Corbyn: An exception to first world electoralism

Riddle me this Zig Forums, I’m generally turned off by first world electoral politics generally from a third-worldist and Marxist Leninist Maoist perspective. However Jeremy Corbyn’s commitment to anti-imperialism has peaked my interest.

Corbyn’s criticism of foreign intervention, NATO and the U.S Empire sets him aside from other Succdem first-worldists like Sanders etc. From a third woldist and Maoist perspective, Imperialism is the primary contradiction in the revolutionary progress of the global proletariat.

I have no allusions that Corbyn would actually implement any form of socialism in the U.K as it would likely just result in further sustaining liberalism but the prospect of weakening U.K (and perhaps U.S) Imperialism interests me.

What are your thoughts?

Attached: 2CDC3D31-BDD1-4A3F-A9DF-474A267F37B1.jpeg (493x622, 74.77K)

Corbyns great but you know, its only a stepping stone toward communism.

Attached: british-fighters-syria-corbyn-0.jpg (1368x684, 129.31K)

I tend to agree (I’m not from the U.K).

Can any U.K comrade chime in?

I don’t want to be making the same mistake as the CPUSA who advocated for the arch imperialist murderer Hillary in 2016 (or the current DSA and their ongoing shitfuckery).

Anti-imperialism is THE litmus test for whether a socdem can be trusted or not. And Corbyn actually passes it, Sanders does not.

Read Reform or Revolution by Luxemburg and "left communism, an infantile disorder" it touches on the topics of electoral participation and its usefulness for communists. Corby isn't /ourguy/ but he helps political shift to the left wich allows us communists to expand on people who are interested in him, I think CPB does a great job with that

That is a very interesting point. I honestly can’t think of any other mainstream first world social democrat which passes this test though(even in history)? (They probably exist but I’m somewhat ignorant of many national specific first world social democratic parties)

Tulsi, kind of.

Her past is very problematic (LGBT issues) and she should not be trusted. The Assad connection is also very worrying

Thanks. I’ve read ‘left communism an infantile disorder’ probably about 13 years ago (so I’m definitely due for a refresher) but I’ll check out Luxembourg too.

Hi Zig Forums.

Tulsi voted against BDS.

The CPB is basically non existent. In-fact most orgs left of Labour are non existent at this point (for various reasons, including our largest trot party having a major rape scandal).

Am a brit, AMA.

Good job comrade!

Well CPB is the largest ML Party, no? Will live in Britain for 10 months leaving at the end of august, so I plan on joining them

Yes, with a membership of sub 900 and little outside influence. ML was never a big thing in Britain, mostly because we weren't occupied during the war.

LGBT issues in the first world are not revolutionary and do not challenge imperialist global hegemony (even though I agree that they are important in a revolutionary society). Your assertion about her connection to Bashar Al Assad, how is that worrying? Assad is a National Bourgeois leader standing against an ongoing war by western imperialist forces.

This is a reactionary assertion
No support to barrel-bombing fascists or “bourgeoisie” of any kind

Yeah I know, it kind of sucks, but eh. She's hostile to Israel's most important ally, Saudi Arabia, so I doubt it's out of some kind of zionism.
And personally I don't really care about BDS that much. I would much rather boycott America than Israel.

Come on Zig Forums, try harder.


anglo here, Corbyn is … complicated.

For context, i'm a paid up member of the Labour Party, and will vote for them i every election - barr exceptions which i'll get into - because at its heart, in its inception, and during its most successful reigns, it is a socialist party. A socialist party that has been co-opted, maligned, and mutated into a centrist, neo-liberal, anti-prole party with the election of Tony Blair and nearly every MP that stood in 1997-2010 with him.

In some sense, the parliamentary side of the party still is, as its made up by a lot of these blairite centrists, but we can see its membership is anything but, electing Corbyn twice with record breaking majorities, and brought disillusion people like me and MANY others back to the party we should belong too.

That being said, hes a bad leader. Hes not a leader at all, hes a campaigner. Should that exclude him from power? no, god no, but it makes things bloody difficult when we come up against your "traditional" leader archetype, like David Cameron. Sure, given the time to get the policy platform out, we shoot up massively, but unfortunately in times such as these, real hard leadership is required, and frankly he doesnt have it.

Personally, John McDonell seems better from a marxist perspective - considering he is a marxist and will make a planned economy if given the chance - but he, corbyn, and a number of other MPs in the party leadership now represent a movement we havent seen in the UK. Ever. Say what you will about Benn, Atlee, and others, this is unprecedented. I was skeptical as corbyn postuered alot like Atlee and that 45' govenrment, who were Keynes fanatics and beleived in markets, but honestly at this point, anything is better than the status quo.

Which is why, if they oust him in a coup, or make him leave post-election loss, i leave the party and electoral politics all together. There is no appetite in Britain for socialist revolution, so this is the chance we have, and should it leave, I and im sure many others do also.

Hotdog and grandtsand all you like about organising, trust me when i say, the conservatives are one of the most evil, malignant establishments in the world, and given free-reign they will wage economic warfare against its own population for its own amusement.

Attached: 89545f30b9c71fa390a80f5889d058a7a5bdf1286b634107f7f4750f422f2f23.jpg (416x304, 75.66K)

If you are a communist, then fucking kill yourself. I bet you support an invasion of Iran too.

Why would anyone support a literal theocracy? It seems like this board is more dedicated to cheering on literal dictators than any revolutionary praxis

The board of Goldman Sachs supports LGBT issues and I would hardly call them revolutionary.

Also you have not addressed western imperialist involvement in Syria. I agree that the SAA are responsible for horrible things however I would argue that this point is based on emotion and not conducive with the theory on ‘the United front’.

We don't "support" Syria and Iran, we *critically* support them in the face of imperialism.
I'll support a revolution in Iran as soon as the empire has fallen, but right now Iran is one of the only countries in the world standing up against imperialism.

You do realise that the Iranian Revolutionary Government actively supports National Liberation movements in the Global South such as Hezbollah, Houthi rebels and the fight against Imperialist back Wahhabi Jihadists in Syria and Iraq. This alone had done more to support global proletarian liberation than any so-called ‘leftist’ group or person in any first world country in the last 50 years.

lol he's an imperialist, if you were actually MLM you'd understand this