Anybody who thinks that his microwave re-heated 1970s Wilson/Callaghan brand of State Capitalism can actually address...

Anybody who thinks that his microwave re-heated 1970s Wilson/Callaghan brand of State Capitalism can actually address or resolve the contradictions inherent to 21st century neoliberalism today is deluded. The rightwing faction of his party will continue to stifle his agenda, enabled by the reactionary press media and tories. As it is, a lot of his manifesto is already compromised.

Asides from giving the working class some temporary material respite (until the next rightwing coup and global crash), literally the only tangible benefit to the real world that Corbyn brings is the introduction of anti-imperialist ideas and principles into mainstream geopolitical consciousness. And that alone is reason enough for actual leftists to celebrate him.

then why the fuck did you make this topic

he wont fix shit, except for the only thing that matters to non-citizens. amazing logic

He's going to break up the media and put lots of stuff back into public ownership. Considering the current political tones of the UK I'm glad he's pushing things back towards reality and away from stage managed politics creating mass apathy.

Because even that's not a guarantee.

Just look at how Labour voted on renewing Trident. -After- Corbyn's victory.

ah alright mate you got it. ill be casting me ballot for may then

fucking retadd

Oh fuck off, there's no such thing as guarantees. Corbyn is a vastly better politician than the status quo even on the 'left', if we let him lose this country should fucking turn trident on itself.

pls.

...

If TYT released a video saying suicide is bad would you please neck yourself?

they should have just condemned corbyn for his "anti-semitism" and euroscepticism meaning he's rayciss, and endorsed milkman instead

Of course he won't fix shit. To fix something implies that the thing is broken, that there is a thing, an object, something you can put your hands on. The system as in the source of unresolved desire is not.

No…vote UKIP of course. Mr Nigel has to be UK's next prime minister.

We have a british elections thread… But NOOOO! You have to kill a thread to post your shit!!!!

tbh /britleftypol/ is 70% /scotleftypol/ now

it could do with some independence and become a separate thread, but there aren't enough scots here :(

tyt pretty explicitly backed sanders in the primary

My God would it feel grand though.

why are they so overrepesented when they're like 10% of the population?

He also pierces the capitalist-realist reality distortion field if he wins ("he's unelectable, everyone knows that.") which is by far and away the most important thing.


Highland Clearances, maybe.

Yeah. Won't be good for Scottish independence though. The SNP's narrative only works when Labour are a shambles, and when the people of England appear irredeemably reactionary to them.

Sorry I'm highjacking this thread to talk about voting in general.
Instinctively, I agree with you - and Zizek - about Corbyn. I think voting in elections is completely meaningless, and that if (when) a radical alternative rises, it won't (at least initially) be reached through the ballot boxes.
My intuition when approaching the ballot box is to spoil the vote. To pull down my pants and take a dump, burn the curtains and make a paper airplane out of the ballot.

But I can't do it. Every time I'm in the position, or if people ask me what I vote, I always go for the 'far-left-of-center' demsoc bullshit alternative. Even though I know it won't change shit in the long run.
What's holding me back is the thought that even if it wont change things in the long run, if it can improve the life situations of just a few of the people who've been fucked over the most just a bit, even if it's not permanent, then I must have a moral obligation to make that decision when it comes at such a low cost to me.
If we have a moral obligation to improve the world at all, and seek the abolition of capital for reasons that are impersonal, then why do we not also have a moral obligation towards those whose lives would be markedly better if we had a government with even just slightly more firm social democratic principles?

I want to obey my intuitions, and I want to agree with everybody here and say that voting doesn't matter. But while it very obviously doesn't matter in the long term, it just as obviously to me does matter in the short. Does it not matter more than spoiling or abstaining does?

I feel like this is the central crisis of mine, and probably the reason why I refuse to take strong positions on praxis. I'm a libertarian marxist with post-left anarchist sympathies.
I've been staring myself blind at this issue for so long now.
Can somebody tell me the way out?
The obvious ways are either to find a strong argument that we're morally compelled to not vote, by either arguing that the effects of spoiling or abstaining are larger than perceived, or that the effects of a more principled government is much weaker than perceived.
The other way is to finally convince me of moral nihilism, the mere assertion, although common here, isn't compelling enough in the face of what I feel are strong arguments in favor of moral responsibility.
If somebody manages to do this, I will likely start a FAI cell locally.

Solidarity user, I too believe we have a moral obligation to stand with the rest of the working class. Voting isn't revolution, but that shouldn't keep us from showing the working class that the left lives and stands with them.

Who on this board even thinks he will? A leftist vote's always just one for damage control cuz the leftist knows you ain't gonna change the system with "reforms" and through ballot boxes. It's either Corbyn-Wan-Kenobi or Theresa Vader. He's the NHS' only hope!