Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?
- This topic has 621 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:In one respect of course these people who you say "already reject conservative thinking", in fact haven't, otherwise they wouldn't be thinking that capitalism can be made to work in their interests, if only they're successful in electing the 'right' leader; they would have already rejected that conservative mindset and be looking for a genuine revolutionary alternative.
Corbyn and his supporters do reject some aspects of Conservative thinking, while accepting others. That is, they both believe prosperity in a just society can be achieved through a capitalist economy.Likewise, the SPGB rejects some aspects of Conservative thinking, but agrees with others. And here I'm referring to their shared belief in the necessity and importance of "austerity" policies in a capitalist economy, as the best/only way to deal with an economic slump.And I think the "back to the 1970s" jibes are actually a good example of this convergence of opinion.
lanz the joiner wrote:Likewise, the SPGB rejects some aspects of Conservative thinking, but agrees with others. And here I'm referring to their shared belief in the necessity and importance of "austerity" policies in a capitalist economy, as the best/only way to deal with an economic slump.That makes it sound slightly like the SPGB advocates austerity policies which of course is outrageously not the case . It would be more accurate to say the SPGB opposes capitalism which, at times of economic slump, necessitates such policies. This statement is nevertheless totally compatible with the view that austerity should be resisted as far as possible
imposs1904 wrote:The Corbyn speech bubble feeds into the narrative being pushed down people's throats in the media right now. It's lazyThis is unfair. The media may well saying he wants to go back to the 70s, but we said it first, as in the article in this month's Standard, out at the beginning of August but written in July, where we described Corbyn as "Harold Wilson warmed up", i.e. as Old Labour wanting to go back to pre-Thatcher times with nationalisation, council houses, Welfare State, etc.( I know that's more "Back to the 60s".)It may well be that so-called "Corbymania" represents a general revulsion against austerity and the Tories behaving as if their general election win has given them a mandate to pursue Thatcher's agenda of bashing the unions and those on benefits and, that, to be a credible politician, Corbyn has to convert this into realistic policy propositions. I can't see why we can't criticise these proposals without criticising the man or the sentiments behind those who support him. In fact, that people discontented with what capitalism is doing to them should look to the future rather than the past is what Paul Mason seems to mean when he says (see separate thread)
Quote:Forget defending random bits of the old system. Think about where society could be going in 50 years.Proposing to revive random bits of the old system is precisely what Corbyn's policies aim to do or, if you like, abandon "nei-liberalism" for the social democratic reformism of yesterday.. In that context "Back to the 70s" is a valid socialist criticism
lanz the joiner wrote:gnome wrote:In one respect of course these people who you say "already reject conservative thinking", in fact haven't, otherwise they wouldn't be thinking that capitalism can be made to work in their interests, if only they're successful in electing the 'right' leader; they would have already rejected that conservative mindset and be looking for a genuine revolutionary alternative.Corbyn and his supporters do reject some aspects of Conservative thinking, while accepting others. That is, they both believe prosperity in a just society can be achieved through a capitalist economy.Likewise, the SPGB rejects some aspects of Conservative thinking, but agrees with others. And here I'm referring to their shared belief in the necessity and importance of "austerity" policies in a capitalist economy, as the best/only way to deal with an economic slump.And I think the "back to the 1970s" jibes are actually a good example of this convergence of opinion.
Governments are compelled to pursue a policy of austerity during a slump. Theoretically they have the power to decide not to do this but the consequences would be that they would make matters much worse, by prolonging and possibly deepening the slump in economic activity.
Quote:There is a lesson in Syriza’s abysmal failure to even mitigate austerity in Greece, let alone end it. It’s that as long as capitalism is in a slump it can’t be ended. All the articles by left-wing economists saying that it can are not worth the paper they are printed on. All the (quite legitimate) protests and demonstrations against austerity are misdirected when they call on governments to end austerity. This is an impossible demand. All this energy would be more effectively directed instead at replacing the capitalist system of class ownership and production for profit by a socialist system of common ownership, democratic control and production directly to meet people’s needs. Only then will austerity be ended forever. Only then will what people vote for be able to be carried out.lanz the joiner wrote:Likewise, the SPGB rejects some aspects of Conservative thinking, but agrees with others. And here I'm referring to their shared belief in the necessity and importance of "austerity" policies in a capitalist economy, as the best/only way to deal with an economic slump.And I think the "back to the 1970s" jibes are actually a good example of this convergence of opinion.Actually, we don't think government austerity can end a slump, we simply recognise that as profits fall, revenues from taxes will fall, and raising tax rates will only harm profitability and keep the slump going (and borrowing doesn't work neither, since government spending is unproductive, it's just recycling profits). Slumps only end when the value of unprofitable capital is destroyed, either through bankruptcies or, as they are trying to do at the minute, through a slow heat death of inflation[*] (actually, falling wages could restore profitable investment, but obviously there are limits to that as well). [*] Yes, inflation is a form of taxation, since it is the state leeching value out of the economy, so I suppose we could count increased taxation as a means of destroying the value of capital, but the state would have to squander that tax money, and not spend it.
ALB wrote:"Back to the 70s" is a valid socialist criticismIt is stereotyping, Corbyn openly rejected old 70s 'nationalisation'. And leadership.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Slumps only end when the value of unprofitable capital is destroyed, either through bankruptcies or, as they are trying to do at the minute, through a slow heat death of inflation[*] (actually, falling wages could restore profitable investment, but obviously there are limits to that as well). [*] Yes, inflation is a form of taxation, since it is the state leeching value out of the economy, so I suppose we could count increased taxation as a means of destroying the value of capital, but the state would have to squander that tax money, and not spend it.Inflation does not affect the amount of value in the economy it is only an increase in the amount of tokens representing that value. To talk of inflation as a means of taxation or means of ending a slump is quite wrong.
robbo203 wrote:This statement is nevertheless totally compatible with the view that austerity should be resisted as far as possibleWE don't do enough of that, we are too busy spending our energy and resources attacking those that oppose Austerity. Lanz the joiner reflects how this is viewed by workers.We are anti austerity but our solution is revolution.We are not e sect sitting on the sidelines
DJP wrote:Inflation does not affect the amount of value in the economy it is only an increase in the amount of tokens representing that value. To talk of inflation as a means of taxation or means of ending a slump is quite wrong.If the government spends the tokens it creates, it takes value from the other holders of tokens, so it is a tax on holding money. Inflation will eventually destroy the real value of debts (and other financial instruments) demoniminated in a currency.
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:"Back to the 70s" is a valid socialist criticismIt is stereotyping, Corbyn openly rejected old 70s 'nationalisation'. And leadership.
Oh really? But goes on to favour 21st century nationalisation.Corbyn has pledged to nationalise the railways and postal service. In an interview with the BBC, he said ‘we want *our* railway system and *our* Post Office – Royal Mail rather – in public ownership, they are natural monopolies’. He has also committed to renationalising the ‘Big Six’ energy providers — British Gas, SSE, Eon, Npower, Scottish Power and EDF — as well as the National Grid. There has been some debate about whether he would reintroduce Clause IV to Labour’s constitution, which outlined that party’s commitment to the "public ownership of industry".As for someone who's "rejected leadership" it's quite bizarre that he should find himself to be one of the candidates in a contest to determine………. the next leader of the Labour Party…
It does our case no good cherry picking comments merely to condemn the position of a member of the working class. We need to be more productive in our analysis. These are after all people we wish to attract You could also have quoted: "I believe in public ownership, but I have never favoured the remote nationalised model that prevailed in the post-war era. Like a majority of the population and a majority of even Tory voters, I want the railways back in public ownership. But public control should mean just that, not simply state control: so we should have passengers, rail workers and government too, co-operatively running the railways to ensure they are run in our interests and not for private profit." (My emphasis)Corbynhttps://www.thenews.coop/96639/news/co-operatives/labour-leader-candidates-debate-co-operation/
Found this in The Guardian.
Quote:Labour’s Europe spokesman, Pat McFadden, said it was wrong to compare Corbyn’s views to those of Syriza in Greece.“There has been some attempt to suggest that Mr Corbyn’s campaign is a parallel of the Syriza movement in Greece, but Syriza is a firmly pro-European movement that has fought to keep Greece in the EU and the Eurozone. If Mr Corbyn comes out as anti-EU it will show there is nothing new about his politics – it is simply Bennism from the 1980s reheated. Is he going to fight for Britain as an open, outward-looking country engaged with the world or line up with Nigel Farage on a nationalist nostalgia trip?”http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/25/jeremy-corbyn-draws-fire-position-future-britain-eu-membershipBloody hell! Looks as though Corbyn wants to take Britain back to the '60s, '70s and '80s. Talk about indecision, lol.You could be forgiven in thinking there are a lot of people within the current political, economic, establishment who don't want him in charge of Labour for some reason.Anyone know what his stance is on TTIP?
Young Master Smeet wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Anyone know what his stance is on TTIP?Did DJP star in this? I think he may have a bright future. And is it an official party video?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.