Corbynism and the Labour Party

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

But we, as a "small isolated paranoid sect"

W are not a paranoid sect but some members give off the impression. We are the world socialist movement and we seek to convert workers from labour and other parties to socialism. Alienating them and attributing a selfish human nature to them is counter productive If we dont 'get it together' we will disappear 

edit: I should really have said 'there is a tendency to' rather than 'some members' because I admit to drifting that way myself on occassions

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

But we, as a "small isolated paranoid sect"

W are not a paranoid sect but some members give off the impression. We are the world socialist movement and we seek to convert workers from labour and other parties to socialism. Alienating them and attributing a selfish human nature to them is counter productiveIf we dont 'get it together' we will disappear

edit: I should really have said 'there is a tendency to' rather than 'some members' because I admit to drifting that way myself on occassions

Drifting what way?  We're socialists and we don't compromise our principles.  If there are those who want to attribute having principles as being "sectarian" or part of a "small isolated paranoid sect" then so be it.  Nothing much we can do about that.  And if that also means "we will disappear" then so be that too, but we should be in no doubt that it will be due in part to those who continue to trail on the coat-tails of capitalist politicians and their lackeys.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

 but we should be in no doubt that it will be due in part to those who continue to trail on the coat-tails of capitalist politicians and their lackeys.

No doubt. That's why we still have capitalism. But why the strawman. No members are doing that

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

ALB wrote:

I agree and that's a good quote. Have you the details of where and when he said it (so it can be requoted)?

He may not have said it. I can't find the quote but he says similar.

That's a pity as it would have been a good quote (more celebrity endorsement for what we say !). The others from him are not so good as he believes that wars can be avoided under capitalism through the UN, etc even though he might know what causes them.

[jondwhite]

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

 but we should be in no doubt that it will be due in part to those who continue to trail on the coat-tails of capitalist politicians and their lackeys.

No doubt. That's why we still have capitalism. But why the strawman. No members are doing that

I think it is about striking a balance between confidently putting our case and acknowledging that big ideas can overlap and it is not scientific to think one and only one group can arrive at the only true conclusionsI sometimes quote the Wikipedia entry on Antonio Labriola on here

Quote:

Labriola's approach to Marxist theory was more open-ended than the orthodoxy of theorists such as Karl Kautsky. He saw Marxism not as a final, self-sufficient schematisation of history, but rather as a collection of pointers to the understanding of human affairs.  These pointers needed to be somewhat imprecise if Marxism was to take into account the complicated social processes and variety of forces at work in history. Marxism was to be understood as a "critical theory", in the sense that it sees no truths as everlasting, and was ready to drop its own ideas if experience should so dictate.

[jondwhite]

A study on the media attitudehttp://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/study_british_press_systematically_undermined_labour_jeremy_corbyn_20151129

[alanjjohnstone]

Certainly from the media coverage you would not get the impression that Corbyn did carry the Labour Party in its anti-bombing position."The Labour membership in the country was overwhelmingly opposed to the Syrian bombing. Only a quarter of the Parliamentary Labour Party actually voted with the Conservatives last week even though it was a free vote. A majority against the Syrian bombing in the Labour shadow cabinet: 16 to 11. Labour's success in the Oldham by-election the very next day confirmed that Corbyn’s views are not as toxic as many commentators appear to think. The narrative we have been sold day by day is that Corbyn’s alleged pacifism, like his opposition to welfare reform and support for immigration, are vote-losers in England. Any seasoned politician should be able to withstand being called a “warmonger” or being accused of “having blood on their hands”, especially when they have just voted to go to war. And it is perfectly democratic for anti-war protesters to hold a peaceful demonstration outside a politician's constituency office. Similarly, calls for deselection are perfectly legitimate in a democracy. If constituents and party activists feel that their MP is no longer respecting their views, what else are they supposed to do? There are double standards here. It is seen as somehow acceptable for Labour “moderates” to seek to deselect their own leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who was – remember – elected by the biggest majority ever in a Labour leadership contest. Corbyn owes it to the party membership to remind the vociferous minority of Labour MPs that they must respect the views of the majority of Labour members. And if they don't like it, they know where they can go."http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14126973.Iain_Macwhirter__Any_seasoned_politician_should_be_able_to_withstand_being_accused_of__having_blood_on_their_hands___especially_when_they_have_just_voted_to_go_to_war/?ref=mr&lp=16

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

To do that, we need a state that invests. We need an entrepreneurial, nimble state that neither wages war with markets nor bows in their presence, but shapes them. It is the rules set out by the state that allows markets to flourish.This means we can shape competitive markets and shape the goods they produce, so that we can all start making the right choices for our future. We need carbon budgeting to be the centrepiece of trade and commerce, taking the planet back to sustainable levels of CO2 emissions.But governments should not be the only actors on the stage; they cannot achieve this world alone. All of us must remake the material world, together. We must be confident in the technology we have and the technology we can invent. We must get organised, harnessing the extraordinary powers of connectivity humanity has developed for itself. Third, governments must not only commit public investment to cleaner energy and infrastructure, but channel private trillions too. They must use a range of policy levers to direct investment and shape markets.

Corbyn in the Times today (paywall) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4635914.eceThis is just warmed up social democracy of the 19320's, the state promoting microeconomic efficiency, to produce growth.  Not only has this been tried before, and failed, but it's clear that this approach cannot eliminate inequality and poverty, which are essential features of the market system.  'Designed markets' sound like a cunning way of getting business onside, but the need for profitability will always trump the designed ends.

[alanjjohnstone]

Open LabourGuardian letterhttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/09/time-to-unite-labours-democratic-leftWebsitehttp://openlabour.org/

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Corbyn in the Times today (paywall) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4635914.eceThis is just warmed up social democracy of the 19320's, the state promoting microeconomic efficiency, to produce growth.  Not only has this been tried before, and failed, but it's clear that this approach cannot eliminate inequality and poverty, which are essential features of the market system.  'Designed markets' sound like a cunning way of getting business onside, but the need for profitability will always trump the designed ends.

Very revealing quote you found there. It's Corbyn on how he sees the future (even though it reflects the view of Mariana Mazzucato, one of John McDonnell's economic advisers) and it's not socialism. By a long way. It's not even state capitalism which Labour leftwingers used to be committed to.

Jeremy Corbyn wrote:

We want a word where governments shape the rules that promote public goods — where they protect the ultimate public good of a stable climate in which humanity can survive and prosper. To do that, we need a state that invests. We need an entrepreneurial, nimble state that neither wages war with markets nor bows in their presence, but shapes them. It is the rules set out by the state that allows markets to flourish .This means we can shape competitive markets and shape the goods they produce, so that we can all start making the right choices for our future.

Socialism is not about "shaping" markets but about abolishing them. This is a quote we can keep on quoting.

[jondwhite]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Open LabourGuardian letterhttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/09/time-to-unite-labours-democratic-leftWebsitehttp://openlabour.org/

Quote:

The need for a renewed democratic left within the party is clear.

What? Clear as mud.Perhaps they could explain why Corbyn who has been involved in the campaign for Labour party democracy since the 1970s, been elected as an MP every election since 1983, won 59.5% of votes for leader, increased Labour membership and 'With more than 250,000 participants voting for him, Corbyn won "the largest mandate ever won by a Party Leader" in the UK' is not 'democratic' enough for the Labour party.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

“Either the current Corbyn party will need some home outside the Labour party or the mainstream of the Labour party will need to make common cause with others to forge a new party.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/20/labour-could-split-to-survive-says-peter-hymanReminded me a bit like the US policy during Vietnam War…we got to destroy to protectThe New New Labour policies?

Quote:

values, emphasising social mobility, increased opportunity for all through education reform, higher productivity, a leaner more agile state, reform of the welfare state based on the contributory principle and a recommitment to the green agenda.

[alanjjohnstone]

We via Colin Skelly get a mention on this websitehttp://buzz.bournemouth.ac.uk/what-is-the-corbyn-affect-doing-to-british-left-parties/

Quote:

The Greens and Left Unity are not the only ones who may suffer from the ‘Corbyn affect’, The Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) could also be over-shadowed at future elections.Colin Skelly of the SPGB South West is quick to distinguish Corbyn’s Labour from SPGB and itsfundamental values: “The SPGB does not view the Labour Party as a socialist party but as another party of capitalism. Corbyn’s election restores an element of radicalism to the Labour Party after a period of right-wing leadership but this is only returning to the situation historically adopted by the Labour Party before the late 1970s, but with MPs considerably to the right of the leadership. Jeremy Corbyn’s flagship policies include quantitative easing; while radical to some, it is a different breed to the SPGB’s view of socialism. Colin believes its possible to see Corbyn as simply “at the fringe of the mainstream rather than outside it”.

The article helpfully providing links to ourselves

[ALB]

Missed this at the time. One of the components of TUSC breaks away to join (rejoin, in many cases) Labour under Corbyn:http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/independent-socialist-network-agrees-new-direction-agm/Some of the names mentioned here stood for TUSC at the general election as well as at local elections. But in this year's elections they'll out be campaigning for Labour. Mind you, they can only bring Labour a hundred or so extra votes.

[Author]

Posts