Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?
- This topic has 621 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:There is a Guardian and Telegraph report of allegations made by Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall about Corbyn returning to the 1970s.
Same allegation is repeated on the front cover of the Socialist Standard
gnome wrote: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.
GnomeNot really sure how to respond to your…err… criticism… of the main thrust of my position. I argue that amateurish, confrontational scare tactics do not make for good propagation of socialism and what do you respond with.Your last sentence is a fair example of a "smear" tactic, in suggesting I have no socialist principles and belong with the likes of Corbyn, Brand etc.I would much prefer to discuss things in a reasonable manner, without petty accusations and association being used to detract from sensible discussion.A little question for ya. Do you honestly think the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Russell Brand are in the same league as Ian Duncan Smith and Nigel Farage? FYI, as soon as Russell Brand announced support for Labour at the last election, I didn't bother watching his Trews videos anymore. I only had a look at his last one when Vin posted a link to it on another thread. Yeah he fucked up, but his views regarding revolution are still powerful.
alanjjohnstone wrote: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 don't like the term left wing. It seems that it is OK for member to sympathise with some anarchists and academics, while others are accused of brown nosing. What is it to be d who decides who we can sympathise with without accusations??Chomskey? Kliman? Brand?
SocialistPunk wrote:What exactly do you mean Vin?Everyone supports capitalism so we attack everyone? I know you don't think that.99.999% are not our class enemies. So who is and who is not?Corbyn, Osborne, Kliman, Chomskey, Brand etc
SocialistPunk wrote:The only problem with using tactics seen in some of the Facebook images and the Sept' Socialist Standard, is they don't work.Who are they aimed at? Those who already dislike Corbyn and his politics or supporters of his politics? Or perhaps some hazey middle ground of "don't knows"?Using attack tactics actually turns people off and has no effect on believers.If the SPGB are serious at recruiting supporters of "lost causes" it's time to quit the negative attack policy and use more creative and clever tactics/campaigns etc. You'd think that after one hundred and eleven years, lessons would by now be learnt.Officially the covers are aimed at everyone, but in practice I suspect they appeal more to a particular section of membership reinforcing that particular approach of 'wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist' under Clause 8 as cocking a snook or blowing raspberries at Labour leaders which can be effective for the standards of debate on facebook or twitter.
I also agree with your suspicions JDW, regarding the "wage war against all other political parties" approach of some SPGB material.However I suspect such approaches merely provoke hostility that achieves nothing. Surely the party should be aiming to win converts to the cause of socialism?
DJP wrote:We're not (or shouldn't be) attacking *people* we're attacking *ideas* and *ideologies* etc…A very good point DJP. However as soon as pictures of the likes of Corbyn are used in conjunction with crude sloganeering, it becomes about that person.This is my whole point, a Negative Approach, reaps negative results.
SocialistPunk wrote:However as soon as pictures of the likes of Corbyn are used in conjunction with crude sloganeering, it becomes about that person.We need to avoid the propaganda tactic of the capitalist media. I wonder what the point is here: in the Telegraph. three guesses. Personally I prefer the Socialist Standard avoides such methods. Workers will not open the pages.
Can anyone shed light on post #266 as I still cant access an online Sep Socialist Standard
I've already made my view known on this. We are shooting ourselves in the foot with the front cover, the memes and some of the contributions on twitter but, at the same time, we have to accentuate the positive. The pieces on Corbyn in last month's Standard were measured and well argued. We were making a case against Corbyn and the phenemenon surrounding his campaign without it appearing overly vinegary or snide. More of this please.I think there are times when a politician's personal ego is so wrapped up in his or her political career – think of Galloway, Sheridan, Abbott and Scargill on the left wing of capitalism for past examples – that is then permissable to take the piss out of the politico as well as their promises but, at the time of writing, I don't think this applies to Corbyn. Part of his 'personal' appeal to his audience has been his lack of pizzaz and the obvious fact that his personality hasn't been shaped by a focus group. Maybe he will change overnight if and when he wins the leadership, and turn into another shiny car salesman masquerading as a politician, but I wouldn't hold my breath. We have to accept that he has tapped into a political movement that no one – NO ONE – saw coming. Not the media. Not the Parliamentary Labour Party. And certainly not the left-wing of capitalism.That is what we have to address, and we have to present our legitimate and consistent opposition to the politics of the left-wing in such a way that we can engage with that section of the working class who kicking against austerity but are still, sadly, locked into old school labourism.
ALBOfflineJoined: 22/06/2011Send PM 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 The problem is Adam, that the Front cover of this months Standard, probably dissuades some from looking at the "sweetmeats" inside.That is the point myself and I suspect SP and Vin are getting at
I don't care who else is saying that Corbyn wants to go back to the 70s or why because it's true. The sort of leftwing analysis he shares sees "neo-liberalism" as a policy decision taken by governments, especially in Britain and the US, since the 1980s. It is this they blame for working class problems not capitalism as such which has never really recovered from the end of the post-war boom in the 1970s. They want to reverse this policy decision (as they see it) and go back to the Keynesian policies that were in vogue up until then (that's what "People's QE" amounts too), i.e. go back to the 1970s (and beyond). If the other 3 candidates see this as a criticism it's from a completely different angle. It's because they accept capitalism more or less as it is without even wanting to attempt to try to make it work in some other way.We shouldn't be ashamed or apologise for saying this as it's a correct, and a Marxian, analysis of Leftwing anti-"neo-liberalism". Other analyses of Corbyn's economic policy are possible. Let's hear from those who don't think it represents a throwback to Keynesian government spending to try to get out of a slump. If not, what does it represent?
SocialistPunk wrote:A little question for ya. Do you honestly think the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Russell Brand are in the same league as Ian Duncan Smith and Nigel Farage?Yes, they all support capitalism in one form or another, but Corbyn and Brand are potentially more dangerous, because once the chickens come home to roost as most surely they will, the hopes of thousands of workers will be dashed and most will end up feeling totally betrayed and disenchanted. And that ultimately can't be beneficial for genuine socialist ideas to take root.
steve colborn wrote:The problem is Adam, that the Front cover of this months Standard, probably dissuades some from looking at the "sweetmeats" inside.No evidence whatever of this 'dissuasion' at the Kent Miners' Festival today. Four copies of the September Standard sold (besides other literature) and several amicable conversations held on the Corbyn 'phenomenon'. Luckily, not all workers are taken in by the radical sounding rhetoric of these new pretenders.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.