"Jeremy Corbyn would, in Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat."

2020 at the next general election

Well it's leader of the opposition party so he doesn't have the votes to push anything through but he's the main person who controls the voting of the Labour MPs (in theory). In theory he has the power to help create cross-party legislation but in reality since the Tories have a majority now in parliament he doesn't have much direct power, laws can't be passed without support from at least some Conservative MPs.

Yeah true enough man, thank God we have this massive underground left wing movement going, just waiting for the right moment to spring the trap and create full gommernisms for everyone!

he's clearly talking about our contol of the mass media and the jewish banks.

wsws pls go

I know basically nothing about norwegian politics but that sounds like some bullshit. I base this entirely on the fact that swedish socdems are blairite as fuck.

Clearly.

It's basically bullshit, but the point is his policies are that of social democrats from Scandiavia from like 50 years ago. If you think the current social democratic parties have gone away from social democracy, yes you're right.

ALL OF LEFTYPOLS HEROES ARE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS

ITT: Americans salty as fuck they have absolutely no left wing politicians beyond incredibly obscure nopowers.

Stop fucking projecting your issues onto every other country around the world you pitiable faggots.

What are you reformist are something? They haven't been wrong once. When everyone was gushing about Syriza they knew they'd betray the working class. When everyone was jerking off about B████ ██████ they knew he'd endorse Hillary Clinton and try and reinforce the democratic party. Chances are they're right about Corbyn and the Green Party too.

This

You are incorrect. Scandinavia differes from your fantasy

...

...

You ever notice how all those groups that always say they are themselves the only solution, refuse to ever go and engage and dismiss the people moving (and being fooled, supposedly, or betrayed by a few at the top) and forming larger movements, are almost always proven right from their view from the distance - but then never have their stance represented at all when it mattered, in the places it mattered, and affected nothing about the groups involved (because they dismissed them completely, which only sometimes you are right in doing - others, you're dismissing activists); and also didn't grow any memberships, either? And hey why would they even want to have any of those tens of thousands, of hundreds of thousands of… people, actively engaging, anyway?

Yea, we never wanted you anyway. Go away. See, we were right. Now come to us, because we're the only right way (tm). And the only way it'll ever work.

I like their website, for many types of news. I am not impressed by their "predictions". (they're also not true, in entirety, Syriza for instance was not one party consisting solely of Tsipiras, and there were heavy betrayals. The leadership did not do what they said, they would, and fucked over both the movement as a whole, and their own members of their own coalition, including sitting MPs.)

The outside view that these types of groups tend to take (the 'sit back, do nothing, say I told you so'), is very similar to the mainstream view (just slightly different angle). Entirely distanced, and having it all fit neatly and nicely into a 'narrative', avoiding any of the conflicts, and shittiness that goes on, and the lack of a complete narrative to explain it all away as some sort of 'wrong theory'.

Tsipiras and the leadership betrayed. That's it. There's reason to think, he was never on board. Parts of Syriza, was. The movement they built up and the organization they fostered, and the people - most certainly were.

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to prove?

Syriza's inability to deliver was not some coincidence. They are SocDem, they did not put their trust and power into people. Hence they literally incapable of doing anything properly Socialist. Should someone be sufficiently dumb to do it anyway - he'll go the way of Allende, because there is no Vanguard to protect him.

When you have a coalition that has sufficient potential (other radical elements, within it), and you have the people's mandate - and the people united, you need to fill up as much radical groups inside it, as possible.

Not sit outside, leaving the ones that did stay in it (and advocated for what was needed - with support within Syriza, as well as the populace) look like 'all sell-outs'.

Syriza was not the US Democratic party. It was already argued that they needed to make a clean break, with the EU. The leadership, not Syriza (as shown by the breakup, afterwards, by people who said they refused to go along with this - imagine if they'd been more?), failed.

It wasn't because they were "Soc Dems". It was because they specifically didn't want to do, those at the top, what they said they were going to do - and what they had the mandate and support both internally and externally, to do.
They didn't have an inability to deliver, they had a leadership clique that sold them out.

By not going into details and just "See, sellouts all of them", it makes it seem like the coalition failed, and you have statements like yours.

They did. Tsipiras didn't want to leave the EU. Others in Syriza, did. It was an inside play, but it has nothing to do with the coalition, and dismissing the opportune time and the organizational buildup that they did do - makes no sense.

Here's Lapavitsas talking about some of the internals of Syriza:

youtube.com/watch?v=p5gojqrjhQo

A member of Syriza, an elected MP; then later split in protest.

I notice pretty frequently that wsws calls out milquetoast reformists for collaborating with capital, then the supporters of those reformists get angry at wsws, and then stand around scratching their heads when the pinkish bourgeois party they supported betrays them and allies with capital. That's when they aren't busy collaborating with liberal/conservative parties to try and gain parliamentary power, compromising what few revolutionary or progressive policies they might have had in order to appease the capitalists, only to ultimately accomplish nothing.

Then they turn around and angrily demand "Well what are you doing to help the cause?" of groups like wsws for not capitulating to liberalism.

I'm not doing the "What are you doing" I'm doing the "Why aren't you there". They can still shout and call them sellouts, but they're not even there most of the time.

Most movements do not succeed, but when people move they're going to be misinformed, there's going to be a mixture of all, and if you have a better analysis then say so and guide it. Saying "Give up, join us" to millions of people, when what you suggest (in the case of wsws even more so) excludes pretty much all nationally formed union parties, almost all straight up "other" communist parties (who in turn do exactly the same…), where do you stand? Nowhere.

I'm not confused, nor "Angrily demanding", I know what happened - what I am pissy about is that the most basic predictions are getting praise when the people as they are moving (you're going to re-create the organization that Syriza made, and their momentum?) are getting all tossed into the basket of 'don't bother, it's all borgy' (when it wasn't, and isn't).

Syriza was a coalition. It happened the way it did, it did not HAVE to happen that way.

Most movements fail. Sitting back and predicting, will give you probably a 75% or higher accuracy. It's not impressive.

yeah, the coalition that allied with another rightist coalition "isn't bourgy." I'm beginning to think you're just delusional. The SPE is constantly doing outreach in the US, so it's ridiculous to criticize them for their analysis because they have no presence in Greece. Syriza allied with the rightists and serves the bankers. They sold out. Podemos allied with the rightists and serves the bankers. They sold out. B████ ██████ endorsed an arch-right porky that serves the bankers. He sold out.

You say "it's the most basic of predictions" which makes you sound like even more of an idiot. If it's so obvious, then why is everyone fucking surprised when these pseudo-left soc dems try to make nice with capital only to have even their most basic left provisions constantly thwarted? Gosh, you'd think they would have known better. I mean, it's a basic prediction!

And then reformist scum like you try to throw the criticism these groups so rightfully garner back at the critics because they "weren't there." Why the fuck would actual leftists want to associate with these bourgeois conciliators in the first place?

How the fuck are americans relevant to UK or Norse politicians?

Well that's completely different then. ANY current "radical left" party would be centrist or worse only a few decades ago. We all know that already, no point in bringing it up with Corbyn like it's some shocking revelation.

Yes S█████ sold out, but the reason he lost was fraud, you had a massive movement of people in his case who had witnessed fraud and a case where the basic democratic notions were called for the illusions - that in their case it was - and instead of pushing those points, it's all just back to "it was all borgy, he was going to endore Clinton anyway" leaving the ones that you ignore here in the dust by both the ignorers of the fraud that benefited and the "always right" sectarians: the people who were engaged and in the actual streets.

I said it was an easy prediction from the distance how most active moments go, engagement could actually tilt and change how many of them did go. The outreach they're doing in the US and in regards to S█████ was completely solitary, and they were just as much writing and pushing out articles that as far as I recall didn't do anything but say 'don't bother', even when S█████ actually won by the numbers.

There's a side there that would agree with calling S█████ a sellout, that would call out the fraud itself, and would be involved with the people who were behind S█████. That's not where they were, as far as I could tell, and everyone who was were mocked by them and put in the same group as "Pseudo leftists, also all frauds".

So where are the people AS THEY ARE moving, going? Their momentum, their energy as it has been increased and as it has been shoved aside and ignored by all sides - guess what, gets picked up by those actually there.

There seems to be a massive lack or a complete 'not giving a shit' attitude towards opportune moments and activating people to the point where they are physically moving in the streets, in both those you defend that isn't that far damn dissimilar from any number of completely dead in the water 'militant revolution solely' 2 member 'communist party'.

You are defending these groups not seeing a difference between the people, and their movements, from the few that they are being mislead by (in the cases where this is literally the case), and what I'm defending are the people as they are actively gathered, and engaged.

You don't seem to see a difference, and are ok with leaving them to the wolves, then expect them to somehow find their way to you. You also seem to think everything can only have one outcome, if it's set up a certain way, and that no game can be had, no tactic can be used to hijack things back in your favor.

You didn't understand
It meant Americans are jelly there is not someone like corbyn in their political class, not that Corbyn is a B
urger.

Yep, everyone's wasting their time. I'm going back to bed until someone comes up with a real plan which has been proven to actually work. I'm sure we'll have a revolution any time now.

If I remember correctly, it was about leaving eurozone, not EU as a whole. And they were pressured as fuck economically, remember Greeks panicking and withdrawing all their savings? People around Europe were actually twitting that there's an economic coup happening in Greece (despite EU-wide anti-Greek propaganda: "they're lazy!"), that's how bad it was. So it wasn't really that one-sided or merely internal. Tsipras had a gun aimed at his head, and the consequences of going against the will of EU would not be easy at all for the Greek people short-term. So he got scared, sadly. There should have been an exit plan, and some of the members were trying to do this, but leadership was too focused on getting a deal because the alternative seemed much worse.