The Donald Android

With Donald Trump's campaign mostly revolving around immigration, it would be nice if we could have a Democratic challenger who is a true opponent, a 'Donald Alien' if you will.

Otherwise, the election sounds quite bad when you make noise about it. Donald Trump, an alleged fascist, defeats 'Hillary Clinton' after she beat the Jew Bernie Sanders who had relatives involved in the Holocaust and was spurred by this in their liberal politics. It sounds like a joke made by Adolf. Meanwhile, Trump is a candidate whose name resembles 'alone,' and who continually talks about isolating the country. This, though admirable, would not have passed in much of the 2000s, when people still found such things alarming. It reminds one of the following charming painting by Hitler, that Zanthorus would no doubt admire:

"Have you read Marx?"

One can see that some objects there have imbibed the lessons of Soviet exercise so thoroughly that they have gleefully broken down and lain down unresisting.

A Related Article

We'd like to bring readers' attention to this article by Matthew Turner, which is along similar lines to our last post. It is recent, dating to Monday the 6th of March. It deals with ways that Jeremy Corbyn can clarify the Party's message and consolidate the position of their politics by dispelling the prominent 'moderate' dissenters. While all of this sounds harsh, due to the risk of continually being undermined by their own Party it is merely an attempt to restore some direction to the organisation. This is especially the case where the Party can be held hostage by notable financial backers and those more reluctant who fund other Parties, who see an opposition to Corbyn that might often attempt more to placate them. While this is merely an obvious manner in which money can easily dominate 'politics,' and Parties are punished for avoiding this, it does nonetheless allow even an often scattered opposition to take on a locus of strength and act to threaten the leadership. When Hamlet fought Laertes, even if it was an even fight Laertes had only to prick him at some point to kill him. Hamlet would have a more difficult time killing Laertes, if they attacked without poison. Likewise, Corbyn's campaign can easily come up against a 'wall' of sorts - despite resisting opponents within the Party, this dissent can easily rear its head again and expects to regain control of the Party as well. Hence, their opponent can seem to simply appear 'unscathed' every time it is mown down. As such, the article's suggestion, that of preventing the opposition to Corbyn from establishing firm footholds in the Party, need not be taken as that left-field if you like.

The 'wall' that the Corbynites have encountered has played an important part in recent coverage and reception of them. Coverage of the Corbynites has continually assumed that a negative remark - say attacks on his position on Israel and the Queen - would be taken further and extrapolated into damning statements by members of his own Party. The Conservatives have generally just sat back and taunted Corbyn about the disunity and so on, hoping to encourage anti-Corbyn talking points within his Party. Outside of this they have been remarkably 'placid' around a radicalism which they should be going out of their way to denounce, suggesting that they might be too shaken by their own internal divisions to put up a serious political front. If their politics are different from Corbyn's, they don't seem to feel like mentioning it or caring. Hence, it seems necessary that these voices within the Party certainly not be given further influence, but also that they be removed from the spot-light they currently occupy. In an economic system which is hostile to such a political trend, especially as it is fragile after years of being attacked, it would hence be important to not allow for hostility to easily surround the Party leadership. From there, the task is simplified as the Party can at least present itself in a clear manner.

Turner urges the following to ensure coherence in the Party:

"For the first time during Corbyn’s tenure, Labour would have a bold, unified and coherent party message that isn’t being contradicted every other hour by figures from their own party. The harsh reality is that the only way this will be possible is by replacing the right wingers in the Labour Party."

This is supplemented by measures such as the following:

"In short, Corbyn must fight back. He needs to take control of the party before he can take control of the country, otherwise he is nothing but a sitting duck. One of the ways this can be achieved is through enabling the democratic right of CLPs to reselect and deselect their parliamentary candidates, and organising in order to ensure that young, up and coming, “fire in the belly” left wingers replace those who are actively seeking to undermine the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn."

While attempting to saturate the Party with people who will attempt to further their political strand would be worthwhile, and give them a further advantage in organisation, some of the means suggested by the article could of course be potentially double-edged. Relying on approaches which draw too much on circumstances is dangerous, as it could endanger their political trend if these alter. Nonetheless, the general policy of trying to ensure further influence through the Labour Party is by all means a decent one. In addition, the recent Labour Party election set in process things which should be continued despite the lack of such elections, such as using the Labour Party apparatus to win the rank-and-file over and hence further secure the Party. While the opposition, which we may call the 'Blair Witch Project' after two of its major participants, can be loud, ultimately Corbyn's Labour can attempt to under-cut them by presenting a picture of politics in which that known as 'Corbynism' plays an integral role. If it is hard to see a politics without them, then they gain an ability to more easily under-cut their opponent. Corbyn framing his views in terms of opposition to a 'rigged economic system' does go in this direction, however it also leads to the more troubling portrayal of a Party where other members work in harmony with this 'rigged economic system' - a treacherous position to be sure. Nonetheless, it does display the ability of Corbyn's movement to take on current political themes and use them for a more radical agenda, which suggests that they have little reason to not continue the movement.

Hence, the aim of unifying the Labour Party in Corbyn's situation is in the right direction. However, we do have a few qualms with the article. Firstly, while it claims that Corbyn has not shown strict or authoritarian trappings, their stubbornness during the resignations saga leading up to their re-election would seem to suggest otherwise. They could stand to act in a more authoritarian manner over their Party, in certain aspects, but it isn't something that they have neglected. They have often allowed others to leave or be removed if they don't comply with the direction of the leadership and movement. Further, the focus of the article is more immediate than the movement need expect: while Corbyn's movement are reviving from a highly hostile political climate, and continue to experience issues with this, their aim should hence be consolidation rather than fanfare. They must attempt to avoid further episodes of political relegation so far as they are given space to do so. Having gained time, they can certainly look to various events - but the risk of staking too many expectations on an event and then experiencing troubles is a looming danger. The Mahabharata famously involves gambling things away in a distinctly uneven context - this is something that the movement should avoid. Hence, clarifying the Party's stance is not only a question of immediate 'momentum,' but a policy that is by itself advisable by this point.

The article is hence worth reading for those interested in this issue or in Britain. Alternatively, you can turn to the Daily Mail for exciting news on Theresa May, and Prince Harry's (no relation to certain others called Harry) relationship with Meghan Markle. You would assume that whether or not Harry is indeed a bespectacled character from a novel, Meghan Markle sounds eerily similar to recent reality show drop-out Megan Marx. Does this confirm a secret Marxist plot to rule England? In any case, as in the elections, you can really figure out whom you'd rather focus on.

Labour Party: Sometimes you kick, sometimes you get kicked

The current Labour Party is compromised by what you could call an acute case of 'false friends.' While many in the Party, and especially those like the Iraq war's promoter Tony Blair, have closer ties to the Conservatives than to Jeremy Corbyn, they can still freely pretend to be 'allied' spokemen who care about the 'Labour Party.' To be frank, they would not care at all for Corbyn's Labour Party, preferring the more securely bourgeois 'adversary' in the Conservative Party. But this is the only 'Labour Party' and Labour Party authority structure that currently exists. Many in the Labour Party still support the monarchy and showing obeisance to them, for what it's worth. Hence, the attempt to portray this all as one, coherent Party is actually just to allow the Party to undermine itself 'from the inside.' And many of the Party's participants, politicians, 'celeb' backers, and sources of funding, would much prefer to avoid even the possibility of targeting the 'rigged economic system.' Nonetheless, if all of these can claim some sort of artificial unity with little political basis, it means that the Party's stance is compromised and it is subject to continual internal obstacles. When this is the case, going further to tackle other obstacles can be difficult - at least before settling down.

Corbyn's position is often acknowledged to be insecure - the Party apparatus has been heading in a different direction for a while. Hence, they increasingly find themselves having to carve out some sort of niche to secure their politics. In addition, they have unsurprisingly faced attack from their own Party and the corporate or state media, and hence taken on a slightly isolationist tendency which has kept them secure. It can be difficult to write a sentence when, during the latter half, the pen takes on a will of its own and 'like a creature by love possessed' starts spewing out attacks on what you just wrote. At the least you could reserve a paragraph for yourself, as the radical elements of the Corbyn campaign have attempted, but then the rest is left free to contextualise and attack this. At the least they can get across their message and preserve it in a hostile political climate, hence opening the door to this for more radical tendencies if they'd like.

However, by resigning their opposition have at least allowed them the chance of consolidating their political place. The opposition to Corbyn cannot simply manifest, but would need notable re-organisation due to the indiscipline of its representatives. This hence allows for the task of Corbyn's movement, along with holding fort, also to involve utilising their organised nucleus to promote their politics' continuity while other tendencies are forced to remain disorganised. This is hence an era where the emphasis should be on aggressively carving out a place in British politics, and not on hoping for success when anything near radical politics has been sermonised against for decades. Needless to say, a somewhat marginalised and subversive political view should not condone the situation of allowing every major organisation to attack it. That would be suicidal, and hence Corbyn - who associates with such ideas in part because they have become important to his setting up a siege mentality - is really under no pressure to leave. Their campaign is subject to constant adversity from even 'moderate' liberal areas, and this adversity will press radical elements to consolidate themselves. Others, such as Owen Jones, who are only pseudo-radicals and media figures, will of course turn aside in the name of 'labour' requiring yet further bourgeois illusions hampering them. That is their vocation, after all.

In the post-Trump era, then, the US left is perhaps worse placed than ever to formulate its movement. The more they express their generic outrage at Trump's election, the more they pick up unwanted allies extending even to Hillary Clinton. The more the outrage, the more they express a clear preference for the Democratic alternative - and become appendages of the avowedly moderate, liberal Democratic Party. Hence, they can easily be undermined, or are if you like held on a strict leash. As such, it will take clarity to return to a task which is not that different under Trump to recent periods of interference in the Middle East and various cuts at home. As for those who find Trump a shocking new phenomenon, but consider Blair and the Iraq War leaders to be leftist saints, we need only observe that their stance on this issue can seem cheap.