Fidel, my hero

No you haven't. and therefore there is every chance that I may not share your views on some of them. I may also agree with you on many. Castro not being a hero is one of them. By the same token you have no evidence to suggest I am anti-Tory. Nor is your aggressive response an encouragement to join the debate. My post, perhaps not well stated, was intended to suggest that it is possible to hold an interesting debate with those you don't necessarily agree with. I was obviously wrong and will leave this thread to those who enjoy it.

 

Sky News report

A bitter row has ignited at the top of the Labour Party after its deputy leader claimed old "Trots" had infiltrated the party to bolster Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

Tom Watson said "Trotsky entryists" were "twisting the arms" of young party members to help the beleaguered leader retain control of Labour.

In a fierce attack on Mr Corbyn's Momentum movement, Mr Watson said the hard-left did not care about winning elections and saw the party as a "vehicle for revolutionary socialism".

But Mr Corbyn hit back in a scathing response accusing Mr Watson of "peddling baseless conspiracy theories" and using "the Owen Smith campaign's 'Project Fear' approach to this election".

please log in to view this image

Image Caption:Mr Corbyn advocates a "kinder politics"
In a frank interview in The Guardian, Mr Watson said: "There are some old hands twisting young arms in this process, and I'm under no illusions about what's going on.

"They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that's how Trotsky entryists operate.

"Sooner or later, that always ends up in disaster. It always ends up destroying the institutions that are vulnerable, unless you deal with it."

He added: "There are Trots that have come back to the party, and they certainly don't have the best interests of the Labour Party at heart.

"They see the Labour Party as a vehicle for revolutionary socialism, and they're not remotely interested in winning elections, and that's a problem.

"But I don't think the vast majority of people that have joined the Labour party and have been mobilised by the people that are in Momentum are all Trots and Bolsheviks."

He also said he barely spoke to Mr Corbyn anymore and told how he had tried to have a frank discussion with him during a car journey after the coup but the leader's aides had got involved, making things very difficult.

A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn, who advocates a "kinder politics", said: "This is a disappointing remark by Tom Watson, who seems to be sadly using the Owen Smith campaign's 'Project Fear' approach to this election.

"Labour members want a politics of hope, reflecting the fact that our party's membership has grown to become the largest of any left of centre party in Europe under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

"We regret that Tom Watson also forced through the decision yesterday at Labour's NEC meeting to challenge the court judgement to restore the right to vote in the leadership election.

"Rather than patronising members and peddling baseless conspiracy theories about 'Trotsky entryists', he should be working with Jeremy to unite our party so that we can get back to campaigning to dislodge this Tory government, and help elect a Labour government in its place."

It comes after the High Court ruled that Labour's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) was wrong to ban 130,000 new Labour supporters from voting in the leadership campaign unless they paid £25.

The majority of the supporters are believed to back Mr Corbyn and the NEC has said it will appeal against the decision.

As the leadership contest becomes increasingly acrimonious, former Labour leader Ed Miliband released a video explaining why he is backing Mr Smith.

In the video posted on YouTube, he says he thinks the former shadow work and pensions secretary is the only one who can unite the party.

 

I am not remotely interested how others use the term, I want to know how you use it. To use it you must, presumably, have an idea who Trotsky was, and what he believed.........so ?

 

So I was absolutely correct, along with senior socialists in using the term to describe the infiltrators. You seem to be the only one out of step. The only thing that matters is the Trots are not welcome by the parliamentary Labour Party or its traditional voters. As a bi - product it will keep the Tories in power for years.

 

When I use a term, be it Fascist, Communist, Anarchist, Maoist or whatever then I know what the term means, and only use them when they are applicable. When you say 'senior socialists' who are you referring to ? Is the Labour Party a socialist party - is the aim to abolish capitalism ? Do not bandy words around which you do not understand simply for the sake of trying to score points, you simply betray your own ignorance.

 

No you have not.
I consider thatcher, trump, pence and farage fascists.
Corbyn is misguided. He had entertained with Adams and McGinnis whilst they were still in the business of murdering people (obviously unproven, at least publicly). He still has sympathy with Hamas. You should read their constitution as it advocates genocide. He should too. He is not a man I would ever vote for.

As to blair and bush it is obvious that we have been lied to. State terrorism? Profoundly unpleasant as their actions were I am not sure that it is. Not far from it, plainly unjustified and certainly ill judged from the consequences we still suffer today and probably will for at least a decade to come. That neither has been held to account in a court of law is a mystery to me regardless of their guilt.

Talk to terrorists when they genuinely decide on diplomacy, as did Adams and McGinnis but then theirs was a political fight. Injudicious intervention in Iraq has opened up a religious can of worms. A different enemy altogether.

 

is this enough?

Senior socialist was the deputy leader of the Labour Party. If somebody like Tom Watson calls the infiltrators Trots then I'm quite happy not to challenge his meaning. You were obviously not aware that socialists were quite happy to label these far left bods as Trots. You need to research more before you parrot phrase the anti right rhetoric, it makes you look rather silly.

 

I just want to know if you know who Trotsky was, or what someone who calls himself a Trotskyist believes, before bandying the word around as an insult - quite simple really.

 

Theo I think all of us old hands agree with you... it seems a couple of recent joiners like to stir up conflict.

A reasoned debate means digging a little deeper and engaging with the issues in a non-controversial way....

Interestingly i have read a lot about Castro in recent days and my view has moderated as a result.

 

Come on SH if you are serious about discussion the there is no need to slip back into personally divisive remarks is there?

See if you can actually debate this person-to-person....

 

You see what you want to see. Read the posts properly.

 

For me the jury is still out on Castro. Not that there is a jury at all because I don't think you can 'judge' historical characters. But is it not a contradiction in terms to be describing someone who claimed to be a Marxist as a candidate for hero status - the whole ethic of Marxism is diametrically opposed to 'personality politics'. The history of Castro and Cuba is best seen against the background of the cold war politics of the time - Cuba was never going to produce another Gandhi. Whether we like it or not the USSR became the prototype socialist state then and any country which had a broadly socialist revolution then was compelled to come under its umbrella. But can we call those countries socialist, or communist ? If Karl Marx could have come back from the grave what would he have thought of them ? My contention is that Marx may well have been executed in them. Which country in the World would Marx have seen as being the furthest on the road to the Communism which he envisaged ? The USSR, surely not, Denmark, doubtfull, Bolivia ? Israel ?

 

Tom Watson, the LP deputy leader chooses to call the infiltrators, activists or whatever, Trots. He is much closer to the action, and much more politically experienced than you. I'm quite happy to accept his interpretation. The basic premise is that these new members are unwanted by the MP's and the traditional Labour voters. The damage to the LP has been tremendous, it has resulted in the UK government not having an effective opposition. Longer term it guarantees the Conservatives remain in power regardless of competence or direction. Probably not what the original intention was I suspect.

 

You do not know me SH. and have no right to cast any assumptions as to my political experience. So, if you are content to take over someone else's definition and blindly present it as your own, and throw insults on that basis, without actually understanding what is meant then you can do it - but don't expect to gain any respect for it.

 

Tom Watson is a well respected and experienced politician. I and millions of others accept his views on the labelling and the warning of the danger of these unwanted infiltrators into the LP.

As a Conservative I should be pleased at the self destruction of the political opposition but my overriding thought is the rank stupidity unless the intention is for the left to never gain power again.

 

He represents one part of the LP and he has been exposed for his own machinations with George Brown over Tony Blair. he has also not come out whiter than white over Expenses. The LP is not divided into those who are 'good' and those who are 'bad'. There is a wide range of factions in the party obviously.

However does seem as if he is machinating ( is that a word) again...... aim ? To start another slow and long move to destabilise Corbyn?

As per your own C party., I see trouble ahead for them too. Thanks to Cameron for single handedly destabilising our established political order and giving the chance for populist politics to rule. Certainly the 2 party system is now finished and the composition of the next parliament will prove ' interesting'.

I for one fear populism, which is often media driven, shallow and self-serving and has little interest for the greater good. Coupled with the increase in influence of the Internet and all the machinations that occur in that medium.... I am not too optimistic for our future

 

'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange'. I am sure that you recognize this ie. Clause 4 of the UK. Labour Party Constitution - before revision in 1995. There have always been people who joined because of this clause, and those who joined in spite of it. Certainly Trotsky believed in simultaneous class overthrow Worldwide, he also believed that political power could only emanate from the workers themselves, without the powerfull state which developed in the USSR. He also believed that it was perfectly ok. for Marxists to enter into other parties - known as entryism. Yes, there have been people inspired by his thinking in the Labour Party. Just as there have been Conservative members who have been closet Ukipers or BNP. This is the nature of the beast - where you have a 2 party system then those parties will become broad umbrellas. In a PR. system both parties would probably break up. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists in the UK. and some of them may try to infiltrate the Labour Party - but to assume that all those new members to the party are tarred by the same brush is alarmist scaremongering in the extreme. The only purpose of this appears to be destabilizing Jeremy Corbyn (who is definitely not a Trotskyist) - for every one new member who may have a Trotskyist slant - there are probably 20 young people for whom Corbyn represents hope.

You use the expression 'Trot' or 'Trotskyist' to describe anything which you do not like - anything close to Corbyn for example, without having a clue what the term means. The only party in the UK. with an openly Trotskyist slant is the Workers Revolutionary Party - and Corbyn is neither a 'Worker', nor a revolutionary. The amount of real Trotskyists outside of the WRP in the UK. could be counted on the fingers of my hands.

 

The Labour Party can broadly be split into two groups. The parliamentary party and the traditional voters v Corbyn's left leaning small group of MP's and hundreds of thousands of party members. The sitting Labour MP's have been warned that they will be de-selected if they dare to behave like Corbyn did for many years and not back the leadership. As this impasse will not be solved before the next election the LP is likely to lose even more seats.

The Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a manifesto that included a promise for a referendum on membership of the EU. The turnout and the result proved that was the correct action. The UK has been increasingly eurosceptic since the eurocrats have changed the EU concept away from the original Common Market.

I am extremely confident for the future of the UK away from the undemocratic clutches of the EU. There will be excellent trade opportunities for the UK currently not obtainable as members of the failing EU.
Despite Brexit the EU is falling apart, certainly leaving the Euro is the only chance many Southern European have of survival.

 

Neither Tom Watson or myself are claiming that all of the new party members are Trots. There are however some very aggressive left wing activists that have little in common with the average Labour voter. All they will ever achieve is keeping the Tories in power.

 

The factions in the LP are much more than what you indicate above. I cant find a half decent article on this because the present situation has become much more complex. I think you are referring to what we might call a current dynamic tension which the medial have chosen to exploit. Can you limit your BREXIT rhetoric to the other thread as it just starts another debate on this thread.

On the subject of heroes Churchill was one of our greatest parliamentary heroes but only for fighting the war once the war was over we did not need his style leadership as we had new peace etc.