kumar

New member
Electorally it’s probably a good idea to appear as the “common sense” choice but “common sense” isn’t automatically politically aligned one way or the other. Droids post above seems like the common sense thing to say for instance and I reckon lots of people would agree with it if it was marketed in the appropriate way.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
And assertions that liberals or centrists are all in cahoots with fascists is about as worthy of serious consideration as hard-right Americans who use the words "liberal" and "communist" interchangeably.

I get what Droid is saying here, I think though I do think it's a bit hyperbolic. He may have a point in talking about the UK and US where we are seeing a normalising of far right positions and nationalism via Brexit, Farage and associated fuckery and fuck trying to be in the centre if any of that shit is one of the poles.
It may seem hyperbolic, but its more or less axiomatic. You can check by simply looking at virtually any historical scenario where there was choice between supporting the right or the left. Fascism in the 30s and 40s, post war Europe, Latin America, south east Asia & the Middle East in the 60s/70s & 80s... there's so many examples it would redundant to even begin listing them. The 'centre' has consistently favoured totalitarians, death squads & fascists over even the mildest of socialist alternatives. Not only that, centrists tend to be more anti-democratic and authoritarian than the left.

This happens on the micro as well as the macro scale, typified by liberal media, again, examples abound, appearing almost daily, the courting of dapper white nationalists by US media, the compulsion to platform nationalists and racists by UK broadcasters, the Guardian's obsessive and well documented denunciations of Corbyn, all probably the most stark of recent examples, but it's a constant... Just yesterday Joe Rogan was pilloried for the first time (AFAIK) by a major US media organisation - was this a delayed reaction to his repeated platforming of far right commentators? Of course not, It was because he endorsed Bernie Sanders.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I'm rather less concerned about death squads in Latin America in the 1970s than I am about what's happening in my own country right now, and what I see here is that it's those dreaded centrists, as well as people such as Starmer who are quite clearly on the left but aren't in the Corbynite faction of Labour (and therefore qualify as "centrists" as far as some people like to think), are the ones most vociferously opposing the takeover of UK politics by outright racists and disaster capitalists openly on the make. Many on the further left are apparently perfectly OK with this - Len McCluskey would turn the Labour party into a sort of socialist version of Ukip if it was up to him. It was George Galloway, not Jo Swinson or David Lammy, who was photographed in a warm, fraternal hug with Steve Bannon. So from where I'm sitting, hard left/hard right convergence has a lot more traction that "centrists love fascism".
 

Leo

Active member
from the outside, it appeared they denounced corbyn because he was a shit party leader. they'd have probably gotten behind someone with largely similar beliefs who was more charismatic and had better leadership qualities, likability, etc.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Just yesterday Joe Rogan was pilloried for the first time (AFAIK) by a major US media organisation - was this a delayed reaction to his repeated platforming of far right commentators? Of course not, It was because he endorsed Bernie Sanders.
The media would gladly take two terms of Trump over Bernie getting even one.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
from the outside, it appeared they denounced corbyn because he was a shit party leader. they'd have probably gotten behind someone with largely similar beliefs who was more charismatic and had better leadership qualities, likability, etc.
 

luka

Moderator
Sigh. Because "progressive" and "supporting Corbyn" are now synonyms, aren't they. :slanted:
I actually do think that with my hero Jeremy Corbin the nation had a once in a lifetime chance to change direction. It might have ended in disaster but even just at a symbolic level a Corbin victory would have been monumental and transformational.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I actually do think that with my hero Jeremy Corbin the nation had a once in a lifetime chance to change direction. It might have ended in disaster but even just at a symbolic level a Corbin victory would have been monumental and transformational.
Don't get me wrong - it would have been fucking great! Even with all his flaws, he'd have done a better job at running the show than these cunts. We'd either have averted Brexit or had a much less bad version of it. Austerity reversed, a properly thought-out green policy for energy and industry, etc. etc. Believe me when I say I take no pleasure in having been right in thinking it was never going to fly with the electorate.

I think Leo's right. Most of the criticism I saw of Corbyn from progressive sources concentrated on his performance as a politician, not "oh no he might raise taxes for millionaires and end austerity, how terrible". Or they were legitimate critiques of his mishandling of the antisemitism crisis, susceptibility to conspiracy theories or whatever.

And when all's said and done, even if the Guardian had become a Canary clone and had sung Corbyn's praises from dawn till sundown, day in day out, how much difference would it have made? Labour got shat on because their support collapsed in working-class small towns in the Midlands and the North - hardly Guardian-reading territory, for the most part.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
I think ultimately what did for him was challenging the economic consensus. It doesn't matter which side various people in the media etc are on when that happens, they still close ranks. The same's happening with Bernie. They'll throw people a bone on social issues as long as you stay away from economics, hence the whole 'woke capitalism' thing.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Minority opinion but I think it was his challenge to the foreign policy consensus the thing that frightened the horses. Not the redistributive plans.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Don't get me wrong - it would have been fucking great! .
It would have been a bloody disaster. You can't nationalise all the utilities, all the railways, and give everyone free broadband at the same time while renegotiating Brexit. Plus sorting out Universal Credit, and a massive council house drive. Why not a British space programme while they're at it? And this failure would be managed by governing with the same paranoid style that's characterised their management of the Labour party - lots of enemies, a pronounced group of the unpure, and the elevation of yes-men.

And this is not to mention completely ripping up and trashing all of our international commitments. Corbyn with a veto on the UN security council? No fucking thanks.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Minority opinion but I think it was his challenge to the foreign policy consensus the thing that frightened the horses. Not the redistributive plans.
I dunno. Look at Trump's foreign policy. He pulls all sorts of mad shit, alienates traditional allies etc and it doesn't really matter. If he were attacking the economic system, it definitely would matter.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Minority opinion but I think it was his challenge to the foreign policy consensus the thing that frightened the horses. Not the redistributive plans.
Yep. I'm tired of hearing myself say it by this point, but most of Corbyn's broad policy points - or those Labour adopted under his leadership, at least - are popular, and deservedly so. It's other stuff people objected to.

So basically:

* let's tax corporations and high-earning individuals properly, boost funds to the NHS and keep it in public hands, stop punishing the poor and sick via austerity --> popular

* "Our friends in Hamas and Hezbollah"/unilateral disarmament/getting to the bottom of the Skripal poisoning by asking Putin if he dun it --> not popular
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
It absolutely matters! In terms of how the globe is going to be the rest of this century, responses to authoritarianism etc. It's just the upsets are less visible to us. I think Corbyn would have been pretty much the same, pitched against the establishment.


Maybe I'm proving Droid's point?
 
Top