Corbyn - A Marxist's take

[Hibbyradge]

Here's an absolutely astonishing and brilliantly argued piece of polemic and analysis from a Marxist academic on why Corbyn's re-election would be a disaster for the Labour Party, the Left and the dispossessed!

This is one of the most impressive articles that I've read in some time and I agree with almost everything he says. Having said that, I was never a supporter of the "long game".

I did, however, try to start a debate about whether Corbyn's electability could increase if the party offered PR as a policy, but it didn't get any traction on here. I'm pleased to read that someone else agrees with me.

Maybe he should just F off to the Tory party where he belongs, though.

https://medium.com/@matatatatat/the-terrifying-hubris-of-corbynism-6590054a9b57#.b05z1gc3h

[High-On-Hibs]

So many words, so little substance. It's an opinionated piece which carries no real weight or evidence. The article is also full of contradictions. For example, the author claims that Corbyn supporters are actually green liberal supporters who are joining merely as a gesture? Which makes no logical sense. Because if that were the case, then they would simply join the Green Party instead. The fact that they've joined Labour would demonstrate that they actually believe Labour can win an election under Corbyn, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. The article is also highly dismissive of the huge increase in membership, writing them off as lazy people who won't put the "boring campaign" work in. Which again is completely illogical, as it would suggest that the author some how believes that people who are not members or engaged in political parties would some how work harder when campaigning, which is completely nonsensical. If Labour are worried about losing the next election, then perhaps they should focus more on recruiting even more members to encourage them to go out and campaign, rather than slapping a £25 price tag on the membership fee in the hope of rigging their disaster of a divisive leadership election.

But that's not enough for you is it? You've convinced yourself that a status quo statesman like politician is exactly what Labour needs. Despite the fact that people in this country have been completely disillusioned by this kind of politics for years now. The fact that Labours statesman like MPs are turning against him will only make his own position stronger to the general public. No amount of inner party sabotage will prevent his outer support from growing.

[RyeSloan]

Seemed a bit hysterical to me...the only thing standing in the way of forced deportations is the Labour Party? Really?

I get his general point though although not sure I agree with it nor would I call it brilliant but there you go.

[Hibbyradge]

So many words, so little substance. It's an opinionated piece which carries no real weight or evidence. The article is also full of contradictions. For example, the author claims that Corbyn supporters are actually green liberal supporters who are joining merely as a gesture? Which makes no logical sense. Because if that were the case, then they would simply join the Green Party instead. The fact that they've joined Labour would demonstrate that they actually believe Labour can win an election under Corbyn, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. The article is also highly dismissive of the huge increase in membership, writing them off as lazy people who won't put the "boring campaign" work in. Which again is completely illogical, as it would suggest that the author some how believes that people who are not members or engaged in political parties would some how work harder when campaigning, which is completely nonsensical. If Labour are worried about losing the next election, then perhaps they should focus more on recruiting even more members to encourage them to go out and campaign, rather than slapping a £25 price tag on the membership fee in the hope of rigging their disaster of a divisive leadership election.

But that's not enough for you is it? You've convinced yourself that a status quo statesman like politician is exactly what Labour needs. Despite the fact that people in this country have been completely disillusioned by this kind of politics for years now. The fact that Labours statesman like MPs are turning against him will only make his own position stronger to the general public. No amount of inner party sabotage will prevent his outer support from growing.

You've read this from the usual Trot attitude of "I must find something to disagree with". Fair enough, that's your choice.

You've clearly misunderstood his comments about the £3 membership, deliberately or not, but again, that's your choice. It'sinteresting that your entire argument was from your flawed take on his words about that, however.

Your antagonistic remark "But that's not enough for you, is it" is utterly unnecessary, but consistent with your trolling behaviour.

I will respond to your subsequent point, however. I want someone at the top of the Labour Party who is a leader, not a protester.

If that's your definition of a status quo politician, then you're correct.

I remember during a pay campaign in the 80s, several civil service unions were on strike and there were protest rallies and marches around the country.

The SWP had placards which said, "Don't sell out on Pay"! 😂😂😂

[High-On-Hibs]

You've read this from the usual Trot attitude of "I must find something to disagree with". Fair enough, that's your choice.

You've clearly misunderstood his comments about the £3 membership, deliberately or not, but again, that's your choice. It'sinteresting that your entire argument was from your flawed take on his words about that, however.

Your antagonistic remark "But that's not enough for you, is it" is utterly unnecessary, but consistent with your trolling behaviour.

I will respond to your subsequent point, however. I want someone at the top of the Labour Party who is a leader, not a protester.

If that's your definition of a status quo politician, then you're correct.

I remember during a pay campaign in the 80s, several civil service unions were on strike and there were protest rallies and marches around the country.

The SWP had placards which said, "Don't sell out on Pay"! 

Yeah, well perhaps you should get your head out of the 80s. Because that's not where we are anymore. You hold the dull view that politics never changes in this country and therefore the same statesmanship crap should work every single time. People have had enough of it. You call Corbyn a protester not a leader. It's you lot that are doing all of the protesting against him. It's pathetic.

[Just Alf]

Tend to quite enjoy the the back on forth on here... i often imagine that if i met netters in the pub itd be a hoot.... just a shame theres always one (despite me having sympathy for a lot of their points) that makes me glad it doesnt happen that often.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Yeah, well perhaps you should get your head out of the 80s. Because that's not where we are anymore. You hold the dull view that politics never changes in this country and therefore the same statesmanship crap should work every single time. People have had enough of it. You call Corbyn a protester not a leader. It's you lot that are doing all of the protesting against him. It's pathetic.

'You lot'...just who might they be?

[Pretty Boy]

'You lot'...just who might they be?

The poster in question just likes to attribute views to people to further his own argument whether they have expressed those view or not.

I'm a Tory, business hating, war mongering and lazy and I didn't even know it.

[jacomo]

Here's an absolutely astonishing and brilliantly argued piece of polemic and analysis from a Marxist academic on why Corbyn's re-election would be a disaster for the Labour Party, the Left and the dispossessed!

This is one of the most impressive articles that I've read in some time and I agree with almost everything he says. Having said that, I was never a supporter of the "long game".

I did, however, try to start a debate about whether Corbyn's electability could increase if the party offered PR as a policy, but it didn't get any traction on here. I'm pleased to read that someone else agrees with me.

Maybe he should just F off to the Tory party where he belongs, though.

https://medium.com/@matatatatat/the-terrifying-hubris-of-corbynism-6590054a9b57#.b05z1gc3h

You're right, it's a fine piece of analysis. Thanks for posting.

The U.K. is a parliamentary democracy (in fact, a number of them). Aside from everything else, Labour simply have to up their game in Westminster - even if a large number of people now openly deride MPs as 'all the same'.

Corbyn has now made too many tactical and strategic mistakes to continue - anti-semitism, Remain campaign, article 50. Following the Brexit vote, the game has changed.

[Mr White]

I'm a Tory

I knew it, I ****ing knew it :grr:

[High-On-Hibs]

Corbyn has now made too many tactical and strategic mistakes to continue - anti-semitism, Remain campaign, article 50. Following the Brexit vote, the game has changed.

Can you actually give any examples of this anti-semitism? Instead of just assuming that there was, because of the way it was reported. Labour got the strongest support for remain compared to every other political party. Even with certain MPs in the party doing their best to create the conditions they needed for a coup.

[jacomo]

Can you actually give any examples of this anti-semitism? Instead of just assuming that there was, because of the way it was reported. Labour got the strongest support for remain compared to every other political party. Even with certain MPs in the party doing their best to create the conditions they needed for a coup.

Plenty of Jewish supporters have serious concerns about an anti-Semitic tone. Obi Wan Corbyn himself equated Israel to Daesh, which he subsequently retracted as a clumsy choice of words. Given the context, it was another needless own goal.

Personally I don't think Corbyn is anti-Semitic but his supporters throw around words like Zionism without really understanding them.

I definitely think there is a grown up debate to be had about the failures to find a just and lasting peace for Palestine, but that is becoming impossible in the current atmosphere.

EDIT: as for your point about the EU Referendum, I agree that Corbyn was not responsible for losing it. But he didn't make a memorable contribution to the Remain cause either.

[(((Fergus)))]

Hardly surprising. Anti-semitism is rife in public school circles.

[High-On-Hibs]

Hardly surprising. Anti-semitism is rife in public school circles.

:faf:

[High-On-Hibs]

Plenty of Jewish supporters have serious concerns about an anti-Semitic tone. Obi Wan Corbyn himself equated Israel to Daesh, which he subsequently retracted as a clumsy choice of words. Given the context, it was another needless own goal.

Personally I don't think Corbyn is anti-Semitic but his supporters throw around words like Zionism without really understanding them.

I definitely think there is a grown up debate to be had about the failures to find a just and lasting peace for Palestine, but that is becoming impossible in the current atmosphere.

EDIT: as for your point about the EU Referendum, I agree that Corbyn was not responsible for losing it. But he didn't make a memorable contribution to the Remain cause either.

They're concerned about the anti-Semitic tone that they hear about through the media in regards to the Labour Party. Despite there being no evidence of this at all. People may have different views on the Israeli situation that don't chime with the western narrative. That doesn't make them anti-Semitic in any way. Disagreeing with the actions of someone who happens to be Jewish or a country that embraces the Jewish faith, is not anti-Semitic.

[Future17]

Plenty of Jewish supporters have serious concerns about an anti-Semitic tone. Obi Wan Corbyn himself equated Israel to Daesh, which he subsequently retracted as a clumsy choice of words. Given the context, it was another needless own goal.

Personally I don't think Corbyn is anti-Semitic but his supporters throw around words like Zionism without really understanding them.

I definitely think there is a grown up debate to be had about the failures to find a just and lasting peace for Palestine, but that is becoming impossible in the current atmosphere.

EDIT: as for your point about the EU Referendum, I agree that Corbyn was not responsible for losing it. But he didn't make a memorable contribution to the Remain cause either.

Criticising the state of Israel is not anti-Semitism.

[Hibbyradge]

'You lot'...just who might they be?

I think he's referring to the electorate.

[High-On-Hibs]

I think he's referring to the electorate.

The fact you hold this belief that the electorate are somehow in line with your own views just shows how arrogant you are. Anybody who isn't a "moderate" is a "communist" in your narrow little world.

[Hibbyradge]

The fact you hold this belief that the electorate are somehow in line with your own views just shows how arrogant you are. Anybody who isn't a "moderate" is a "communist" in your narrow little world.

Cool story Bro. :faf:

[Pretty Boy]

Cool story Bro. :faf:

It's certainly an interesting take from a guy who labels everyone he doesn't agree with as a 'Tory'.

[jacomo]

Criticising the state of Israel is not anti-Semitism.

Nope. I never said it was.

Equating the Israeli state to Daesh, however, is either ignorant or anti-Semitic.

[jacomo]

They're concerned about the anti-Semitic tone that they hear about through the media in regards to the Labour Party. Despite there being no evidence of this at all. People may have different views on the Israeli situation that don't chime with the western narrative. That doesn't make them anti-Semitic in any way. Disagreeing with the actions of someone who happens to be Jewish or a country that embraces the Jewish faith, is not anti-Semitic.

The Left goes out of its way to validate the concerns of other ethnic groups.

Yet somehow, if that group is Jewish, people like you are quick to rubbish their opinion and tell them they are wrong.

There is plenty of evidence of criticism of Israel from left wingers that verges on anti-Semitic or just plain racist. If you choose not to see it, that's up to you.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The poster in question just likes to attribute views to people to further his own argument whether they have expressed those view or not.

I'm a Tory, business hating, war mongering and lazy and I didn't even know it.

Always suspected as much...!!

[Future17]

Nope. I never said it was.

Equating the Israeli state to Daesh, however, is either ignorant or anti-Semitic.

I assume you mean because Daesh are a group based on religion and, therefore, any comparison with Daesh could only be on religious grounds?

[jacomo]

I assume you mean because Daesh are a group based on religion and, therefore, any comparison with Daesh could only be on religious grounds?

No, it's because Daesh are a fascist dictatorship who use terror as an everyday weapon.

The state of Israel is a democracy and operates under rule of law. Arabs and others living in Israel are also protected by those same laws. If the population disagree with their government they can vote them out.

I believe that it has made terrible mistakes, and is possibly guilty of war crimes. Its policy towards the West Bank has frequently been cruel and unfair.

But to equate it with Daesh? Seriously? That is either ignorant or racist.

[Future17]

No, it's because Daesh are a fascist dictatorship who use terror as an everyday weapon.

The state of Israel is a democracy and operates under rule of law. Arabs and others living in Israel are also protected by those same laws. If the population disagree with their government they can vote them out.

I believe that it has made terrible mistakes, and is possibly guilty of war crimes. Its policy towards the West Bank has frequently been cruel and unfair.

But to equate it with Daesh? Seriously? That is either ignorant or racist.

You've lost me again.

There are many people who would disagree that Israel operates under "the rule of law". I presume you mean its own laws rather than international law?

I also think calling Israel a democracy and stating "if the population disagree with their government they can vote them out", is a gross oversimplification of matters, to the point of being untrue.

However, even assuming for a second what you've said about Israel is true, would it be racist to speak about other countries in the same context as Daesh? North Korea for example? Russia? Turkey? If the perceived slight or criticism isn't based on religious grounds, it can't be anti-Semitic.

[jacomo]

You've lost me again.

There are many people who would disagree that Israel operates under "the rule of law". I presume you mean its own laws rather than international law?

I also think calling Israel a democracy and stating "if the population disagree with their government they can vote them out", is a gross oversimplification of matters, to the point of being untrue.

However, even assuming for a second what you've said about Israel is true, would it be racist to speak about other countries in the same context as Daesh? North Korea for example? Russia? Turkey? If the perceived slight or criticism isn't based on religious grounds, it can't be anti-Semitic.

You are wading into things here that, frankly, need a lot more than 'a second' of your time to talk through.

Obviously (or maybe not), the Jewish / Arab tension in the Middle East is very charged. Emotions run high.

As I said above, Israel is very far from perfect, and IMO its current policy is self-defeating.

But...To draw a comparison between Israel and Daesh - at the launch of a report into anti-semitism, no less - is unbelievably ignorant.

If you still don't see that, and think they are somehow different sides of the same coin, I really suggest you educate yourself a bit more about the situation.

Alternatively, book a week in Tel Aviv and then a week in Raqqa, and tell us which one you prefer. I recommend Tel Aviv first, because your chances of leaving Raqqa alive are not high.

[Future17]

You are wading into things here that, frankly, need a lot more than 'a second' of your time to talk through.

I'm genuinely not sure by what you mean here. What am I "wading" into? Where did I say I would only give it "a second" of my time?


Obviously (or maybe not), the Jewish / Arab tension in the Middle East is very charged. Emotions run high.

As I said above, Israel is very far from perfect, and IMO its current policy is self-defeating.

But...To draw a comparison between Israel and Daesh - at the launch of a report into anti-semitism, no less - is unbelievably ignorant.

It might well be ignorant, but it's not anti-Semitic, which you previously said it could be. You've stated yourself that any comparison that was made wasn't based on faith/religion. Therefore, it can't have been anti-Semitic.


If you still don't see that, and think they are somehow different sides of the same coin, I really suggest you educate yourself a bit more about the situation.

Alternatively, book a week in Tel Aviv and then a week in Raqqa, and tell us which one you prefer. I recommend Tel Aviv first, because your chances of leaving Raqqa alive are not high.

I haven't said that and don't really understand why you're insinuating that I have. I haven't expressed any opinion on the validity of the comparison.

My involvement in this thread was simply to clarify that it is possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic. You appear to be stating that, if such criticism includes comparisons to Daesh, it must be based on religion. I don't understand that position.

I think there's a growing trend of debate being stifled by faux allegations of racism, sexism or other prejudices/discrimination (or, at least, allegations based on a misunderstanding of what these terms actually mean). Social media has increased this problem greatly. Whilst I firmly believe that genuine examples of prejudice and discrimination should be highlighted and confronted head-on, I believe the same approach should be taken to educating those who misuse or misunderstand terms associated with these allegations. If we fail to do this over time, one of two things will happen. Either debate and free thought will be unfairly held back and true integration across all demographics will be affected, OR, genuine cases of prejudice and discrimination will be lost amongst the noise, and those who suffer because of these cases will continue to do so.

[jacomo]

I'm genuinely not sure by what you mean here. What am I "wading" into? Where did I say I would only give it "a second" of my time?



It might well be ignorant, but it's not anti-Semitic, which you previously said it could be. You've stated yourself that any comparison that was made wasn't based on faith/religion. Therefore, it can't have been anti-Semitic.



I haven't said that and don't really understand why you're insinuating that I have. I haven't expressed any opinion on the validity of the comparison.

My involvement in this thread was simply to clarify that it is possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic. You appear to be stating that, if such criticism includes comparisons to Daesh, it must be based on religion. I don't understand that position.

I think there's a growing trend of debate being stifled by faux allegations of racism, sexism or other prejudices/discrimination (or, at least, allegations based on a misunderstanding of what these terms actually mean). Social media has increased this problem greatly. Whilst I firmly believe that genuine examples of prejudice and discrimination should be highlighted and confronted head-on, I believe the same approach should be taken to educating those who misuse or misunderstand terms associated with these allegations. If we fail to do this over time, one of two things will happen. Either debate and free thought will be unfairly held back and true integration across all demographics will be affected, OR, genuine cases of prejudice and discrimination will be lost amongst the noise, and those who suffer because of these cases will continue to do so.

You say above, and I quote:


However, even assuming for a second what you've said about Israel is true...


It's pretty clear from this that you have dismissed my point without thinking about it.

I have also corrected you on your erroneous assumption about 'religion', but you've ignored that and repeated the same assertion.

I have criticised Israel's actions in quite strong terms above, yet you blithely carry on to 'clarify that it is possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic'??

You are either not reading my posts or wilfully ignoring what I am saying.

[steakbake]

ive not really been following this thread but I popped in for a look. it has that tension when you know where you've just walked in on an argument

[jacomo]

ive not really been following this thread but I popped in for a look. it has that tension when you know where you've just walked in on an argument

The thread's got Marxism in the title mate. What did you expect?

:wink:

[Future17]

I have also corrected you on your erroneous assumption about 'religion', but you've ignored that and repeated the same assertion.

What you have dismissed as an "erroneous assumption" was my attempt to understand your initial point about the comparison between Israel and Daesh possibly being anti-Semitic. I was trying to explain that, in my opinion, it could only be anti-Semitic if the comparison was based on religion. In any event, I didn't repeat it or ignore what you had said - I actually reiterated the point you had made when you originally told me my "erroneous assumption" was wrong.


I have criticised Israel's actions in quite strong terms above, yet you blithely carry on to 'clarify that it is possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic'??

I understand you have criticised Israel and understand (and agree) you have not been anti-Semitic in doing so. What am I failing to understand is why you feel your criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, but comments which compare Israel with Daesh could be, despite the fact that the comparison has nothing to do with religion.


You are either not reading my posts or wilfully ignoring what I am saying.

I have read your posts and I'm not ignoring what you say. I understand that you have deeper opinions on the subject of Israel than I do and am willing to accept that you probably know a lot more about it than I do.

However, my point stands: comments can only be anti-Semitic if they are based on religion. You have said the comparison with Daesh was not based on religion. Therefore, the comparison cannot be anti-Semitic.


ive not really been following this thread but I popped in for a look. it has that tension when you know where you've just walked in on an argument

TENSION?!?? WHO'S TENSE LIKE!!!















:greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What you have dismissed as an "erroneous assumption" was my attempt to understand your initial point about the comparison between Israel and Daesh possibly being anti-Semitic. I was trying to explain that, in my opinion, it could only be anti-Semitic if the comparison was based on religion. In any event, I didn't repeat it or ignore what you had said - I actually reiterated the point you had made when you originally told me my "erroneous assumption" was wrong.



I understand you have criticised Israel and understand (and agree) you have not been anti-Semitic in doing so. What am I failing to understand is why you feel your criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, but comments which compare Israel with Daesh could be, despite the fact that the comparison has nothing to do with religion.



I have read your posts and I'm not ignoring what you say. I understand that you have deeper opinions on the subject of Israel than I do and am willing to accept that you probably know a lot more about it than I do.

However, my point stands: comments can only be anti-Semitic if they are based on religion. You have said the comparison with Daesh was not based on religion. Therefore, the comparison cannot be anti-Semitic.



TENSION?!?? WHO'S TENSE LIKE!!!















:greengrin


This is one of the things i think is complicated about israel/judaism etc

Is judaism nor both a race and a religion? Therefore you could be anti-semitic on race grounds and not on religious grounds?

I genuinely dont know the answer