So by your definition ‘leftist-centrist’ is not socialist and thus didn’t change anything constitutional and therefore were able to be voted out?
Then can you explain how it was that Corbyn had to stand down as leader - bearing in mind your assertion that ‘once Socialists get into power etc’
Don’t bother to answer, I’ll do it for you - the answer is simple - Marxism, extremism communism etc has an enemy - it’s called democracy and if nations give that away to anyone in power regardless of the extreme then that power will continue to cling to it.
Corbyn did not actually get into power, he was defeated in a general election. What he would have done to the UK’s constitution if he had become PM is a matter for conjecture but as he has been a great admirer of Castro, Chavez and Maduro there might be some clues there.
However, the most left-wing Labour party leader prior to Corbyn was Ed Miliband. He also failed to become PM so only his attitude to democracy within his own party is visible. But here’s a clue - he succeeded in changing the party’s rules so that Shadow Cabinet would no longer be elected but would be appointed on his sole authority as leader of the party.
(I might have said “supreme leader”, but that could have been over-playing my hand)
Speaking of past labour leaders who failed to understand the electorate - Michael Foot, and Neil Kinnock spring to mind. It often surprised me that Corbyn could not or would not learn from history that his policies just don’t win votes.
It took a disastrous election result for him to finally quit - even then he still tried his best to have a mini-me succeed him - now Labour have a real chance - one sided elections are never healthy.
The failure of socialist regimes is often attributed to the aggressive reaction of establishment and capitalist forces, sometimes located outside the state. As far as the socialists are concerned, where socialism has failed it was because there was just not enough socialism.
The implication is obvious. They will see immediately that the way to ensure that socialism succeeds is to ensure that socialism is everywhere. Which brings me back to the argument that socialism is a dire threat to democracy.
"…I am an Anarchal Communist…" - Did you see him banging his pathetic little fists on the table in that second interview when she was getting the better of him and calling him a “…Coward - who would be first to call 9111…” ?
One of my daughters once brought home a “lad” (who was brought up by a single mother ) - who said he wanted to join the Army and be a Sniper - because he wanted to watch people’s heads explode ! - I find it hard to accept that he had a right to existence - I find it harder to accept that the Cretin you posted those two clips about has any right not only to exist - but more so that we actually PAY him (A LOT ! )to indoctrinate our children with that garbage !
Stefan Molyneux says in his brilliant video “The Fall of Rome” that in the later stages before the final collapse - "Childcare was delegated to the most Useless and Incompetent slaves…"
The parallels are so clear that - That video ought to be compulsory viewing for averyone !
People like that have NOTHING of any value whatever to contribute to any form of Society - even to the Dystopian one which he and his like envisage as our eventual (and maybe pretty close) future !
Yet - our Mainstream media and the Democrats - are still pretending that we should take them seriously as valid viewpoints !!!
I’m not unhappy with that as it would be hell to live under any one or other.
But going back to a question which you didn’t even attempt to answer - which of those presidents we saw pictured last week have you actually lived under? From either group?
Quite a common trait. I like to analyse something before i decide whether I’m for/against or couldn’t care.
In the UK there have been a few great ‘socialist’ politicians - one stands out head and shoulders - he helped create an organisation that has saved many many lives including my own.
Aneurin Bevan was proud to be ‘socialist’ and the NHS is proud of his dedication.
You’ve been quite fortunate in the UK to have less extreme politicians from all sides. Michael Hesiltine, Kenneth Clarke, John Smith, could all have united factions from both main parties behind them.
In the US both parties have been slowly drifting away from the centre, had Sanders won the Democrat nomination voters would have to choose between two of the most divisive and extreme politicians ever to stand for office.
The only “agenda” those of us you call the “right” have is the “free exchange of ideas” be it they good or bad. Something those you support on the left would end if they had the power
I would argue it is the so called center of American politics that has become extreme, that is where the Deep State, Big Tech, Military Industrial Complex and most Billionaires huddle together and try to control the lives of average American, then they call us extreme when we resist their control, my gripes with Sanders is he is a total fraud, he would have been no different than Obama had he been elected, President Trump is a threat to the “Extremes of the Center” and for that reason he has my support
As well they should be conflated. All the above stem from a Collectivist ideology. That they are labeled differently really does not give you a red duck in a row of yellow ducks. You might want to find the video I posted sometime ago in this thread on Collectivism v/s Individualism by G. Edward Griffin. He explains the differences in these ideologies very well.
I think Dennis is stating what I said above, in different words. The agenda would have remained the same since they come from the same root ideology.
Trump believes in the founding principles of America which was founded as a Constitutional Republic. This means that the basis of our existence stems from Individualism. He wants to preserve and protect our constitution.
When liberals/the left/socialists/communists/marxists, et al, look to change the very foundation and ideology on which America has been formed, then that represents a treasonous act (IMO). It’s like trying to change a theocracy into a secular republic!
Why not instead move to a left leaning country of your choice? That way you won’t need to feel out of place or fight so hard and violently for what you believe in.
