Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?
- This topic has 621 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:.How do we approach well-meaning fellow workers with good intentions?
A good start would be to stop attacking and demonising those individuals who speak up for them in public. (not you personally Allan) The Tory press already do a good job of that . Gives the impression we are right wingers attacking anyone who speaks up for the working class.
jondwhite wrote:what if there was a meme image creates about exposing the anti working class nature of prime minister Cameron or Nigel farage?[/quote]No problem. And IDS Claiming that Corbyn, Brand etal are as bad as Camoron and IDS just makes us look silly and even worse sectarian
jondwhite wrote:what if there was a meme image creates about exposing the anti working class nature of prime minister Cameron or Nigel farage?The front cover of the September Socialist Standard should fit the bill if you can wait a week.
gnome wrote:I can heartily re-assure comrades that Kent & Sussex will not be engaging in 'soft-peddling' tactics particularly when it comes to exposing so-called 'saviours' of the working class such as Jeremy Corbyn and Russell Brand.And, I hope, with equal (or even more) fervor the murderer Ian Duncan Smith? Austerity? and the Tory party
ALB wrote:jondwhite wrote:what if there was a meme image creates about exposing the anti working class nature of prime minister Cameron or Nigel farage?The front cover of the September Socialist Standard should fit the bill if you can wait a week.
I really wish we'd stop putting politicians faces on the front cover of the Standard. Maybe I'm showing my age but I sometimes wish we'd harken back to the really old Standards where there would be an article on the front cover of the Standard.
jondwhite wrote:imposs1904 wrote:Vin's makes a fair point. I'm not suggesting for a second that we soft-pedal our criticisms of Labour in all its forms, but these memes just seem to be the one tone and I think they're going to backfire on us. Why would Corbyn supporters investigate our politics further if that's the first thing they see coming from us?I think these are only appealing to a small pool of individuals; individuals, in the main, who are already aware of Labour's sorry history in government.what if there was a meme image creates about exposing the anti working class nature of prime minister Cameron or Nigel farage?
I actually think that's different. Despite the apparent 'Jezzmania' – or whatever it's called this week – I don't think Corbyn is as ego driven as your usual professional politician. Maybe that absence of 'look at me, everyone' is part of his attraction for a lot of people at this point. I think he genuinely believes in a more inclusive and democratic Labour Party and movement, and I wouldn't say that for most Labour left-wingers. Sadly, we know it's not going to work out for him.I think it's fair game to have digs at the likes of Farage, Cameron . . . and the Galloways, Livingstones and Abbots of this world because it's so self-evident that it's their self-regard as much as their ideology which motors them, but having snide digs at Corbyn at this point just makes us come off as the sectarians that everyone thinks we already are.In my opinion, it's wrong-headed.
imposs1904 wrote:I think it's fair game to have digs at the likes of Farage, Cameron . . . and the Galloways, Livingstones and Abbots of this world because it's so self-evident that it's their self-regard as much as their ideology which motors them, but having snide digs at Corbyn at this point just makes us come off as the sectarians that everyone thinks we already are.But this is the very point which you've unwittingly put your finger on. Because it's not self-evident to many workers that Corbyn and his politics are phoney is surely all the more reason why he needs to be exposed, not by using snide digs but by demonstrating the fallaciousness of his policies, with the use of memes, along with other methods, in as simple and unconfrontational ways as possible. And if by opposing capitalist politicians of whatever ilk (and, frankly, when push come to shove there's little to choose between any of them) makes us appear sectarian then so be it. It's the price we've had to pay ever since the party's inception.
gnome wrote:And if by opposing capitalist politicians of whatever ilk (and, frankly, when push come to shove there's little to choose between any of them) makes us appear sectarian then so be it. It's the price we've had to pay ever since the party's inception.It is a big price we pay. We oppose the entire population and appear to be a small sect not interested in growth. There is nothing in our D of P requiring me to wage war on Brand or Corbyn for that matter or any other individualBy the way Brand was not a capitalist politician.
gnome wrote:imposs1904 wrote:I think it's fair game to have digs at the likes of Farage, Cameron . . . and the Galloways, Livingstones and Abbots of this world because it's so self-evident that it's their self-regard as much as their ideology which motors them, but having snide digs at Corbyn at this point just makes us come off as the sectarians that everyone thinks we already are.But this is the very point which you've unwittingly put your finger on. Because it's not self-evident to many workers that Corbyn and his politics are phoney is surely all the more reason why he needs to be exposed, not by using snide digs but by demonstrating the fallaciousness of his policies, with the use of memes, along with other methods, in as simple and unconfrontational ways as possible. And if by opposing capitalist politicians of whatever ilk (and, frankly, when push come to shove there's little to choose between any of them) makes us appear sectarian then so be it. It's the price we've had to pay ever since the party's inception.
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between the policies and the personalities. I agree with imposs1904's comments above and have tried to preface my own criticisms of Corbyn with observations to the effect that he comes across as sincere and personable – unlike the usual shower of career politicians. Yes yes yes I know personalities shouldnt be the issue and yes, of course, we all know that Corbyn is going to come unstuck and "betray" his followers in the sense that he is bound to let them down badly. – that is if he ever gets into power. But personalities do seem to attract and hold attention and why not? Even socialists are not above this and I'm a great fan of Ivan's column in the Socialist Standard which invariably makes for a riveting read. All the same, I think one should be more discriminating in how one goes about attacking politicians – precisely (or even paradoxically) in order to demonstrate that really, at bottom, the character of the politicians in question doesnt really matter. That would also mitigate the risk that Vin refers to of appearing "sectarian". Corbyn is one of the few policiticans who comes across as genuine. I would have included Tony Benn in that list too, as well as maybe the Beast of Bolsover. The rest are a bunch of smarmy greaseballs with about as much integrity as a dodgy arms dealer. As far as I am concerned, there should be an open season on having a pop at their overblown egos – but not, of course, at the expense of a serious structural analysis of why they will always fail in terms of the political objectives they have (supposedly) set themselves
Vin wrote:gnome wrote:And if by opposing capitalist politicians of whatever ilk (and, frankly, when push comes to shove there's little to choose between any of them) makes us appear sectarian then so be it. It's the price we've had to pay ever since the party's inception.It is a big price we pay. We oppose the entire population and appear to be a small sect not interested in growth.
That's because we're socialists and most of the rest of the population, regrettably, are not as yet.
Quote:By the way Brand was not a capitalist politician.Never said he was. However, despite his radical sounding rhetoric he indubitably supports capitalism and endorses the policies of capitalist politicians.
Our task in the SPGB is to persuade and convince fellow workers of the validity of our case. This does mean being critical of the ideas they hold and the political persoanlities they hold in esteem. However, we are addressing ourselves to fellow workers, brothers and sisters in our human family. It is how we communicate and convey our views which is at issue. And as i have tried to say, how we do it changes and adapts to the situation. If we are not heard because we have no presence in the conversions taking place who is to blame for that exclusion? No-one says we should soft-peddle our position but are discussing the most effective way of presenting it. What we should be doing is trying to understand why there was such an unexpected ground-swell of support for Corbyn. An earlier post on the thread linking to a vox pop interview video seems to show that people are seeing through the charade of professional politicians…and it has been highlighted here by some posters…sincerity, honesty, principles are drawing sympathy to Corbyn added to a very idealistic interpretation of his policies. So it is clear to me that we too have political integrity and this must emphasisd when we make a critique of Corbyn's economic solutions.As i said in an earlier post, we can either strike a chord with our fellow workers or create discord between them and ourselves through our attitudes and that includes the manner and tone of our language and the way we use propaganda tools. We are not appealing to the politician but to those who are listening to him. We can do this in the most non-confrontational way we can.We can also when the occasion arises be blunt and forthright. It depends on the audience and i think we have to learn and discover who our audience really is, just who are we delivering our message to. Once we know that, we can then shape the delivery of our campaigns and exchanges.
alanjjohnstone wrote:What we should be doing is trying to understand why there was such an unexpected ground-swell of support for Corbyn. An earlier post on the thread linking to a vox pop interview video seems to show that people are seeing through the charade of professional politicians…and it has been highlighted here by some posters…sincerity, honesty, principles are drawing sympathy to Corbyn added to a very idealistic interpretation of his policies. So it is clear to me that we too have political integrity and this must emphasisd when we make a critique of Corbyn's economic solutions.Well said Alan. That is certainly the positive aspect of the Corbyn phenomenon and it is worth keying into it – the fact that here we have a politician who appears at least to be relatively sincere and principled even if his principles will lead to a dead end. It is important to acknowlege this and to differentiate this kind of approach to politics from the typical behaviour of politicians. Why? Because it ties in with a wider argument – namely that sincere or not, genuine or not, principled or not , the politicians are still going to fail us and that it is we ourselves who are going to have to take matters in hand. In the meanwhile here's an opportunity to point out to all those cynics out there who glibly dismiss socialism as some idealistic utopia however commendable the principles behind it. The lesson should be relentlessly drummed in – that, actually, it pays to be principled and the Corbyn phenomenon appears to lend support to this thesis.It is the unprincipled opportunists who are not only failing to adminster the system in the way they claimed they could but who are also now failing to get the support that would authorise them to do just that. The slick propaganda and the grandiose promises are becoming increasingly threadbare and unconvincing and the cracks are spreading through the facade. People more and more crave some kind of authenticity in a world of contrived and manipulated images. Corbyn for the moment seems to answer that need but he of course will likewise fail them – even if not because of any lack of sincerity on his part..The only real and sustainable authenticity lies within them – us – within the collective solidarity of the workers to do something about changing this shitty world we live in.
alanjjohnstone wrote:What we should be doing is trying to understand why there was such an unexpected ground-swell of support for Corbyn. An earlier post on the thread linking to a vox pop interview video seems to show that people are seeing through the charade of professional politicians…and it has been highlighted here by some posters…sincerity, honesty, principles are drawing sympathy to Corbyn added to a very idealistic interpretation of his policies. So it is clear to me that we too have political integrity and this must emphasisd when we make a critique of Corbyn's economic solutions.Exactly. I think the support for Corbyn and Brand represents a rejection of leadership. Rather like workers turning to the SPGB. Would we criticise ourselves for being leaders if that happened?Brand and Corbyn have made it clear that they reject the cult of leadership. Do we oppose there position on this? This is a positive developement for us.Brand and Corbyn are right about this and they have declared it publicly and people are supporting this view. The SPGB has always opposed leadership politics and it is good that people are catching on. Corbyn and Brand may not be socialists from our perspective but then only a few are
The anti-Corbyn images and "slogans" shown on page 17 are meant to do what exactly?They're not particularly catchy, so fail as "slogans" that fix an idea into our subconscious. They appear to be an amateurish attempt to demonize Corbyn, suggesting he is a politician who would willingly use aggressive anti working class tactics. Yet he is widely accepted as a person of integrity and principles.As Vin has pointed out, they resemble Tory propaganda. A little reminiscent of the 1997 Tory "demon eyes" Tony Blair posters, regarded by some as counter productive. Are feeble, negative propaganda tactics good for winning hearts and minds?
On August 16th The Socialist Party (@OfficialSPGB) tweeted along with a picture of Jeremy Corbyn's face superimposed onto a Marmite jar:"We oppose reformism for diverting people away from real socialism, and prolonging the profits-before-people system."On the WorldSocialism.org How the SPGB Is Different From Others page, it is written that:"The SPGB and our companion parties in the WSM neither promotes, nor opposes, reforms to capitalism."Is this an inconsistency, or is it the case that opposing "reformISM" is not the same thing as opposing "reformS".
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.