He was mildly independent compared to the rest of the Warsaw Pact shills but that independence isn't exactly a quality to celebrate or revere when he used it to essentially crush and oppress the Romanian people to a greater degree than even the Soviet leaders of the time. Western leaders for a while fawned over him due to him not being under the Soviet sphere of influence to quite the same extent but then we've always been willing to turn a blind eye to the actions of brutal and abhorrent leaders when it suits us. Anyway, a bizarre response either way.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
He was mildly independent compared to the rest of the Warsaw Pact shills but that independence isn't exactly a quality to celebrate or revere when he used it to essentially crush and oppress the Romanian people to a greater degree than even the Soviet leaders of the time. Western leaders for a while fawned over him due to him not being under the Soviet sphere of influence to quite the same extent but then we've always been willing to turn a blind eye to the actions of brutal and abhorrent leaders when it suits us. Anyway, a bizarre response either way.
Also this
It would be far easier for the people who are morally outraged about this(Such a bizarre standard they are setting for Corbyn), to openly say they don't like Corbyn or todays Labour Party(Which is perfectly fine), rather than constantly trying to bring up ''gotcha'' moments and looking like tits in doing so. They should get off social media and join the Lib Dems because to put in the kindest way possible their fixation on Corbyn is clearly not helping them.
I accept the book might be a classic, and I accept that the author's racism might both be a product of its time and isn't necessarily a reason to dismiss his whole analysis. BUT if you are writing an 8 page endorsement in 2011 and are a noted anti racist campaigner (apparently) then you have to ask why he didn't call out all the troublesome racist bits where the Jews were running the world, pulling the levers of imperial conflict etc - you know, the antisemitic classics. As ever with Corbyn, this noted anti racism campaigner either didn't see the racism, or he doesn't see antisemitism as racism, or he didn't think antisemitism matters, or he's just not very bright.
It is manufactured outrage but I’d take Solomon Hughes (“writer”) more seriously if he knew when to use “it’s” and “its”.
He is a bit racist though. I know you lot don't like to be reminded of it because you don't want to think it might be true.
Twitter word limit
He used “it’s history” instead of “its history”, so more characters. I see he’s from Private Eye so probably keyboard autosuggestion (or liquid lunch).
Honestly I read through Imperialism not all that long ago (maybe four years) and I don’t recall noticing the antisemitic elements to it at the time. Obviously reading the relevant excerpts today it seems I must have just missed them for whatever reason, but it does suggest to me that the antisemitic elements weren’t absolutely central to Hobson’s thesis. On the other hand they’re obviously relevant in terms of understanding both the world in which Hobson operated and how a section of the left tends to understand the nature of imperialism and capitalism.
I dunno, I spend most days reading stuff from that late 19th/early 20th century era, so maybe I’ve a high tolerance for the sensibilities of the time. I was reading Churchill’s account of the war in Sudan this morning - I find him an admirable figure in some ways, full of insight and a great writer. But it’s full of stuff like this:
“The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than the primitive savages. The stronger race soon began to prey on the aboriginals.”
If I was writing a forward for that book, I would of course have to discuss Churchill’s blatant racism, as it’s absolutely fundamental to his understanding of the British Empire and its approach to its various subject peoples, including those in the Sudan. On the other hand, a forward written for Churchill’s writings on WW2 could perhaps get away without discussing that side of the man. So I guess the question is, to what extent is antisemitism absolutely fundamental to Hobson’s understanding of imperialism?
Daniel Finkelstein's view, on twitter, is that it is central: "He establishes early on that finance houses are controlled by Jews. After that he explains in the entire book that finance houses control the world. It’s his central thrust. It isn’t negligible....What you could more easily argue is that he could have made the argument without antisemitism. I think that would be a fair point and he came to realise it himself. But here he didn’t."
This is also interesting: "I teach Hobson's "Imperialism" for an undergraduate course. Hobson was *both* a profoundly important thinker *and* viciously anti-Semitic. That Corbyn wrote a Foreword does not make him an anti-Semite but it does say something about his blind spots.... 3. But Hobson's analysis of both capitalism & imperialism seethed with hatred of the Jew - especially "the foreign Jew", as "the leading type" of "the class of financial capitalists". He raged against "Jewish control of the press" & "economic monopolies organised by Jewish rings" ..." In the quotes above, try replacing "Jew" with the N-word. No one on the left would let that pass.".
Last edited:
Good for you Elvis.
"The title of the book is “Imperialism: A Study”. It’s level of antisemitic content is neglibile, amounting to just a few sentences in 310 pages. The book focuses on the negative financial, economic, and moral aspects of imperialism as a nationalistic business enterprise."
Typical media.
Typical media.
Confirms for me that he's not that bright. Definitely more of an activist than a thinker (nothing wrong with that btw).
If the ''outrage'' was because he failed to talk about the antisemitic elements in the book I think they would have had a point(Although again its a bizarre standard to hold people to)but they lost it over Corbyn simply doing what many others have done before.
Who do these people think they are winning over ? Centrist/liberal people used to run not only the labour party but the country and now all they've got left is complaining on twitter.
Thread/
sure.
Also bit of helpful advice for you.
A bit of helpful advice for you actually. You might want to read that finkelstein piece on Churchill mate - he gets explicitly called out by him for being a racist. Run along now.
I don't think you get the point the guy is making.
When Finkelstein talks about Churchill he's able to see both sides(Sort of) but when it comes to Corbyn praising a important work of literature suddenly Finkelstein judgement goes out the window.
Last edited:
He basically charges Jewish men as being "the gravest single factor in the economics of imperialism."
But Corbyn doesn't make the same acknowledgement at all. He could easy have said, probably accurately, that Hobson's book was great but his anti-Semitism was a problem. Which is pretty much what Finkelstein said about Churchill. Finklestein isn't blind to Churchill's racism but Corbyn is blind to Hobson's. That's the point.
Again the twitter example I used is to show how Finkelstein can quite easily drop seeing both sides of the argument shtick when he wants to.
Finkelstein in his article of course mentions the anti Semitic parts and the anti semitic views of the author but he doesn't mentioned anything about the book being important or great but problematic. And then the rest of the article is the usual right wing shite (talks about Corbyn views on Nato, not going to Trump planned dinner, Corbyn being a threat to this country)
Also that Churchill article, Finkelstein never mentions Churchill views on Jews and think its a ''outlandish idea'' that Churchill was a mass murderer(he was). So Finkelstein can't even meet the same standards he sets for Corbyn.
Last edited:
Maybe. Separate columns separate purposes. You are trying to find gotcha moments of your own here.
I've yet to find that article where Finkelstein talks about Churchill antisemitism.
All I'm doing is using Finkelstein and others standards that they are applying to Corbyn on themselves. Turns out they fail to meet these, mostly because it's a stupid standard to hold people to. Maybe just maybe someone who is paid by Rupert Murdoch doesn't care about consistency or being level headed.
It’s not a stupid standard to want a noted anti racism campaignerTM to note the racism sitting at the centre of one of his fave books.
Last edited:
He’s set fire to the labour party’s electoral chances for a decade or more leaving us all in shit, so in a way, yes.
Did Corbyn set fire to a bag of dog shit on your front door ?
So Corbyns son has posted a picture of a kid killed in palestine saying it was by an israeli air strike and that the world needs to know about this...
tragic though that is there is one slight flaw in what he posted and that is that they were killed by a rocket that was mis-fired by his fathers "friends" Hamas
despite being told by literally hundreds of people about this he still keeps up the post...
meh like father like son i suppose.
tragic though that is there is one slight flaw in what he posted and that is that they were killed by a rocket that was mis-fired by his fathers "friends" Hamas
despite being told by literally hundreds of people about this he still keeps up the post...
meh like father like son i suppose.
Last edited:
Not that it makes a huge difference, but it seems that the rocket was fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, not Hamas. I'm not aware that Corbyn has ever praised PIJ.
So he wisely pulled the plug on negotiations. And if rumours are to be believed, he pushed for a public vote but the Tories said no.
As he still thinks it is 1960s Britain he probably hasn't yet cottoned on that the UK are members.
He had to pull the plug, but the damage is well and truly done now.
So, what is Jeremy going to do now?