- Re: more thoughts on corbyn's stupid appeasement efforts Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on August 9, 2019, 8:16 pm, in reply to "Re: more thoughts on corbyn's stupid appeasement efforts"
|
Yes, even if labour was headed by a strong leader with good intentions and pro peace politics, as every time people seem to be missing the fact there is no real democratic result for ordinary people anyway. Labour (like the democrats in the us, or labor in Australia) serve a purpose in keeping things as they are, or more accurately, pushing elitist goals quietly while whispering sweet nothings in our ear. I don't really give a damn how likeable or how detestable the leader is, I care what they *do*. The latest Tory wave didn't come from nothing nor did their policies originate with Cameron and get progressively worse. They've been getting progressively worse through both flavours of the Party for as long as I can recall, and no matter which western country you want to refer to. I believe th only reason the facade (of voting) still exists is as a pacifier to the masses. We need good guys and bad guys, and the two party system conveniently allows for that. Corbyn may have been a worrying outlier at one point, but the attempts to destroy Corbyn by those within it serves one purpose, imo. Either corbyn would go, or he would learn his place. I think the latter has happened. There is always a threat that he might change, but puschologically, I think it is unlikely. And if he does, with all the blairites in, it wouldn't take much to get him out if he tried. I'll be happy to eat my words if he turns into a revolutionary, but by his words and actions now, he is not one, and I can't see how so many people are insistent he is, except by another bad case of blind and baseless faith of the order of the Obama campaign, or the Blair one before that. It is almost a formula at this point. When are we going to learn that what we need is not new benevolent leaders but no leaders at all? |