Turn on thread page Beta

Does anyone genuinely believe the BS about Corbyn? watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Which allies do they want to invade and more aggressive against who?
    The obvious most likely targets are the Baltic countries: Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Russian territory in Kaliningrad could act as a pretext to invade Lituania, while the high Russian-speaking population of both Estonia and Latvia could easily give the Russians the same pretext there, just as it did in Ukraine. Those countries are very nervous of Russian aggression (which has repeatedly reared its head), as is Poland.

    I suggest you investigate China's ambitions against Taiwan and in the South China Sea.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The obvious most likely targets are the Baltic countries: Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Russian territory in Kaliningrad could act as a pretext to invade Lituania, while the high Russian-speaking population of both Estonia and Latvia could easily give the Russians the same pretext there, just as it did in Ukraine. Those countries are very nervous of Russian aggression (which has repeatedly reared its head), as is Poland.

    I suggest you investigate China's ambitions against Taiwan and in the South China Sea.
    Both of these examples apply to local historical territorial situations, a bit like us with the Falklands. Russian is more concerned with blocking NATO moves than gaining territory. You comparison regarding Ukraine does not take account of their right wing coup. Poland has gone very right wing and will say practically anything.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Both of these examples apply to local historical territorial situations, a bit like us with the Falklands. Russian is more concerned with blocking NATO moves than gaining territory. You comparison regarding Ukraine does not take account of their right wing coup. Poland has gone very right wing and will say practically anything.
    You should see from what has happened in Georgia and Ukraine that Russia is concerned with projecting its power and influence against its neighbours, and with treating Russian-speakers in other countries as its own citizens.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You lost me after "Right" when I saw that wall of text. I have a spare thermal fax roll if you want to right it down

    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Right, this is long but I do feel it's very important There is a lot I want to get off my chest. You seem to share some of my views...if you get any time to go through it, no rush......let me know what you think.


    I don't know I'm a Corbynite per se, on all issues. I haven't really looked into all policies. I have some doubts about his age and even wonder why he wants to do it. However I definitely admire that he has the courage to try and take Labour somewhere where it should be on economics, to really be serious about inequality, and his dignity and steadfastness in opposing all the stupid media and Blairites against him that I loathe, after the legacy of 1997-2010, and their general scummy behaviour. I also think he is honest and has genuine beliefs and wants to change something, so naturally this correlates with being pilloried(Ed Miliband wanted to shift economics left from Blairite consensus so how he ate a bacon sandwich became the key political issue, along with how he 'stabbed his brother in the back'- if we are going to move away from consensus on the economy, do it with conviction, and I think Corbyn is worth way more than Miliband or Owen Smith or suchlike on this) But generally, I think it is also about something wider than whether you have his politics or completely different politics. It's about the role of the media in propagandizing, the way anyone outside a certain political spectrum(neoliberalism, or social and economic liberalism, in my view)gets treated by them, and how it debases any grown up, honest or more reflective debate. It's also hugely damaging to have whole Labour party and media, and, most bizzarely of all, a lot of Tory Party supporters who want Labour to be so much closer to them on policy and oppose Corbyn for these reasons. This is damaging for democracy and has gone on too long, this oppressive consensus and terms of debate, largely bleated out by politicians who seem closer to automaton than human.

    The other point I'd like to make is that it's also about what we saw in the referendum, a political and media class telling people what they want, trying to control the narrative, and telling them , whether subliminally or not, that they are stupid for wanting anything else, even when the evidence on the ground is different, what they want may be very different, and they will vote for something else. This is a case of belief cascade, once people realise the narrative and hectoring is false, and people privately believe the same stuff they do privately, the possibilities change. 'Unelectable' just means 'doesn't believe in an intertwined corporate, political and media classes worldview and doesn't support there interests. Or alternatively 'can't get enough corporate and media support'.

    But it doesn't mean people won't elect them or that they can't give people better policies, that it can't be worth backing, even just for the sake of greater democratic engagement and the chance of real change by continued involvement of such people. As if some change in policy on any end of the spectrum is terrifying, when what's more terrifying is the end of democracy, and real beliefs supplanted by groupthink and indoctrination.

    I think there is a further matter of principle here- when this is the most members Labour has ever had, they just recruited as many in 48 hours than the Tory parties total membership. This is about democracy, in it's purest from, not ideology(in fact it's the existing consensus that is more an ideology and a regime) and that it goes against the myopic and arrogant political class and overly interfering, biased media, it becomes a righteous thing to me to keep backing him.Too many are viewing Corbyn through a prism of solely what policies they want short term from an elected PM or media spin, and not getting the much wider picture, that it is about democracy and the people vs the media and political class.They can still vote for the Tories or Lib Dems and get pretty much Blairism/Neoliberalism they want anyhow, so why do they actively want the end of all democratic choice at elections controlled by a power crazed, dumbed down media, simple because of long redundant, fake tribal party identities?


    This is about whether we spark change of the whole paradigm, or we validate the elites in their complacent assumptions and the status quo. It's not about where you are on the spectrum, if this paradigm continues you will have less and less democracy, by validating the media and mainstream politicians. We should support this for all sides of the political spectrum in the name of honest debate, the opposition to propaganda, and the restoration of representative, varied, adversarial politics from people who genuinely believe in things. Corbyn, and his supporters defiance has greater repercussions, precipitative effects that could mean all sides that have hitherto been shut out of debate, from staunch Libertarians defending civil liberties to Social Conservatives who believe in the nation state, to radical Greens, may start getting a bigger say and knocking out the old identities in elections. You may start getting much more democratic and unpredictable elections and coalitions, and real policy change. I may be dreaming here- but at the very least I think you could change the political paradigm and get rid of this stagnant consensus, that is well within the bounds of possibility. Even though I don't believe any Labour candidate would do better than Corbyn in election in these times(I think the NuLab apparatchiks have still not got it), I'd rather have him unelected than support a Blairite, get them elected and go back to more of the same. This could shake up our whole politics in a way so desperately needed. I wouldn't personally mind if Labour split - they are clearly two parties already, and I'm not sure the NuLab lot have any difference from the Tories, apart from the genuinely socially conservative ones, of whom there are few. There were also be an anti-globalization, more conservative old left Labour party, by conservative I mean being about solidarity and the nation state, not the neo con/neo liberals found now that call themselves conservative.

    Edit- This is a personal thing, but I think a NuLab remain candidate, especailly with an election soon, would keep us in the EU-they are the globalists and the neo-liberals so it makes sense. Corbyn and his wing of the party are in my view more interested in moving on and being independent then dealing with inequality. Corbyn might be too old in time, but it's about the wider movement and grass roots and democracy, that goes along with him. If the movement continues and our politics changes, there will be a young imaginative radical to come through after, not another off the Blairite conveyer belt. Plus the party and maybe all parties will operate differently. He's seen as for the past, but it is NuLab that are the past, technology is changing everything and politics is getting more grass roots in this case, and it's quite invigorating. I don't buy that another Labour leader would do better electorally right now, because the old labour(or what would have been) votes that went in Brexit are going to go a lot to May because they just want Brexit to go through properly and don't trust Labour remain. I think actually Corbyn is more associated with Bennites and real Labour and seen as embracing Brexit and getting on with it. And in the future, after more years of the Tories, the appetite will not be for a politically similar Labour leader, it will be for someone further left, and genuinely adversarial politics.

    There is a dilemma though in that he will cop the electoral flak for the people who want to push Brexit through voting Tory, even though no Labour leader could change that, and especially not a keen remainer. In this sense it might be seen as justified to shift back to the 'old' new Labour spectrum again. Whereas, if a Blairite or Owen Smith(whatever he is) got in and then truly tanked in an election, that would be a prize humiliation and proof Blarites were wrong, and an even greater expansion of the leftist grass roots and democratic change. So it is a complex, mixed bag this issue, what do you think? Owen might end up being a gift to momentum and Corbynites/Bennites, people further left.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You should see from what has happened in Georgia and Ukraine that Russia is concerned with projecting its power and influence against its neighbours, and with treating Russian-speakers in other countries as its own citizens.
    This should be seen in the context which it is. It is not long since these countries were part of Russia, they are nervous of NATO influence in such close neighbours, this does not imply ambitions towards countries outside the former Soviet block.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    This should be seen in the context which it is. It is not long since these countries were part of Russia, they are nervous of NATO influence in such close neighbours, this does not imply ambitions towards countries outside the former Soviet block.
    Austria-Hungary only had ambitions over Serbian territory in 1914, and look where that ended up.

    If Russia has ambitions over the Baltic countries, or their Russian-speakers, then NATO inevitably becomes involved (by treaty) and we potentially have a full-blown European war.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Besides people who hate him, ideologically, based on economic leftism and the hatred of socialists, does anyone really believe all this transparent spin? I would believe he was planning an attack on Israel, while worshipping a shrine of Stalin, and planning the mass intimidation of women, if I swallowed the media crap. This is such utterly disingenuous shameful crap, from the near-exclusively Blairite neoliberal media, about a decent, honest person. And it has sod all to do with where on the political spectrum you are. It is utterly unprincipled and foolish, to advocate such things because of where you stand on politics, because it just encourages things that come back around and debase our debate and country. We used to be an adult nation, an intelligent one that believed in objective thought, now there are so many propagandized shills bleating out he latest received wisdom from on high, or the latest contrived smear campaign and media shitstorm. I will not, as a free thinking person from what always was a free country, accept this or validate it, and neither should other free thinking liberty lovers. I will not live in a country of thought crimes and propagandizing. And while we are at it, what is with the idiots who don't even vote Labour adding to the problem by insisting that we go back to the oppressive, undemocratic consensus of the last 20years and Labout moves to the near exact policy oft he Tories again. Any person with more than a few brain cells knows you should not be determined to narrow the political divide between opposition parties, as it is inherently unhealthy and undemocratic for the country, and gives us a political paradigm ripe for cynicism and self-interested self-satisfaction. It actively validates career politicians who are smug and contemptuous of the public, to the exclusion of people who you may not agree with, but go against the grain out of genuine moral convictions. Isn't it obvious how pernicious this is? I look at the people who want to obliterate Galloway for exposing the war lies, the David Kelly scenario, to obliterate Farage for even talking about limits on immigration or a choice in EU membership, to obliterate any Labour leader who tries to address the inequality crisis, and how the people serve the corporations not vice versa, and I dismay. I don't care a damn about PC, or where on the spectrum you are. But such people are enemies of democracy, liberty and free thought. They genuinely want a 100% neo-liberal stitch up of no electoral choice and the propagandizing of, and hatred of, any 'dissenters', aided by a government media with naturally similar leanings.
    Many get knee jerk aggression towards people, or show the beginning of totalitarian-like reactions and vitriol is whipped up. I wish we would take a step back a nd think about our liberty, freedom of thought, how we were a nation that respected individuals going against the grain, and eccentricity, and our precious our traditions and instincts were that made us the most successful democracy on earth and kept us questioning and form descending into the moral squalor and total inhumanity of European fascism. I sometimes think if we taught more real history(and maybe there is an element of how a new 'diverse'(though not in thought it often seems)UK, that we cannot do it fully)that we might see the great figures in our history, from Burke to the founding fathers, who made us what we are, and maybe gain a view of how they would be spinning in their graves at our governance and political debate.

    This came off the top of my head but I really do think we've declined tragically, and I am becoming aware of how pernicious our debate is and how much I am being propagandized. We as people need to use our own faculties, and actively oppose consuming everything from the same media, and remain healthily ware of their propagandizing and keep our objectivity. We need to do things on rationality, not on fervour or claiming the fake, manipulated moral high ground. We need to question opinion, authority, why and how it could be influenced, and some more complex reasons why they may want you to believe it. We need to hone our sense to lack of objectivity and not consume or tolerate it. It may well be the future of our democracy is at stake.
    I actually like Corbyn. Not because I would vote for him or the damage he is causing making other parties more electable.

    I like him because he is principled, because he doesn't just roll over, because he truly represents his constituents.

    It's a rare commodity these days.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Austria-Hungary only had ambitions over Serbian territory in 1914, and look where that ended up.

    If Russia has ambitions over the Baltic countries, or their Russian-speakers, then NATO inevitably becomes involved (by treaty) and we potentially have a full-blown European war.
    Russia's stance is defensive, they are concerned over control by the West. This is not 1914. Russia are not going to start nuking their neighbours. It seems you think we might nuke Russia.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Russia's stance is defensive
    If you believe that you would believe anything.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    If you believe that you would believe anything.
    The thing is practically they are aggressive but the mentality is defensive.

    Russia doesn't feel welcomed by the west like its the ginger step child.

    We in the west are like what are you doing this for? We're no threat to you unless you attack us (nato)

    They however feel like they are being penned in.

    I don't agree with what Russia is doing but I understand it.

    The question is what do you do about it?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The thing is practically they are aggressive but the mentality is defensive.

    Russia doesn't feel welcomed by the west like its the ginger step child.

    We in the west are like what are you doing this for? We're no threat to you unless you attack us (nato)

    They however feel like they are being penned in.

    I don't agree with what Russia is doing but I understand it.

    The question is what do you do about it?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    NATO could stop strengthening its positon and conducting exercises in Russia's immediate neighbours. We could stop fuelling instabilty in the Middle East. We could be less aggressive toward their allies, the few that they have.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    NATO could stop strengthening its positon and conducting exercises in Russia's immediate neighbours. We could stop fuelling instabilty in the Middle East. We could be less aggressive toward their allies, the few that they have.
    Are you Russian?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I actually like Corbyn. Not because I would vote for him or the damage he is causing making other parties more electable.

    I like him because he is principled, because he doesn't just roll over, because he truly represents his constituents.

    It's a rare commodity these days.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think he thinks he's principled ; and he really believes that he is.

    He's been around a long time with no responsibility and no need to intellectually debate or justify his beliefs as he's a creature of the old Left - you can say you're peaceful and civilised but you have a thousand thugs behind you ready to do violence in furtherance of your cause. It's VI Form politics all over- he doesn't need to win debates because he has zealots believing in him. Hence, his principles don't get tested.

    He says he wants employers to treat employees better - that's a bedrock of the Labour Party - but look at what has gone on in their own party over the last months. But he won't see it, he'll just be incapable of recognising all his own contradictions
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I think he thinks he's principled ; and he really believes that he is.
    Yes, but allowing his acolytes to intimidate Labour MPs and their staff (and even constituents) is hardly principled is it? His fellow-traveller on this thread supports what Putin does to Russia's neighbours while blaming NATO ror carrying out exercises, for goodness' sake.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Are you Russian?
    No. Just don't believe we should only see things from one side. I don't think Putin is an angel by any means, but I don't think our government or allies are either.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I think he thinks he's principled ; and he really believes that he is.

    He's been around a long time with no responsibility and no need to intellectually debate or justify his beliefs as he's a creature of the old Left - you can say you're peaceful and civilised but you have a thousand thugs behind you ready to do violence in furtherance of your cause. It's VI Form politics all over- he doesn't need to win debates because he has zealots believing in him. Hence, his principles don't get tested.

    He says he wants employers to treat employees better - that's a bedrock of the Labour Party - but look at what has gone on in their own party over the last months. But he won't see it, he'll just be incapable of recognising all his own contradictions
    He doesn't have thousands of thugs, there have been a few fairly low key events by a very small minority of supporters, which have been blown out of all proportion. I have seen a lot of rhetoric from the other side which never gets mentioned. Just because you like some of his policies, or agree with his side in a debate doesn't make you a zealot. I have yet to hear a single concrete complaint from any of his 'employees' that has been backed up by any kind of evidence. It seems to be simply a case that they don't like him. Their new guy Owen is copying all his policies, so it can't be those.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    No. Just don't believe we should only see things from one side. I don't think Putin is an angel by any means, but I don't think our government or allies are either.
    So, given an aggressive state that has a history of military intervention in its weak neighbours and which has an obvious motive to manufacture reasons to intervene in the Baltic states (for instance), you don't think it is reasonable for NATO to practice for that eventuality, lest we upset that state?

    Doesn't that tell you something about why Russia makes the statements it makes. If NATO doesn't practice against an invasion, the invasion (when it comes) will have a better chance of success.

    Or do you think the silly concept of safe spaces should come out of the playroom into the real world and be extended to Russia?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    He doesn't have thousands of thugs, there have been a few fairly low key events by a very small minority of supporters, which have been blown out of all proportion. I have seen a lot of rhetoric from the other side which never gets mentioned. Just because you like some of his policies, or agree with his side in a debate doesn't make you a zealot. I have yet to hear a single concrete complaint from any of his 'employees' that has been backed up by any kind of evidence. It seems to be simply a case that they don't like him. Their new guy Owen is copying all his policies, so it can't be those.
    You don't need thousands - just a few.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    .
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So, given an aggressive state that has a history of military intervention in its weak neighbours and which has an obvious motive to manufacture reasons to intervene in the Baltic states (for instance), you don't think it is reasonable for NATO to practice for that eventuality, lest we upset that state?

    Doesn't that tell you something about why Russia makes the statements it makes. If NATO doesn't practice against an invasion, the invasion (when it comes) will have a better chance of success.
    I didn't say that NATO shouldn't have exercises, just not do them in countries immediately neighbouring Russia.

    Or do you think the silly concept of safe spaces should come out of the playroom into the real world and be extended to Russia?
    Insults don't add weight to an argument just length.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.