mass state spending actually has a negative effect on the private sector. The sector that actually makes the money. You really want to trust Corbyn with that? What successes can you point to in his political career? What experience does he have of running a government department? Of running anything? What hard decisions has he had to make during his career? Because if people are gonna vote labour, they are going to give Corbyn a shit load of cash to piss up the wall on fuck knows what. And if it all goes wrong, it'll sink the economy for a generation.
9
No. Actually it ain't. It's born from the exact same psychological need to control others and their lives. Your own words prove that. ''...We need mandatory politics educations for all students as well as a system that encourages free thought'' You effectively want to force political education on people. And as you are intolerant of different opinions, it's not too hard to guess who's political beliefs you would enforce. Nobody forces anyone to watch or read Murdoch media. But you would force others to take part in your political brainwashing. And then have the nerve to call it 'free thought'.
7
Holy shit, they've gone full blown communist! That didn't take long!
6
Someone doesn't know their history!
5
The same goes for your 'truly free press'. No such thing.
5
Not one ferret between the lot of them! XD
4
ABritishOrc I get what you are saying. And wish it was that easy. But it ain't. Obsessing about top earners is not going to wipe away UK debt. And if we want to attract big business to the country, then we have make ourselves a profitable place to be. That is the exact opposite of Corbyn's ideology. Look at his support! Anything isn't better than what the tories are doing. No one likes austerity. The tories don't like austerity. Like any political party that wants votes, they'd much rather be able to give away free stuff! Ask yourself why the EU isn't pumping massive amounts of cash into Greece? After all, if there was a magic formula, why are Greeks suffering from (real) austerity? In fact, if massive government borrowing and spending was a miracle cure-all, why isn't every country doing it, regardless of what debt they have? So I don't believe it will work. And if there was a chance that it could, in the right circumstances, I don't believe Corbyn could deliver it. He's a populist. Who shirks responsibility because he can't make unpopular decisions.
4
I don't think Corbyn supports have realised that when he promises higher spending on the NHS and elderly care, they're actually going to have to pay for it!
3
You'll have to pay more tax. A lot more tax. For a very very long time. You'll have to cover the cost of the services. The cost of the first round of massive public borrowing the labour party gave us. The increased debt you claim the tories gave us. And finally, Corbyn's MASSIVE amounts of borrowing on top of that. How long do you think the country can afford to keep borrowing for? I mean, presumably you recognise there is a problem with having huge debt, or you wouldn't have made the claim that the tories have just added to it?
3
Christopher Stewart No. You advocate it because people don't agree with you on things. So you assume that your way of thinking is the right way of thinking, and that those who disagree with you are not as intelligent as you, and need 'political education' to put them right.
2
And you're a 'libertarian socialist'? How can that be? Those two things are diametrically opposed.
2
downwithjedward Simply because you no longer call 'the state', 'the state', that doesn't make it any less 'the state'. Fuckin lightweight.
2
Christopher Stewart Now you are just being fuckin ridiculous. Libertarian/anarcho-communist? You do know the communist ideology, yes? Now explain to me how you could be a libertarian and a communist? You lecture others on how they should be politically educated, and how they should think 'freely', but at what point did you read the words 'libertarian' and 'communist' in the same sentence and think those two things were in any way compatible?
2
Considering that when socialism is tried, and when it inevitably fails, it is disowned by socialists (the same with communism), what socialism and/or communism actually is, and how it would actually be implemented, varies depending on who you talk to (rather like a religion). So, lets take it that socialism/communism is at its most basic the 'worker owning the means of production'. Collectivisation. Yes? Collectivisation requires the individual to be subservient to the group. Rather like a worker ant. The product of his labour is not his, but the property of the 'collective'. Now, considering a libertarian believes in freedom of choice, political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment (cut and paste job), how could a libertarian be part of a collective in a communist state? Surely the ownership of the individuals time and labour would be considered his own if you were a libertarian? You could, of course, claim that the libertarian is at liberty to voluntarily join a collective. But then a libertarian would also be at liberty to voluntarily join a one party fascist state. At which point, the label 'libertarian' would cease to have any meaning at all. So basically, the word 'libertarian' when put next to the description of someone who is a communist is simply meaningless. It just means the person has, of his own free will, decided to opt for communism. Well, duh!
2
That is not true. It was a six word reply with two full stops.
2
''...terrorist, freedom fighter, it really depends on where you stand'' I see dark days ahead for the left. Playing moral relativism is a dangerous game. Because more than one side can play it. For all Corbyn's talk about peace and tolerance, I just have to read your vile hate-filled vomit you so readily spew out against 'tories' to know where you will end up. Dehumanising your political opponents is something all extremist ideologies do. And the left has been as expert at it as the right. And clearly still is.
2
Mudhar Hadi You do know who Corbyn is right? Because the way your talking, I don't think u do. You think talking up terrorism is gonna get people to vote for Corbyn? Everyone knows his connections with the IRA and as well as jihadist preachers. Hamas and Hezbollah, you heard of them? Corbyn's 'friends'. You ain't a Corbyn supporter, Troll.
2
Holy shit. Corbyn's left are truly vile
2
Lenin was a cold blooded genocidal killer. And Marx was wrong on everything. So its not hard to see why Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin went the way they did. Marxism is all about the subjugation of the individual to the state. Altho, of course, it's not called a state. That's how a lot of Leftist thinking works. Don't like the idea of a state? Rename it something else. Job done. The state no longer exists. Marxism is built on lies. And Marxists are expert liars. Especially to themselves. Capitalist democracy is far superior. Capitalism and democracy work best together. Because, just like a salesman selling his product, political parties must sell their product to the people. And no one wants sell faulty goods. Or they go out of business. Marxism is all about power and control. And that's what Marxists want above all else. Control. The capitalist system is seen as too chaotic. People are free to live how they please. Which is like garlic to a vampire to a Marxist. The massive flaw in Marx's thinking (a flaw that has cost the lives and caused misery of many many millions) is that, whereas capitalism separates the state from how the individual profits from his labour, Marxism does the opposite. So Marxists complain about global corporations having too much power, when they themselves want that power. And much much more. Because, if we are not to trust the big corporations. And if we are not to trust those in political power. Then ffs, why would we give those in political power the power of the big corporations too? You are effectively making those who govern (and who therefore have the power of the state behind them) your employer. But more than that, you are making them the only employer. In a one party state. So now the same people who make and enforce the laws employ you, set your wages, decide where you live, educate you, decide what you read and what you watch. They even decide what food you eat! What could go wrong, right? It's wide open to abuse. Which is why every single time it has been tried, it has been a pitiful disaster. And only a deeply flawed mind could concoct such a bad system. A deeply flawed mind. And an arrogant one. Arrogant to assume that he has the right to control the lives of others, and to decide what's best. And that's what Marxist's want above all else. Control. Which is why they hate independent media. I know Christopher hates independent media. Because he can't control it. For all Christopher's talk of 'free thought', he actually means people should think the way he does. As an example, this is a quote from Christopher from another post: ''...We need mandatory politics educations for all students as well as a system that encourages free thought'' Have you ever read a more chilling sentence in your life? If you read history, you would instantly recognise the type of people who say such things.
1
Christopher Stewart Within a free capitalist society the worker has ownership of his own time. Therefore, he is at liberty to use that time to his own personal benefit. So, once again, taken at its most basic, he can decide to use his time (labour) to benefit himself. You can say that in a capitalist system the worker doesn't actually own the product of his labour (a worker who makes cars doesn't own the car, he is paid for making it). But then the same would apply in a collective car factory (the worker doesn't own the car either). So what is the difference between capitalism and communism? The difference is, that in a capitalist system, the worker is free to use the results of his labour (his wages) to set up his own small business. And others are free to work for him. And in turn be paid for their time (labour). Yes. The worker is beholden to work for his survival. But then can you think of a system where that would not be the case? Slavery, perhaps? What the value of his labour is worth is dependent on what people are willing to pay. If his skills are particularly valuable to society, then he will be paid more for his time than others. The next part of your post is a bit more complicated. Mainly because you have declared that in a 'libertarian socialist' society, there is no state. Once again, we have the problem with definitions. What is a state? And who decides what it is? Ignoring that. You go on to claim that in such a society the ''...individual has total control over their private life''. What are you defining as his 'private life'? His time? How much of an individuals time is his own? Surely, if I were to ask a libertarian, the answer would be 'all of it', yes? Secondly, you appear to be suffering from the Marxist belief that the 'boss' class do no work. While that may be true when it comes to physical labour (but certainly not always), it is actually a pretty juvenile view of how the world works.
1
There is nothing pseudo-scientific about what I have said. It is simple common sense devoid of unnecessary ideological doublespeak. The freedom to fail is as important as the freedom to succeed. A true libertarian (as opposed to someone just using the label in an attempt to hide his authoritarianism) would defend the individuals right to try and fail. And all business have to start somewhere. But in order to guard against failure, you want to abolish success. Or perhaps your true intention is to abolish success? And that concern for failure is simply a way to conceal this? After all, we only have to hear the bile spewed out by your average Socialist Workers Party member against those who succeed financially to recognise that hate, resentment, and jealousy plays a big part in their political ideology. And if we were to apply that same ideology logically, we would have to outlaw all competition. Athletes reach the top because of physical skill and self-discipline. What about those who fail? Artists and writers, should they also be forbidden to profit from their work? You used the argument that 85% of new businesses fail within the first year. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't try? What authority have you to order peoples lives? What makes you right and them wrong? And could you be a real libertarian and advocate such a thing? Nobody claimed the world was meritocratic. But to do away with the individuals right to profit from his own labour is to prohibit a basic freedom. And once you accept that, then all other freedoms are called into question. Which, of course, is why communist societies inevitably descend into authoritarian shitholes.
1
So, assuming downwithjedward has himself read 'Conquest of Bread' by Kropotkin. Perhaps he would like to explain how a libertarian could also be a communist?
1
''because communism is a classless stateless society.'' What constitutes a state? And who defines it? ''Kropotkin rejects the approach of Marx in attempting to use a "workers state" to bring about communism.'' Again, we have the same problem. A 'state' is simply a system of organization based on national borders. You can call it a 'workers state' but it's still the state. So Kropotkin wishes to do away with Marx's 'workers state'? What does this mean? He wants to do away with the workers? (wouldn't be the first time a communist came up with that idea). What system of organisation is he advocating. Hopefully, something more than absolutely no system of organisation at all.
1
“We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.” -Lenin
1
''no one is taking away a persons right to profit from there own labour. except the capitalist boss'' That is exactly what you are advocating. ''...You wish to live in a society where artists have to conform to what a market wants. where market interactions are an indicator of how "talented" an artist or writer is. or how "innovative" a new inventor is.'' Yes. What is the market at its most basic? Buyers. Customers. People. So your question actually reads ''...You wish to live in a society where artists have to conform to what people_want. Where _people decide how "talented" an artist or writer is. Or how "innovative" a new inventor is'' What is wrong with that? I thought the whole idea of Marxism was to empower the people? Is that not true? ''...I want equality of opportunity for all . make a society where the athlete can train...'' The first part of that sentence is in contradiction to the last, surely? What makes an athlete, an athlete? Physical prowess. But all people are not physically equal. ''...or the writer can hone his craft without the need to conform to what markets [people] demand'' Well, ok. So what's stopping them? People have the freedom to spend months writing a novel that no fucker wants to read. We have that now, don't we? ''...in fact theres a consistent theme of artists being attracted to left wing ideologies which I'm sure even you will admit. this is because art isn't necessarily about money.'' That is very true. But all people are not equally artistically talented. Therefore, if we want a world where all are equal, perhaps we should prohibit artists from making a profit from their work. Somehow I'm guessing not many would sign up to that tho. ''...Van Gogh was an abject failure within his own lifetime, so by your own economic system whats the point?'' Idk. Did anyone ask him? Either way, whatever his answer might have been that should not stop other artists from making a profit. ''...but if you reduce art or athleticism to success or failure on market terms like you're doing, your ancap paradise is going to have shite choons m8.'' But isn't good art or music subjective? What is your answer here? Are you advocating that we should do away with art or athletics altogether. Or are you saying that all athletes and artists should be paid for their work regardless of their ability and/or talent? I can see why some artists might be attracted to that idea, yes.
1
downwithjedward No offence, but what you're reading is simply the ramblings of overly educated egotists who dream of playing god with society. Communism. Anarchism. Marxism. Anarcho communism. Its all bollox. I read a lot of history, and the one thing that stands out for me is the arrogance of those who think it's their right to reorder those around them. They're just people who want to stamp their mark on history. They're never the ones who pay the price at the end. And most of those who follow them are looking for a quick fix. An easy answer to complicated questions. From Trump in the US (who knew healthcare could be so complicated?). To Corbyn here (tax the 1%). Only government isn't and shouldn't be about idols and heroes. All they need to do is make sure the bins get emptied and try not to fuck up the economy. Because in a free society, that's the only thing they should be concerned about.
1
When he's got time off from workin down T-pit!
1
Then I guess you better blame terrorism on the labour party then. Who's the leader of the labour party?
1
So Corbyn didn't campaign against bringing IRA terrorists to justice? His links to terrorists are well known. And he had fuck all to do with the Good Friday agreement. The very fact that Corbyn claims he did shows what a liar he is.
1
Mudhar Hadi And they're being arrested at the rate of 1 a day. Not bad, considering they don't arrive with a label saying 'JIHADIST' stuck to their foreheads. Trouble is, IRA Regional Commander Corbyn has voted AGAINST at least 13 new anti-terror laws! Police can't act against terrorism if they don't have the anti-terror laws to back them up! I guess Corbyn could always offer them the UK's total and unconditional surrender. That might appease them.
1
Jaki Florek Millionaires and billionaires pay no tax? Yes they do. If you can't even tell the truth on such a simple matter as that, why should anyone trust you on anything else you say. Liar.
1
And it was capitalism that made all that possible.
1
philajfran I answered your question a while back but you weren't paying attention, were you? Tuff luck! I guess now you'll never know!
1