On the Future of Britain

Right, so, with all the hullabaloo over Corbyn's christmas message. Now one suggestion was that he was doing it to win the hearts and minds of soldiers to protect against a military coup. Now the concept of a leftist gov being coup'ed by the military in the UK is not one that is rare: A famous of Drama (A sister in some respects to House of Cards) in the 1990s called "A Very British Coup" dealt with this exact issue.

However the thought came to my mind: the British deep state doesn't have the resources nor ability to actually properly attempt to overthrow a government. Army numbers are at their lowest in over a century, the police have lost 20k members since 2010 and even GCHQ is strapped for funding. We are at a position where neoliberalism has destroyed the very foundations upon which it needs to maintain its order: we may be in a position where an Allande-style gov cannot BE overthrown…

Other urls found in this thread:



The CIA gonna magic the UK army into a position where it can undertake a coup?

You don't need many people to take over the state, if you already have most of the administration in place.

< what is NATO

or theyre gonna send american "volunteers" over to help with the "growing threat of terrorism"
or theyre gonna just dispose of the leaders of said party, just like in Italy

you make it sound as if its farfecthed when its really not.

Absolute larping in this thread.

It doesn't take 20,000 police or soldiers to carry out a coup, are you mad?

If certain elements in the government are cooperating with the CIA, they don't need all that many people. The media is on their side, look at how much they hate Corbyn.

Lol all you need to do is look at the strategies used in other MI6 or SeeIAyy coups

You don't need an army just pump up a movement and overthrow the leader in secret on some shit legal slip and your good

Comrade Corbyn will win soon enough. May is incompetent, unpopular, and Corbyn almost won the snap election, made big gains. UK's future is leftwards.

Corbyn will probably just mysteriously die if he gets elected and be replaced by somebody like Chuka Umuna.

tbh I think the left should lowkey prepare for Corbyn to die regardless. As a historical trend, the "first electable" leader after a period out of government dies before he can win his election. (Hugh Gaitskell 1963, John Smith 1994.) If it happens to Corbyn, one would want to prevent an inverse-Wilson situation arising. Wilson was to the left of Gaitskell, the last thing we want is for the next leader to be right of Corbyn.

Well I mean there are plenty of people in the wings: McDonnell, Chris Williamson, Laura Pidcock and others. Tbh this wave won't die with Corbyn, he doesn't really have a cult of personality in the traditional sense, people like the platform more than the man…

The british military is so weak rn I doubt they could pull off a coup, it would have to be a civilian coup on the part of the Tories or the libdems. Do the Tories have any legal technicalities or something they could throw at Corbyn that would stick?


May's government has already weakened them though, how would a mutiny actually be more than dirtying Corbyn's balls while he's raping them?

I can’t wait to walk the future streets of London once we’ve finally defeated racism.

This is what reading the guardian does to people, it induces a state of helplessness in which people cannot conceive of anything happening without a lavishly funded government department orchestrating it all.

Well I mean the gov is whomever gets the monarch to appoint them, but from what I have heard there is like 0% chance the Queen who would hte tories in power with an absolute majority existing.

Apparently she is a SocDem Gang Member

Cheers for that Geoff, the rest of us will get on with actually deconstructing neoliberalism.

Elizabeth II being a class traitor like Engels would be the funniest shit, too bad it isn't true.


It won't look like that though, since there will be no markets

I am not saying she is a marxist, but apparently she hated Thatcher to the max to what she did to the UK. Honestly, a coup happening and Liz going "No, Stop it, Let the nice man do his thing" and all the soldiers doing what she said would make me megakek.

but isn't it the tories and neoliberals turning London into a speculation market for Saudi and Chinese and Russian billionaires?

you see there's people who have lots of stuffs and theres those who dont. this is all because a few white men got together 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧friedman🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧, 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧mises🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧, 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧hayek🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧, 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧rothbard🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 to create neoliberalism which is why im not a winner. literally everything i dont like is neoliberalism because neoliberalism is the ruling ideology of our age which means that everything that happens is neoliberalism because due its domination it is everywhere.

Yes, neoliberal policies of anti-union, anti-Keynesian action is literally why workers are not the "winners" in our society. No need to worry, this thing's coming down soon.


Oh boi look at this oversocialised turd.

just think of the good old days of the 60's when you were the richest man on the block for owning a fridge.

in 50 years the genderthing that came from owen jones' artificial womb will be crying about the terrible tories only allowing families on benefits one spaceship.

i just find it funny how leftypol blames a jewish cabal for pretty much everything and even ascribes world domination to them, to then act smug towards honest anti-semites.

It's not a cabal, and there's no conspiracy, it's just how the system operates, you'd know that if you lurked here long enough, let alone read a book.


For starters Hayek was just Austrian, not jewish…
Secondly, you cited two Chicagoans and an Austrian: you clearly don't know much about economic schools of thought now do you dear?
Thirdly, capitalism existed before them, it's almost like Marx wrote Das Kapital a full century before the New Right were becoming a thing.
Four, Marxian anti-capitalism is not conspiratory, it is systematically based: Engels wrote much on how the bourgeois social experience was detrimental to their well-being: hardly the mode of thought of some "ebul rich beeble" wank.

Read a book and learn to make arguments.

and it just so happens that this just-so system was designed by a handful of jews who infiltrated the academia and politics
you think people would do such things, write books that aren't a 100% factual and right about everything?

i know neo-liberalism originally referred to a group of economists who supported interventionism, a welfare state and a guided economy. since then it has been used to describe a source of anything and everything that happens today, most often rooted in the jews i mentioned. of course those people didn't describe themselves as neoliberals, which is an accusatory term.
a conspiracy theory that shields itself from criticism by being unfalsifiable is a conspiracy theory none the less
read less self-congratulatory wankery that only serves to polish your bubble


Socdems are so fucking delusional. Read Lenin.

Yes it is true that neoliberalism back in the 1900s used to mean social liberalism, and then in the 1950s to Ordoliberalism. However it is now used today to describe the works of monetarists: very few states operate on Austrian lines. And again, Hayek was not jewish, nor was Thatcher, or Hoppe, or Reagan, or many other leading neoliberals.

Ты говоришь по-английски?

Oh no… It's retarded

But seriously you're thinking of Keynesianism, please try to at least learn your own side of economics


Nah user is talking about the social liberalism of the 1900s: the OG neoliberalism (seriously, the policies of DLG and Teddy Roosevelt were referred to as neoliberalism at the time).

Milo-editor posting is my new favourite thing.

Enjoy being stuck in the past, regressive homophobe.

Well that's dumb, wiki says neoliberalism was first coined in a serious way in the late 30s though and Mises was involved even at that stage. Idk I guess that's just how things go though, just like how 'third way' politics has like 5 different meanings

Lenin wasn't a homophobe tho…

Also using Lenin as an example of how to conduct a revolution is silly: his praxis was tailored to the regime of Tsarist Russia: the lib dem west is V different to that of the autocratic Russian Empire.

I mean it just means "New liberalism", although apparently it's use for social liberalism is a German thing, when ordoliberalism (which is neoliberalism with some economic planning to-boot) was becoming a major thing.

an anti-semite, me? do you know how many goyim i know to be infected with frankfurt school thought?

i know the people here are very prickly with socialism being given a new meaning divorced from its original meaning, why is this demand for original meaning abandoned here then?

it is used today in the context of an overarching -ism, more like a timeframe than a set of principles or an economic theory, which are fell back upon when pressed upon the issue. far-leftists are conspirational to the core in their need for there to be an order to everything, an -ism, a coloured bar on the timeline, the world as a thing in a set. that's why they don't like worldviews with a similar structure, those are competition.

What the, I, just, what is even going on here…


Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder is almost entirely about communist parties in the lib dem west, like Germany and Britain.
Read it, you will feel pretty stupid for saying Lenin is irrelevant to people in "democracies" once you're done.

Are you the same user? because first you talk about "mudslimes taking over muh cities", then how marxists are anti-semitic because Rothbard and Friedman were jewish, now how neoliberalism is used weirdly. Is this that Putin shit where you spout so much shit your opponent doesn't know what to do?

I want your collection of this?

Oh I am reading Lenin's post civil war works right now; in Zizek's Lenin 2017.

Also you do realise it was the left-coms that were opposed to parliamentarism and Lenin was critically for it?

Stop reading the fucking meme cocaine man and just READ LENIN. How can you be this fucking stupid? Zizek is a walking joke, he is not Lenin.

If you would actually READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL you would know he wasn't talking about uncritically supporting backstabbing, opportunist socdems and getting nothing in return. He was also FOR boycotting elections as well given the right conditions.

neoliberalism, what else?
it doesn't want you to know what is going on, because if you would you would know its liberalism.

don't forget nervously plucking your shirt and squeezing your nose to distract them or namedropping lacanian terminology when someone tells you that killing your parents for not sucking mao's dick hard enough and feeding breadcrumbs to sparrow is kind of evil.


Zizek is valuable, and so is Lenin, you can read both, and they're both worth taking seriously.

no he's not


What isn't worth taking seriously? The guy is accomplished in his field, unless you're going to dismiss psychoanalysis entirely (in which case, that's fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree), there's plenty of reason to take him seriously.

Lenin 2017 is 1/4tr preface from Zizek, 3/4trs collections of letters and speeches by Lenin post-civil war. SO yes, I am reading Lenin.

which in his field means little more than that he has charismatic authority

Classic aversion to psychoanalysis, an aversion that happens to be to the benefit of capital.

Don't care, he's a joke, a revisionist and says lots of cryptofashy shit.

No, you're reading Lenin framed, cherrypicked, and revised by Zizek. Lenin's major works are totally absent from it, and no wonder, because they're too long to fit into an excerpt book for a bunch of ADHD-addled meme socialists. Now I hope you at least know that Lenin wasn't some kind of cryptic prosemaster and is perfectly approachable, so go and actually read Lenin.


no aversion to capital among psycho-analysts and their clientele though. some people have friends, others have money and pay others to listen to their sorrows.

but there are people who have an aversion to psychoanalysis, one for economic reasons (why do you think Freud was banned in Germany and discredited by right wingers?), the other because they're afraid of what it has to say about them personally.

the sheeple just dont dare to open eyes and see their little fantasy world collapse. preach it name-of-the-father!

Jeremy's unironically good, and you're not a serious Socialist if you think otherwise.

It's like you have any arguments.

Read Lenin, you fucking moron - if you are too spooked to get tl;dr from Stalin.

Zizek is wanker with no understanding of Marxism.

No one on Holla Forums thinks neoliberalism exists because a bunch of people got together and came up with an idea. That is a fundamentally anti-marxist way to think. Neoliberalism is hegemonic because it facilitates capital accumulation and was thus funded/promoted by capitalists and their political servants. It is simply the ideological superstructure which arose to legitimate a certain mode of production and certain class relations at a specific historical moment.

Fixed that for you. Neoliberalism is a meme promoted by liberals. Marxists understand that "neoliberalism" is just normal capitalism.

There's no such thing as "normal capitalism", any more than Keynesianism or Laissez-faire are equally "normal capitalism"
But hey if you want to make that argument, go ahead.

Capitalism can take different forms. Governments need to regulate markets in different ways according to the Keynesian vs. Austrian school, for example.
Quit LARPing and read a few things about economics on Wikipedia, because even if you think the production and distribution of goods should be radically changed, it's always good to know how your enemies think about capitalism.

So we're supposed to take these bourgeois ideologists at their word for what they are? Bullshit. "Neoliberalism" is different in no way from plain old capitalism as described by Marx and Lenin.

now tell me how Keynesianism differs from plain old capitalism.

Yes, the exact same capitalism where most people in England work in factories and the service industry is barely a thing.

Capitalism is a many headed beast.