News of the day

don't get in the water...

TGM: Orb wrote: Anyone else following the Labour elections? Crushingly uninspiring stuff, apart from Corbyn who obviously does not care because he has principles. I'm waiting to see how far Labour's Oxbridge public school hivemind go down the red tory rabbithole before they look back and realise that all the socialists, the North, the students and the public sector workers they've left behind were kind of important to their electability.

As you say, crushingly uninspiring. I despair of Labour, and, because of them, we are condemned to a generation of Tory rule, in one guise or another.

When will someone provide a Socialist narrative that is relevant to the 21st century, the times we live in now, not the times we used to live in, or the times we would like to be living in.

Blair had the goodwill and power to change British politics. He failed because of two things. Firstly, his ridiculous pandering to a mad new-con movement in America making bad worldwide situations a damned sight worse. Secondly, not doing what he knew would be the right thing to do for the country, when he had the patronage to do it, namely getting rid of Brown once and for all. The man was a utter disaster area.

What we have now are a bunch of metropolitan elite people running a party utterly disconnected with reality, or the people they purport to represent. The leadership election has three such people, and Corbyn. Burnham, no matter how he tries to impress with his "man of the people" Northern accent, and Cooper are card carrying members of the Brownite metropolitan elite. They know a sound bite, but speak an utterly different language to the rest of us. Kendall is a Blairite, and has failed to bring a new, modern, narrative to her hero's views. Corbyn? Principled, yes, a worthy thing, indeed. But he would take the party right back to the splits and thoughts of the 1980's, not a period which historians readily identify with Labour success. He would also be identified mercilessly with being the man of McCluskey, who is about the worst example of old fashioned trade union hegemony about, a dictator, not a democrat (I am a former trade union activist, and recognise him for what he is very well).

Lastly, Labour has, for decades, taken its core voters utterly for granted, treating them like sh*te. Just look at the state of Northern England, Scotland, and many poor parts of Wales. The Scots gave them a damned good, deserved, kicking, one which will last for a very long time. I also think it will come in Wales, where the Assembly Government is hopelessly inept and regressive.

As I say, I despair. The Tories are utterly triumphant, and will remain so until we have a tectonic shift in British politics.

lazland wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Anyone else following the Labour elections? Crushingly uninspiring stuff, apart from Corbyn who obviously does not care because he has principles. I'm waiting to see how far Labour's Oxbridge public school hivemind go down the red tory rabbithole before they look back and realise that all the socialists, the North, the students and the public sector workers they've left behind were kind of important to their electability. As you say, crushingly uninspiring. I despair of Labour, and, because of them, we are condemned to a generation of Tory rule, in one guise or another. When will someone provide a Socialist narrative that is relevant to the 21st century, the times we live in now, not the times we used to live in, or the times we would like to be living in. Blair had the goodwill and power to change British politics. He failed because of two things. Firstly, his ridiculous pandering to a mad new-con movement in America making bad worldwide situations a damned sight worse. Secondly, not doing what he knew would be the right thing to do for the country, when he had the patronage to do it, namely getting rid of Brown once and for all. The man was a utter disaster area. What we have now are a bunch of metropolitan elite people running a party utterly disconnected with reality, or the people they purport to represent. The leadership election has three such people, and Corbyn. Burnham, no matter how he tries to impress with his "man of the people" Northern accent, and Cooper are card carrying members of the Brownite metropolitan elite. They know a sound bite, but speak an utterly different language to the rest of us. Kendall is a Blairite, and has failed to bring a new, modern, narrative to her hero's views. Corbyn? Principled, yes, a worthy thing, indeed. But he would take the party right back to the splits and thoughts of the 1980's, not a period which historians readily identify with Labour success. He would also be identified mercilessly with being the man of McCluskey, who is about the worst example of old fashioned trade union hegemony about, a dictator, not a democrat (I am a former trade union activist, and recognise him for what he is very well). Lastly, Labour has, for decades, taken its core voters utterly for granted, treating them like sh*te. Just look at the state of Northern England, Scotland, and many poor parts of Wales. The Scots gave them a damned good, deserved, kicking, one which will last for a very long time. I also think it will come in Wales, where the Assembly Government is hopelessly inept and regressive. As I say, I despair. The Tories are utterly triumphant, and will remain so until we have a tectonic shift in British politics.

What does 21st century socialism look like?

Socialism assumes a shared willingness to give up private wealth for the greater good. The trend has been for successive governments to facilitate the transfer of wealth to already mega rich, because it is they who bribe the political class to legislate in their favour.

Until the relationship between BIG business and government is severed completely, socialism doesn't stand a chance and since the Thatcher Reagan years (arguably much earlier than that) conditions have been shaped in such away that challenging that relationship has become the preserve of those portrayed as actual communists (Occupy movement, Chomsky et al) or outright fascists (Tea Party) The middle ground with all it's bank bailouts and EU arse licking is presented as the sensible choice.

Socialism is dead and we're all f***ed..

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/online-troll-destroys-a-family%e2%80%99s-offline-life/ar-AAdid9x?ocid=U219DHP

#KurdishLivesMatter

Said of American politics but it could be applied equally to India, or at least those parts that pretend to be living in some first world paradise.  But is it true that people don't know what they want?  No, I think that is clear.  They want more food on the table and they don't care whose share has to be cut in order that they get to eat more.  Obviously, you cannot say that flat out in politics so these illusions of equality, secularism, freedom of whatever are paraded around with neither party making much progress on these counts.  Guess that's because they are so busy trying to quell their appetite for the entirety of their term in office.  For democracy to work, there has to be shared values that everybody actually believes in and wants to live up to.  If it's just I watch my back and you watch yours, you don't really need democracy or any other cracy.

refugee wrote: Swedish divers have discovered a sunken submarine in the Baltic Sea: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/sweden-wreckage-russian-submarine I’ve read that it’s quite small and yellow. Here’s a pic:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/greek-prime-minister-alexis-tsipras-6287762Go ahead, KKE!

 

 

 

Edited by Svetonio - August 21 2015 at 03:20

Washington State is on fire, even the Olympic rain forest is on fire. 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/07/07/donald-trump-immigrant-worker-johns-dnt-tsr.cnn


Edited by dr wu23 - August 22 2015 at 12:19