Corbyn the communist spy!

#82
I mean, apart from the inculcated bollix, does anyone on ARRSE really understand the Communist, or even the Socialist, ideology? I don't mean the totally discredited dictatorships of the Soviet Union or the Eastern Bloc countries, but the genuine article.

MsG
I don't restrict myself to the Cold War.

How about the GBP 20,000 he took from Press TV between 2009 and 2012

Jeremy Corbyn was paid by an Iranian state TV station that was complicit in the forced confession of a tortured journalist

Or is that an ideology that we don't truly understand either? Or hasn't been properly applied?

How lucky there is an outer:
A spokesperson for Corbyn told Business Insider, "We don't comment on historical matters."
Bit ironic for a socialist isn't it? They seldom do anything but in my experience.

Or is he just embodiment of what Gilbert and Sullivan warned us about?

The idiot who praises,
with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this
and every country but his own
.

And in case you aren't aware, foreign intelligence officers frequently use journalism as non-official cover. When they aren't using diplomatic cover.
 
#83
Ooh! Shades of the Cold War on this thread and no mistake. Why is it that every time someone makes mention of Socialist (not Communist) policies in the UK, they're immediately accused of being "anti-British"? They're not. What they want is, as stated, a few more Socialist policies to make life more just and more equitable in a venomously Capitalist and ruthlessly materialistic country like the UK. Is that so bad?

Why shouldn't public services be run for the good of the public? Why doggedly transfer them all (or most of them) to the so-called "private sector" when that demonstrably costs billions more, invariably fails long-term and also brings in the condition of absolute non-accountability.

Politics in the UK have been driven so relentlessly to the far right by self-serving gobshites like Kinnock and especially the Thatcher creature and successive Labour and Tory berks that anything deviating from the strict neo-liberal line of making the rich richer and the poor poorer is summarily dismissed as "Communism", but remember that what Corbyn advocates for UK society would've been regarded as mildly centre-left in the 1960s and 1970s.

There's no concrete evidence whatsoever that Corbyn, or anyone else in the Labour Party was ever a so-called "Communist spy". It all hangs on the word of an alleged former Czech secret service agent who was discredited by the Czech authorities as a phantasist when he tried to sell a similar story to the Germans in 2003. Don't take the hysterical Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph desperate propaganda at face value, because it's bogus.

I mean, apart from the inculcated bollix, does anyone on ARRSE really understand the Communist, or even the Socialist, ideology? I don't mean the totally discredited dictatorships of the Soviet Union or the Eastern Bloc countries, but the genuine article.

MsG
I've thought you were deluded for a long time and I'm sure others have too so there's no need to advertise it so frequently thanks.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#84
Da Man Bugs: I mean, apart from the inculcated bollix, does anyone on ARRSE really understand the Communist, or even the Socialist, ideology?
The Communist/Socialist message is impossible to achieve IMO. The real socialist message is close to the one that J Christ was giving out. This is not the message given out by religion, whichever sect of it is followed, as religion is just a business. Human nature means that the human race will always be in competition with itself so no form of socialism is possible - again, just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
#85
Why shouldn't public services be run for the good of the public? Why doggedly transfer them all (or most of them) to the so-called "private sector" when that demonstrably costs billions more, invariably fails long-term and also brings in the condition of absolute non-accountability.
Name one "public service" that has "transferred" to the private sector and cost billions more.

I mean, apart from the inculcated bollix, does anyone on ARRSE really understand the Communist, or even the Socialist, ideology? I don't mean the totally discredited dictatorships of the Soviet Union or the Eastern Bloc countries, but the genuine article.
Even dedicated socialists like yourself don't understand it. After all you have frequently stated whenever anyone mentions a failed socialist state, that it is not the right socialism, yet you have never ever given an example of true socialism in action.
As has been pointed out time and time again, it will never work because human nature will always make people greedy and corrupt.
 
Last edited:
#86
I listened to alabour spokesman talking about this issue on Radio 5 two days ago, he was saying its all 'fake news' :)

The list of the things Corbyn 'didn't do seems to be growing, no matter how fast the labour party try to remove their own web pages on his previous life :)
 
#87
Name one "public service" that has "transferred" to the private sector and cost billions more.



Even dedicated socialist like yourself don't understand it. After all you have frequently stated whenever anyone mentions a failed socialist state, that it is not the right socialism, yet you have never ever given an example of true socialism in action.
As has been pointed out time and time again, it will never work because human nature will always make people greedy and corrupt.
As we are talking about Corbyn we may as well stick his his ideas and ideals as it's his liking of socialism thats being questioned here.

He was a firm supporter of Venezuela. He thought they were a good country..............he and Labour have worked very hard to remive any web pages that mention that now, but thanks to printed media, website, TV and radio coverage there is still plenty to see :)

It should also be added that Corbyn doesnt solely favour socialist movements, he has got friendly with terrorists too, so just seems to like making others do as they are told. His record of sacking shadow cabinet ministers just reinforces his view that it's 'his way' or nothing. He clearly only looks for his own interest, not that of his constituency electorate or political party, his parliamentary voting record shows that.
 
#88
but remember that what Corbyn advocates for UK society would've been regarded as mildly centre-left in the 1960s and 1970s.
That's total bs. If anything; the centre-left has become more and more the 'centre ground.' The traditional centre right ground once held by the conservatives is now seen as far right in the eyes of the left. Every conservative government that has held office, since the one eyed Scottish idiot was chucked out by the electorate, has been centre left imho.
 
#90
Many on the UK's political Left embraced CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmamen) which was a good thing, and was/is their legal right to campaign against such terrible weapon systems. However, any Soviet or Warsaw Pact Inelligence service worth its salt would have infiltrated such organisations as CND back in the day, and attemped o subvert some of the membership,; especially those who might be in positions of influence socially, such as Academics and elected parliamentarians who might rise up the ladder of promotion, and others. It has been alleged that CND and similar organisations were partially funded by the KGB or Warsaw Pact intelligence services. So why not Labour party back benchers when they were early in their careers. Certainly such organisations were proscribed as regards membership for anyone wishing to join the armed services.

Of course, all these allegations will be denied strenuously as a 'Tory Smear Campaign' and as 'Fake News'. The KGB did penetrate even MI6 before and after the WW2 years and into the 1950s and 1960s - people such as Blake, Blunt and others. Political organisations such as CND were 'fair game' to Warsaw Pact intelligence operatives - so why not the current leadership of the Labour Party - after all some of them make NO bones about espousing Marxist agendas, and some have allegedly stated their regret at the passing of Soviet communisms.

So - make up your own minds about the current Labour Party leadership and the attempts of Momentum to influence policy and the selection process for potential Labour candidates for parliament. ~The current Labour Party are trying to distance themselves from New labour's years under Blair, Brown and Mandelson, and the so-called "Third Way" espoused by Blair. Corbyn might very well be a 'nice man', and the same with John macDonnal. But political cynicism mightcloud the way at the moment at the current churning UK politcs is in.:rolleyes: (the Hard Left did attempt to penetrate Labour many years ago, so why no again now?)
 
#91
An interesting article.

a) Thoroughly recommend A legacy of Spies which I am reading right now.

b) I found this quote instructive:
Be warned: the idea of “year zero” only has value to those with something to hide.
Which ironically I referenced in JC's spokestoad's refusal to answer any questions about taking money from Press TV earlier.

So easy to draw a line under things and not address them rather than take any responsibility.

Anyway, not that anyone should care what The Guardian says - doubtless "he who shall not be named" will be along to denounce the Blairite rag as not having been a true newspaper or being biased against the Jezbollah anyway.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#93
The Communist/Socialist message is impossible to achieve IMO. The real socialist message is close to the one that J Christ was giving out. This is not the message given out by religion, whichever sect of it is followed, as religion is just a business. Human nature means that the human race will always be in competition with itself so no form of socialism is possible - again, just my opinion.
It’s understandable that you have that opinion, since Capitalism has been the predominant “ideology” (I use the term loosely) as long as any of us have been alive. As such, and with the frequent help of propaganda in newspapers and on the radio and telly, many have come to accept it as the norm. In fact, it’s just a more sophisticated version of feudalism. True, there are things like regular wages, social security, pensions, annual holidays, etc, but they were only, very reluctantly, introduced, some of them at colossal cost in lives, to keep the peasants from permanently fomenting revolutions and insurrections. Now that the Capitalists have got the bit between their teeth again, they’re gradually getting rid of all those “benefits”, as evidenced by the official political policy of denying benefits to the disabled and unemployed on the slightest of reasons.

I agree, however, that Jeebus had a different message to religious leaders. He never said that it was good to be poor, but rather that the rich were greedy bästards who should be slung out of the temple and made to share their unearned gains. That’s actually why he was crucified: not because he was preaching peace and brotherly love, but because he was causing all manner of trouble for the rich folks.

There’s no real evidence that the human race is, by nature, in competition with itself. That’s certainly what we’re taught and the whole materialistic system is geared to making sure that we buy stuff we want, instead of just stuff that we need, while also teaching us to “obey our betters” and not to “get above our station”. The question is; why not? For the whole artificial class system is also not something that’s automatic and somehow written into cosmic law. However, there’s no denying that competition exists between individuals, that, most certainly, is a part of human nature. On the other hand, it doesn’t have to be destructive, as it is at the moment, but can also be channelled in other ways that contain creative seeds benefiting humankind.

At the same time, I don’t agree that “no form of Socialism” is possible. If that were the case, then we wouldn’t/couldn’t live in such huge conglomerates. It’s because we’re predisposed to doing so as a part of human nature, that we’ve learned effective ways of getting along with each other. Although the primary reason for the “herd instinct” of humankind is actually to facilitate procreation, it was found that many tasks were easier if they were shared out among lots of folks. It’s what allowed us to survive the “early couple of million years” that stretched to about 10,000 years ago. We all have the basic capacity for close co-operation and common purpose within us. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t re-discover it and enrich everyone’s life – in addition to saving the planet.

MsG
 
#94
For a chap that writes long posts, you seem to have trouble answering others questions.

Far easier to allege some hegeomonic bias* which the not replying to is a revolutionary act.

I genujnely hope this is some sort of well-read trolling, i could understand and appreciate that. I dread to think you may be serious. Either way, I'm off for a dump whilst you have a think.

*I trust I have not forgotten my Gramsci after all those years.
 
#95
The far left remind me a lot of Islamists. More value is placed on ideological purity and veneration of the implementers than actual scientific progress.

The Islamist opinion of the collapse of the Caliphate is not that Islamism is ideologically flawed but that Islam wasn't implemented the right way. Not less Islam but more Islam.
 
#96
#97
I genujnely hope this is some sort of well-read trolling,
I think after reading Bugsy's latest diatribe, we can rule out well-read.
 
#98
It’s understandable that you have that opinion, since Capitalism has been the predominant “ideology” (I use the term loosely) as long as any of us have been alive. As such, and with the frequent help of propaganda in newspapers and on the radio and telly, many have come to accept it as the norm. In fact, it’s just a more sophisticated version of feudalism. True, there are things like regular wages, social security, pensions, annual holidays, etc, but they were only, very reluctantly, introduced, some of them at colossal cost in lives, to keep the peasants from permanently fomenting revolutions and insurrections. Now that the Capitalists have got the bit between their teeth again, they’re gradually getting rid of all those “benefits”, as evidenced by the official political policy of denying benefits to the disabled and unemployed on the slightest of reasons.

I agree, however, that Jeebus had a different message to religious leaders. He never said that it was good to be poor, but rather that the rich were greedy bästards who should be slung out of the temple and made to share their unearned gains. That’s actually why he was crucified: not because he was preaching peace and brotherly love, but because he was causing all manner of trouble for the rich folks.

There’s no real evidence that the human race is, by nature, in competition with itself. That’s certainly what we’re taught and the whole materialistic system is geared to making sure that we buy stuff we want, instead of just stuff that we need, while also teaching us to “obey our betters” and not to “get above our station”. The question is; why not? For the whole artificial class system is also not something that’s automatic and somehow written into cosmic law. However, there’s no denying that competition exists between individuals, that, most certainly, is a part of human nature. On the other hand, it doesn’t have to be destructive, as it is at the moment, but can also be channelled in other ways that contain creative seeds benefiting humankind.

At the same time, I don’t agree that “no form of Socialism” is possible. If that were the case, then we wouldn’t/couldn’t live in such huge conglomerates. It’s because we’re predisposed to doing so as a part of human nature, that we’ve learned effective ways of getting along with each other. Although the primary reason for the “herd instinct” of humankind is actually to facilitate procreation, it was found that many tasks were easier if they were shared out among lots of folks. It’s what allowed us to survive the “early couple of million years” that stretched to about 10,000 years ago. We all have the basic capacity for close co-operation and common purpose within us. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t re-discover it and enrich everyone’s life – in addition to saving the planet.

MsG
I have avoided joining the ‘pillory-Bugsy’ crowd, but having read this I can understand the derision directed your way. Do you actually believe what you wrote, or do you post such complete and utter bollocks in order to provoke?

Why, without exception, does every socialist/communist group/state have an elite for whom the laws/restrictions/limits do not apply?
 
#99
@BarcelonaAnalPark

Absolutely - what got me into the business was a fascination with political religions (like Fascism and Marxism), moving past apocalypticism (complete with militant enviromentalism) and then to Islamism.

The similarity of some of the concepts moving from one belief stream to another, sometimes outright plaigrised, was most remarkable. Ideas from those who would otherwise have been implacably opposed to each other; got pinched, rinsed and presented as ideologically compatible.

The apocalypse is a concept in point. Whether it is the triumph of the workers (socialism), Racial Holy war (Fascism), the catastrophic destruction of civilisation (Enviromentalism), or the return of God's rule (take your pick of faith here). It seems a universal constant, a mate from Uni who studied Psychology once explained Jung's theory of the "Archetype" which seems to match.* All seem to need to have faith in eventual victory and overwhelming success.

On pick 'n' mix ideoogy, I think I widdled myself when I saw some DAESH media advocating studying Krav Maga ("Because it works").

*Granted, I may have misunderstood. I spent the majority of my final year drunk as a skunk.
 
It’s understandable that you have that opinion, since Capitalism has been the predominant “ideology” (I use the term loosely) as long as any of us have been alive. As such, and with the frequent help of propaganda in newspapers and on the radio and telly, many have come to accept it as the norm. In fact, it’s just a more sophisticated version of feudalism. True, there are things like regular wages, social security, pensions, annual holidays, etc, but they were only, very reluctantly, introduced, some of them at colossal cost in lives, to keep the peasants from permanently fomenting revolutions and insurrections. Now that the Capitalists have got the bit between their teeth again, they’re gradually getting rid of all those “benefits”, as evidenced by the official political policy of denying benefits to the disabled and unemployed on the slightest of reasons.

I agree, however, that Jeebus had a different message to religious leaders. He never said that it was good to be poor, but rather that the rich were greedy bästards who should be slung out of the temple and made to share their unearned gains. That’s actually why he was crucified: not because he was preaching peace and brotherly love, but because he was causing all manner of trouble for the rich folks.

There’s no real evidence that the human race is, by nature, in competition with itself. That’s certainly what we’re taught and the whole materialistic system is geared to making sure that we buy stuff we want, instead of just stuff that we need, while also teaching us to “obey our betters” and not to “get above our station”. The question is; why not? For the whole artificial class system is also not something that’s automatic and somehow written into cosmic law. However, there’s no denying that competition exists between individuals, that, most certainly, is a part of human nature. On the other hand, it doesn’t have to be destructive, as it is at the moment, but can also be channelled in other ways that contain creative seeds benefiting humankind.

At the same time, I don’t agree that “no form of Socialism” is possible. If that were the case, then we wouldn’t/couldn’t live in such huge conglomerates. It’s because we’re predisposed to doing so as a part of human nature, that we’ve learned effective ways of getting along with each other. Although the primary reason for the “herd instinct” of humankind is actually to facilitate procreation, it was found that many tasks were easier if they were shared out among lots of folks. It’s what allowed us to survive the “early couple of million years” that stretched to about 10,000 years ago. We all have the basic capacity for close co-operation and common purpose within us. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t re-discover it and enrich everyone’s life – in addition to saving the planet.

MsG
25592078_10156136971621661_315197431879528392_n.jpg
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top