Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?
- This topic has 621 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
They way we sometimes argue our case can appear contradictory. Ian Duncan Smith's way of dealing with capitalism is to (allegedly) murder the sick and elderly but he is not to blame according to us. It is 'capitalism' guiding his murderous hand. But Corbyn is to blame for his actions, he has a free will.We let the Torie off the hook and divert our attacks on those who appear to care.And – what with the GREAT BRITAIN emphasised in our name – it turns those we wish to attract away from whateverelse we have to say.
Been looking at the front pages of the Standard. Whilst not agreeing with the overall stance of Corbyn, what we cannot say, is that he has failed to energize people about politics, he has.
If only we could concieve of a way to tap into the interest he has generated. Granted, hes not a Socialist and his mantra of nationalise this, nationalise that has, as the front page of this months Standard points out, in a roundabout way, been tried and failed but he has pushed the door ajar and we need to find a way to push it all the way open.
I agree with Vin’s and SP’s train of thought.This months Standard front cover is overly proscriptive of Corbyn. Like Brand before him, we appear intent on putting the boot into people who, whilst not being Socialists, have clear water between their ideas and that of the Tories. Ideas, that if we could connect with those whom Corbyn and Brand amongst others, have energized into considering alternatives, we could place our unique and distinct ideas before this, wider, audience!
When will we, as a Party, stop limiting our audience? Every time someone such as Brand, Corbyn (who will be the next), comes along, we trip over ourselves to alienate those who look at alternative ideas and say “hey, thats fresh thinking”.
We should be in the Van saying, “if you think thats fresh thinking, what about this?” A world without boundaries, withAre we asout class distinction and all that that entails. Where the world and everything in and on it, belongs to us all, in common.
Would’nt it be nice where food is produced to eat, houses to live in ETC ETC ETC.
This is the approach we should take. Instead of spending the vast majority of our energies, saying what we disagree with Corbyn, and Brand about. Are we ashamed of our ideas or what?
Vin wrote:They way we sometimes argue our case can appear contradictory. Ian Duncan Smith's way of dealing with capitalism is to (allegedly) murder the sick and elderly but he is not to blame according to us. It is 'capitalism' guiding his murderous hand. But Corbyn is to blame for his actions, he has a free will.We let the Torie off the hook and divert our attacks on those who appear to care.And – what with the GREAT BRITAIN emphasised in our name – it turns those we wish to attract away from whateverelse we have to say.Couldn't have put it any better Vin.IDS does have a choice whether or not to take an active role in the dismantling of vulnerable peoples lives. His hand is not being forced, he chooses to do what he does because it is part of his ideology. There is no hooded phantom of "capitalism" holding a gun to his head. People like Corbyn, Brand, Lucas, and others on the "left" of politics seem to care what happens to people and yet as you point out they appear to get more of a hammering from the SPGB. For daring to care? What message is that sending to potential SPGB sympathisers?But I bet what we are getting at will fall on deaf ears and the usual dead ends will be religiously adhered to.
steve colborn wrote:Been looking at the front pages of the Standard. Whilst not agreeing with the overall stance of Corbyn, what we cannot say, is that he has failed to energize people about politics, he has.The good news is that is precisely not what we say on the inside:
Quote:While we welcome that more people are becoming politically involved and are looking for alternatives, it would be a mistake to follow Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, otherwise we may well end up going back to the 1970s, rather than moving forwards to abolish capitalism and establish real socialism.OK, it doesn't say JezWeCan
SocialistPunk wrote:There's nothing wrong with attacking capitalism and its supporters, I'm not suggesting the SPGB stop that. I'm just advocating a more thought out approach, considering short sharp attack/smear tactics are doomed to fail."Smear tactics". That's a serious charge. Here's how it's defined (from: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smear+campaign)
Quote:A dirty political campaign run against your opponent, using exaggerations, lies, and/or quotes taken out of context, in an attempt to scare or disgust the public against that candidate.We have never employed such tactics.I think you should withdraw..
SocialistPunk wrote:People like Corbyn, Brand, Lucas, and others on the "left" of politics seem to care what happens to people and yet as you point out they appear to get more of a hammering from the SPGB. For daring to care? What message is that sending to potential SPGB sympathisers?That the people you describe only "seem to care what happens to people" is precisely why they need to be exposed all the more for the hoodwinkers of the working class they truly are.Corbyn promises "Equality For All" and to "End Austerity" among the many other vague and totally unrealisable aims under capitalism and as for the clown, Brand first supports the Greens and then on the eve of the General Election tells workers to vote for the Labour Party. He doesn't know his proverbial arse from his elbow. Lucas and the rest of the 'lefty' rag-bag of con-merchants are no better.You're welcome to your new found 'friends'. The rest of us will stick to our socialist principles.
I searched for 'Jeremy Corbyn 1970s' to look up the quote on the cover of September Standard.https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jeremy+corbyn+1970sThere is a Guardian and Telegraph report of allegations made by Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall about Corbyn returning to the 1970s.The Times reports 'Jeremy Corbyn insisted yesterday that there was much to learn from Labour governments in the 1970s'.A spokesman for Corbyn called for a discussion of 'public ownership objectives for the 21st century'.So is this taking a quote out of context?
Nivver mind
I have not read the Sep SS yet but is this Corbyn quote included:"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, "CorbynIt could have gone on the front pageInstead of cutting and pasting the media lies
ALB wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:There's nothing wrong with attacking capitalism and its supporters, I'm not suggesting the SPGB stop that. I'm just advocating a more thought out approach, considering short sharp attack/smear tactics are doomed to fail."Smear tactics". That's a serious charge. Here's how it's defined (from: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smear+campaign)
Quote:A dirty political campaign run against your opponent, using exaggerations, lies, and/or quotes taken out of context, in an attempt to scare or disgust the public against that candidate.We have never employed such tactics.I think you should withdraw..
ALBI never looked into the meaning of the word "smear" before using it, I used it simply to denote a superficial scare tactic. However I think showing Corbyn along side Cameron and Farage is an attempt to scare or disgust, using exaggerated association and insinuation.The whole point of my commenting on this issue is because of the nature of certain amateurish tactics employed on behalf of the SPGB by some members who seem intent on the continued isolation of the party.If a certain approach is shown to not work, where is the logic in its continued use? I have yet to hear any response to this critical point, just superficial distractions to avoid facing up to that fact.Before we take this discussion any further I think it important to state that I have not criticised the party analysis of Corbyn's reformist politics. I agree and said so earlier in this thread, that should he ever get power he is ultimately powerless to make capitalism work in the interests of the working class.
gnome wrote:You're welcome to your new found 'friends'. The rest of us will stick to our socialist principles.I see no problem with having Brand and Corbyn as friends. Most of my family like Corbyn, should I wage war on them? Or try and influence them?All of my family and friends – like me – hate the Tories. Osborne and IDS are conspiring to continue their attack on us. These are my class enemies. They have free will and are not guided by any invisible entity. I would not consider them my friends.I support 90% of both Brand and Corbyn but It does not mean I support Labour. I tell Brand and Corbyn and my family this. I oppose their party and suppot the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism – Doesn't mean everyone is my class enemy.
In his Summer School talk BrianG stated that it is his view that the Party was part of the Left, something he acknowledged other members would dispute. I think this might be the core issue of this thread.Do we accept some politicians (or even groups) as part of the same tradition as ourselves even if they may have diverged and now differ greatly but deserving of less criticism?Is Corbyn such a person?Our case for bourgeois democracy is that it is preferable to dictatorship and we defend it as an institution despite its flaws and failings.Can this principle apply to Corbyn?I return to an earlier observation, different strokes for different folks. It means we tailor our message to our audience and don't offer a one size fits all approach. That does not mean we "soft-pedal" our criticisms but it does mean we use tact and skill in the way we communicate.We are, of course, hoping to connect and persuade fellow workers, not our class enemies or their lackeys. IMHO, Corbyn has brought us a receptive audience and it is up to us to capture their attention and draw them to our soap-box.Experienced outdoor speakers often use humour as a device for just doing that…Perhaps that is what we are lacking…the tool of ridicule that some were so adept at once. …Righteous anger is another way, but i don't think insults and name-calling ever worked although i think some speakers did resort to that style. Lets try and be imaginative and innovative in how we campaign…a task of the highest order….kow-towing to public sentiment has its weaknesses as well.
SocialistPunk wrote:There's nothing wrong with attacking capitalism and its supporters, Ibut that's the whole point – there is!99.9999999% support capitalism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.