Yeah we aren't seeing a revolution or social democracy, we are just gonna get gradual radicalisation until some dickhead puts an end to british "democracy" once and for all. Anyways here's Wonderwall.
>>2259133Marx was entirely correct on this point.
British leftists should all consider moving to somewhere where our energy at least has a vague hope of achieving something.
its heartwarming to read the comments to the story in vidrel, which reveal the sacredness we hold to this soil; jerusalem, "green and pleasant land".
>>2260519if you hate britain, leave.
>>2260184reform UK is a one-issue party. migration *is* the issue at hand, and what people care about. if starmer became the anti-migrant guy, reform would have no platform. thats his point. as some lads over at the "lotus eaters" reveal though, labour is covertly "based", the same way obama deported more illegals than drumpf ever did. right wing parties rarely ever do what their voters want them to.
>>2260668why do you stay in a place you hate?
its a logical contradiction.
>>2260673>Nazi retardwhat justifies this accusation? pure immaturity.
>Carl Benjamin is an unironic paedophile.i dont doubt it
>>2259526>>2260635You are delusional if you think Starmer should be more anti-migrant. He IS anti migrant already, incredibly so. Labour today is more anti-migrant than the tories have been in the past. Migrants today literally can't get visas, one of my closest friends is going to be deported because she can't pay the exhorbitant fee, and if you want a work visa you literally have to make 40k a year which is insane, or work in the NHS or social services. Migrants are not welcome already.
This whole migrant 'issue' is an entirely constructed thing, and it will NEVER be solved. It's the modern version of the jews, a scapegote you can pin all your problems on. Reform would just pretend to solve it without changing anything that is already there. You need to seriosuly re-appraise your analysis of the situation if you think this is an actual issue.
The real way Starmer has failed is by not being a good enough social-democrat. He is doing the same thing the tories did for 14 years, people don't want that. People want a change, and since they're not getting a change, they're not getting funding for what they need, they are obviously going to go to reform. Right now reform is unironically the most left wing party in the game. This is a worse situation than in the 1920s germany because there they had communists.
Labour is failing to do its part in the bourgeois electoral cycle, which is what is giving a chance for the national bourgeois / petit bourgeois / american financial bourgeois Reform party to gain power. It's still up to history whether they will actually gain power, or if they are a tory project that will fall through like ukip. Reform certainly can become 'establishment', its not like the financial bourgeois of this country will have any issue allying with them.
>>2262113>He IS anti migrant already, incredibly so. Labour today is more anti-migrant than the tories have been in the past.thanks for repeating my point back to me.
>This whole migrant 'issue' is an entirely constructed thing, and it will NEVER be solved.it has an easy solution. stop subsidising their residence. many migrants even come from french beaches, so make france accountable to their pledge; otherwise, we are just inheriting a debt.
>Reform would just pretend to solve it without changing anything that is already therethanks once more for repeating my point.
>>2262155its all over their 2024 manifesto - and this is just the same issue that brexit was voted over as well. its a singular issue in the public zeitgeist. everything else is secondary.
>>2262250>also muh debt muh pledgeyes, you understand why transferring debt onto someone is unfair, right? its france's responsibility to hold their own migrants. if they dont want them, they can deport them, themselves.
>fuck off to burgerland then liberal ICE is doing exactly what you want with the migrants people over therei already discussed USA and how obama deported way more illegal immigrants than drumpf ever did - i related this to labour in the UK too. barking and biting are different things.
>>2262274so in your mind, everyone has to suffer, because people happen to disagree with you? a very healthy personality, im sure.
>>2262275i posted the thatcher picture because she stripped out industry in the 80s. globally, british labour cannot reasonably compete with cheap labour elsewhere - thats why we are largely a service economy, which realises the profits of industry in mass consumption. ive worked in warehouses, like amazon and b&m, and its just picking/packing; distribution. we dont make things, we just move them around. assets like land are used today to squeeze out rents from people in place of profits (thatcher also completely deregulated housing while in power). thats why rents/mortgages are always the largest bill, so that is porkie's prime investment - since it is a monopoly venture.
>>2262293its many connected factors, but most basically, its based in the wage. british labour is too expensive to hire to make a good profit out of, compared to places with cheaper labour. thats why capitalists want to lower wages all the time. we also have wage differences based on age in the UK, so younger workers are cheaper than older ones - the same way tradesmen employ apprentices at diminished rates.
>>2262295my own uncle kicked my family out of their house, without showing his face. ive never met a nice landlord, and ive never heard a nice landlord story.
>>2262297finally! #yimby
>>2262262>democracy>popular willI wipe my ass with both. Revolutions are always spearheaded by a minority of the population. You think everyone suported the French Revolution? It was mainly just Paris.
Also, zigger.
>>2262312>So in thatcher time porkies exported capial to foreing countries for bigger surplus value?yes, while britain "financialised", just like in the US, with ronald regan. the "special relationship" was also present with bill clinton and tony blair.
>>2262314>i am against democracyyou speak for yourself
>>2262315>Why is other labour cheaper than british one?lack of labour laws; less infrastuctural development, and so on.
>is it because british stuff is expensive?our standard of living is higher because of higher development, but at the same time, if we lowered wages, development would also fall - so its a strange relationship. for example, if people only made £100 a month, their housing would be cheaper, which means lower quality.
>so they make stuf there for cheap and sell it to brits for expensive?goods are cheap in britain, but expensive in other places. the price of the goods doesnt change much on the market (which is why we have "regular retail prices" and so on). you can see in this video for example, how coco farmers give us the raw materials for chocolate, but themselves, may never eat chocolate. the final product is mostly sent to the first world after the materials are refined and packaged.
>>2262352>Maybe housing is expensive because cement is expensive?if we just lived in cubes of cement, housing would be a lot cheaper lol. the materials used for housing also include bricks, breeze blocks, timber, steel beams, plumbing, gas, electrical - and labour itself. so houses have a high cost of production as-is. what also adds to cost is different market factors like location. a small house in london will always be more expensive than a big house in birmingham. we can say that this is supply and demand (scarcity), but its also infrastructure. the cost of developing an area is put onto the cost of everything within that area too. thats why you get higher prices for basic goods and services in london also. buying cheap and selling high doesnt work in international business since you cant really establish a monopoly on cement or bricks, for example.
>>2262363cutting off russian oil made things more expensive.
>>2262426when you live in a nation of millions, you have to learn to be tolerant of what your neighbour might think. now, if you disagree with them, you may attempt to persuade them, but otherwise, what can you do? youre speaking of dominant, bourgeois values, yet you are precisely defending them. thats fine, but just dont be hypocritical.
>>2262421only negatively, as far as i can see.
>>2262470its always weird with people, since they dont like lazy immigrants, or working immigrants either. better taking your job than your benefits i suppose. we have to be fair in all this.
>>2262476i never mentioned communism, i mentioned illegal migration. and if the working class is irredeemable to you, why do you peddle for the proletariat in the first place?
>>2261469>buried at Highgate very close to Marx.This reminds me we were promised by a leftybritanon some years ago that someone would
tagadorn Marx's burial place with picrel's proclamation/epitath, well what's the holdup…?
>>2259526because stopping immigration wouldn't stop reform and you're an imbecile if you think that's the "real" source of their support. (you're also naive if you think Starmer wants Reform gone. He'd like to stay in the big chair, soon, but if it's "Labour or Reform" that's the Labour right's wet dream - they think that means the left have nowhere else to go.)
track UKIP/Reform support since 2010. it's interesting (and suggests they're spectacularly astroturfed, a vehicle of the right-wing press), but it tells you sweet fuck all about immigration. there is zero correlation between their support and migration numbers. instead, they bob up and down as necessary to manipulate the Tory vote to a desired end. (including, in 2024, letting Starmer get in.)
>>2260635Reform is not a single issue party lmao. Reform explicitly say their aim is to replace the Tories. They are named after the Canadian reform party, which absorbed the Canadian Tory party.
>>2262459The results would be entirely dependent on the question.
>>2262848>Reform is not a single issue partywhy do you think people voted for them?
>The results would be entirely dependent on the question.here are the questions:
- are you satisfied with current rates of migration?
- if so, would you like more?
- if not, would you like less?
- if more/less, how much more/less?
then you can qualify why people want more/less
>>2262912>for revolution you don't even need a majority.you presumably need a minority to represent a majority in any case. yet you arent a democrat, so you dont really understand the concept. who is this enlightened minority fighting for? themselves?
Recent reports indicate that Britain has sent 14 shipments of bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines and F-34 fighter jet parts to Israel since October 2023, while the RAF has carried out more than 500 surveillance flights across Gaza, defended Israeli installations from retaliatory missile attacks and bombed Houthi targets on land and sea.
“The stated intention of the Israeli Cabinet is to launch a full-scale offensive to occupy the whole of Gaza permanently, while settler extremists and the misnamed Israeli Defence Force wage war against native Palestinians on the West Bank”, he told our Party’s Executive Committee meeting at the weekend.
“Israel appears exempt from all international and humanitarian law, while the US, EU states and Britain lecture the rest of the world about human and maritime rights, sending warships and warplanes to enforce Western interests from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean and South China Sea”, Mr Nelson accused.
He called on the Labour government to follow the example of the Irish Republic, Spain and 145 other countries and recognise Palestine as a sovereign state.
The Communist Party leadership branded Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to condemn Israeli genocide as “one of the most shameful episodes in Labour’s long and bloody record of supporting British and US imperialism around the world”.
Britain’s Communists urged trade unionists to support a workplace day of action for Palestine on May 15 and the London demonstration on May 17 to mark the 77th anniversary of the ‘Nakba’ (the ‘Catastrophe’), when almost a million Palestinians were driven from their homeland by Zionist and Israeli forces in 1948.
Mr Nelson’s international report also hailed the May 9 Victory Day parade in Moscow to celebrate the role played by the Soviet Union, China, the Western allies and resistance movements in defeating fascism, and welcomed the 600,000-strong May Day rally in Cuba attended by leaders of Britain’s Young Communist League.
>>2263638People voted reform in 2024 because the media machine that has propped the Tories up since 2010 was set from "suck" to "blow", resulting in Tory voters going to Reform. (Itself entirely artificially propped up by the press and their indulgence of its leader)
In 2025 the same is still true, but Labour have underperformed literally everyone's expectations in government, while having parliamentary representation and "competitive" polling (read:labour alienating more people than they've ever alienated before) has justified more and more press boosterism for reform.
This is not a democracy: votes are an output of the system, not an input to it.
A footnote is that Labour itself wants to boost reform because they think it means they can scare pro-Palestinian and Green voters into backing Labour to stop reform. (To which, I hope, they'll all say "lol, lmao")
>>2263756thats the hypocrisy of so-called contemporary "nationalists". at least mosely wanted autarky.
>>2264317so its all a conspiracy? there isnt popular disconent which led to brexit in the first place, and of which its principle cause, anti-immigration sentiment, is still something unresolved? now that the tories are shown to do nothing about immigration, it has lost its legitimacy as an opposition party to labour. thats why there is the shift.
>>2265179There is a deep level of popular discontent rooted in the fact this is the most unequal country in Northern Europe, where swathes of the place have been economically written off since the 1980s and where everywhere but London has choked on its own blood post 2008.
Brexit was rooted in (a) voting against the massed blob of institutions saying "don't do this" (which wasn't as unified as the blob against Scottish independence, which is the sociologically fascinating comparison - and which argued independence would allow for *more* immigration. Many papers backed Brexit, only one paper - a Sunday paper at that - backed Scottish independence) and (b) Britain's long standing Euroscepticism, indulged even by europhile leaders like Blair.
"The Tories have done nothing about immigration, I'm going to vote Labour" is as retarded a hypothetical thing for a voter to say as "The Tories have moved too fast on net zero, I'm going to vote Green"
>>2265203>There is a deep level of popular discontent rooted in the fact this is the most unequal country in Northern Europe, where swathes of the place have been economically written off since the 1980s and where everywhere but London has choked on its own blood post 2008.im not talking about general discontent, im talking about a particular object of discontent, immigration. thats what brexit was about, everyone knows this.
>scottish independencetheres no such thing as scottish or irish "independence", just anti-english protest, which serves the EU. trading one master for another.
>The Tories have done nothing about immigration, I'm going to vote Labourthats not the argument. the argument is "the tories and labour do nothing about immigration, im voting for reform".
of course, as i have communicated, labour does a lot more than the tories, yet right wingers can give no concessions to this either and think a re-vamped tory party will save the UK, despite grifters like nigel farage being obvious con-men (such as in the case of him promising millions being paid back into the NHS after brexit, then denying it on live television).
>>2265218you can go on indeed.com
and toggle the settings for hours and salary
i dont know your location, so i cant do it for you
>>2265216If you're going to dismiss Scottish Independence so easily, it's too obvious that you're starting with a conclusion and working backwards. The rise of the SNP is the sociological counterpoint to the rise of Reform/UKIP, and it trashes the myth that it's all about immigration or inevitably requires a move to the right.
It's all the funnier because even the SNP don't really understand that, so Sturgeon blairified them and bled support. But you've no internet in understanding, you just want to be le based reformposter on leftypol.org
Enjoy your Monday, it's sunny out.
>>2265298people understand perfectly well that its "the system" as a whole which is the problem. thats why jeremy corbyn and farage are both inherently popular, since they are speaking of different issues in the same society. its like how loads of bernie bros ended up voting for trump in 2016, despite their differences.
>>2265270i understand the SNP perfectly well. theyre as meaningful as plaid cymru or finn sein. its phoney celtic identity politics that masks the cynicism of the age. i am speaking practically as to their aims, which are not profound, but centre-left capitulations. and saying that you want to leave the UK for the EU only proves my point that its a movement that barks, but doesnt bite. what is superior about the EU, exactly? only that its not english, to these people.
>trashes the myth that it's all about immigration or inevitably requires a move to the rightwhy do you think people voted for brexit and reform?
>you just want to be le based reformposter in the post youre replying to, i have delivered the most brutal attack against reform by calling them a party of grifters and con men, yet you think i am advocating for them. you severely lack reading comprehension skills. as i have continually said, from the beginning, right wing politicians are always ineffective in their aims - such as obama deporting more immigrants than trump, or labour deporting more migrants than the tories. therefore, reform is a plea for change, but it wont come from them. there is popular discontent without an available outlet.
>>2265314The difference is that you can’t dissuade Farage supporters with accusations of racism, Corbyn lost all of his support near instantly over accusations with vague shit like him being too cosmopolitan, whatever that meant.
Genuinely, I don’t think there are many people out there who supported Corbyn but got talked out of it over Israel, it’s more likely that the debate of the 2010s over what the main issue in the UK is was settled in favour of immigration. Not that everyone now is a screaming racist demanding the government to start loading up the trains, but certainly there’s an idea that if *so* much is being said about immigration, then perhaps it is a problem and perhaps it’s a problem because of wokies like Corbynistas haven’t let people discuss it openly.
>>2265326>Corbyn lost all of his support near instantly over accusations with vague shit like him being too cosmopolitani remember clearly. he was too hesitant about brexit and tried to be a good team-player for the party that soon excommunicated him for apparently being the next hitler. he showed weakness at the wrong time (not that theresa may showed "strength", but that corbyn failed to be a proper leader). corbyn was marginally pro-brexit in the beginning, but receded as the throne of power was in sight - farage is the same; a natural backbencher who exited politics as soon as he got the referendum. he will decline being prime minister again if the day ever comes, and prefer to make cameo videos about big chungus.
the frustration is that there arent many people who can speak to both left and right, which is needed, especially in a parliamentary system, so we will always get an integral incompletion.
>>2265338Yeah but that’s the point, Corbyn was undone by accusations that he can’t truly be anti-establishment or against the system when he is apparently so “of” the establishment with his cosmopolitan-ness, million pound flat in London (which is more a problem with London than Corbyn), too soft on Brexit, etc.
Farage is in no way convincing that he is in any way anti-establishment or against the system, yet he has support from people claiming they’re against the system, no amount of pointing at his tweed and hyperfixation on migration/borders has done anything to stop him being presented as some kind of Jonny Rotten of politics.
Therefore that leads me to believe Farage supporters only claim to be anti-establishment while winking at each other.
I suspect that claiming Corbyn is “literally Hitler” for his support of Palestine was so successful for the right, not because it was convincing, but they could see there was even more support for anti-immigration policies than polls suggested but blocked by a taboo for many that anti-immigration is simply just for racists and not many want to be tarnished with that, but the suggestion that *both* populist movements have problems with racists means picking one over the other can’t label you as specifically choosing out of racist intent.
If you’re now being presented a choice between being problematic for being anti-immigration here or problematic for being anti-Semitic towards a different country, then that makes picking supporting anti-immigration policies a much easier choice and it did unlock a lot of support for Boris and gave people an easy “out” of being Corbyn supporters now being anti-immigration is acceptable.
>>2265355>Therefore that leads me to believe Farage supporters only claim to be anti-establishment while winking at each other.it depends on what class youre talking to i suppose.
>anti-immigration vs anti-semitismthe issue in general is that different causes have been coupled together, like how to support palestine, you then must have an opinion of the ukraine conflict. being anti-immigration also gets lumped in with a reflexive zionism. the justification of transphobia is also masked under "women's rights". what if you are truly a one-issue man? it seems harder to be principled these days.
>>2265394i dont know if i really see the causal chain that way, since i cant recall boris having a very strong platform, besides being one of the "lads" (despite, of course, as is the case with farage, being firmly planted in the ruling class - this illusion also permeates around friend of epstein, the billionaire donald trump, who is treated as a humble christian by his voters). the worst thing about the accusations against corbyn was the lack of support from the right against such obvious attacks; libel for thee, not for me, i suppose. its the same way the right in the US attacked biden for dodging the media, when trump did the same. maybe i am naive, but i really hate hypocrisy, and thats my general complaint with political "culture". its the same issue i discussed yesterday about immigrants. why is an immigrant "taking" your job a bad thing if no one was doing it in the first place? the only issue is an immigrant not working at all. we need fairness.
>>2266702Apparently Reform think being a DemSoc is criminally extreme or something
Speakers of the House were silent on the comments too
>>2266853as you concede, Brussels has no real control over anything that matters. Britain leaving changed nothing because the ruling class lived elsewhere.
the question you should ask is: what happens when political independence is achieved but economic control remains in London. or perhaps - as a real practical question - what tensions arise when you invite Brussels and London to compete to buy up your country.
>>2266855well, this is the issue between politics and economics, as you put it. i would rather say that its a tension between capital and labour. i have previously said that "nationalists" are basically just NIMBYs. they see problems, but want to put them out of sight, like flushing a shit, which nonetheless pollutes water. the issue with wanting to kick out the pakis is that you fundamentally preserve class relations, and so the criticism has this intrinsic limitation. when the streets are only filled with white faces, a new cause of blame must arise, since things arent much better, just less obvious. then its the polaks or the paddies.
what we have is the freedom of capital, but a restriction of travel for labour. in the global sphere of trade, the only colour is "green", but on the ground, its a spectrum of difference. the rich foreigner is tolerated, while the poor is scapegoated. the foreign investor is allowed; the foreign consumer, banished. race then, has this class dimension, and this is the hypocrisy. foreign capital is permitted, while foreign labour is vilified. where is "nationalism" in this?
i off-handedly praised mosley's consistency as it concerned his nationalism, since he wanted to implement autarky (self-sufficiency). he wanted to deny claims of foreign labour or capital by an investment in the domestic stock. if today's nationalists had this idea; that independence means depending on oneself, i could abide by it. scotland, ireland and wales just want to join a larger body, however. this doesnt disrupt the control of capital over the nation, but invites others to rule over you. where there is foreign capital, where can you have a nation at all? this is why brexit was so useless. what country can you take back? the only policy is managed decline. but okay, fair enough, you want the pakis out - then what? thats the crucial question.
>>2266884do you not find it interesting that celtic nationalists have no interest in kicking anyone out? that their cause - again - ultimately amounts to:
let's be like Ireland?
>>2266971The coppers glowed it to fuck in the 00s because they started doing base shit like hunt sabs, direct action environmentalism, and smashing up israeli arms factories. That and the laws against squatting have severely damaged the movement.
Also Corbynism "normalised" a lot of anarchists into electoralism. Many remained "anarchists" but they just make posters about doing anarchism nowadays rather than doing it. Black Lodge Press is the prime example of this.
Green party leadership election campaign is underway then, huh?
The options are:
>Zack Polanski
A former boob growth hypnotist, a former Lib Dem, and one of those who formerly smeared Corbyn as a Hitlerian anti-Semite.
But recently he has re-invented himself as a left wing populist, eco-socialist type. He's promising to move the party leftwards and to rebrand the Greens as a party that goes on the attack.
How much of this new left wing Zack is real? Has he genuinely changed what he believes in? How much is just political bullshitery? Could he do a Starmer and abandon his left wing views immediately if he wins?
We just don't know.
>Adrian Ramsey and Ellie Chowns (joint leadership bid)
Very much the continuity candidates and known quantities. They want to keep the Greens on their current path, being a "nice", boring, liberal, progressive party.
Play nice, try to attract both the disaffected left-of-labour candidates, but also equally go for frustrated Tory NIMBYs.
Ironically for a Green, Adrian has consistently blocked the building of wind farms and solar farms in his constituency.
He's also the only high ranking Green to come out in support of the Supreme Court's ruling on trans issues.
If Zack's recent leftwards conversion is genuine, and that's a big question, then the British Greens will push towards holding similar political positions to the US Green Party and Australian Green party.
If Adrian and Ellie win then expect them to push to be be more like the German Greens and other European Greens.
I don't like electoral politics or any of our parties, but I think it's necessary to keep an eye on this because they're perhaps the least bad group of people with any meaningful political positions in England, the least bad party probably standing in your local elections unless you're lucky and have a decent independent or minor party candidate.
I still think it's worth pushing for an actual, real new Socialist party though. The Greens are not an ideal vehicle for action by far.
>>2267369>I still think it's worth pushing for an actual, real new Socialist party thoughFrom where? Corbyn has been out of Labour for years, allied with independents (dubious whether they are socialist), and socialist members of Labour have either had the whip removed or re-instated without having made the effort to form a new party.
There has been ground for a new party with well known politcians for years but no attempt has even been made.
Zack Polanski's previous stances don't fill me with hope but he seems like the closest shot there is currently - and even then, he's having a campaign run against him by Asa Winstanley and co
>>2266971All the student activist types I know call themselves anarchist and read anarchist theory. It's all very liberal and petit-bourgeois unfortunately. I thought anarchism was popular but I guess your perception is based on what group you hang out with.
>>2266976Unfortunately TrotsKKKyism is the most influential 'Marxist' tendency in the country. They are the most visible and probably have the most membership. Everyone left the YCL in the last couple years, they aren't so big today. Anyway the CPB is basically TrotsKKKyist in every meaningful way.
>>2267432But it is… The CPB is Trotskyist. The CPGB-ML is Trotskyist. The CPB-ML is Trotskyist. They are all trots, or functionally identical to them. If they weren't trots they would recognize Wales and Scotland as nations that have a right to independence.
Actually calling everything Trotskyist is erasing how the internal contradictions of the revisionist Marxsit-Leninists parties lead to their own downfall. But I do think there isn't much practically different between the Trots and the opportunists nowadays.
>>2267417Long Live the CNT and FAI.
Fuck that supergrass scumfuck George Orwell.
He was a Dem-Soc bastard who worked as a UK government agent, he reported dozens if not hundreds of suspected Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists and Anarchists to the British goverment.
Should I buy a Kei car for my first car guys? They're so cute.
https://www.japancarimport.co.uk/inventoryOr wait for the BYD Seagull (which has disappointingly been renamed to 'dolphin surf' for the UK market)
>>2268196If you think society as it is, is all rosy and nice well then good for you. But it's not like that for most of us.
Why are you even here if everything is fine? What is it you want to change?
>>2268250keep calm and carry on, thats all ill say
youre only as miserable as you choose to be
>>2267986Inane English chauvinism. Scots don't want the "English out", like pretty much every region of the UK they want
not to be ruled by Westminster - you know, like Ireland.
Tell me, do you think Ireland would be better off if the whole place was run like Ulster? You talk about forgetting languages, but Irish has done a damn sight better than Scottish Gaelic. One quick flood in the outer Hebrides and that's it. Meanwhile 40% of Ireland half know something.
>>2268186It has undergone the longest wage stagnation since the Napoleonic wars, is all but incapable of building anything, is in an economic death spiral because of utterly made up fiscal rules (even Germany doesn't do that meme anymore!), and is governed by a mixture of open corruption and the world's worst newspaper corps. It produces very little that it needs and almost nothing that the world values, save for financial services chicanery.
Throw darts at a globe at random and you're almost guaranteed to hit a country with a brighter future.
>>2269075>Scots don't want the "English out"ask any proud celt what they think about the english and youll get your answer. if the scots wanted to rule themselves, they wouldnt run off to the continent.
>like irelandright, theyre just ruled by brussells instead.
>>2269092>Throw darts at a globe at random and you're almost guaranteed to hit a country with a brighter future.yet so many still want to come here. we are a very wealthy country, even if that wealth is declining.
>>2269536aye! 🇬🇧🏴🏴🏴
>>2269676>ask any proud celt what they think about the english and youll get your answer. if the scots wanted to rule themselves, they wouldnt run off to the continent.english nats have to be the stupidest demographic in this country, imagine basing your entire identity around a hallucinated perspective of "EU rule" when the brits fucked with the EU a lot more than the opposite
inb4 "you are pro eu" i'm not, what i said above is just a statement of fact
https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-leaves-mark-eu-brexit/ >>2269747if youre in the EU, youre not "independent".
whats so controversial in saying that?
if, as it has also been discussed, there is no great difference between being in or out of the EU, why join the EU? the only answer, is to oppose england. and as it has been said; the only reason we had brexit was because of immigration - now, stats show that most immigration is non-EU related, so the vote itself was futile. its as useless to join, as to leave the EU, then. thats why brexiteers and remoaners are part of the same nonsense.
>>2269754>there is no great difference between being in or out of the EUof course there is a difference. the difference is that the EU is a trading bloc, and is much stronger as a trading bloc than ridiculous tory post imperial ambitions claim britain will ever be, even if all the former colonies decided to for some reason willingly cuck themselves to this failing economy. your imperialist retardation is showcased by your thinking that all the "peasants" put the english at the centre of everything, it is impossible for there to be a clear material reason for their politics, it has to be reduced it to whatever the fuck idealist notion you've concocted in your brain today.
>the only reason we had brexit was because of immigrationutter nonsense leading to a flawed assumption
<On the day of the referendum Michael Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_vote_in_favour_of_Brexit >>2269776>EU is a trading blocdo you think we're not allowed to trade with the EU anymore..?
>your imperialist retardation???
>scots dont actually oppose the englishokay, lad 😂 ive made up this rivalry in my head, have i?
>we didnt have brexit because of immigration<number one reason people gave was to have national sovereigntyfor what purpose, i wonder? maybe youre too young to have actually lived through the brexit vote to remember.
>>2269778>Seething against the Celtic peopleswho's done that?
>supporting English imperialismwho's done that?
>>2269783Please explain how exactly the proletariat gains from being divided by conflicts over national borders and ethnic identification.
They don't. It's a bourgeois conflict.
Leninists forget that the Communist struggle is an Internationalist one, seeking the elimination of borders, and not the creation of new ones.
Read Marx, Engels and Bordiga.
>>2269786>do you think we're not allowed to trade with the EU anymore..?no you dumbass, i'm saying we're negotiating trade deals as only britain and not as the entire eu, so our leverage is tiny in comparison. why don't you begin by educating yourself in the topic you want to criticise? or wait, i guess i shouldn't expect more from a shitposter
>okay, lad 😂 ive made up this rivalry in my head, have i?if you've ever bothered exploring the topic of why scottish independence got so much support, what were its key tenets, how it built its support from a place where the vast majority was barely for devolution to a position where it seriously looked like they will win the 2014 referendum, etc. maybe you wouldn't be arguing from a position of a little englander attached at the hip to whatever insight you think you gleaned from watching braveheart
>for what purpose, i wonder?there was no real purpose on account of the whole thing being the result of getting propagandised by big boris and his predecessors into thinking things that are blatantly untrue to have an external enemy to point to whenever your party does evil shit. this way they don't blame you but some ephemeral entity that is concerned mostly with trade standards, and the referendum result was the natural conclusion of that shitshow
tl;dr you are a dumbass who shoots down celtic struggles by bringing up all the arguments they are stereotyped for and try to fight against, and then uses those exact same arguments that you just tried to shoot down to point a finger at the eu which doesn't even have the same type of relationship with britain. it is difficult to put into words just how wrong you are
>>2269788kys retard
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol08/no06/marx.htm>The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindus themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether. At all events, we may safely expect to see, at a more or less remote period, the regeneration of that great and interesting country, whose gentle natives are, to use the expression of Prince Stalykov, even in the most inferior classes, “plus fins et plus admits que les Italiens,” whose submission even is counterbalanced by a certain calm nobility, who, notwithstanding their natural languor, have astonished the British officers by their bravery, whose country has been the source of our languages, our religions, and who represent the type of the ancient German in the Jat and the type of the ancient Greek in the Brahmin. I cannot part with the subject of India without some concluding remarks. >>2269807aye! dont forget about northumbria!
>>2269800>dumbassa very yankee insult from you.
where are you from in the UK?
>leveragewhat leverage have we lost exactly?
>why did scots want independenceas we see, they didnt want "independence", they just wanted to be out of the british union and in the european union.
>voters were propagandisedyes, that doesnt change what their demands were.
>boriswhat did boris have to do with brexit? it was cameron who initiated it and farage who led the charge. cameron regretted the move since he immediately resigned, leading to the power vacuum in the tories which was never filled. thats why we've had 5 tory prime ministers in the last 10 years.
>celtic struggleslike what?
>blaming the EUi am actually redeeming the EU. do you lack reading comprehension? in the end, brexit did fuck all for immigration - in fact, things only got worse, so it was a pointless protest vote all along. thats why ive previously said in this thread that the right should have woken up, that the real enemies arent in brussells, but london.
>>2269812>what leverage have we lost exactly?negotiating leverage. inb4 kid starver would never import chlorinated chicken from the usa, i promise bro
>as we see, they didnt want "independence", they just wanted to be out of the british union and in the european union.you're an idiot. i'm not going to run in circles with you about something you clearly refuse to know anything about
>what did boris have to do with brexit?all i'm going to say is: re-read my post until you get it
>in the end, brexit did fuck all for immigration - in fact, things only got worseIT WASN'T ABOUT IMMIGRATION TO BEGIN WITH
i told you above, it was the same old tory shitting about "loss of control", which was a provable lie from the start. dishonest rightoids noticed in the polls that the same people who were worried about immigration were also buying the "muh eu control" lies from the tories, so they drew a connecting line between the two that wasn't real back then, was certainly proven it wasn't real by now, and many other things
>like what?ohh i dunno, maybe a fundamental lack of democracy in how the uk state is organised? there's a reason why both plaid and the snp put so much pressure on "civic nationalism" because it's the only thing that actually plays with the people. there's a reason why the snp was a fringe party for weird village fascists all the way up until they reinvented themselves to present westminster as the problem and not "the english", and became a soc dem party that successfully "out-laboured" labour as a result.
>>2269849>negotiating leverageimmaterial
here's some facts regarding trade with the EU post-brexit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrynjz1glpo>the UK negotiated a free trade deal with the EU and avoided tariffs - or taxes - being imposed on the import and export of goods. The negative impact [of trade] comes from so-called "non-tariff barriers" - time consuming and sometimes complicated new paperwork that businesses have to fill out when importing and exporting to the EU.so its added bureaucracy, not a loss in trust. cont.
>There is some disagreement about how negative the specific Brexit impact has been. Some recent studies suggest that UK goods exports are 30% lower , externalthan they would have been if we had not left the single market and customs union. Some suggest only a 6% reduction, external. We can't be certain because the results depend heavily on the method chosen by researchers for measuring the "counterfactual", i.e what would have happened to UK exports had the country stayed in the EU.so its unclear, and these stats only concern exports. presumably, we havent lost wealth due to importation. other trade partners also fill in any gaps.
>scottish independenceif im wrong, then correct me. why do scottish people want independence from the UK?
>re-read post to see what boris had to do with brexithere's what you write:
<getting propagandised by big boris and his predecessors into thinking things that are blatantly untrue to have an external enemyyet boris had nothing to do with brexit…
>brexit wasnt about immigrationabsurdly untrue statement. this is like saying people didnt vote for reform because of immigration. lets see the stats of michael ashcroft's survey:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_vote_in_favour_of_Brexitfirst is shat you cite: 49% wanting sovereignty
then is immigration, specifically, with 33% cited:
>Michael Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders."stats from "the economist":
>According to The Economist, areas that saw increases of over 200% in foreign-born population between 2001 and 2014 saw a majority of voters back leave in 94% of cases. The Economist concluded 'High numbers of migrants don't bother Britons; high rates of change do.'so at the very least immigration was a third of the reason. do you concede this point?
>celtic struggle is for democracyso, what about joining the EU grants them more democracy than being in the UK?
>>2270325we so back
ENGURRLAND
>>2270349Ethnic minorities have an obvious stake in ensuring the civic-nationalism meme continues. Their entire identity is often built upon it.
You also imply that there's some level of solidarity between different immigrant groups when the reality is they often hate eachother more than the far-right hates them. Hence why you see the likes of Indians associating with nationalist groups, as the Tommy Robinson-types are viewed as a lesser evil (and potential ally) against the Pakis/Bangladeshis.
>>2270485i agree with
>>2269856david lammy is a cunt
>>2270396>>2270396>Ethnic minorities have an obvious stake in ensuring the civic-nationalism meme continues. Their entire identity is often built upon it.Huh? You could had a lot better boiler plate rebuttals:
<pulling up the rug<they came to Britain to live in a White society, if they wanted to live in a Black and Brown society, they would've stayed where they came from.>You also imply that there's some level of solidarity between different immigrant groups when the reality is they often hate eachother more than the far-right hates them. Hence why you see the likes of Indians associating with nationalist groups, as the Tommy Robinson-types are viewed as a lesser evil (and potential ally) against the Pakis/Bangladeshis.I didn't imply anything. She is saying she is against immigrants in general including wherever she came from.
caught this snippet: 16:50 - 17:10
which proves my point that anti-immigration rhetoric is intrinsically tied to class relations. a rich foreigner is accepted, but a poor one is vilified. as we also see with hysteria around jobs, capital has international legitimacy, while labour is arrested to locality. the censorship of right wing thinking, then, is in obscuring the relationship of capital to labour. this is why contemporary nationalism is always conditional, while a doctrinal fascist like oswald mosely at least sought consistency, by advocating for autarky, and even publicly opposing enoch powell, for wanting to restore the gold standard. now, its all one big club.
>>2271063"Revolutionary situation"
Lmao, you mean at most Labour members might replace him in a year or two
>>2271097Who would they even replace him with though?
All the other 'big' names in the PLP are either diversity hires, laughably incompetent or blatantly corrupt - if not all three. Starmer is somehow the most leader material out of the lot of them.
>>2271642wesley streeting
but he has even less charisma than sir kier
>>2272883anyone anti-israel is already not watching the show to begin with.
it's all rigged political nonsense anyway
>>2272883Israelis buy massive quantities of phone sims from Euro countries, then use them to spoof their location so that they can vote for Israel from Israel.
They posted videos and pictures of themselves doing this last year and laughing about it, so I'm sure they've only gotten more sophisticated and less self-incriminating this time around.
>>2273875The rest of Labour probably shouldn't have stabbed Corbyn in the back by smearing him as an antisemite and then leaving him to dry against BoJo.
That was the one fucking chance that y'all had to avoid this cursed fate for Bong Island. Just like how for us yanks, Bernie Sanders was the one chance we had to avoid this country decaying into Trumpian fascism.
>>2274587I love Trots for doing this though. I only found out my country was attacking Syria when I got randomly approached by one of those sellers and he gave me a copy of their newsletter for free. I had thought my military forces had stayed out of it but apparently they were doing it secretly using special ops teams.
Good lads; I think if people like them ran Western countries the world would be a better place but unfortunately only absolute scum take power in the government in western countries.
>>2272856without trying to win you around to loving them, you've gotta remember two things:
1. that they live in a deranged media ecosystem designed to propagandize them with nonsense. even if they stop reading all the trash newspapers, the BBC decides how to triangulate "balance" based on them. to
not be driven fascist would've required them to get up to speed with technology at a remarkable pace.
2. public opinion basically follows #1. look at how often immigration is ranked as the top issue (almost no correlation with immigration numbers, but high correlation with newspapers ranting against immigration) or transgender rights (in 2017 even the Tories were pro! in 2024 even bits of the Greens are anti! If you think that's organic, i've got some dodgy chicken to sell you.)
3. we've got big gaps in life expectancy. a good chunk of the unionised leftist
working class boomers are dead.
>>2272883it's a FPTP system where you can vote 20 times. any sane person voting would split their votes between different acts, while zionists vote for Israel 20 times. All Israel needed to get the 12 points from Britain was 1 vote more than the next highest act…
Plus a good chunk of pro-Palestine viewers boycotted the show entirely.
>>2273875they usually don't. only in 2024 did Labour lose support from NRS Social Grade D/E voters, and it was still (a poor) first in both ABC1 and C2DE.
Under Blair, under Corbyn, under literally anyone else, Labour's always had strong support from the poorest. Starmer is an anomaly: his support with ABC1 (richer) is stronger than with C2DE (poorer) voters.
you should also always be looking at Scotland for a double-blind test: the Labour party has been betraying the people who vote for it for generations. even when it was a half-tolerable Soc Dem party under Wilson, most Labour MPs were still troughing wankers. Christ, there are-and-were
Labour Lords. Today, they're utterly intolerable.
In England the most viable "that's it, fuck you" option for voters is UKIP/Reform, which the media heavily push.
In Scotland, there's an alternative "half tolerable Soc Dem" option in the form of the SNP, and that's exactly where the working class Scottish vote went - first in a trickle, then in a river after Iraq, and then in an almighty flood when Labour linked arms with the Tories to say "better things aren't possible" in 2014. Not because of a surge of nationalism, but because of a competently promised alternative to the status quo and to the wankers who've run everything into the ground.
(Naturally, as this is capitalism, Under Sturgeon most of the SNP have also decided they prefer a well paid job and a personality cult to advancing the cause their supporters put them in office to advance, but hey,
c'est la vie sous le capitalisme.)
>>2274789I didn't vote for the prick.
It's the one issue that everyone should be able to get behind
>genuine chance of balancing North/South divide>beneficial to natural habitats>More sustainable>more jobs>more EU trade (where the fuck else are they going to get their fish from the Med is dead)I just don't understand. Actually that's a lie, I understand perfectly, it's the same twats on both sides of the table as usual.
>>2274802let me just wave a magic wand
*swish*
now everyone has the same amount of money.
What happens now?
>>2274817you're saying groups form so they can mutually gain from sucking nutrients out of decaying shit?
An analogy to the class system mayhaps?
>>2274804>now everyone has the same amount of money.>What happens now?It would be a decent start at least.
I don't know the UK figures, but if every American citizen had an equal amount of money, then every American would have $471,465.
Something equivalent here would be an immediate massive improvement for every working class person.
>>2274832Your point is that you believe the poor can't be trusted with money, that hard work makes you rich, and that the elites have earned their wealth.
How exactly did you end up here?
>>2274827well, life is violence.
>>2274831well, ideally, a state represents the will of the people, and is accountable to them.
>>2274837I didn't say that did I.
The behavioral distribution is a reflection of nature.
I wonder, idly, if you could marshal loathing for the Labour party into a movement.
Join a union, join the co-op, and then at the NEC meeting vote for candidates who promise to disaffiliate from Labour or the Co-Operative party.
Maybe even print some stickers you can stick around the co-op. "This costs more than it did 2 years ago. btw did you know the co-op gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Labour party? Wouldn't you rather have that off your shopping…" kind of thing…
I don't think it'd necessarily be a
left wing movement. If anything, it's more like the destruction of the historical overhang of our left-wing movements…
>>2274774>>2274781Copyright exists regardless. The question is: should a certain group of wealthy people be given an exemption to copyright law, which will be used primarily to enrich themselves. You do not have to like copyright law to say "no, that's fucking stupid, particularly when the bourgeoisie who'll lose out here are British and the people who'll gain are American, meaning it's a national exercise in destroying one of our few semi-successful international industries"
>>2274836That's why you set up countervailing institutions, to prevent the tendency towards someone (who almost inevitably breaks with both morality and the law) cheating, gambling, and "just-working-harder" their way up.
>>2274948>Copyright exists regardless.it doesnt for pirates
>muh british bourgeoisie!!the bourgeoisie have no nation. thats why they destroy nations by utterly uprooting them.
>>2274962you know one thing and you repeat it like a parrot without thinking through the issue in question. mao would've sent you to a farm.
so far as the bourgeoisie have no nation, it makes the British government considering this policy
more stupid. Britain
is the nationless nation of the bourgeoisie, a great place to legally register your bank or movie production studio, where you can rely on obsequious governments and judges to act in your best interests and where you can rely on your domestic tax obligations disappearing. You know what totally blows up that system? If you go "btw, if your film is registered in Britain then Sam Altman gets to feed it to his computer and spit out a ghibli version that you don't own", because now nobody with a brain will want to make anything in Britain, even British studios without any choice would have their stuff made abroad on paper just to avoid such a clause. It's not like there aren't an abundance of alternative tax havens with agreeable legal and political systems.
>>2274995>mao would've sent you to a farm.yes, because dictators dont like it when you criticise the legitimacy of power.
>im stupid because i want less capitalist speculation on this islandand you want more?
>>2275006you're stupid because you don't realise you're in a game with a stacked deck. there is no "more" or "less" capitalist speculation on this island as regards this question: if copyright law is changed in a stupid way, you will advantage one set of capitalists (US-based AI firms) to the disadvantage of another set of capitalists (Media firms, some domestic, some foreign), while throwing a bunch of people (e.g. those who work in UK media, legal functionaries, other misc intermediary services, etc.) on the dole. the bourgeoisie as a whole wins either way.
what i want does not matter: this is britain, a managed democracy. all i offer is analysis.
>>2275021intellectual property rights cease to have legal meaning and become a matter of social convention. if you want to see IP communism in practice, just look at any art website: unauthorized copyright violating art of mass-media characters as far as the eye can see, but steal
someone's OC, or even just design an OC that's too similar to theirs, and social scorn will be heaped on you. that's enough to keep people in check in an environment where copyright law is already functionally meaningless - nobody has lawyers!
>>2275030posting on leftypol.org (or indeed any website) is not fighting. you are again affirming to the class that you are a very dull boy.
>>2275038your original contention was that there's no such thing as the british bourgeoisie, but now i'm accused of defending them? inane, but not very interesting.
go fetch a pail of water.
>>2275040to quote you directly:
>>2274948>the bourgeoisie who'll lose out here are British and the people who'll gain are American, meaning it's a national exercise in destroying one of our few semi-successful international industriesto revise my statement then:
youre not "fighting", youre rhetorically defending (what you perceive to be) the british bourgeoisie.
better?
>>2275042not really, no.
when i say you're a dunderhead for buying magic beans, do you imagine it must be because i'm really working on behalf of big cow?
>>2275056similar story. no legal force, just a lot of petty bickering over who gets the credit for inventing the thing first if you and someone else invent the same thing at the same time.
>>2275190In 1974 Enoch Powell endorsed Harold Wilson and the Labour Party because of the European question. Euroscepticism makes for strange bedfellows and I don't think this is Galloway "bending the knee" but rather some basic politicking, and absolutely consistent with his past positions.
Picrel is Galloway campaigning for Brexit alongside Farage in 2016 and if I recall he endorsed the Brexit Party in the 2019 EU elections. So this development will suprise nobody here and every time he pulls this exact stunt leftoids get their "mask off moment" they've been waiting for. In fact I don't know why I'm even bothering telling you all of this when the anon above gave the best possible response.
>>2274783and yet all the right are crying "THIS IS A MASSIVE BETRAYL STARMER IS A TRAAAAAAITOR" despite the fact the allowing of European boats in British waters is what their beloved "hero of brexit" patriotic and not-at-all a greedy grifter Boris Johnsons agreement included. But they - the tory MSM and their MPs and moronic voters - didn't cry "betrayal" and "traitor" then, despite it being the exact opposite of what they promised and was basically "EU boats carry on as before but British fisherman get even more fucked due to Britain cutting itself off from european markets".
Their hypocrisy is ever more evident today and yesterday then ever. At least this new deal - on the fishing subject - might actually help stop some of the death of the industry even though its not great, but tbf Starmer is just having to clean up the shit that was left him in terms of European relations.
Its actually insane how broken some people are, they are so incredibly deluded by the tories and their new turquoise party they believe anything. Its already a total farce but if "pro-brexit" person does something then it equals good in their eyes and "didn't support brexit" must be bad. How stupid can they be.
>>2275952>Muh 14 years (or 12 in this case)It was a coalition government until 2015. and
a government should not be considered 'in power' because the idea is they work for the people. Even if that isn't the case you shouldn't be an enabler.
Lefties are always so keen on asking for verified sources, yet they have no problem pulling this shite out of their arse. Do better.
>>2276023the tories had parliamentary majority in that time, ergo, they were in power
>the peopleevery time the people have sought direct representation they have been denied. seems as if we havent even left the bloody EU yet!
>>2276030Can you read?
Can you understand why you shouldn't validate the term 'in power'? Can you understand that during a coalition there is no majority and fuck all happens as a result?
>>2276034>Can you understand that during a coalition there is no majorityin a hung parliament there is always a majority, just not a "clear majority" (one party holding more than half of available seats in parliament). in 2010, there were 650 seats, therefore you need 326 seats to have a clear majority. the tories had 306, so only needed 20. the lib-dems have 57 seats, so formed the coalition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election>Can you understand why you shouldn't validate the term 'in power'?why not?
>>2276041you pose that as though it's clean cut, but you aren't considering we have a 2 party system and that's about as loose as it gets. There was no-one in any decisive position.
>Why notbecause they work for us. They have been hired and are paid to do a job. It should be considered an honour that has been bestowed upon them, not a ruling status.
>>2276071>You've got to be the change you want to see in this worldyes, i agree. i even clean up the shit off of public toilets for the people after me.
>hypocritewhat is hypocritical in anything ive said?
>>2276094youre making no point
literally going round in circles
>>2276098They work for us.
They are not in power.
There was no majorty (literally what coalition means)
Don't be a hypocrite.
These are all things I said in my original post, you are just having trouble accepting them.
>>2276107>They work for us.they are paid by us. they dont work for us.
>They are not in power.by definition, they are in power.
>There was no majortythere was no "clear majority", yet the conservatives still had more votes than labour
>Don't be a hypocrite.where have i been a hypocrite?
>>2276085"They work for us" is idealism. It is material reality that they do not work for us, so far as they work for anybody, they work for the bourgeoisie. (Even there, they're marginally competent.)
Saying that they're "In power" doesn't empower them. They're not fucking wizards, deriving their power from magic words. Their power comes from the fact they can phone up your boss and have you sacked if you call them a cunt on twitter, or call up the police to kick the shit out of you if they feel like it.
>>2277048That you need to hold someone to a standard does not mean they meet that standard.
You need to stop being so fucking obtuse, nevertheless I have a strange feeling that you will persist in such behavior.
>>2278046yet talk to any right-winger about muslimas and it will instinctively be outrage about benefits. its the classist discourse of the issue which stops any further criticism. im sure many would even think they got their harrod's money from the government. the reactionary mind always victimises itself; it feels like its cheated out of what belongs to them, yet when they are given over to themselves, they become impotent (think of how white people say "we cant say the n-word", yet if a black person gave them the "pass" they still wouldnt say it. they want to feel prohibited - cue the stewart lee joke; "these days, you cant even say youre english").
>>2278580im in the norf, so there was a time when i never saw them anywhere; now theyre everywhere. at least they keep coffee houses profitable…
>>2278572its now a civic duty to partake in professional riots, just like france have been doing for years.
>>2278153>>2278155people will do anything except wear a suit…
>>2278152>>2278153>>2278616Suits are LARP-y. Your dad would not wear a suit to go on a march.
The challenge is to get people to dress normally*. The problem is that "Normal" is a hard-to-define constantly moving target, and the people you're currently trying to make do it are by-definition not normal. The result is that any attempt to pin down what you want will make you look utterly deranged at worst and 15 years out of date at best. Especially because a Communist party loves nothing more than stupid dogma, so even if they nail 2020s normality, they'll insist you keep wearing it in 2050.
*When that's appropriate. Sometimes you should dress like weirdos if you're at a weirdo event trying to recruit weirdos. Most of the public is some mild variety of weirdo these days. See, Communist parties don't just want you to dress like the 1930s working class, they like to imagine that the 1930s working class still exists. They really don't want to accept that they find most of the contemporary working class to be insufferable normie idiots. They really don't want to accept that if you go to a pride parade or a furry conference or god knows what else, most of the adults there will be workers. No! A worker is a coal miner! A steel maker! A Glasgow Subway driver!
Marx, save me from this blue haired Greggs checkout operator! >>2278795what's fun is that British nationalism was a psyop by the Attlee Labour government.
Britain was not a nation in any modern sense until 1945, when a cosmopolitan empire gave way to a semi-coherent national economy. That lasted until Thatcher, who blew it up. Now that it's gone, just as before it was built, there is nothing on which to build a British "nation". Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, those are nations.
I would infer from the style of your image that it was written around the time this process was ongoing, not recently.
Anyway, read David Edgerton.
>>2279131Yes. SW joining Wales gang gang.
I'll even larn the gobbledygook 'language '.
>>2280375I guess it's sandwiched between the hot potato and the cheese so it will probably melt pretty fast.
This "jacked potato" thing is not a bad idea. Some place sell baked potatoes with toppings and stuff but it's not super common, typically never seen a place that only sells baked potatoes except like the Renn-faire. Might be able to make some money with that here.
What I don't get is why in each video it seems they have to keep dumping on toppings until it's falling over the side of the container, just to show they're "being generous with the portions." Goddamn just have an adequately sized container to match the food. The fuck do I want to be handed a plate with the food falling off the side of it already?
>>2281121i remember eating a pack of black puddings raw out the packaging when i was younger
>ciderthats the homeless drink of choice. its the cheapest and tastes most like piss.
>>2281127>BuckfastNo lol. Not even cheap, just taste nice, quite strong and full of caffeine.
It's basically only drunk by punks and now a new life as a meme drink for posturing students.
>>2279225Only GPs are petit-bourgeois in the absolute material sense (as you said as a compromise during the construction the NHS), and even then most GPs operate as producer cooperatives (for the Doctors, not for nurses and support staff). Even then most Doctors are not buying into GPs anymore and are preferring the proletarian path, in part due to the ability to move geographically and into different sectors of the medical profession.
Most hospital doctors moonlight in private practice, but even then in a proletarian fashion; earning a wage per surgery, rather than as petit-bourgois.
>>2281170Yeah it's a national thing. "The Great British National Strike". It is basically the protest wing of Reform; guy running it is a public Reform Supporter, GB News promoted it, EXPLICITLY said no flags (political and national) other than Union Flag and British Nation flags (A lot of irish reactionaries got angry at this lmao). Saw them take down a UKIP Flag someone brought, which means it is just a Reform astroturf. Still decent turnouts in middle-sized towns, "Stand Up to Racism" (which is a Socialist Workers Party front for anyone who didn't know) tried to organise counter-demos for some fucking stupid reason, and honestly were humiliated in a lot of places. Perhaps their biggest fuck up in years.
They had a decent showing in Manchester, although the Palestine demo 100% would have been bigger than this.
>>2281261astroturf protest from the secret state.
now that steven yaxley lennon is being released early i wonder what other hijinks they have planned?
>>2281261surely there's some idiot here who'll argue we should be all be fully behind this because if you squint hard enough, "National strike" is a bit like a general strike. (except, y'know, minus walking out of work or inconveniencing the operation of the status quo in any way, and all that.)
haven't seen a job opening in the leftoid mong marketplace since the CPB's last candidate nominations.
>>2281507Corba finally started a new party?
Unfortunately he has dithered on this far to long, probably missed yhe timing.
>>2281705>>2281715>"it">"this issue"no need for coded language.
you think we're too dumb to sniff out those hitler particles? fuck off.
>>2281740I'm just bored of even explaining [it]
You know what [it] is, because [it] isn't a fringe issue. And you're still at it now, calling me a nazi. You don't need to be a nazi to be concerned about this issue.
>>2281350real INGSOC content for true INGSOC persons
doubleplusgood
>>2281646because the left has no social basis or purpose.
the left does not like working people. it ideologically sympathizes, sure, but it doesn't like them. grab any CPB, CPGB-ML, SWP, RCP, or god knows who weirdo, and they don't want to talk the boring, inane problems of boring, dime-a-dozen normies. they want to talk theories, they want to LARP as the great men of history, or at least as their descendants. the exception, oddly, is someone like Corbyn. Corbyn clearly
enjoys meeting randos and chatting shit. But he's a weird exception, basically just a nice bloke.
If the left tries to stage a demo, it'll bring out all the random leftists. It won't bring out any normies.
Reform, on the other hand, is astroturfed to all hell by the media and other entities behind the scenes, such that some lonely retards show up. Seriously, a lot of it's just that: lonely people who're theoretically there to talk about sending them all back, but who're clearly mostly there to talk about
anything. Rape trots, elitist Labour freaks, and retard communists all clearly reek of unattractive cultishness. They're appealing only to people already drawn in by ideology, not to people trying to meet an immediate practical needs.
I don't write this as an anti-leftist. It is not a fundamental, eternal condition of "the left" that I write as a rightist: it is a specific historical condition of contemporary Britain. The Scottish 'Yes' movement shows it can be done in contemporary conditions, even if the SNP ultimately bled it to death. Ordinary Scottish normies picked up a flag and marched in their thousands to show they liked the idea of indepndence in 2014, 2015, 2016… Not in the usual Reform-UK tedious racist way, but in the SNP's ultimately banal way: "slightly better things are possible, if only we could get away from Westminster". A left that cared about people even a little bit could pull the same thing off it was organisationally capable - but it'd be hard work. The SNP were motivated, briefly, to put in the hard work. No communist party has ever had serious incentives to do the same: they've all taken the easy way out and turned into LARPing freakshows, culminating in the grotesque chaos of a communist party - a "communist" party! - citing the sewell convention to justify Tory culture-war scapegoating against the very workers it claims to represent!
I am an open and honest non-hypocrite: I do not like people. I understand the theoretical problem. I do not personally organize to fix it. >>2281904I work for a lot of middle class white people, creative types. One's who have a bit of money, and I see the same pattern time and time again.
They are all communist sympathisers and yet they live and work in their own deranged bubble about as far away from, how shall we say, 'the cities' as you can get. It's always these people with the loudest most arrogant self righteous voices.
What am I to make of this?
>>2281812ok so unsubstantiated accusations are acceptable…
you're one of those types
>>2282171Notice how the big push for keeping women out of prison and judges giving them lighter sentences instantly dissipates when the crime is of this nature. She's a middle-class mum of young kids with no prior criminal record too, the prime candidate for the usual kid gloves treatment from the judiciary.
Not to mention that 31 months is insane for writing a tweet. Sex offenders get less.
>>228217531 months! that's nuts.
Remember this guy? Shouting through a megaphone at a baying mob about cutting people's throats? My prediction is keir and his buddies will have his case kicked down the road again.
>>2282175“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f
** hotels full of the b
*** for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.”
She was basically inciting to murder, maybe the sentence is a bit much but oh well, sucks for her lol
>>2282186actually, new prediction:
After a year in prison and serving her time as a scarecrow, Lucy Conolly will have her sentence overturned (yay for women) just in time for Ricky Jones to finally have his day in court, the precedence having just been reset in the nick of time and he will walk.
>>2282194>uyghawhat are these ebonics?
I'm serious though, why can the bbc slap that label on there, but when it's a high profile case it's 'allegedly' this and 'reportedly' that.
>>2282171denotatively non-racist
connotatively racist
to have intelligibility, you must approach both
>>2282243sounds like it is up for interpretation, which is why this
>>2282196 is important to note.
>>2282251The trick to not being burnt alive in the even of a fire is to exit the building.
But I will answer your question directly, the sort of people to be in a migrant hotel are migrants. The fact that you are implying that all migrants are brown people is the only racist part of this.
>>2282254>You can't so much as fart in the direction of mecca without being called a racist, this is not an argument,Waaa waaa weee wwoooo she said "Kill the darkies" and said she didnt care if she was called a racist
> and it's not an admission of guilt. She pleaded guilty because she was scared. She is a mother and doesn't need to be the scapegoat for a slathering mob.Pleading guilty is by admission an admission of guilt. Its a difficult concept I know but still.
>>2282256>The trick to not being burnt alive in the even of a fire is to exit the building.WHen you've got pigshit thickos like yourself surrounding it tryna burn it down its kinda hard. I know you wanted to have your fun last august but you were stopped on the 7th and you will be physically stopped again. So try it anon, give us an excuse.
>The fact that you are implying that all migrants are brown people is the only racist part of this.Show me some that aren't.
>>2282247>sounds like it is up for interpretationyes, but some interpretations are better than others. if we ignore connotation, we lose the grounds to decipher a larger context which she is part of. in america for example, george w. bush was often likened to an ape or monkey - so when certain people did the same to obama, there is a denotative consistency, but a connotative change. it "becomes" racist where it previously wasnt. denying connotation is what most would call "obtuseness" or "stubbornness", since it denies what is "implicit" over the "explicit". the woman's comments are "implicitly" racist; that is the social consciousness that draws hysteria. inversely, we may see how there is denotative racism, but within a non-racist context. in an acting role for example, the term "uyghur" may be directed at a black person, but the environment is controlled. this is why if someone took a racist clip "out of context", it is unfair. context then may be "inferred" by an innate semiotics. this is what largely comprises social intelligence; indirect signalling.
>>2282259>number of precious migrants burnt to death despite the building being set on fire: 0It's demonstrably not a credible threat.
>Waaa waaa weee wwoooo she said "Kill the darkies"She didn't say kill anyone. You are projecting that.
>Show me some that aren't.get a load of hitler over here. What do you want a DNA test? There are hungarian migrants aren't there? Romanians? Ukranians?
The point is she was fed up of paying for all of this.
>>2281904>because the left has no social basis or purpose.>the left does not like working people. it ideologically sympathizes, sure, but it doesn't like them. grab any CPB, CPGB-ML, SWP, RCP, or god knows who weirdo, and they don't want to talk the boring, inane problems of boring, dime-a-dozen normies. they want to talk theories, they want to LARP as the great men of history, or at least as their descendants. the exception, oddly, is someone like Corbyn. Corbyn clearly enjoys meeting randos and chatting shit. But he's a weird exception, basically just a nice bloke.People can say what they want about Peter Coffin, but this is a point he's been correctly banging on about for years. It's not only just the average Leftist doesn't like working class normies, they look down on them, or think as Working class things as gross and crude.
When I was part of a Leftist organization, people would refer to sport as "Sportsball" and mock it, like, imagine in the UK, thinking you represent working class values, yet you fucking despise people enjoy the major almost universal working class pasttime?
Recruiting as a Communist for myself was always very, VERY easy. Go to pub, get pissed with locals, when politics comes up, present communist solutions as just "common sense" solutions. Show a video of chinese laser cities and infrastructure to local pub boomer drunks and just ask the obvious questions why can't we do this? This strategy is seemingly completely alien to most fucking Communists and Leftists, because frankly, probably only 1% of Communists actually has ever worked in a BLOKE working class job. I did years on the side in boilermaking, metalwork and pipefitting, so can shoot the shit.
>>2282274I honestly don't think she is racist.
Women don't tend to be in the same way as men.
Regardless, if the bbc says that someone is racist, does that make them a racist?
>>2282265>It's demonstrably not a credible threat.Not for lack of trying you dumb cunt, see the photos.
>She didn't say kill anyone. You are projecting that.<set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bitches for all I careThere isn't even doubt in that statement. If I said "set fire to churches full of christians" you would think I just want to do property damage now would I anon?
>get a load of hitler over here. What do you want a DNA test? There are hungarian migrants aren't there? Romanians? Ukranians? The point is she was fed up of paying for all of this.Ukrainians get given nice homes with lovely middle class families because they are a protected class in the starmerreich. Romanians and Bulgarians don't get stuck in migration libo and sent to bibby stockholm. You just don't know what the fuck you're on about.
>>2282269>is someone going to tell him or do I have to be the far right wing nazichudcel?Go on I know you want to. I love it when you switch from trying to be le centrist freezepeech and then are just mask off. Your lot dont even try anymore at least in the 2010s you did.
For what this is worth this is all a psyop, they chose someone who is right wing so you wouldnt realise. There is a political project to end the concept of women going to prison in this country, and you are playing into their hands like the useful idiot you are.
>>2282278>Regardless, if the bbc says that someone is racist, does that make them a racist?youve dodged my question.
lets rephrase it. what "makes" someone racist to you?
i say racial prejudice. i am racist, therefore, since i possess such characteristics. would you infer the same about the woman based on her comments?
>>2282313>If a person says they aren't racist I will use my intuition to assess that claimyes. thats what im asking you. according from your intuition, could you infer this woman as racist?
>unfounded discriminationwell, surely racism, as in all discriminations, can have foundational claims or evidence. some feminists will say for example, that nature is sexist as an isolated fact, and that seems true enough. a fact can be racist, like certain facts can be sexist or transphobic. no?
>>2282196because she says in her own tweet that she's a racist
>Connolly, then a 41-year-old Northampton childminder, added: "If that makes me racist, so be it."that's the sum of it. ignoring that it is basically obviously racist, the real total safety in saying so comes because she's said it herself.
also, in the informal rules of headline writing, the mere inclusion of the word racist in the tweet makes it fine to headline it. "one woman's (racist) tweet", i.e. "tweet including the word racist", vs "one woman's (racist tweet)" i.e. "tweet that is racist", so even if the tweet wasn't racist they'd get away with it.
>>2282265look, when someone says "won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest" it's not very hard to know what they're talking about.
>>2282320>aahhhhh god it's tedious talking to you fuckers.because you are forced to confront yourself. why does it pain you to admit that the woman is "probably" (more likely than not) racist?
but to make things fair to you, can you give any example of a racist person?
>>2282323If there is an interpretation to be made, you do not make it for other people.
She could be hitler incarnate, that doesn't mean that you get to present your opinion as fact.
>>2282324answer this question:
was hitler racist?
>>2282328okay, so you can't prove she's racist but also everyone's racist.
1 = 1, but don't present your opinion as fact?
>>2282333answer this yes/no question:
was hitler racist?
>>2282190People shouldn't get arrested for this stuff frankly, I think there should be far more to this stuff, like actually going out and being involved in organization.
By supporting this stuff, you support this when it's turned around and used on leftists, like it is in the case of Palestine. All it takes is some bad faith Jewish person to cry antisemitism and you have the Met at your door and you are getting smeared all through the media.
It's also just chilling in that people can't talk about obvious issues with ethnic enclaves, terrible behaviour from new immigrants, without being called "racist". My area is quickly becoming an immigrant heavy area and I'm not going to lie, the quality of life, the upkeep of the area etc has gone to fucking shit. The concept of even putting rubbish in a trash can they are standing nex too is completely alien, noise and screaming and being boorish to 2am in the morning in the streets is now the norm, tonnes are aggressive, local shops now have locked up/tagged everything due to rampant theft etc. It shouldn't be 'racist' to point out the complete collapse in civicism and social standards that is common in heavily Immigrant areas and obviously, in areas like the north, where this results in massive almost industrial scale sexual assault, rape etc against largely white teen girls, this is going to send people over the edge. I lived in Sheffield for a long time, and I can tell you right now, almost every white, teenage girl, had stories about older Pakistani men trying to assault them, even the rainbow haired LGBT tumblrites I knew absolutely despised, and were terrified, of the Pakistani community in the North of Sheffield.
>>2282356You'll notice in my reply
>>2282340 Iplaced the word 'racist' in inverted commas. I do not agree with the word and was simply referencing it rather than using it. Like I said earlier, literally everyone is racist. It's just a social mallet to bonk dissenters over the head with.
>>2282346>By supporting this stuff, you support this when it's turned around and used on leftistsStupid. If I laugh at a fascist dying in a plane crash, do I also have to laugh at a communist dying in a plane crash?
This kind of thinking always betrays a naive belief that you live in a democracy. This is not the law because we "supported" it and it will not cease to be the law if we "Oppose" it, particularly when our "support" and "opposition" come entirely from posting on the internet.
When the state hits someone I think is tedious and annoying, I smirk. When it hits someone I like, I frown. The law, as it is, winds up being made up on the hoof anyway. (Again, just look at the supreme court trans judgement. I don't care whether you support or oppose it, it is manifestly the judiciary making shit up to go "what if we interpret the law as though parliament accidentally made the GRA2004 redundant with the EA2010, despite it clearly having no such intent?")
>>2282354That might be the current case, but I think we should be better than that. I also think that by calling certain, blatantly true/obvious things as racist/sexist, it's going to result in massive blowback and make us look like assholes when it blows up in our faces. Also frankly, you can not solve issues, if you cannot have frank, straight to the point discussions about it.
I straight up believe that Immigrants should be forced to go through a comprehensive civicism program, that teaches them things like good values, good behaviour, PUTTING LITTER IN THE FUCKING BIN, because white teenage girls wear skimpy clothing doesn't mean they are sluts begging to be raped.
But you could never propose such a thing among the Left here, because it would instantly be called racist. Despite it's something Communist countries have always done. To even move around the USSR you literally had to pass civicism/good values exams which were apparently extremely brutal.
>>2282360No, but you have to understand leopards ate my face moment when you support something that is instantly turned around and used to crush the left. The Corbyn era should have been a wakeup call that "racism" and Identity Politics is not a winner for the left, and is more effectively used by the Establishment to censor us. Even with the Palestine censorship and suppression, leftists still seemingly support said laws, despite they are more often used against us than them. To me also, Baz with some racist views is not my enemy, Establishment liberals are. The Left should be in fact, finding common ground with the Baz's out there, on this topic, to get these laws changed, because they're ridiculous, and are so often used against us.
>>2282359>l placed the word 'racist' in inverted commas. yes i did notice that
>I do not agree with the wordyes, because you are a coward
>everyone is racist.really? so the woman who tweeted is racist?
>>2282369again: you keep saying "support" as though there's any actual material support. it is not a leopards ate my face moment to laugh when it rains on your enemies, and to be mad when it rains on your friends. we do not live in a democracy, and me saying "i support x" does not actually mean anything. support must be material: a support beam holds up a building. me saying "i support the building being up!" does nothing.
your analysis is also very simplistic: contemporary establishment-liberal idpol (which is actually giving way to open reaction, but whatever) was a response to pressure
from below. all the tedious little identity groups exist, have actual problems, and were beginning to organize and become conscious of them.
in these circumstances, the people in power did what they do best: channel that pressure from below into harmless avenues. #landback is expensive, but a land acknowledgement is cheap. fixing biased hiring practices is difficult and expensive, but hiring a grifter to give you unconscious bias training is cheap. transgender healthcare isn't actually that expensive, but pronoun circles are even cheaper. take a small, middle class segment of the group and elevate it, then direct the rest into endless discourse.
i suspect you want a future in which we just put all the tedious identity group whining behind us and go back to 1975 where you can just have a bunch of lads hold a red flag. it isn't happening, if there is a future for the left it includes liberating all of the unaesthetic identity groups from the cul-de-sac they've been misdirected down.
(which sadly, again, means communists must engage with people they find annoying.)
>>2282364> because white teenage girls wear skimpy clothing doesn't mean they are sluts begging to be raped.>>2282346>noise and screaming and being boorish to 2am in the morning in the streets is now the norm, That's funny, because that's like exclusively a young White girl thing in America. My god do those bitches love screaming at 2am when they are walking home drunk.
T. Used to live in a college town
Also staying in Manhattan near times square on the 30th floor, and you can hear them making their idiotic screams reverberating through the chasm of the street between the tall buildings all night.
>>2282388okay, so the woman is racist.
we have finally concluded the investigation.
>>2282391by your own claim, the woman is racist.
pat yourself on the back.
>>2282402who?
looking him up, seems that he was promoting political violence, but not racial violence in particular.
>>2282405>i said everyone is racistokay, thanks for clarifying
everyone is racist, ergo, the woman is racist
>>2282410He did, however, grow up in London in the 70's, and as a result experienced racism directed at him. I would say this has made him resentful which leads me to interpret that his threat was directed at white Britons.
I'm doing the same thing you are, but you won't see this in any news report.
>>2282410>yeah, actually it was literal death threatsright, so it would probably be categorised under terrorism, no? incitement to political violence. he could also be particularly racist. im not familiar.
>lucy connollydidnt she say to burn people alive? seems like death threats as well.
>racewell, according to you, everyone is racist, so racism is always implied in any statement
>>2282430When I say 'everyone is racist' I mean it is a label you can stick on anyone at any time for any reason.
Here is the actual headline, not the absurdly long search string, and the fact his name is not mentioned.
>>2282436here you go ,what do you reckon to this?
I am going to stay out of the next thread and leave you commies to your discussions.
Unique IPs: 179