We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day “Whatever its protestations, Corbyn’s far left is not anti-war. Pacifism may not be a moral position in all circumstances but, in my view at least, it remains an honourable belief, rooted in Christian teaching. Corbyn does not share it. He does not oppose violence wherever it comes from, as the BBC’s political editor claimed this week. When anti-western regimes and movements go to war, his language turns slippery. Corbyn never quite has the guts to support the violence of others, but he excuses it like a gangster’s lawyer trying to get a crime boss off on a technicality.”
– Nick Cohen.
For what it is worth, I would not be surprised if this evil man is toppled in a few months, possibly if the May local elections in the UK are poor for Labour. And yes I used the word “evil” quite deliberately. That is what he is. Corbyn is a bad man to the core.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Mr Cohen, a life long Labour Party man, is correct – Mr J. Corbyn is NOT “anti war” or “anti violence”.
Mr Corbyn wants the enemy to win – which is not the same thing as being “anti war” or “anti violence”.
Nor is it just the Jews that Mr Corbyn wishes to see defeated – as a Corbyn defender might say “of course someone by the name of COHEN would oppose Jeremy – after all Jeremy wants the capitalist Jewish bloodsuckers to end their exploitation….”
Even when there are no Jews involved, Mr Corbyn still wants the anti Western side to win.
Whether the conflict is in Latin America or anywhere else.
In this Mr Cobyn is being quite logical.
If the West is based (as first Hobson and then Lenin argued) on the unjust “exploitation” of the Third World masses – then it logical to support the Third World masses against the capitalist exploiters (even if the blood suckers are not Jews).
As Karl Marx said (ignoring his own family background) a capitalist is a “inwardly circumcised Jew”.
Regardless of the ethnic origin of the capitalist.
Hence Mr Corbyn would want the victory of the FARC in Colombia and so on.
And people who do not actually have any property yet still side with the capitalists?
Mr Corbyn would have no problem explaining this.
False consciousness (an idea developed by Rousseau – long before Karl Marx) shows how some poor people can be mislead by false ideology into actually supporting their exploiters – private employers.
It is very sad (Mr Corbyn would say – at least privately) that these “henchmen of the capitalists” are so mislead.
However, unless the henchpersons (“henchmen” being a bit un P.C. these days) can be freed from the false consciousness (their “pride” rather than “self love” as Rousseau would say) then they have to be killed also.
Of course Mr Corbyn would gain no pleasure from the killing of the poor henchpersons – or even the killing of the capitalists.
But if “exploitation” of private employed and the private ownership of large scale means of production is to end, then the capitalists (and their henchpersons) must be defeated around the world – by whatever means necessary.
Oddly the British seem to find it difficult to understand Mr Corbyn – even though he is not actually a complicated man.
Perhaps because this island (especially the English bit of it) has an culture which assumes that people do not act according to “abstract ideas”.
Some people do – and Mr Corbyn is one such person.
I repeat he gains no pleasure from the deaths of the “capitalists” or their henchpersons – it is just a matter of using any means necessary to destroy “capitalist exploitation” around the world.
Including, in due time, in Britain itself.
In fairness, is there much of a difference between “False consciousness (an idea developed by Rousseau)” and the “sanction of the victim” Rand talked about (I would look it up, but I know you’ll have the answer Paul)
Rand would agree with JP on Corbyn.
Given that ‘the left’ is now the party of the ruling class, it is the people voting for ‘the left’ who suffer from false consciousness … unless, that is, (a) they are in the ruling class themselves or (b) they benefit from handouts or government jobs, and are unwilling to give up their benefits in return for opportunities.
I suspect that Marx would have agreed.
One need not even bring war into the equation. The notion that somebody whose political philosophy centers around the use of state violence is a pacifist is laughable.
Not as bad as the terrorist-funding Saudi scum who infest London and whom do so with impunity.
Paul Marks: to what extent do you think your analysis of Corbyn could also be applied to Obama. To me he seems to be an anti-American president, definitely not even pretending to try to be a leader of the free world.
Paul’s description of Corbyn is letter-for-letter, chapter and verse, the precise description of the New Left and its progeny, such as Code Pink. In fact it applies to all the lefty “anti-war” people and outfits I ever heard of.
. . .
Simon, I take the liberty of jumping in here. Paul wrote:
.
If we edit the sentence thus:
“False consciousness … shows how some … people can be mislead by false ideology into actually supporting their exploiters ….”
so that without the ellipses, it reads
then it would certainly describe the idea of “the sanction of the victim” as an example. Offhand I can’t think of any others, but that could be due to rust in the gears.
However, as written I can’t imagine Miss Rand’s going along with it, because it specifically assumes that employers are exploiters of the poor. Very Marxist. Not at all Randian.
It also doesn’t cover the fact that the altered sentence above, and “the sanction of the victim,” do not make any assumption that the victims are all poor people; whereas one can at least make an argument that Rousseau’s statement assumes that only the poor are “exploited” by employers.
I find it puzzling how English deal with Corbyn and even Communism.
A couple days ago there was a piece in The Telegraph about a “German Democratic Republic” athlete that due to chemicals given by the regime turned a man.
Not even one time the Communist word was present in that text. It was like the German Democratic Republic had no ideology.
Corbyn is Marxist. A Marxist hates the Western world. And it will lie, make victim, threat, every time it needs to get to that objective.
“The notion that somebody whose political philosophy centers around the use of state violence is a pacifist is laughable.”
Good point.
luckylucky,
Good point yourself! And kudos to Jordan for making it in the first place, of course.
Collection of tax is backed by state violence, and Corbyn and his cronies want more tax and more state. Whilst Corbyn would sympathise with a victim of state violence in cases where the security services carried out an appropriate response, he’d have no qualms about similar state violence used to collect tax or punish those who refused to pay it.
I agree with the original post, except possibly regarding his toppling. Expectations for Labour’s performance in the May elections are now surely rock-bottom. It will therefore be quite possible for Labour to exceed expectations, which is usually more important in such matters than absolute performance. Corbyn’s position could well be reinforced by such an outcome.