Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Magistrum]

Let it be known that social democrats are good and all, somewhat reasonable, and mostly important, damn liberals.

Corbyn Is as communist as Macron.

[smjjames]

Social democracy and the labour movement is socialist at heart and in origins and it's values and end-goals reflect that. However since the neo-liberal wave of the 80's the party establishments has drifted heavily right-wards, trading massive, fundamental parts of socialist ideology for neo-liberal brainfarts. In Britain, this came to a head with Tony Blair and his "New Labour" which basically threw socialism under the bus and went straight liberal.

Now, Corbyn is more of an actual social democrat. Somebody who still holds to more of the pre-neo-liberal Labour ideology. He came into power because people were getting tired of the "New Labour" nonsense, but because the Labour establishment is fundamentally liberlised by now, has spent basically all his time having to fight his own party members since he has the support of Labour members but not it's leadership (or at least did, I don't know where he currently stands).

So, it's more of a 'Because Corbyn is neo-liberal'? Though it's probably more complicated than that.

So to answer your question of "when Brits say Corbyn is socialist and disliked even on the left for it, do they mean the American definition of 'thing I don't like and don't want to have a productive conversation about it' or do they mean he is true full blown hardcore dictionary definition fitting socialist/communist?": Neither, because that's still a thoroughly Americanised view of things.

That's the point of my question, I'm confused because I only have the Americanized view and even that is confused. Plus the fact that Europe doesn't have quite the same stigma or fearmongering that the word 'socialism' got attached to it as it did in the US.

It depends on if your "true full blown hard-core dictionary definition" includes social democracy and the labour movement as Socialist (which it should, or it's wrong).

Except that social democracy and the labour movement aren't communist and I'm pretty sure that they don't have the same extreme collectivist stuff that Soviet Union and Maoist China did. Remember, I'm using the hardcore communist/socialist definition that Republicans use, or rather, the definition that they'd like to use.

[Grim Portent]

So, it's more of a 'Because Corbyn is neo-liberal'? Though it's probably more complicated than that.

The opposite really.

In a simplified sense Corbyn follows the principles Labour used to have as it's core identity, most of which got chucked out by Tony Blair in favour of neo-liberalism when he revamped the Labour party into 'New Labour' in order to appeal to the middle class.

Corbyn has the support of the biggest block of Labour members, largely older socialists and young social democrats, but he's not popular with the parts of the party that formed under New Labour, which also happen to be the majority of the ones in positions of authority in the party.

[TD1]

It is helpful to think of him as socialism's Barristan Selmy. Old and outdated, but still capable of putting the jumped up pups in their place on occasion.

[hector13]

I'm not sure he's even capable of that. He's not dealt with the whole antisemitism thing very well.

However, he has the support of the party members, but not the parliamentary party members, at least insofar as they tried to get rid of them, realised that the party members like him, so tolerate him because they need the support of the party members.

[Doomblade187]

Wait, Labour had an antisemitism scandal?

[TD1]

Him being head of the party is enough to put them in their place.

Labour is something of a scaled-down Britain as revealed by Brexit. Namely that there's a parliamentary clique with its own culture, views and agenda. The voter/member is unpredictable and disturbs this culture.

What to do when your social group of parliamentarians (indeed, yourself included) is suddenly forced to conform on a key matter? You hold the power, but derive it from the public who have set you a mandate.

The answer?

Three. Years. Of. Nothing.

Wait, Labour had an antisemitism scandal?

Where have you been

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you consider corporate propaganda a scandal.

[Doomblade187]

Wait, Labour had an antisemitism scandal?

Where have you been

The United States of America.

[TD1]

Ye gods, man. Don't you know that's bad for your health?

[Doomblade187]

Ye gods, man. Don't you know that's bad for your health?

Well, yes, but I haven't been job hunting overseas. :3

[scriver]

Let it be known that social democrats are good and all, somewhat reasonable, and mostly important, damn liberals.

Corbyn Is as communist as Macron.

Social democrats are damn liberals or Social democrats all damn liberals? Because only the latter is true. Socialism and liberalism are opposites.

Social democracy and the labour movement is socialist at heart and in origins and it's values and end-goals reflect that. However since the neo-liberal wave of the 80's the party establishments has drifted heavily right-wards, trading massive, fundamental parts of socialist ideology for neo-liberal brainfarts. In Britain, this came to a head with Tony Blair and his "New Labour" which basically threw socialism under the bus and went straight liberal.

Now, Corbyn is more of an actual social democrat. Somebody who still holds to more of the pre-neo-liberal Labour ideology. He came into power because people were getting tired of the "New Labour" nonsense, but because the Labour establishment is fundamentally liberlised by now, has spent basically all his time having to fight his own party members since he has the support of Labour members but not it's leadership (or at least did, I don't know where he currently stands).

So, it's more of a 'Because Corbyn is neo-liberal'? Though it's probably more complicated than that.

No, as Grim Portent responded, the opposite -- Corbyn is the socialist and the Labour party establishment are the neo-liberal non-socialists. I apologise if I mistakenly changed them around somewhere in my post.

So to answer your question of "when Brits say Corbyn is socialist and disliked even on the left for it, do they mean the American definition of 'thing I don't like and don't want to have a productive conversation about it' or do they mean he is true full blown hardcore dictionary definition fitting socialist/communist?": Neither, because that's still a thoroughly Americanised view of things.

That's the point of my question, I'm confused because I only have the Americanized view and even that is confused. Plus the fact that Europe doesn't have quite the same stigma or fearmongering that the word 'socialism' got attached to it as it did in the US.

It depends on if your "true full blown hard-core dictionary definition" includes social democracy and the labour movement as Socialist (which it should, or it's wrong).

Except that social democracy and the labour movement aren't communist and I'm pretty sure that they don't have the same extreme collectivist stuff that Soviet Union and Maoist China did. Remember, I'm using the hardcore communist/socialist definition that Republicans use, or rather, the definition that they'd like to use.

Wait, I thought that by hardcore dictionary definition you meant the dictionary definition as opposed to the "thing I don't like and don't want to have a productive conversation about it" American jargon usage of it?

[smjjames]

It depends on if your "true full blown hard-core dictionary definition" includes social democracy and the labour movement as Socialist (which it should, or it's wrong).

Except that social democracy and the labour movement aren't communist and I'm pretty sure that they don't have the same extreme collectivist stuff that Soviet Union and Maoist China did. Remember, I'm using the hardcore communist/socialist definition that Republicans use, or rather, the definition that they'd like to use.

Wait, I thought that by hardcore dictionary definition you meant the dictionary definition as opposed to the "thing I don't like and don't want to have a productive conversation about it" American jargon usage of it?

I was kind of thinking hardcore definition of it as in the most extreme possible socialism, something like Communist Russia or China. Of course, the unwritten definition is that there is no definition because it's completely skewed over here

[scriver]

Ah, then I see, I misunderstood what you meant.

See where I'm coming from with this is that the issue with socialism and definitions is that liberals have basically defined "socialism" in such a way as to exclude every kind of successful and beneficial branch of the socialism tree, such as the Nordic socialism and social democratism in general. This makes using dictionary definitions of socialism painful for a Swedish social democrat such as myself.

[smjjames]

Um, no, it was the Republicans misusing it and creating that kind of definition (though moderate Democrats have used it in that way as well), not the liberals. Unless you meant the 'liberals' in Sweden, dunno.