So what is Corbyn’s scientific theory of political change that supercedes marxism? What about his new party’s? What are they going to differently this time given decades of failure? Do you know why CommieJones brought up Kautsky? Why is your winning theory socdem tailism?
What material conditions did you identify in Batista’s Cuba that were similar to neo-imperialist Britain that you felt were significant enough to be compelled to make that comparison? What characteristics of the electorate have you identified with more revolutionary potential than those before them for the past century especially post October revolution when there were actual marxist led movements?
Not going to discuss any further for i have presented everything i think is important. You think this party is a nothingburguer because Corbin made quite bad mistakes in the past as a political leader? Ok, do your analysis based on that and let future prove whos more accurate
You think this party is a nothingburguer because Corbin made quite bad mistakes in the past as a political leader?
It is to do with the masses/electorate; that is how you sublate Great Man Theory. (And it is “Corbyn”) If there are meaningful successes it will be despite his present politics.
He was a leader where party members were fired in the name of fighting “anti-semitism” while there was ethnic cleansing ongoing. At the height of his career in Labour he staffed it with liberal zionists. He was a longstanding member of a party over the past century responsible for various war crimes and crimes against humanity.
And despite the above people want to rally around him; what does that then say about those masses that they are privileged enough to ignore those mistakes? That at best they give the impression that they are happy to have the loot of imperialism shared more equitably? That this is a vehicle to blunt the edge of what could be achieved by still acquiescing to bourgoisie electoralism?
Is being better than a majority of other Western politicians the low bar that one wants to hold as a high standard?
Revolutionary potential will be despite all of the above, not because of it.
To dismiss the lessons of the global south is a bigoted lens only Westernism can permit. Instead, learn from their organising under much more challenging circumstances with significantly less resources.
For those lurking please read broadly, educate yourself and open your mind of what could be possible.
So what is Corbyn’s scientific theory of political change that supercedes marxism? What about his new party’s? What are they going to differently this time given decades of failure? Do you know why CommieJones brought up Kautsky? Why is your winning theory socdem tailism?
What material conditions did you identify in Batista’s Cuba that were similar to neo-imperialist Britain that you felt were significant enough to be compelled to make that comparison? What characteristics of the electorate have you identified with more revolutionary potential than those before them for the past century especially post October revolution when there were actual marxist led movements?
Do you understand marxism is a science?
Further reading for those lurking:
(1) https://redsails.org/why-marxism/
(2) How Gene Sharp’s Neoliberal Nonviolence Shaped the Left (2020): https://redsails.org/marcie-smith-gene-sharp/
(3) Imperialism and the Split in Socialism: https://redsails.org/imperialism-and-the-split-in-socialism/
Not going to discuss any further for i have presented everything i think is important. You think this party is a nothingburguer because Corbin made quite bad mistakes in the past as a political leader? Ok, do your analysis based on that and let future prove whos more accurate
It is to do with the masses/electorate; that is how you sublate Great Man Theory. (And it is “Corbyn”) If there are meaningful successes it will be despite his present politics.
He was a leader where party members were fired in the name of fighting “anti-semitism” while there was ethnic cleansing ongoing. At the height of his career in Labour he staffed it with liberal zionists. He was a longstanding member of a party over the past century responsible for various war crimes and crimes against humanity.
And despite the above people want to rally around him; what does that then say about those masses that they are privileged enough to ignore those mistakes? That at best they give the impression that they are happy to have the loot of imperialism shared more equitably? That this is a vehicle to blunt the edge of what could be achieved by still acquiescing to bourgoisie electoralism?
Is being better than a majority of other Western politicians the low bar that one wants to hold as a high standard?
Revolutionary potential will be despite all of the above, not because of it.
To dismiss the lessons of the global south is a bigoted lens only Westernism can permit. Instead, learn from their organising under much more challenging circumstances with significantly less resources.
For those lurking please read broadly, educate yourself and open your mind of what could be possible.