Cunnus Maximus wrote: Tanmann wrote:I don't want any part in that victory. I still don't think Corbyn can be trusted an inch with our national security regarding terrorist prevention (because I don't think he can bring himself to see white westerners as victims).
If he was such a security risk he wouldn't be on the privy council.
None of the recently exhumed and recycled accusations hold any weight at all and are just politicking from Tory ex-members of the security services.
The rest of what you said and its conflation with the Swedish socialists is a hot mess of regurgitated PJW-type crap and Tory rag red-baiting.
Corbyn is only defined as 'hard left' because the establishment can't bear the thought of neoliberalism and gross top-down inequality being challenged. You should read Chris Mullin's excellent book, A Very British Coup, which is as pertinent now as it ever was.
Corbyn is only radical in the sense that he believes in bi-lateral dialogue, is anti-MIC, and wants to people - yes including white people
- to be able to have a home and a job without having to struggle, while the establishment want to retain a model that squeezes workers' labour costs, rights and benefits for the advantage of shareholders and other arsehole leeches in our society.
I have to agree with Cunnus here.
There is a 'looney'/liberal/SJW fringe to modern leftism, particularly at the younger end of the spectrum. But the response to it is often equally hysterical handwringing from the populist right, especially in that particular bubble of 'professional' Youtubers and their followers.
Yes there is the cult of Corbynism where he can do no wrong, but there are also many genuine left-wingers that don't fit into that category who are kind of stuck with him, for better or for worse at the moment.
Why? The predicament is basically that however divisive Corbyn is, any replacement that is picked would likely be seen to need to be 'different' from him, and probably *completely* different too, which would likely mean not left-wing.
It would likely mean getting someone much more centrist or from the right of Labour to lead the party; ie: a Blairite. And there's already have enough (so called) centrists to vote for, so the last thing you need another centrist party. We need a valid left-wing party to give people actual choice; something that's been unavailable as an option essentially since Thatcher. We need wider representation, and for the electorate to feel like they can choose someone who does represent their views meaningfully.
Without real choice, you get political disillusionment and apathy. You get frustration with politics, and anger and protest votes. You end up with moderates supporting populist fringe parties out of desperation, and inadvertently elevating previous sidelined and dangerous narratives to the mainstream through that support (though the parties come and go, as did the National Front, the BNP, UKIP and now TBP, the process is the same: those who feel 'left out' vote for populists and charlatans. Typically, these fringe characters are at the fringes for a reason.
Then you end up with claims of political elitism and lack of representation, which leads to claims of conspiracy and the assumption that politicians are collectively in cohorts; or parts of close-knit and exclusive circles and revolving doors.
You end up with charges that, "nothing changes" and, "the political class will never allow that", and, "politicians are frustrating the will of the people". And you end up with things like Brexit, Corbyn, and Trump.
But in nutshell, that's also why many left-wingers defend Corbyn, despite not necessarily agreeing with his stance on many things . They don't want to lose what they have been unable to vote for for quite literally decades: a left-wing economic policy with a meaningful chance of implementation in a FPTP voting system.
That in a nutshell is why I'm voting Labour. For entirely these reasons.