Mild social democrat Harold Wilson becomes PM

Does the aristocratic establishment and the media in the UK make it impossible for anyone other than neoliberals or fascists to form a government? Everyone I have ever met who says they dislike Corbyn never has a reason why, they just don't like him.

Attached: 9fa41b5440b246ea7bff88b5ff31b82ab7687e16409f7b615285c3c1b3a435d6.jpg (960x893, 18.23K)

Other urls found in this thread:'état

Don't forget a general literally threatened a coup against Corbyn, and her majesty's elite paratroopers were using a Corbyn poster as target practice.


Not impossible (the establishment can always make mistakes), but I fully expect the British people to smugly "keep calm and carry on" all the way to their mass graves.

My friend said Corbyn was a shitty candidate, and when I asked him why, he said he saw a meme where he accidentally hit a boob when motioning with his hand.
I asked my dad why he didn't think Corbyn was a good candidate, and he said Corbyn was a faggot.

Yes basically the main reason why socialism has a hard time is the media. I think communists don't appreciate enough just how much of an Iron grip the media has on peoples thinking

I think it's just UK. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan are Monarchies and they had Social Democrats and Communists (Social Democrats)

Never underestimate the american ABC-organizations influence on its most important ally in Europe. These people are brainwashed with freedumbs ideology and anything else is unpatriotic.

Lmao. Behold the power of the reasonable right

If it makes you feel any better I've seen a bunch of "leftists" dismiss Corbyn for equally stupid reasons.
One thought he didn't take a strong enough stance against antisemitism, another said he was too pro-brexit, and a third said he was too anti-brexit.
You've got poor people literally dying in the streets and that's the level of political discourse among the general population.

Yeah, I know. And it's not really making me feel any better tbh.

You can't vote your way to communism you dolts you have to smash the state

Marx did argue that in advanced capitalist countries like Britain, you could indeed vote socialists into power and transition (somewhat) peacefully.

Not to be that guy, but why does everything need to be justified by "Marx said"? Marx is dead for some good time by now and quoting him to support a political position today by a quote which was meant for his time does no good.

This post isn't because I disagree with you, but I always found it strange when someone backs up his political position by "Marx said".

Because Marx is an authority on socialism for Marxists. I don't completely disagree with you, but we absolutely do need to consider the positions of the greatest socialist thinker.
And I don't think revolution over democratic seizure favors the American or British working class anymore today than it did 150 years ago.

Okay. Following from Marxism, we have every reason to assume that the operations of a bourgeois state such as Britain will reflect the interests of the British bourgeoisie. As such, if Marx thought that socialism might be accomplished in Britain by reform, he contradicted his own self.

Yes, insofar as bourgeois politicians hold state power.
I don't see how.

Glad we agree, but sadly you misspelled his name.

Attached: grandpa.png (600x359, 280K)

How would this be humanly possible considering what he has already done (launched an investigation, constantly visits Jewish communities, etc.)?

I mean I've heard people saying Varoufakis and Julian Assange are antisemitic which is why they can't vote for DiEM25, so I'm not surprised.

How is corbyn going to help these people though?

At the very minimum, by undoing the legislative damage done by the last few decades of unchecked capitalism.
There's no possible situation in which a Corbyn government won't save more lives than a Tory one.

Attached: corbyn-entryism.jpg (720x540, 42.22K)

Why can't I use bill Gates posters as target practice?

Shut the fuck up about what Marx said, 150 years have passed since his death and in those years we have seen very clearly that it is in fact not possible to vote yourself into socialism.

You are exactly correct.

"When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation. " - Mao Zedong

And which conditions is it exactly that allows for a revolution to succeed in the first world, where democracy will not?

I don't understand this joke.

It's called "bourgeois democracy" for a reason. No proles allowed.

Define ''vote yourself into socialism comr8d’’, because you can either be a little autistic or a complete retarded?
Like you can’t use 100% legal and democratic means?

Attached: Assassin’s_Creed_Chronicles_Russia_Card_4.png (224x261, 151K)

Corbyism only works in theory, in reality the media smears you as an anti-semite.

Capitalism can only be brought down by peoples war. Doesn't matter which country. Electoralism is a dead end.

Do you think the former eastern bloc was capitalist?'état


Also that Allende,chavez,Syriza could not under any circumstances succeed in forming some short of socialism?

Not an argument.

Former eastern block was forged in war.
Its idealism to suppose different circumstances than the real circumstances to make an idea work. Allende, Syriza etc. failed because the actual real circumstances didn't allow them to succeed with the strategies they chose, and they're not going to allow us to succeed with those same strategies, because they're going to be the same circumstances for us.

That's a lot of words saying nothing.

And yet you still didn't get it

The war did give the communist parties a voter boost
But in Hungary and Czechoslovakia the cp's took power through electoralism(hell in Hungary with pretty much legal means)
Couldn’t Allende choose a different strategy after his electoral victory and succeed?

Attached: Paradox_Map_1.png (1280x720, 681.77K)

Well he was ousted by the military. So effectively he was ousted by the Bourgeois state apparatus, which had been left intact. Obviously foreign imperialist influence (or the foreign Bourgeois states if you will) played a role but that is a given in any Revolution. So the strategy he would've had to pursue after his electoral victory would've been one of complete overhaul of state and military. There are a number of problems with this idea.
1) The powers that he had as democratically elected President probably didn't allow him to do what he had to do. Remember, checks and balances are there to protect the ruling class from the population, not the other way around.
2)He would've forced a confrontation with the state apparatus, which might've just lead to an earlier coup as the ruling class and their stooges would've rallied quicker.
3)A strategy of a power-play confrontation with the 'deep state' on the part of a socialist who came to power through elections requires this person and the people around him to have a deep and radical understanding of the nature of Capitalist society. How could you guarantee that such a person would come to power through electoral means? Is it not more likely that a relatively moderate person would survive the selection process of liberal democracy?

Yeah but they were backed up by a pretty big ol' communist empire.

Well i used allende just as an example
While i don’t want a debate on 1970's Chile
Well even mayors purge people they dont like from neutral services(police ,post etch) so i dont think he couldnt purge the anti-communist elements from his armed forces(considering that he should have some support even among them)
Well he could have organized his own stooges
Maybe from even before winning the elections
Like i never said go full pacifist

Well you just need a generic leftist party and dome good rhetoric dude ,as we see leftist have been elected

Well if you mean that they were protected from a military coup i somewhat agree

Attached: 01fbd61479c7da9a49b0f73ee335b3693c0ffb1872003a3b7f4ac46dbed07765.png (272x326, 195.13K)

No you also need someone who understands what needs to be done. For example Corbyn wouldn't do it.
But he didn't and that is because the strategy of Electoralism produces a 'Revolutionary Party' that doesn't think in those terms Thats what i meant by "How could you guarantee that such a person would come to power through electoral means? Is it not more likely that a relatively moderate person would survive the selection process of liberal democracy?"
Going down the route of electoralism could work if everyone does everything right like in your scenarios. But in practice socialism through elections has basically never happened but socialism through civil war has happened very often. Because the strategy of insurgency solves all the problems of electoralism by its very nature. You don't have to worry about purging the Bourgeois state apparatus when you've already destroyed it.

Important to note that none of these successful revolutions happened in countries with actual democratic institutions in place.

Maybe because in countries with 'democratic institutions' the left always falls into the trap

What about Checkloslovakia?

What's the solution? The current very effective smear against every left wing group is antisemitism

The communist party had everything go in their favour (Western betrayal, clean record, support and liberation by USSR, establishment amenable to USSR), and still didn't win in elections. Did pretty good, though.

The left needs to built an “alternative media” similar to the right-wing YouTube sphere and Britbart. WSWS, Jimmy Dore, and Democracy at Work serve as a nucleus for a left wing alternative media, however we need to make this media go mainstream, have it so that when your average worker get their news, not from the BBC, or The Guardian, ow whoever, but from WSWS or a similar group. The left can’t be reliant on MSM for discussing our ideas to the general populous. However, the task of building a large in scope alternative media apparatus will be hard as we, unlike the right, don’t have funding from billionaires, but the effort will be worth the reward.

I think i agree with you there (idk much about Corbin)
In Greece (where i am from) every large party has its stooges (or at least had back in the day) so i don’t think that most revolutionary parties have completely abandoned radicalism………..

If we look at the trends ,radicalism seems to be on the rise ,and as we approach extinction even more so..
Same goes with civil wars dude ,revolutions are getting more and more harder and a full on civil war is nearly impossible in modern western democracies , in fact the only way that violence has played any role in politics in the west ,for the last like 50 years ,is through paramilitaries supported by major political parties

Also speaking of revolutions, military coups will have a hard time in the west as by start everyone will distrust them ,and military regimes will be vey unwelcomed
The only coup i can think of is the bouj paying your pms to split

Attached: 64547030_2411775025755283_6288497059590832128_n.jpg (754x960, 51.4K)

I dont even really disagree, I just see absolutely no chance to build a popular movement without at least the premise of democratic aspirations. I think the only way to build up a militant working class movement will be in the wake of a failed democratic take over. It's not about me being against revolution or thinking militancy is entirely impotent, but about building a mass movement. Legitimacy will be extremely important to keep the masses loyal and safeguarding the gains from UN intervention.