web analytics

IS CORBYN THE NEW STALIN?

By Pete Moore On November 6th, 2019

Boris has compared Grandad Semtex to Josef Stalin over his “hatred of wealth creators”. The Prime Minister also asserted that the privately-educated, millionaire Labour leader demonises the wealthy with a “relish and a vindictiveness” not seen since the former Soviet leader persecuted landowners in the 1930s. It’s a fair charge in truth. Corbyn has a hatred of private wealth. Anything beyond state control illegitimate in his eyes. We don’t need to worry about Corbyn-led pogroms, gulags and mass murder, however. If Corbyn makes it to Downing Street John McDonnell will arrange his accident and take over all that.

Anyway, here’s Corbyn’s old girlfriend and Labour’s prospective Minister of Internal Affairs, Diane Abbott, praising Mao for doing “more good than harm”.

62 Responses to “IS CORBYN THE NEW STALIN?”

  1. Boris has compared Grandad Semtex to Josef Stalin

    Pete

    This is the Torygraph headline you are linking to: “Boris Johnson compares Jeremy Corbyn to Stalin”

    I find it interesting how you have chosen to represent the three names in your version. The Torygraph is Johnson’s most toadying cheerleader among the Tory press (sorry Daily Express, there can only be one winner for now, but you have five weeks to catch up!) But even it has (at least for now) dropped the “Boris” schtic, it’s too shamelessly partisan. But not for you it seems?

  2. Grow the middle classes, no good having a country top-heavy with millionaires, whilst millions of people are squeezed. The hidden costs of that are wasting billions on more prisons, courts, addiction from gambling,drugs,prostitution,run down health and social services, not to mention crime increase and social disorder. Its a nightmare.
    You need wealth creators, decent employment, housing etc and you don’t get that by having 1% owning 99% of the wealth. This is not too difficult to grasp petem.

  3. You need wealth creators, decent employment, housing etc and you don’t get that by having 1% owning 99% of the wealth. This is not too difficult to grasp petem.

    Good luck with that Kurt.

  4. Peter –

    You’re right, not me.

    The left has spent decades smashing traditions, hierarchies, rules and titles. Then suddenly it’s outraged at the Prime Minister being widely referred to as Boris.

    So screw the left. Boris it is.

  5. kurt –

    The top 1 percent doesn’t own 99 percent of the wealth. (What do you think this is, a socialist state?)

    But the top 1 percent pays some 37 percent of income tax, and it pays more income tax than the bottom 90 percent of income tax victims combined.

    https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

  6. So screw the left. Boris it is.

    Nah Pete

    Their names are Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn. And I don’t recall previous PMs being called “Theresa” or “David” or “Gordon”. They were always referred to by their full names.

    So anyone who insists on referring to the current PM as “Boris” is an ass-licker, imho. Why the **** should he be treated differently? Does he walk on water or something? Or is it just because he lies shamelessly?

  7. peter labour are screwed mainly cos of their ambivalence on brexit . Tom watson just stepped down. People are just gonna vote for Brexit or Against via a GE, so libs will do well i reckon.
    It will just be funny if a “degenerate commie” to quote petem rides into Westminister because the Right and the Far Right split the vote. All I’m hoping for in this election.

    People would always say why isn’t their just on unionist party not 2
    They don’t understand the psychology of the crook, someone gotta be top dog
    Same as with Farage and Johnson, they’d stab each other in the back as soon as look at each other. I call it the moral degeneracy and hopeless corruption of right wing politics. 🙂

  8. But the top 1 percent pays some 37 percent of income tax, and it pays more income tax than the bottom 90 percent of income tax victims combined.

    LOL

    Don’t you see the connection Pete? In a totally unequal society the top 1% would pay all the tax because they would have all of the taxable income. The fact that they pay more than the bottom 90% is a reflection of the vast disparity in incomes which has continued to get worse under neo-liberalism, which you profess to despise, or do you?

    And of course income tax is only part of the story. Many of the top 1% pay no income tax whatsoever because they don’t need income, they live off their capital, usually stashed abroad.

  9. Peter –

    Boris gets treated differently because it winds up people who deserve to be wound up.

    kurt –

    I suspect that Tom Watson stood down eother because he’s seen internal polling for his Leave-voting constituency, or because John McDonnell threatened his kneecaps.

  10. Is it required that a UK resident / citizen disclosure offshore income and pay tax on it

    It is here

    Not that they all disclose it, even now

  11. Boris gets treated differently because it winds up people who deserve to be wound up.

    Ok Pete, cheating lying Boris it is then.

  12. But the top 1 percent pays some 37 percent of income tax, and it pays more income tax than the bottom 90 percent of income tax victims combined.

    I know you don’t like it, but the way libs and dems view that is simple
    The have the broadest shoulders .. its NOT unfair ..

  13. Is it required that a UK resident / citizen disclosure offshore income and pay tax on it

    Yes Phantom. But income can be paid into offshore trusts and there are many other wheezes. If you are “non-domiciled” you can still be UK-resident but only pay a flat charge of £30,000 no matter how high your income:

    https://www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/non-domiciled-residents

  14. Top Americans incomes are taking in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.

    https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/#income-inequality

    Bring back Stalin

  15. Top Americans incomes are taking in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.

    Yes Kurt, and Pete Moore and his fellow-travellers hereabouts think that’s a beautiful thing and we need more of it.

  16. yes peter its moral degeneracy and preversion
    Petem would do a great Gen.Ripper in Dr.Strangelove
    “That how your hard core commie works – fluoridation
    clip Mandrake and Gen Ripper
    https://youtu.be/0he-LZNzVg0

  17. Boris gets treated differently because it winds up people who deserve to be wound up

    Was he not a treacherous weakling, or words to that effect, a fortnight or so ago?

  18. “Yes Kurt, and Pete Moore and his fellow-travellers hereabouts think that’s a beautiful thing and we need more of it.”

    And so do you.

    Much of the world live on $2 a day, while you, likely a member of the global 1% or 2% yourself, live on far more.

    And of course you oppose any of them bettering their lot by immigrating as cheap labour, even if that would save you money, because neoliberal something something.

  19. How have an the most enormous number of immigrants now in the UK.

    How many more could you possibly long for?

  20. easy frank random bullet sprays tend to end up shooting yourself in the foot
    somewhere in that meltdown/rant is an idea possibly .. how bout do 30 mins Yoga and represent

  21. And so do you. Much of the world live on $2 a day, while you, likely a member of the global 1% or 2% yourself, live on far more.

    And of course you oppose any of them bettering their lot by immigrating as cheap labour, even if that would save you money, because neoliberal something something.

    Frank

    I used to understand you and thought that we were mostly on the same page.

    I can’t do much about someone in Zambia living on $2 a day and to be honest I care a lot more about people in Belfast living on the breadline due to neo-liberalism. That includes outsourcing of jobs to China and Tory austerity since 2010. You appear to be totally cool with those, so it seems that our ways have parted. From my perspective you are on the same side as Pete Moore. No doubt you will correct me if I’m wrong.

  22. So if you get 10,000 poor foreigners to work in Belfast for $4 a day, a 100% raise from what they get now, that’s gonna make everyone in Belfast a king?

    I bloody well doubt that.

  23. So if you get 10,000 poor foreigners to work in Belfast for $4 a day, a 100% raise from what they get now, that’s gonna make everyone in Belfast a king?

    Such a move would be illegal for reasons discussed here before.

    And now we go back to the circular arguments.

  24. //IS CORBYN THE NEW STALIN?//

    No. There is no comparison between Jeremy Corbyn and Starlin. That is as moronic and idiotic as claiming that London is as bad as South Africa for murders.

  25. Bullshit.

    Some of these guys, not sure about Frank, but Pete for sure, want to get rid of minimum wage protections. Which could be done.

    And this is an academic argument, so no need for constant war room rapid response contradicting.

    If it was possible to ship 10,000 foreigners in on the next boat who were willing to work for less than any Belfast worker would accept ( lets leave the wage numbers out so no one points out minimum wage ) Frank thinks that would make everyone richer. Well, no. That is simply not so, for multiple reasons, and it would be socially ruinous.

    If it were so, the logical response would be to ship 10 million persons into the US to undercut the wages of 10 million now redundant Americans and some would think that would make every man a king.

    No.

  26. kurt,

    Its a nightmare. You need wealth creators, decent employment, housing etc and you don’t get that by having 1% owning 99% of the wealth. This is not too difficult to grasp petem.

    You might be a little out there Kurt. In the UK the top 1% own about 25% of the wealth I believe.

  27. In Cuba, wealth is presumably spread evenly.

    But there is poverty everywhere you look.

    What’s so terrible about having a Bezos become very rich by reason of great intelligence, hard work and skill?

  28. It is understood, Paul that to undercut the wages of minimum wage workers ( which some think is a brilliant idea ) that you’d have to repeal the minimum wage. We know, we know.

    And we know that is not likely. Surely all know that too.

    This is an academic discussion with neoliberal extremists who propose policies that work great in their texts, not so well in the world where actual persons walk and live and work.

    It is like saying ” communism would be so great because some jerk professor said so ” only to have some over eager student pop up and say ” but that would not be legal “. We know, we know.

  29. “That is simply not so, for multiple reasons”

    I look forward to the day you provide one.

  30. Replacing low wage workers with starvation wage workers, which is what you propose to do, would save the bosses some wage costs.

    The starving scab workers would have less money to spend in the economy, which means less money circulating to the local stores, etc.

    The newly poorer former low wage workers would be on welfare, paid for by taxes. Their income would be less, and it would mean that they are a burden to the taxpayer not a net payer into the tax.

    There would be significant social conflict between the starving scabs and the welfare recipients who you threw out of their jobs, and riots and conflict are really bad for the economy.

    Apart from the above, your plan is excellent. Wages are low, hunger is more widespread, but the bosses save a few bucks so to hell with the workers.

  31. “I can’t do much about someone in Zambia living on $2 a day”

    There’s lots you could do

    https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism

    Also you could just do nothing, i.e. stop opposing the mechanisms that are getting hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty daily, and have made global inequality fall over the last decades. Yes that does mean trading with the world’s poor, which makes them richer as well as us.

  32. So if you get 10,000 poor foreigners to work in Belfast for $4 a day, a 100% raise from what they get now, that’s gonna make everyone in Belfast a king?

    To be clear, I was referring to jobs being shipped abroad, not mass immigration. Although neo-liberalism demands that both happen in a borderless world.

    But the most important freedom for the neo-liberals is the freedom to shift their wealth into tax havens and leave it there. Unless they decide to ship to another tax haven, eg. if Tax Haven A introduces a tax of 1% they will shift to Tax Haven B which has a rate of 0%. And the neo-liberal cheerleaders hereabouts will cheer them on. They know who they are, but I’m not sure if they really understand the game being played and how they are such useful fools for the billionaire neo-liberal freeloaders. Maybe they just hope they will make enough dosh to join them some day?

  33. Frank

    I have no problem with charitable giving. And if you want to help Africa to trade its way out of poverty you should stop being such a shill for the EU. Because as I’m sure you know the CAP is the biggest protectionist racket on the planet, bar none. And yes, I know that they have reduced tariffs against African food, but they are still massively subsidising their own farmers, so there is no real “free trade”. Every sheep that you see in the fields of the UK is only there because of subsidy, but you know that of course.

  34. Such theory Is economically every bit as Cruel to the worker and unrealistic on the ground as the economic theories of Pol pot or Mao

    And are far worse than those of Fidel Castro and Chavez

  35. I would support more robust trade with the poor world

    That’s a realistic solution That actually does have reciprocal benefits

  36. ???

  37. Peter

    I speak of Franks plan of firing your low wage workers and replacing them with foreigners Who would do the job for a fraction of the already low wage the previous worker was getting

    I couldn’t possibly think of a worse plan for anything!

  38. Extremist economic policies mean they the worker gets it in the neck every time

    This theory would have nearly everyone at a starvation wage

    A Very big chunk of the workforce Could be replaced by someone wiling do the job for a dollar an hour

    For The purpose of this discussion, I don’t care primarily about the foreigner . I care about the American or British or Irish worker as respect work in their own countries. That’s not base protectionism, That’s common sense

    Which is why what Frank proposes has never been implemented in any country at any time

  39. Yes Phantom

    The divide is now between the neo-liberal globalists and the rest of us. But there are many moving pieces and it will take years to settle down. For example:

    1. The Trumpists are mostly nationalists but they are led by globalists like Trump and his crony-capitalist pals who pretend to be nationalists. Because Trump’s business interests span the globe and he will never put them in second place to anything else, including his own people getting a fair deal.

    2. So-called leftists who are also neo-liberals, because they believe in a borderless world in the name of “world justice” or whatever. They ignore or even despise those who say they should put their own countries first, eg by restricting mass-immigration which drives down wages especially at the lower end of the market, builders, plumbers, drivers etc. See Frank above, and also leftist supporters of the EU.

    3. Shameless Tory reactionaries like Pete Moore. Who pretend not to be shameless Tory reactionaries, but every policy they support is shameless and Tory and reactionary.

  40. “Replacing low wage workers with starvation wage workers, which is what you propose to do, would save the bosses some wage costs.”

    Replacing low wage (or any) workers with machines, which work almost for free, and which has already happened many times over the last two centuries, is even more “extreme” and has worked out very well.

  41. “And if you want to help Africa to trade its way out of poverty you should stop being such a shill for the EU”

    What on Earth are you talking about?

  42. I’d take Trumpist crony capitalism over pure left or right pie in the sky proposals any day

    I do not see Trump as a true. globalist. He is mostly good on immigration, he Wants to sharply restrict trade, For both good and bad reasons

    A true globalist wants as few border controls as possible, Moving quickly to no border controls at all,And wants unlimited trade with starvation wage countries

  43. Replacing half the workers with machines, and the other half with people willing to work for a 1/10 of the salary is not a recipe for success for anybody

    Would be way less money circulating, and the tax base would be crushed

  44. False comparison Frank and you know it. We live in a service economy now and the comparison is mostly not between low wage workers and machines but between low wage workers and even lower wage workers. If I owned a cheap hotel chain in Britain I would wont free movement of labour just as much as ever possible. Because what could possibly happen to my wage bill? It could only go in one direction. I’m sure you get that.

  45. This would be a recipe for the worst riots that your countries or ours have ever seen

    Because the working class, Near the bottom of the ladder, would be left entirely without hope for themselves or their children for all time

    And they would react

    I can’t believe that anybody thinks this is a good idea

  46. “I do not see Trump as a true. globalist”

    FFS…He wants to build a fricking wall and start a trade war, and you suspect he’s not a “true” globalist? By George, you may be onto something! He isn’t any kind of globalist.

  47. He Has outsourced his wife production

    Eastern Europeans are doing the work that American women refused to do

  48. The trade war with China has some great validity to it

    China has many predatory practices re trade

    All the presidents from Jimmy Carter to Obama didn’t do much about that.

    At least Trump, in his own way, is trying to do something.

    Trump deserves at least partial praise for what he is trying to do with China

  49. I’d take Trumpist crony capitalism over pure left or right pie in the sky proposals any day

    Phantom

    Trump is 100% pro Wall Street and is pumping stocks every time he opens his mouth. Surely we can do better? Unless that’s what we have to accept as capitalism in 2019? It’s either Trump or Putin or the guy in China or the guys in Venezuela or Colombia? Shit, let’s go back to wherever we can to avoid those bastards, all of the sobs.

  50. “We live in a service economy now”

    Washing and drying dishes used to be a service. Now it’s a machine. So too working in the fields, which once was pretty much what everybody did, all the the time. Now mostly machines. Developing photographs used to be a service. Now it’s machines (it was also machines just before it disappeared entirely). Getting from A to B used to be a service, now mostly machines. Making clothes, etc. And on and on.

    The list of services which have not just been offshored but offplaneted is very long.

    People performing services at a lower price than the next guy is not a new thing either. Again, it’s worked out brilliantly for centuries.

    Even on recent immigration, Seamus has provided studies that show the opposite of what you claim, and you just ignore them.

  51. FFS…He wants to build a fricking wall and start a trade war, and you suspect he’s not a “true” globalist? By George, you may be onto something! He isn’t any kind of globalist.

    No Frank, a true globalist is against all borders and all trade barriers, surely you get that? I suspect that you only need to look in the mirror, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

  52. Peter

    I do not support Trumpism

    But give me trump any day of the week before Giving me Starvation wages for all

    You can’t starve your way to success!

  53. Even on recent immigration, Seamus has provided studies that show the opposite of what you claim, and you just ignore them.

    He has? Have the laws of economics been suspended, as in a greater supply does not lead to lower prices? Because you seem to be arguing that the greater the supply (from machines) the lower the price. But this does not hold if the greater supply is dishwasher workers from Poland lowering the wages of dishwasher workers from Ireland, in fact it increases their wages?

    Who knew this economic nirvana could happen? If so we need to open the floodgates as wide as possible, in fact let’s abolish all immigration controls asap and enjoy a huge increase in prosperity. Come one, come all! You know you want to. Globalists of the word unite! You have nothing to lose except those socialist minimum wage rates!

  54. You can’t starve your way to success!

    That’s not what I’m arguing Phantom, see my above to neo-liberal Frank and his pals.

  55. Peter

    No, you and I are substantially in agreement on this

  56. I am only saying that the usually correct Frank is wrong here

    I choose Trump economics and immigration policy over Frank’s any day

    But I’d rather have you in charge of these things

  57. “ Have the laws of economics been suspended, as in a greater supply does not lead to lower prices?”

    It does if demand stays the same. But there is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy. It’s not musical chairs.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

  58. Will it be good for the British economy if you yourself are replaced by a bright young guy or girl college graduate with experience from Bangalore willing to do the same work for 50% of the pay?

    Because if you can arrange for the British govt to sign off on that modest proposal, it’s plausible that this could be done.

    Doing this on a wholesale basis would not be good for the British economy!

  59. “ Will it be good for the British economy if you yourself are replaced by a bright young guy or girl college graduate with experience from Bangalore willing to do the same work for 50% of the pay?”

    Of course. But I wouldn’t be replaced as there is unfulfilled demand for what I do. We’d find them a new desk.
    For the same reason they wouldn’t be working for half the pay (or else they wouldn’t be that bright after all, or else they would be working from Bangalore).

    This kind of thing already happens, I already work alongside people who are here from outside the country and EU, and I’ve often worked in places where much of the team was in remote locations.

    Again, you are a believer in the lump of labour fallacy. It depends on how demand relates and responds to supply, and also on the alternatives that people have. We don’t have to speculate either as there’s already been immigration and the things you predict didn’t happen, aka your theory is wrong.

  60. “The starving scab workers would have less money to spend in the economy, which means less money circulating to the local stores, etc.”

    The “bosses” (who are overwhelmingly small business owners employing only a few people) generally sell goods at the cheapest price they can to make a profit. That is the major impact of a global economy. The cost of the good is the base cost, plus overheads from running the shop, plus a small margin for profit. If it only cost $2 to make the product, and only cost $1 on overheads, and the “boss” sells it for $20 then eventually someone is going to undercut him and sell it for $4. So most of them sell it for $4 to make sure that doesn’t happen.

    So if the base cost of the good is cheaper, because of free trade, then the cost of the good in the shop is cheaper. If the overheads are cheaper, because of cheaper wages, then the cost of the good in the shop is cheaper. Lower priced goods and lower wages do not pad the pockets of the “bosses”. It pads the pockets of their customers by enabling to buy the same good at cheaper prices.

    So why should we do this? Because food is cheaper. Clothes are cheaper. Steel is cheaper. Cars are cheaper.

  61. So why should we do this? Because food is cheaper. Clothes are cheaper. Steel is cheaper. Cars are cheaper.

    But wages have been cut as a percentage of the economy and profits have advanced. As Marx noted (and no, I’m not a Marxist) one of the contradictions of capitalism is that the capitalists are incentivised to cut their wage bills but if they do that their workers will eventually not be able to afford the goods and services produced. That’s exactly what has happened since the neo-liberals took control in the 1980s – wages for the 90% have stagnated and profits have roared ahead. Living standards in the global north have only been maintained by ever-increasing debt.

    And a big reason for the increase in profits is because multi-national companies have outsourced their production to China and Vietnam and India and shifted their profits into tax havens and spent their profits on share buy-backs and takeovers in order to reduce competition and promote monopolies. All cheered on by the neo-liberal bandwagon, including a few hereabouts, they know who they are.

  62. I oppose the “ starve the workers to make everyone rich” economic philosophy.