/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

What so many UK Lefties think has actually happened in YP - "Corbyn's team behaving like Starmer!" - is just so wide of the mark with the basic sequence of events and how the party was formed its totally nuts.

What is happening sociologically when radlib Leftoids in circles stuffed with permagrads endlessly go on about muh 'Strasserism' or 'NazBols'? Here's an answer that may be a bitter pill for some of you, because the Left rarely likes to use its own tools of class analyses on itself

https://tinkzorg.wordpress.com/2020/05/07/on-strasserism-and-the-decay-of-the-left/

>>2749722

Whoops that was supposed to be a new thread

>>2749717
Corbyn wanted a top down system similar to Labour and to bring in Muslim independent MPs who shared agreements on Gaza and foreign policy, but were economically right wing and socially very reactionary. Several of them were straight up landlords and going to the papers to bash trans people.
Also, Corbyn will not do anything until pushed by others. He needed Sultana to get progress started.

Sultana wanted a bottom up collective leadership strategy, which is utopian and arugably unworkable. She was also fine with Trotskyist infiltrators holding dual party memberships with YP and their own factional outfits.
She was undoubtedly further to the left than Corbyn economically and socially, both pro-Gaza and extremely socially progressive and unrepentantly pro-LGBT rights. That said her obsession for maximum democracy on all issues would lead to bottomless bureaucratic layers.
She is the one who kickstarted everything but also jumped the gun on a number of occasions.

Both sides are equally to blame for factionalism and infighting, and anyone claiming otherwise is just signalling they were loyal to one faction.
Corbynites are too eager to work with centrists and liberals and would drift to the centre. Sultana loyalists would purity spiral and have launched online tirades against the Greens of all people.
Also Your Party just sucks arse as a name.

>>2749715
>>2749722
Same anon glazing the social reactionary / economically moderate faction of YP then accidentally posting an article showing that he's a "strasserite" (AKA a literal NAZI).
Simply epic.

All social fascists. Chop them up with machetes.

>>2749753
get a job

i told you brits a long time ago that zultana is a threat

>>2749753
ppw in kernow when?

>>2749727
YP was advertised as member led the whole time.

Who cares? Zack Polanski is the new leader of UK Left
Corbyn who?
Sultana who?

I always ask? What would Lenin think of Your party?

everyone who criticised this at the start was called a doomer or a wrecker or david miller schizo

>>2750030
I'll admit. I was one of them. I have no regrets though. Even though the doomers were right, it was still wrecker shit. Especially the David Miller types.

Don't Blame Me I Voted Polanski

>>2749727
>shared agreements on Gaza and foreign policy, but were economically right wing and socially very reactionary.
Lol this is *exactly* what is happening to BSW right now.
Your whole post mirrors Linke/BSW drama and failures
100%, including the unfortunate party name.
I must admit the pro-Israel bourgeoisie controls her system very effeciently. Glowies apparently can destroy the slightest hint of somewhat lefty succdem opposition to neocon/neoliberalism and ZOG-maxxing with a realistic chance of moderate success in elections in the short term using exactly the same methods across different countries. They plant a bunch of insufferable "progressive" liberals and a bunch of reactoid sleeper cells inside any target movement, activate them when needed and then watch how the whole thing destroys itself over idiotic idpol debates or straight up betrayal of everything it used to stand for originally in terms of economic/social or foreign policy. Potential supporters get the impression of total incompetence of new so called "extremist" parties.
I've witnessed this pattern at work too many times to NOT blame glowies. Over here it started with the Greens (linked to the RAF, fairly lefty economically and staunchly anti-NATO when they started out, since the 1990s they are basically George W. Bush type neocons), next the Pirate party suffered the same fate in the late 2000s, then Linke got targeted in order to get rid of Wagenknecht and now BSW is destroying itself. Notice how bourgeois, pro Israel pseudo opposition such as UKIP, Reform or AfD can pull "scandals" and the most retarded shit they want, it never hurts them.

>>2750067
didn't linke get in some controversy lately because of anti-zionist resolution?

Support Sultana in her fight against reactionary landlordism!

>>2750124
didnt corbyn put a landlord reactionary in the co-chair

I think that probably did more to undermine any hope this was a progressive socialist party honestly, it was a corbyn vanity project from the start

>>2749830
yea, but you just hate women.

>>2750108
Yes, but that resolution wasn't even anti-zionist. It was just not 150% pro-zionist. Enough for bourgeois tabloids, liberals and reactoids of all sorts to freak out, some of them even called for a party ban.

>>2750067
>They plant a bunch of insufferable "progressive" liberals and a bunch of reactoid sleeper cells inside any target movement, activate them when needed
Yeah this is basically why Your Party has failed, with Sultana's factions being infiltrated by the liberal "progressives" and and Corbyn's faction infiltrated by the "reactoids".
It has doomed the party since the start.

>>2749715
Without Sultana the party wouldn't have launched at all. Every criticism of her needs to open from this fact. She just repeats what lefty twitter demands, which is silly, but much better than anyone else's alternative. (Left twitter at least tracks what left Twitter wants - the other faction wanted you to back a proudly non-socialist anti-trans obsessive like Adnan Hussein!)

Corbyn is a nice man but singly unsuited to leadership roles. The Green party would've eaten their lunch regardless.

>>2750067
The liberals are just genuinely publicly popular. The only existing semi-conservative demographic is older Muslim voters and (as the greens showed in Gorton and Denton) they'll accept progressive social views from the party. YP's attempt to fudge social issues was an unforced error and owes less to Israel than to Britain's reactionary press brainworms.

Just don't be conservative, or if you must hold conservative views, shut the fuck up and quietly enjoy the mainstream parties implementing the conservative policies you want! Do this and you're impervious to glowie subversion or tedious infighting over social issues!

Your Party have just announced that they won't be running in the upcoming Scottish elections, despite the Scottish branch of Your Party voting to do so, because the central party basically dragged their feet and made it impossible to select candidates before the nomination deadline.

You can't pin this kind of apathetic incompetence on Zarah Sultana. Corbyn's wing got a majority on the CEC. They must've known that Scottish and Welsh elections were happening this year, so what the fuck were they doing?

>who cares, it's not like they'd win anyway
Well, yeah. I mean look at them. But if you imagine an alternative, competent Your Party the conditions in Scotland are ideal to take a seat or two: the SNP are unpopular, Labour are unpopular, and the Greens are surging a bit but slightly hobbled by a brief and mostly-unsuccessful period in coalition with the SNP. A left-wing, anti-war party untainted by any of that is an attractive prospect, while Corbyn's name recognition and Sultana being in parliament mean the media would have to give it some attention, and the voting system make it much less difficult to take a seat than under FPTP. (In 2003 - in similar circumstances with an unpopular SNP and unpopular Labour, the "Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party" got a seat and the Scottish Socialist Party got several!)

It'd be one thing to miss this open goal if they were actually running, but that they've not even managed that is remarkable.

>>2749729
t. radlib

>>2754337
Corbyn is so fucking infuriating
He has a following behind him (for some fucking reason) but he clearly cannot and does not want to DO ANYTHING
I said it before and I'll say it again. Deep down Corbyn just wants to grill and chill with his commie buddies and protest about Gaza every now and again

Zarah Sultana would have been a bollocks leader. She only did dual membership because she knew it would unite the trot clans behind her, many of them were talking shit about her position on Ukraine anyways. A total opportunist, just doing careerism but gambling that there would be a career in faux radicalism.

it must be said also, the bottom line issue is basically translib. It will take a top down (ish) line from a socialist leader to come to a sensible position on this issue, where both irate and stupid sides are forced to exist together and shut up about it.

Corbyn organised this completely wrong. Should have simply laid out a program and had people sign up to it from the outset, they would have, he then could have seeded local groups to campaign on these issues: Peace, Homes, Wages, undergirded by a program of national development, infrastructure, etc etc, yes, we will put curbs on immigration from now, but anyone here can stay. A winning program, the one he has always believed in.

Instead we just had the annual left wing lib-off and essentially the politics of the green part but more autisitic and less palatable for normal people.

Only dividing line was being "softly" anti nato, but nobody actually gave a fuck about that and 100% of the trots would be switched to pro nato based on woke ukraine types scenes

and by the way, if you are saying "oooooh but it has to be member lead" yes, sure, but no obviously those members should not be people with the political agenda of another failed party, who from the outset, using the premade vehicles of these parties, wrecked, split local proto branches, and caused all kinds of chaos because that is basically what they exist to do. 50 boomers and 50 students, united to whine, complain and screech, for decades, with no strategy, endlessly tailing stop the war, stand up to racism, and every other tired out trot front, which are the real stranglehold on the UK left, the lightening rods that take the electricity and drive it directly to a care home and nothing else.

>>2754518
you're trying to fudge the trans issue entirely pointlessly and after the horse has bolted. the sensible position is the position of the green party - even as a matter of cynical brand management. it's also already basically what your party finally settled on when the issue was put to a member's vote. "socialist party but fuck transhumanists" is not a marketable product in actually-existing britain. "socialist party but actually our position is very nuanced, it manages to perfectly alienate both sides" is the only less marketable product.

no UK party of any importance has ever been wrecked by transgender activist excess, however many oddballs you may find on twitter. most transgender activists are generic activists who happen to be transgender, but will campaign on other issues. anti-trans types on the other hand have successfully wrecked the SNP (once the most unified party in british politics, now a shambles because a tiny number of their elected officials broke ranks to wreck, culminating in the grotesque spectacle of scottish nationalists cheerleading the UK supreme court concluding that Scotland's sovereignty was extinguished forever and the UK government can veto Scottish legislation whenever it likes… because it meant an entirely tokenistic piece of pro-transgender legislation was vetoed.), they successfully wrecked Labour (not that Labour needed any help, but something like 10% of Lab > Green defectors mention Labour's anti-transgender stance as a reason for breaking ranks), and they successfully kneecapped Your Party out of the gate (Adnan Hussein running his mouth and putting doubt in the minds of the kind of people who could go Green or could go to YP, but saw YP making arses of themselves while the Greens kept their hands clean)

i say this not to win any argument, but to impress on you - as i used to feel this way - that both sides are not equal, with yourself sitting in the middle. one side is merely strange and culturally alienating, the other is an active liability.
your first clue is that one side overwhelmingly has the backing of the british press, the government, the supreme court, deep-pocketed blairites, policy-based evidence reviews at odds with the findings in every other developed country… the other is a bunch of whiny left-libs mostly demanding things that other countries have done without any problem.

>>2750266
>The liberals are just genuinely publicly popular
Isn't Farage in the UK a lot more popular with working class people though?

> shut the fuck up
Why don't you STFU and enjoy the mainstream parties implementing the liberal policies you want though? Labour, Greens and LibDems do offer a lot of "progressive" stuff for you, don't they?
What exactly are those "social progressive" policies that an alleged "conservative" oldschool succdem such as Corbyn wouldn't implement btw?

>>2754557
If you're not British, don't run your mouth.
Farage is a lot more popular with people classified as "working class" under Britain's weird social grade system, but under this scheme a nurse is middle class and a train driver on twice her wage is working class. Reform's actual support base is middle-aged and older people with lower education. The Greens, meanwhile, are most popular with educated people under 30. (but age and education are correlated because higher education enrollment has expanded over time)
If you slam the two together: Greens biggest support numbers come from young people in "routine" (e.g. "working class") occupations. Reform does well with older routine workers. Retirees and landlords are conspicuously excluded.
The people who vote Reform will not vote for the Greens or Your Party. Labour's current strategy is to chase Reform voters, and the result is that Labour is going to die.

But that's still only part of the story: older voters are much more easily manipulated by the press. The sorts of people who're going Green now are the sorts of people who voted Corbyn in 2017 and stuck with him in 2019, while older, socially conservative voters fell for the press attacks against him. If only young people or highly educated people could vote, 2019 would've been a Corbyn landslide on a level with Blair's win in 1997, while if only older people or poorly educated people could vote, the result would've been like the National government in 1931. That is to say: the views of the liberal-left are organic, and cannot be turned on and off at the whim of the press. (Meanwhile, Tory life support from the press was switched off in 2024 which is why Labour won despite getting less votes than in their 2019 loss.)

I cannot STFU and enjoy mainstream parties implementing the liberal policies I want because they aren't doing that. Well, the Greens are, which is why they're eating Labour and YP's lunch, but Labour and the Lib Dems have less than nothing. The current Labour government offers less than zero to any social progressive, which you'd know if you were familiar with British politics.
Starmer has: Quoted Enoch Powell against immigration, banned transgender healthcare for teenagers, is currently "reviewing" adult transgender healthcare with a view to doing the same, overseen a supreme court ruling that the Equality Act 2010 requires you to discriminate against transgender people (utterly at odds with the interpretation to that point and the obvious legislative intent), and stands behind the resulting "Equality and Human Rights Commission" guidance that proposes that transgender people are basically banned from any gendered part of public life* (put forward by an anti-transgender activist that they appointed), oh, and (in a crossover with foreign policy) backed Israel's genocide in Gaza to the hilt. (Directly asked if Israel has the right to cut off power and water in Gaza, a war crime, he said "I believe Israel does have that right"!)
The Lib Dems are irrelevant and mostly tilting towards picking up ex-Conservative voters, so Ed Davey is currently whining that they're going to replace Churchill on the pound with an Otter. At no point with any of this have they gone "hang on Mr. Starmer, this is all very illiberal", and even if they did they're legislatively irrelevant.

At no point did I say Corbyn was a conservative. You would know that no such association exists if you were more familiar with the dynamic inside this country. Corbyn is a master of either saying the progressive thing, or shutting the fuck up. The problem to which I was alluding, and the way in which I emphasized the need to shut the fuck up, is as follows:
Adnan Hussein was an independent MP and friend of Corbyn. He was appointed to the committee to set up Your Party. He started to TERF post on Twitter. People got mad at him, so he doubled down. TERF-y Labour MPs and journalists backed him up. People started to notice he had a generally bad record elsewhere: he was a landlord who voted against increased abortion rights, against VAT on private school fees, against property taxes… Then Zarah Sultana opportunistically started posting leftier and leftier stuff about nationalization, so Hussein came out against that too, against Your Party being a class based party… All the while, anyone watching was going: if this is the kind of guy Your Party wants me to vote for, why wouldn't I go to the Greens? They may be libs, but they're not landlords addicted to posting. Even if you think he was right about everything, arguing like this on Twitter is unbecoming!

And that is why I say social conservatives should shut the fuck up. Adnan Hussein could be a YP MP and high-ranking guy right now if he'd just… well, you know, shut the fuck up

>>2754595
Stupid, naive question, how does the press in the UK still hold all the attention and power it does? Why haven’t they been utterly displaced by digital media like over here in yankland? Did they just transition better? Does big money keep them afloat as useful political capital? Both?

The fact is UK young radicals are just too smart and educated as well as aligned with trans people to go along with whatever reactionary nonsense fringe parties go ahead with.

Part of the whole deal of modernity is that we have machines that make sexual dimorphism a non factor in everything outside giving birth (which no one can afford anyway), so why not change your sex? The AK47 was designed with women and children in mind and it works perfectly when they use it. Same with personal computers and cars.

>>2754595
I apologize for not being British yet posting in a British thread about progressive British politics. I appreciate this wall of text of your's though, it did help me understand current British politics better, which are unique, exceptional and totally unlike politics on the continent.

>>2754601
I can't say for sure (mostly due to not understanding the US media as well), but here are a few reasons:

1. Semi-successful move to digital media (for example, the Daily Mail Online is the biggest English newspaper website… because it's full of clickbait ragebait, because that's what they've been doing for decades)
   
2. Even when they're losing money, their owners keep funding them because it gives them political leverage. The Sun newspaper, for example, is losing money but is kept around because its endorsement is the most coveted at election time. (since 1992 there's been a meme that "it's the sun wot won it" after Labour suffered a surprise loss)
   
3. Papers are openly partisan, with no requirement to give fair coverage and only a token requirement to correct mistakes. If The Daily Mail announce tomorrow that the government is going to give billions in welfare to transgender muslim asylum seekers as a front-page story, the only consequence will be that on friday they have to print a little rider in the back-page in size 8 font that says "correction: that's not true"
   
4. The British political class is much smaller, close-knit, and incestuous than the US one. there basically aren't state-level power centers or journalism in the same way. Everything is centered on London* and people move between journalism and politics fairly freely (e.g. Boris Johnson was a Telegraph writer and the editor of The Spectator before he became London mayor). Newspaper ownership is also concentrated (for example, Rupert Murdoch owns both The Sun tabloid and The Times, the ostensibly-respectable newspaper of record.) and there's a strong culture of briefing the press informally about stories you want in the papers but don't want to publicly link yourself to.
   
5. Papers have a strong sense of their collective interest and journalists have a strong sense of class solidarity with one another, driven by the above. Hence, even papers that are ostensibly partisan in a liberal/left way like The Guardian came out against Corbyn and press regulation. since they all speak with one voice, they're much harder to ignore.
   
6. They set the agenda for more trusted news sources, like the BBC (and with it, other TV news like ITV, Sky, etc.). TV news isn't supposed to be partisan the way it is in the US, but a good way to prove you're balanced is to go "well, we gave 30% of our time to stories from The Guardian, 30% to stories from The Daily Mail, and 40% to stories from The Times**, so we're being fair" when in reality that can be a 100% dose of right-wing or at least anti-left slop. BBC News is also one of the most popular English language news sites.
   
7. Basically no legal protections for privacy or human decency. the press infamously got caught hacking people's mobile phones in the 2000s and while it was a big scandal that bankrupted one of Rupert Murdoch's papers (only one, mind you), it basically came to nothing so far as press regulation was concerned. the only exception is British Libel Law, which is notoriously tough… but that's only a protection if you're rich and the journalist was sloppy and didn't leave themselves enough wiggle room to pretend they didn't say what they obviously said.
   
   

*there is a tiny regional press in Scotland/NI/Wales, but speaking at least for the Scottish press, it's just a microcosm of the same problems except instead of being pro-Tory/Reform and anti-Labour/Green, it's anti-SNP/Green and pro-Labour. (because the SNP is the main centre-left party in Scotland and Labour are the centre to centre-right establishment, the Tories being irrelevant.). NI is basically a separate political system unto itself, and I would presume Wales is similar to Scotland but anti-Plaid instead of anti-SNP.
**The Times is, of course, right wing. But in the old stereotype it's a respectable broadsheet newspaper, while The Sun is a comic for barely-literate blokes who're only really buying it because there (used to be) naked ladies on Page 3. (who'd give you - ostensibly their - right wing political opinions. Pics related.)

>>2754679
Don't worry about it. I apologize for being rude. Britain is a fascinatingly dysfunctional country.

YP news:

1. the holyrood election deadline is at 4pm today, they're not standing.
   
2. a member of the scottish committee resigned claiming it was just a mechanism to attack the UK wide party, only for it to turn out they were being paid £500/day by the party for "administrative services"
   
3. the welsh representative on the CEC is subject to a recall petition for zionism (picrel), although the party itself doesn't actually have a functioning recall mechanism. but remember: YP are supposed to be more committed anti-imperialists than the greens!
   
4. a bit dated but https://yourpartyvoices.substack.com/p/where-have-the-many-gone-whats-that is a funny read. it has nothing to address the obviously-impending failure to run candidates, but it reads like it's half AI generated and there's a bit where they attack the scottish greens for factionalism in the tone you'd expect from the current labour government even though the greens are positioned to gain seats in the upcoming holyrood elections and were officially in government as recently as 2024 thanks to a coalition with the SNP, an outcome well beyond the capacity of a party that couldn't even pick candidates and get nomination papers in on time. one of their later lines really solidifies that they've imported Labour's attitude to Scotland
   

>We joined a U.K. party let’s plan our future together.

tl;dr it's all going REALLY well, except the stuff that's Zarah Sultana's fault.

>>2763169
it gets better! one of the reasons they ignored scotland was to focus on deciding who they'd back at the english elections… a bunch of the "x independent groups" (e.g. councillors who stand as, say, "liverpool community independents") only for many of their choices to turn out to be made up of tories and slum landlords.

one of them, Walsall community independents, was particularly contentious (some of its people were tory councillors in like january!) and YP basically tried to deny that they'd endorsed them, or argued they'd only endorsed the non Tory candidates… only for it to turn out that (a) candidates had put his endorsement on their leaflets and (b) Your Party itself had published their endorsement online and then edited it later.

meanwhile in Islington (Jeremy Corbyn's constituency - one must presume a hive of Sultanaite Trotskyism) Your Party is endorsing 3 of the Islington Community Independents candidates (but not Islington Community Independents itself, despite Jeremy Corbyn founding ICI), and those 3 are the members of ICI who're not members of (or backed by) Your Party Islington, despite one of those candidates being a still imprisoned Palestine hunger striker, because the central party doesn't like Your Party Islington, while Islington Community Independents don't want to be too closely associated with Your Party.

Why, Zarah? Why?

>>2749715
She is beautiful, I don't care about anything else. I would do whatever she says with a "yes, my sultana".

>>2774806
She's a really strong 6.

>>2749753
you live there. you do it.

i dont want any more woke bame lgbt shit in my grassroots leftist movement please thank you pure class analysis or fuck off

>>2774816
she's an 8 in britain

>>2774892
what material successes has neoliberal woke politics had though? it's been like 15 years and things are even worse for trans people in many developed countries

>>2774896
in percentiles, 1% is 1/10th of the top 10%
all those women are 10s because they are in the top 10%
i am saying then, that zara is in the top 80%

sorry, i got confused. zara is in the top 30-20%

>>2774921
i know i just wanted to share my gooner's list of top british birds

>>2774938
Zara would get it and we'd have an initially ferocious sex life that would slow down when we move in together then 5 years would pass of renting a shitty 2 bedroom flat in some suburban area and we'd wither away and break up not with a bang but a whimper.

>>2774847
>>2774892
>>2774902
Point is to sharpen the contradictions, not win reforms. Economism is a dead end. As a trans woman, if communism requires making martyrs out of trans women then that's fine with me.

>>2774847
that's like saying you don't want cold ice cream.
fundamentally, people's political alignment is downstream of their personality and disposition. for left wingers, that means being agreeable, high openness, and neurotic. the more you drift from that description, the less left wing you wind up almost definitionally. (who'd have thought that low openness, self-confident, disagreeable people have more fun going after trans people than they do trying to come up with ways to emancipate humanity?)

>>2774902
it hasn't produced much, but the same is true of whatever "true" grassroots leftism you want to align yourself with.
but that doesn't mean it should be entirely written off. instead, you have to understand its failure correctly: institutional "wokeness" is the result of bottom-up pressure from the actually existing left. when it became clear that young people (and the left is disproportionately young) weren't going to be bought off with pronoun circles, land acknowledgements, and corporate pride because they wanted actual material concessions, a chunk of the bourgeoisie immediately started funding a reactionary turn. the carrot failed, so why not try the stick?

that it failed to achieve more is a function of its powerlessness and disorganization, not its excesses. that is to say: it is not that demands for (say) transgender acceptance went too far, it is that those making them lacked the organizational power to impose consequences for not meeting those demands. the correct response is not to dump "woke bame lgbt shit" (not, in any case, an achievable ask), but to dump being disorganized as fuck.
unfortunately, here we return to the disposition of the average leftist: agreeable, open minded, and neurotic is not a good mindset for knuckling down to boring practical organizational work even before you throw in the need for conscientiousness/rule following, which is generally a trait more common on the right.

>>2749715
The reason this happened is because the old gaurd(Corbin) which wanted labor but they support pallesteine and the democratic socialists(sultana) who wanted democrats clashed too much as there was too much debate on what the party should be as more than just “left labor” this caused too much division so much in fact that they couldn’t even come up with a name that’s how divided they were as now they are just dividing the green vote and the old guard should go back to labor and sultana should go fuck off dissolve your party its waster just join the greens and eventually radicalize them into revolutionary socialism then to Marxism Leninism.