Do the charges of antisemitism often get leveled against those who are actually anti-Zionist, and/or against the horrific abuses inflicted on Palestinians by the state of Israel (as typically happens here in the U.S.)? Or do the accused instead seem to be actual antisemitic haters of Jewish people?
3 Likes
So youâre fine then with the neoliberal status quo, and the misery-for-most-by-slow-strangulation of âausterity measuresâ?
No, not at all, not a big fan of socialism in any of itâs forms, but especially not when itâs socialism for the banks. Though I do believe in many ways itâs the lesser of two evils when compared to Corbynâs ideas (which would also lead to misery for most IMHO), not that Iâd vote for the Tories or anything though.
Go take a look at the history of the two people I linked to before and make up your own mind (I can see only one of the links was actually clicked). Gerry Downing in particular rants at âthe jewsâ at every opportunity. The other woman called on ISIS to invade Israel!
Okay, even if so, thatâs two (expelled) âsupporters,â out of how many? hundreds? thousands? hundreds of thousands?
3 Likes
I donât know much, to be honest. Itâs stuff Iâve heard brought up by Labour voters/members uncomfortable with Corbyn and/or the idea of voting Green if you were left wing. Suggestion is that itâs deeper than simply issues with Israel/Zionism.
(no idea who forward.com isâŚ)
http://forward.com/opinion/world/218737/england-s-green-party-has-an-anti-semitism-probl/
you think this represents the lot of them? these are people who have risen to relatively high positions in the party and various grassroots movements behind Cobynâs success. the Stop the War coalition is full of these people, Downing was the chair of Grassroots Left (which was setup by the shadow chancellor - whoâs a fan of the IRA btw), Kirby had gotten as far as being selected as a parliamentary candidate before she got kicked out (before being let back in, then kicked out again).
Ah, the âWhere thereâs one there must be more!â argument. I canât remember what kind of âlogical fallacyâ that is.
Seems to me that youâre the one who seems to be saying that those two you provided linked articles about ârepresent the lot of them.â
1 Like
Itâs not a logical fallacy, itâs a fact. You donât seem to know much about the details here, maybe you should read up a bit more on it?
If itâs so widely known that those groups who support Corbyn are loaded with antisemites, terrorism apologists, and other such âlunatics,â it should be easier for you to provide proof. Your two examples, people Corbyn has apparently ejected, constitute weak support for your claim. As for finding out myself whether what youâre charging is true, again, by all rights the burden of proof is on you, since you initially made the charge. Anyway, the reading up I have done on it leads mostly to obviously right-wing sites, places Iâd rather not do the favor of providing page views. Plus, I know how much those on the right like to cherrypick, claiming that isolated or rare examples nefariously (yet falsely) represent some broader whole.
2 Likes
Iâm not sure what the point of providing more evidence will be (I have plenty at hand without need for digging more up btw), when you seem to be ignoring most of what Iâve presented already. Corbyn doesnât deserve any credit for the ejection of these two btw, it was the Corbyn wing of the party that let them back in again in the first place (Livingstone and McDonnell in particular have the most obvious links with these guys), and only threw them back out again after they were embarrassed in public and criticised from within by the saner parts of the party. If you want to educate yourself on this stuff there are plenty of sources from within the left btw, blogs and news sites and the likes (hereâs one to get you started).
IMHO Charlie isnât particularly a socialist as far as I can tell.
Heâs relentlessly critical of global capitalism and how itâs fucking us all over, of course - so I suppose that makes him a socialist by American media standards - but heâs also highly skeptical of a lot of other ideologies and particularly anything that reeks of social control or totalitarianism.
Quite possibly, but that doesnât change the fact that his popularity is low and looks unlikely to increase.
there are no causal links between social control / totalitarianism and socialism. correlation is not causation.
2 Likes
itâs hard to prove causal links in any area of social interaction, shitâs just too complex, but similarly it would be foolish to rule anything out. personally Iâd be inclined to think they pretty much go hand in hand though.
Historical evidence please. at last count there were plenty non-socialist totalitarian dictatorships around. Totalitarianism is not a uniquely socialist phenomenonâas anyone even with cursory knowledge of history will recognise-- It is a uniquely human phenomenon.
e.g. The catholic church (as much as the anglican and lutheran and âŚ) rather excelled at totalitarianism and they had centuries to perfect the art.
p.s. just because hitler abused âsocialismâ doesnât mean he was actually remotely practicing Socialism as a matter of fact long before he went after the Jews he very efficiently and effectively eradicated first the Communists and then the Socialists.
so personally, I would be inclined to suggest your inclinations not evidence based.
Historical evidence please.
Pretty much every single instance of heavily socialist state in the history of the planet (european social democracies donât count, theyâre not particularly socialist by any reasonable definition). The existence of non-socialist totalitarian states isnât evidence of anything, all that tells us is there is more than one route to totalitarianism.
Socialism was invented by European Social Democrats (the 1920s (post WW1 being the hey day of democratic Socialism a la Räterepublics.) Then the Capitalist got scared that the status quo might be turned up side down and the rest is history: Nationalism WW2) Have a read.
But seriously, no idea why anyone would discount European Social Democracy in a discussion of Socialism, considering that it has been the longest and most sustained form of Socialism, but ey, why be bothered by history when you can have ideology.
And yes Socialism is baaaaaaaaad and eeeevil and is the cause of all eeeevil and baaad.
Humans are motivated solely by greed and competition and any sense of community is at best an illusion, as the old witch said and her children are now busy carrying on her golden legacy.
On that cheery note. Good Night.
1 Like
I think itâs you that needs to have a read, Socialism predates the 1920s by quite a bit. Have you never heard of the Paris Commune, to pick one obvious example?
European Social Democracy isnât proper socialism because itâs is almost entirely free market based. Progressive taxation and high government spending isnât enough, and even the scandinavian countries have had plenty of fiscal responsibility when needed (look at how Sweden responded to their budget deficits after the 90s). Even if you compare the size of the governments youâll find that scandinavia isnât that different from the US.
And yes Socialism is baaaaaaaaad and eeeevil and is the cause of all eeeevil and baaad.
not quite, but close enough.
Humans are motivated solely by greed and competition and any sense of community is at best an illusion, as the old witch said and her children are now busy carrying on her golden legacy.
some humans are certainly, and true socialism sets up a system from which those types can more readily prosper.
I specifically suggested you read up on Räterepubliks in central Europe.
Unfortunately, it seems that you need to learn German first, as the English speaking Interweb seems to dislike good Socialism in practice as much as you do. You can but try https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Räterepublik. These thrived in Central Europe for a brief period until the powers that be identified them as threats.
Historically, applied Socialism does not equate with Stalinism just as Catholicism doesnât equate with the Inquisition. But this seems a difficult concept to fathom. And Western Europe was pretty socialist in the good-socialist-not-totalitarian sense, until 90s when Reagan & Mrs T spearheaded the âTriumph of Capitalismâ, since then Capitalist no longer needs to cover sociopathic tracks.
And thank you for clarifying the root of all evil and bad. Was really having trouble with that.
Now that I now that Socialism is to blame I can feel reassured that if Trumpf triumphs evil shall be kept forever at bay. Was worried about that.
1 Like
caze does seem to have a rather blinkered view on what socialism is for some reason. Itâs almost like an inverse No True Scotsman fallacy. The ideas behind Market Socialism existed 200 years ago, for example.
They are right that socialism predates the 1920s though. In the UK modern socialism can trace itâs roots back to the English dissenters of the 1600s , like the Diggers and, to some extent, the Levellers. In pre-revolutionary France there was M. Morrelly.
In The Communist Manifesto, Marx covers some of the forms of socialism he knew about and didnât think much of. I still think his definition of Conservative socialism is very true for a lot of what is commonly referred to socialism in the modern day UK and USA.
As for me, I believe Marx got a lot right and a lot wrong. I expect I would have been kicked out of the First Communist International along with Bakunin (who had his own major faults) and the other anarchists.
4 Likes
