Let me put it this way. George Cayley did not build a successful powered aircraft – and maybe never would have been able to. But no one would argue that his work as a theorist was not relevant or insightful.

Was comparing, yes. Not saying the workings of political ‘science’ are rigorous in the way those of real science are. Much more that some insights, if carefully worked through and intelligently explained, do not automatically lose validity with age.

They can get increasingly corrupted through deliberate misinterpretation, though. While it’s less likely to happen in astrophysics, it’s very likely in politics. For example, there’s nothing remotely socialist about paying anyone capable of work not to. Extreme Liberal maybe, but Labour was called that for a reason.

But they were not ‘teachings’, Marx was trying to understand how it all worked, and attempting some theories about this of his own. Yes, it was how it all worked in the 19th century, but one can’t have ‘oh, it’s human nature, and that never changes, so Socialism won’t ever work’ and ‘oh, that was the 19th Century, things change so Socialism won’t work’ as consistent arguments.

A lot of insights into how things work remain valid, even when further developed later. Archimedes, Galileo, Newton.

Thinking that the work of Marx or other theorists was only relevant to mill workers paid by ‘mean’ owners in Top hats, just because a lot of wealth came from owning mills at the time and a lot of those people wore top hats, is like thinking the world became the centre if the universe again once we stopped wearing pantaloons and codpieces – or developed the radio telescope.

In point of fact many 19th century industrialists had a habit of redistributing wealth almost spontaneously. They wouldn’t last five minutes in business today for that very reason. That HAS changed.

Point taken about the ‘no labour’ difference. Where do you stand on in-work benefits and pensions (the far greater portion of the benefits bill)?

Is it not exactly that – increasing one’s wealth beyond ones labours – that right wingers accuse socialists of promoting? Benefits etc? Or is it ok if you have money already, but morally wrong if you don’t?

You raise a good point about retail. I don’t think it’s even on the socialist radar, not being ‘production’. But I don’t know!

Yes. He was abusive, and I don’t need that kind of thing.

I’m not surprised the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister feels that way – he must be costing a fortune in Ferrero Rocher.

And calling it the ‘Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’ does suggest they presuppose each detention they ‘work’ on to be arbitrary. It has to be to justify their existence, hence the 99%

Utter nonsense. He is avoiding extradition following the issue of a warrant for his arrest by skulking in an embassy, not being ‘arbitrarily detained’ by anyone.

Still, not a reason to lower our own standards.