he said "it (NATO)spends a lot of time threatening non-member states and engaging in open warfare.

Note the encirclement of Russia post 1990."


I'd like to hear about the military experts and non-partisan think tanks that support this argument.

You are trying to make out he's saying something controversial. He isn't. The Americans have been openly making military arrangements with the surrounding states (the polish star wars device and so on) and the Russians get paranoid. This is public information not contested by any one.

It does seem to be a recurring thing among conservatives to quote left-wingers saying something utterly obvious, then affecting faux outrage as if it were radical Marxism. Reminds me of the unsubstantiated bull**** about Corbyn supporting the IRA.

he's not saying something controversial so much as dumb
tell me about the think tanks and military experts

Try this link:

Link

thought not

Honestly just go and educate yourself in these issues. Then come back and tell me I am dumb. I advise you to use the link above.

you did your best.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Well I suspect that NATO role is basically pushing certain economical interests under the excuse of peace or other selfless value. It's par for course for **** Sapiens taking into account how human psychology works.

It's also part of human nature to create some kind of narrative that your side is the good side, in the past those myths were more simple "God told us we are the good guys " nowadays, at least in the western secular world , people need a think tank and an expert to push the myth.

Of course we are in age where those narratives don't manage to be completely hegemonic which leads to a counter culture, which leads to guys like Jeremy Corbyn having a non zero chance of becoming a prime minister if his opponents don't have due diligence.

In terms of electoral political analysis it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. It matters who has the common sense on his side.
If you don't have the common sense of the public on your side you have three options.

1) fight for that common sense
2) give in and concede that point
3) try to minimize the issue

You can also do a mix of those things.

Going gung ho and telling everybody that NATO are not really the good guys but the military arm of the western bourgeoise seems like a bad idea.
I think he should mainly have given in while still having the most left wing foreign policy ever in recent times for a Labour candidate, but he couldn't do that now so I think is that conceding some obvious points while trying to minimize the issue is probably the best way to handle the issue.


Edit: lol at 2+2 filter censoring he first part of homosapiens


Cliff notes on my opinion on the Labour campaign : basically I disagree with Corbyn strategic approach but given the wrong strategic choice I think he has made good tactical decisions.

To be fair it isn't just NATO. I dislike Putin intensely and his stupid macho posturing.
On the other hand Putin at least doesn't isermonize vague nonsense about peace and freedumb before dropping bombs on things.

"it (NATO)spends a lot of time threatening non-member states and engaging in open warfare.

Note the encirclement of Russia post 1990."
I actually think you are not dumb, but if you really believe that NATO is pursuing a strategy of aggressive encirclement of Russia then perhaps I am wrong.

I agree, broadly, though I think more attention needs to be paid to the movement in and around Labour. Corbyn's mandate, his responsibility, is to nurture this and allow it to grow and continue to attract young people into active politics. This is as important as being elected on june 8th.

Second, the radicalisation of Labour has its roots in the opposition to Iraq as the defining moment in the alienation of New Labour from its traditional base. Corbyn represents not only a reversal of this, but also, as you put it, the most left wing foreign policy in recent times, probably ever in fact. To concede ground on these issues would be catastrophic. When in power, this will of course be a different story, it will/would be interesting to see the kinds of pressures applied to a Labour Government - would we see a Venezuela esque coup for instance? By this point we will have seen a rapid development of the radical left, I dare not imagine what this might look like.

Thirdly, it is certainly not a vote loser to take a stance arguing that western involvement in the middle east has made the UK a target, this view is widely accepted. The argument is over whether those military campaigns were 'worth it'. (What was interesting about Iraq was the predominance of the view 'its all about oil', a rare occasion when popular discourse and progressive sloganeering managed to shed light on the driving force of global conflict - the acquisition of resources, markets, productive forces etc) And, I believe there is a broad acceptance that 'blowback' is a central reason for terrorism in the west.
With regard to the NATO thing, no he shouldn't muddy the waters and would be best minimising the comments he made about it being a threat to world peace. As we have seen in this thread, that wouldn't be a popular stance

"it (NATO)spends a lot of time threatening non-member states and engaging in open warfare.

Note the encirclement of Russia post 1990."
I actually think you are not dumb, but if you really believe that NATO is pursuing a strategy of aggressive encirclement of Russia then perhaps I am wrong.

The idea that the Iraq war was a failure from the left its in part giving in to the mainstream consensus. You are not pointing out the supposed structural problem but merely a bad manifestation of it.

Also sometimes being less radical has more effects on the advancement in common sense. If you want to advance gay rights on a backwards country you don't talk right away about homosexual marriage that includes child adoption, first you talk about making it legal.

You can use whatever language you like but the yanks have clearly provoked the Russians, while simultaneously backing down to them when they actually show aggression as in Georgia and Ukraine.

Provocation and weakness are two problems that are at least usually mutually exclusive.

Yes, the reality is that all war is a failure, but this has never been the dominant view within public discourse. The difference with Iraq is that there is a mainstream consensus that it turned out bad, and before it even started there was strong enough opposition that even the daily mirror opposed it, the Lib Dems (who subsequently supported it once it started), military families against war and army and ex army personnel reminiscent of vietnam, and of course the 2 million strong march are examples of how much opposition there was to this conflict.
What this opened up was a huge space for the left of all shades to put forward analyses of contemporary imperialism, and the interplay between war and globalisation for which there had developed a movement since 1999. This is important for understanding the context of Labour's unexpected surge to the left and the exponential growth in membership, ie. it is best defined as a political expression of opposition to war and neo-liberalism. Which is why I believe that Corbyn et al must hold the anti-war line or else risk splits in the wrong places.
What is interesting is not so much the election result, except if the Tories fail to achieve a majority, but what happens within the next 6 months. Why have the Lib Dems ruled out a coalition? One because it is unlikely to become an issue so why alienate potential support, but also they will be watching what the Labour right do. A Labour split is inevitable as the contradictions become ever more intense and it would be foolish not to prepare for this eventuality.

I'm always a bit skeptic towards left wing process that base their support on demographics with high cultural capital.
In most of the western world the left wing has an agenda led by an educated middle class with cosmopolitan values, that is a sure loser. It can't be that.

Corbyn should have centered his message on concrete gains for the working class more than on some abstract values that only make sense when you are living on a certain environment.

There is a reason why when Corbyn goes on TV most of the interview is spent on hitting him over the IRA while little time is spent on his economic program. They know his economic program will resonate his voters so instead they focus on gaining easy points on Diane Abbott who is basically everything the left shouldn't be.

Edit: With regards to the possible Labour split it depends on what happens in the elections. How many seats would Corbyn need in order to comfortably survive? If he gets more than the 232 Labour currently has then I would suppose it would be really difficult for the opposition within the party to throw another coup at him in that scenario. I'm not sure how many seats would make his position untenable because I don't really understand the detail of the English constituencies to know what is a really bad result. Somewhere in the middle will see a power struggle where both sides blame each other which I suppose it's the most likely scenario.

labour and tory leaders who fail to win an election are generally finished, at least thats the way it's been during my lifetime

last one not to go was kinnock in the 80s. he ended up getting the boot after losing at his second attempt ('92), despite going from winning 229 seats in '87 to 271 in '92

the same two blokes swapped power back & forth in the 70s, but that was a series of close elections so was a bit different

Has there ever been a profound ideological difference within the same party during that time span ?

I don't see the left just giving back the Labour Party without a fight. (Do they have another politician who could take Corbyn role without the IRA baggage? )

Suppose Labour takes 248 seats. How could the mainstream Labour Party make a move to take control of the party? They already lost the last internal election by 20 points, would that suddenly change ? An Yvette Cooper would have a hard time telling the Labour base that Corbyn is unelectable when he did better than the Tory lite bloke.

GG Corbyn, doing his best to completely kill off the Labour vote in Scotland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-40086281

Also confirms something I posted when we were discussing his leadership (or complete lack of) abilities, yet again he goes rogue when discussing something and yet again it requires a statement from the party contradicting what he's said. How many times is that now?

A spokesman for Mr Corbyn later insisted: "Jeremy Corbyn and Scottish Labour have repeatedly said that a second independence referendum is both unwanted and unnecessary. Labour firmly opposes a second independence referendum".

Paxman going way back here to the Falklands lol.

Watching now to see if he's going to call May out for every word she's ever uttered.

Paxman not what he was.
Just empty hectoring of Corbyn.
Let's see if he goes as hard on Maybot - if he does we'll see the facade crack.
Only real emotion I've seen from her is anger.

tbh i haven't the foggiest what the outcome would be if he were to face a leadership election in the case of losing, maybe the labour lads itt would be able to give you a good answer

i think the case against would be significantly strengthened though. instead of 'we think you are unelectable' it would be 'you are unelectable'. they'd be able to point to recent situations where a losing leader has resigned for the sake of the party & make the case that JC & co care more about personal power than the good of the labour movement

whether that would have any resonance with labour party members, i dunno

i suppose the tories' catastrophic split along europhile/euroskeptic lines in the early 90s would count. the issue never really leaked into leadership dynamics though afaik

Agree epc, he was just badgering Corbyn.

She's sweating and gulping now - still hasn't actually answered a question yet.

Both Corbyn and May did better than my ( admittedly low) expectations - Corbyn the winner for me

But the real loser was Paxo - he looked ring rusty - took weird lines of attack -seemed to be berating Corbyn for not being leftie enough and May for not being tough enough on Brexit. At the end he was doing his Michael Howard thing of repeating the question - even though she was answering it.