Aside from tolerance for Antisemitism, being soft on Russia, picking and choosing on human rights (e.g. Syria), and appealing to base instincts on immigration (Eastern Europeans are keeping your wages down), what's so bad about Corbyn-led Labour?
Antisemitism:
mainstream Labour isn't antisemitic, that was largely a point pushed in our right media to discredit them. The left wing of the party is definitely anti-Israel though, and pro-Israel forces always try to conflate the two. The Labour party is much, much less racist than the Tory party on average, it's the sort of thing that's hard to prove with a neat fact you just have to spend time in a pub with either side or read a lot of their literature for dog-whistles.
soft on Russia: who knows, it's not like we have the military clout for it to matter much
picking and choosing on human rights: doesn't everyone
immigration racism - no, Corbyn's message (that i also disagree with actually) is to redirect the focus onto exploitative employers. It's his talking point on immigration along with NHS staffing, every time. The labour party has gotten worse on this but they're still miles behind the Tories
Sorry to do politics on HN but this post needed to be called out, none of these points are a combination of relevant and applying more to Labour than the Tories.
It doesn't matter how left-wing a politician appears to be, or even how left-wing they are in general; if they hold an odious reactionary opinion, they can be called out on that opinion.
Meh, that is not a critique of Corbyn as a Marxist, it's using communism as a scare word without delving into what Marxism actually is and why Corbyn matches the definition. Do you have a critique by someone who actually knows what Marxism is?
I can find plenty of descriptions of many politicians as Fascist (and usually better researched than this), doesn't mean most of them are.
Specifically that article is by Damian McBride, who was Gordon Brown's SPAD. It's continuation of a political brawl by means of a newspaper column. Not a very nice chap:
"On 11 April 2009, he resigned his position after it emerged on a political blog that he and another Labour Party advisor, Derek Draper, had exchanged emails discussing the possibility of disseminating rumours McBride had fabricated about the private lives of some Conservative Party politicians and their spouses. The emails from McBride had been sent from his No. 10 Downing Street email account."
A web search is not meant to count as research, it is the equivalent of a library catalogue search. You're meant to follow the links and find out what is written on the subject. It is the internet equivalent of a literature study and as such a form or research. The assumption here is that the reader is intelligent enough to be able to separate authoritative sources from hearsay and agenda-based publications.
By the way, using terms like "no reputable journalist" is called "Master suppression technique" or "domination technique" [1]. It is detrimental to having a fact-based discussion and generally seen as a cop-out for those who don't have real arguments to add to the discussion.
