Vampire

I don't see anything like that. Here's what he is saying —

The left is heavily divided. Most is history, the Greens are new.

First split was into [democratic] socialists and communists. Socialists split into Labour and the SDP in 1990.

Blair created 'New Labour' in 1994; George Galloway split from New Labour with the Workers party in 2019; Your Party split from New Labour with in 2025

Communists split first over Trotsky. The non-Trotskyists split over Khrushchev in the 1960s.

Split between communists and socialists happened after WW1, and was about insurrection versus electoralism. In Britain, communists wanted a Soviet Republic, and socialists a constitutional monarchy.

By the mid-1930s, that contradiction was obsolete because the British and French communists had abandoned the idea of revolution and of a Soviet Republic. The 1938 UK Communist Party called for just a 'Popular Government'

Nobody seems serious about revolution now. Trotskyist parties in the UK only did propaganda, study-groups, and infiltrating groups like the Labour Party and trade unions. Same with Workers Revolutionary Party (UK) and Socialist Workers Party (USA)

The Comintern said create underground armed militias, infiltrate police and army, for Soviets and revolutionary committees. This has never been done in Great Britain.

The Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Albanians followed the Comintern path. Czech communists took power in 1948 this way.

Trotsky split with the Comintern (initially over socialism in one country), accused it of backsliding on popular insurrection and Soviet Republics. They founded the Fourth International. But Trotskyists backslid out of revolution as well.

1963 Chinese paper Whence The Differences (PDF) argued that Soviet, Yugoslav, and French communists were revisionist, had abandoned class warfare (the same criticism Trotsky made). This is an anti-Khrushchev thing.

Maoists around the world (e.g. Naxalites) followed the illegal strategy we've been looking at.

The most successful, like the Belgian Workers Party, CPI(M), and Communist Party of Nepal had electoralism plus illegal armed activities.

The theme is: British communists under the influence of leaders from communist countries try to create a more revolutionary faction, but in practice are never revolutionary/violent. They are just ineffective social democrats.

The exception to this in the UK is Sinn Féin, who did armed struggle and electoralism together and won concessions from the state. Labour under Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson had a socialist agenda, Clause IV and did it: nationalised coal, railway, aerospace, shipbuilding, gas, and steel. Cockshott compares this to modern China: planning, nationalising industry, planning, using markets as a tool, public housing and healthcare, universal welfare. In Harold Wilson's day, this was considered centrist. Wilson's welfare programs went beyond China's.

The Social Democratic Party was Labour's right-wing. Splitting the vote gave Thatcher victory. Blair then took the rest of Labour in this direction to regain their electoral losses. Starmer and Labour Together have the same line.New Labour and Galloway's Workers Party are in the mould of Labour when it had Clause IV

The Gaza genocide has about 12% the number of deaths as Rwanda 1994, about 3.5% of Armenia

Neymar supported Bolsonaro in the 2022 election

there was an Argentinian pope until last year

tbf, that might be even worse to a Brazilian footballer

what is the real reason?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_in_the_Tropics

nice!

whut? who?

"Sports fans are calling it the Trump curse," MeidasTouch wrote in a social media post. "He attended the Super Bowl and predicted a Chiefs win, but the Eagles blew them out... He sat in the owner’s suite when the Knicks snapped their huge playoff streak in NBA Finals Game 3. And he attended the Ryder Cup where Europe topped the US team."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports-related_curses

ikr