I tried to start this discussion in the other thread by posting the following ...
It seems particularly pertinent since it is relevant to which way the Labour Party, and consequently its leader, might decide to go. To dismiss followers of Corbyn (or Marxism) as 'young and naive' neglects the fact that Marx understood the nature of labour, and people's relation to it, perhaps better than anyone and modern British society looks to be a direct result of his ideas of alienation.
Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, the level of debate was poor. Apparently, the benefits of capitalism are that you can post on a message board with a £1000 phone (well that's really worth the climate catastrophe) and apparently I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer for not seeing the benefits of capitalism. Ironically, socialism gets roundly condemned for suppressing individual freedoms but capitalism too has an in-built mechanism for doing so. Anyone seen Invasion of the Bodysnatchers ? Evidently, to raise (or rather re-iterate) the idea that capitalism may be inappropriate for our modern economy is a heresy which must not be spoken. In fact, it appears that many people have great difficulty in expounding its virtues (I could, but that's not the point - everyone should be able to).
Another heresy that must not be spoken, is that Marx envisaged communism as a system for developed, not developing, societies. The main criticisms stem from its application in countries which are developing and so, therefore, seem to be missing the point. Even within those criticisms, there is an innate neglect of what socialism (since communism cannot be achieved on a short timescale) achieved. Prior to the October revolution, Russia was an agrarian, feudal society. Within 50 years, it was a superpower on the world stage - almost America's equal ; and that despite being dragged into the Second World War (anyone who thinks 'we' won the war should consider Russia's contribution - it was Russia that really put in the hard yards). It really was an astonishing achievement. Similarly, you might look at China. Of course, no one is denying that individual freedoms were/are suppressed to achieve this but you might also consider what the plight of those people would have been under the rule of a brutal Tsar.
The idea that we need a mix of the two seems to be common ; that capitalism has its flaws. Yet it would seem to me that we are far from that. Since Thatcher famously banged Hayek's Road to Serfdom on the table, there have are right wingers who believe it to be the bible and that markets are the most efficient form of government (as opposed to the US where the markets ARE the government). This, as I say, despite the fact that such an approach essentially led to the destruction of the value of capital in the financial crisis. The idea of austerity (which went against Keynesian economics which even previous Tories had been happy to sign up to in the past) was rammed down our throats as the panacea for the ills of the country's finances. Yet, rather beneficially for the aforementioned right wingers, this meant smaller government and less intervention and more 'government' by market forces. Is it a surprise that we are where we are now ? Food banks, failing NHS and corporations creatively dodging paying tax ... and a populace obsessed with low taxation (and dodging thereof) as though the NHS will somehow find a magic money tree. Bring in private medical insurance, see how people feel about paying that.
In any case, the economic system that we have now is far removed from capitalism. We have a few megacorporations running monopolies and setting their own pricing ; the ideas expounded in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations seem quaint in comparison.
The Labour movement was born out of working people educating themselves. Does it not strike anyone as ironic that the quality of state education might not be great. I'm reverting to the 'not like in my day' approach although I don't believe my 70s school education was as good as the 50s school education that my parents received, though I did go to uni at a time when working class kids could get grants to do so. Considering the mechanisms for self-education, libraries are closing left, right and centre and access to higher and further education is becoming a costly endeavour. The Open University is pretty much on its knees at a time when it should be thriving. Why do state schools no longer strive to provide an education equivalent to private schools ? It is almost like working people are not supposed to educate themselves - or at least only do so by clicking links on a phone and reading information which hasn't been subjected to any rigorous scrutiny. The argument 'but look what happened in Russia' is not the definitive argument against socialism.