Visiting East Germany in the 1970s and not noticing the stark economic contrast of East (socialism) with West Germany (capitalism), or the state control and repression in East Germany (Stasi), is fair grounds for criticism.
Your basis for saying "he didn't notice them" being ... what, exactly?
In 1983 Labour produced a manifesto full of socialist ideals which got called by its own side "the longest suicide note in history".
This was a term coined by Gerald Kaufman. There were Labour MPs out of step with the bulk of the party, then as now.
At that time the Soviet Union was still a superpower and there was fair grounds for arguing the merits of socialism vs capitalism based on the apparent success of the Soviet Union. Since the economic collapse of the Soviet Union there are few grounds for arguing that socialism is better. However Corbyn believes that the 1983 manifesto is still an appropriate approach, while the rest of the world has moved on.
Not "the rest of the world". Only those eager to make cheap subjective points instead of addressing actual details of policy on their merits. Not, for instance, this writer:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/10/labour.margaretthatcher
- who makes a cogent case that the 1983 Labour manifesto was correct for the economics of the time. You don't have to agree with him, of course, but it's a far more measured and mature outlook than quoting Gerald Kaufman's soundbite.
Oh, by the way, here's an entertaining (in hindsight) footnote on the catchiness of the "longest suicide note" phrase (dated April 2015):
http://www.economist.com/news/brita...es-not-strong-arm-labour-fact-it-condemns-snp
Humble pie, much?
In reality, of course, had it not been for the Falklands invasion - or had the conflict not ended in Britain's favour - and being able to cash in on the patriotic euphoria of the time, Thatcher would almost certainly have lost the election in 1983 (or 1984 as it would have been). Prior to the Falklands campaign, she was the most unpopular PM we had ever had. It's a regrettable comment on democracy, that there is no vote-winner like a (successful) war.
The way things worked out, no Labour leader would have won in 1983 - not even Tony Blair and New Labour. Conversely, even Michael Foot (had he not been 14 years older than in 1983) would have won in 1997, as the Tories by then were completely washed-up. Labour's failure in 1983, as was their success in 1997, was a result of factors outside their control.
It is easy to see what Corbyn is against, but is harder to say what he is in favour of, as he couches much of it in 'asking for a debate'.
So why do you claim to speak for him, declaring that he has not changed his views since the 1980s?
However in his own words he is certainly in favour of nationalising utilities (electricity water and presumably gas), railways, and banks, although in terms which leave it unclear where he would limit the boundaries of nationalisation.
He is in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament and winding up NATO, but has never made it clear how he thinks security would be guaranteed afterwards.
What is there to make clear? The pro-nuclear side never make it clear how nuclear weapons contribute to our "security" in the first place. The "deterrence" argument is more ideology than rational military strategy.
As for NATO, I actually agree that it has contributed to security in Europe over the time of its existence - but not for the reasons it claims. If you look at history, all the major wars of Europe involved nations that are currently in NATO (and the EU): England, France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands. If we're not at each others throats now, it isn't because of nuclear weapons and in as much as it's NATO - well, you tell me.
