Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

But does Cameron (say) believe in the things that Corbyn believes in? Clearly not. Beyond the fact that for neither of them their political horizons don't extend beyond capitalism and some kind of configuration in which the market and the state both play a role, they don't seem to have much in common, do they? 

FFS, what else do they need to have in common to be seen as the anti-socialists they both are?  They both believe that capitalism, suitably 'adjusted', can be made to work in the interests of us all.  At least with Cameron workers know, or should know, what they're going to get; with Corbyn there's an attractive label on his bottle describing the contents as an elixir, which when eventually opened, turns out to be remarkably similar and as equally unpalatable as the snake oil in all the other bottles.

 You are missing the point, Dave.  I quite agree that Cameron and Corbyn  head up political parties that are essentially both capitalist and that capitalism administered by either of them is by its  very nature is or will be unpalatable.  I believe I have said more than once that Corbyn is inevitably going to disappoint his many enthusiastic  supporters because he is proposing to do what cannot be done – to try to run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle.  That is, trying  to run capitalism in the interests of the majority. No one that I know of on this forum would dispute any of this.  But this is not relevant to what we are talking about.  Despite their commonalities in this fundamental sense there clearly  ARE differences between Corbyn and Cameron.  You surely  cannot seriously  be suggesting here that no such differences exist.  Read through that list of 24 things that Corbyn believes in and tell me how many of these things Cameron also believes in. I bet you cant. So thats the first point – that its silly to argue there are no differences when demonstrably there are.  People  will only look askance at you and regard you as slightly unhinged if you keep on insisting  there are no differences or point blank refuse even to acknowledge such differences.  It doesn't do the credibility of the socialist case much good by doing so.  It makes it seem disconnected from reality and dogmatic The second point  centres on your give-away comment that "with Corbyn there's an attractive label on his bottle describing the contents as an elixir" (my bold).  EXACTLY!!  That is why you have to be doubly careful about how you go about criticising Corbyn .  Go in with all guns blazing and I guarantee you you will instantly alienate the people who support him.  They wont waste a nanosecond more on listening to you on why you think Corbyn is as bad as Cameron.  They will instantly draw up the drawbridge and all you will have done is to have created yet another embittered and sneering critic of the SPGB for life. So you have to be very careful and tactful about how you go about criticising Corbyn.  Note that I am very far from saying don't criticise him,  What people find attractive about Corbyn is, to a degree, what is attractive about the SPGB.  I think ALB is quite right that in a sense that Corbyn is talking the same kind of language as the SPGB – up to a  point.  That is to say, he is trying to attract supporters on grounds that are not completely removed from what the SPGB is saying  – or at any rate are noticeably closer than what Cameron is saying, for example.  I am referring here to the kind of values he appears to endorse.Going in with all guns blazing as far as Corbyn is concerned is a recipe for simply shooting yourself in the foot

[twc]

So socialists outside the Socialist Party apparently comprise Derek Wall and the Anarchist Federation.Derek Wall is unknown to me.  I sought out his wikipedia entry, and assume its content enjoys as much of his blessing as he is able, within the constraints of wikipedia integrity, to bestow upon it.I ask you to read through the wikipedia section headed Propositions which outlines for calm objective consideration his solutions and measures, stripped of vehement rhetoric.Show me how Wall’s propositions are nothing but another shade of Paul Mason’s.Derek Wall’s obvious disagreement with us is over the identical issue that Eduard Bernstein disagreed with us.  Bernstein, like Wall, considered himself an authentic socialist.  We, alas, didn’t.Both take the same anti-scientific stance that Rosa Luxemburg anathemized as repudiating the necessity, the determinism, the predictive force of Marx’s scientific socialism.If there’s no necessity, determinism, and predictive force in Marx’s scientific socialism we’d all better pack up.This was Popper’s key line of attack.  If you demolish the deterministic essence of Marx’s scientific work his whole enterprise collapses and is exposed as thoroughly misguided.The point for all socialists is to comprehend the unfolding, working out, development of the base–superstructure determinism of Marx’s scientific socialism.Now one thing is obvious.  Wall and Bernstein along with the 50 or 50,000 shades either deny or fail to comprehend the unfolding, working out, development of the base-superstructure determinism of Marx’s scientific socialism.They raise themselves above scientific socialism, dismissing it out of hand as an oxymoron, unworthy of serious consideration, even though they unconsciously rely on the very same predictive mechanisms to negotiate every second of their waking lives without dismissing them out of hand.The intellectual instinctively defuses, annuls, renders impotent in his mind the power of deterministic science once it’s directed at society.Whenever the dynamics of society enters his mind as a thought, he imagines it in voluntaristic fashion.  But that is his illusion necessarily bred out of all he’s left himself to go on—the mere appearance of social things—since he has repudiated the dynamic essence of social things.That society will not let him do just what he wants to scarcely, if ever, crosses his voluntaristic mind.  Consequently the stream of supposedly ‘socialist’ subsystems desired to coexist and survive within an obligingly accommodating capitalism.The intellectual false consciousness that denies society is a necessarily self-generating system is the very philosophical mindset that Marx and Engels devoted their entire theoretical lives to demolishing.  It is not our stance.The noteworthy intellectuals who cling to such illusions stand in need of learning socialism from us, not we from them.Advocating democratic methods, making rational criticisms of capitalist society, or even advocating a moneyless future is not socialist if there’s no necessity, determinism, scientific force in getting there and, once there, in maintaining socialism as a self-reproducing social formation.This won’t happen by voluntarist chance in a social formation driven by necessity, if that social necessity to which all must submit, remains uncomprehended.Our Object and our Declaration of Principles remain to this day, after a century, the only practical scientific way of achieving just that.  The rest is anti-scientific day dreaming, i.e. utopian!No, Derek Wall is not a socialist outside of the Socialist Party, any more than Eduard Bernstein, Paul Mason, etc.I may continue on to the anarchists, if you are willing, but their position on the substantive issue is similarly tainted.

[moderator1]

twc wrote:

So socialists outside the Socialist Party apparently comprise Derek Wall and the Anarchist Federation.Derek Wall is unknown to me.  I sought out his wikipedia entry, and assume its content enjoys as much of his blessing as he is able, within the constraints of wikipedia integrity, to bestow upon it.I ask you to read through the wikipedia section headed Propositions which outlines for calm objective consideration his solutions and measures, stripped of vehement rhetoric.Show me how Wall’s propositions are nothing but another shade of Paul Mason’s.Derek Wall’s obvious disagreement with us is over the identical issue that Eduard Bernstein disagreed with us.  Bernstein, like Wall, considered himself an authentic socialist.  We, alas, didn’t.Both take the same anti-scientific stance that Rosa Luxemburg anathemized as repudiating the necessity, the determinism, the predictive force of Marx’s scientific socialism.If there’s no necessity, determinism, and predictive force in Marx’s scientific socialism we’d all better pack up.This was Popper’s key line of attack.  If you demolish the deterministic essence of Marx’s scientific work his whole enterprise collapses and is exposed as thoroughly misguided.The point for all socialists is to comprehend the unfolding, working out, development of the base–superstructure determinism of Marx’s scientific socialism.Now one thing is obvious.  Wall and Bernstein along with the 50 or 50,000 shades either deny or fail to comprehend the unfolding, working out, development of the base-superstructure determinism of Marx’s scientific socialism.They raise themselves above scientific socialism, dismissing it out of hand as an oxymoron, unworthy of serious consideration, even though they unconsciously rely on the very same predictive mechanisms to negotiate every second of their waking lives without dismissing them out of hand.The intellectual instinctively defuses, annuls, renders impotent in his mind the power of deterministic science once it’s directed at society.Whenever the dynamics of society enters his mind as a thought, he imagines it in voluntaristic fashion.  But that is his illusion necessarily bred out of all he’s left himself to go on—the mere appearance of social things—since he has repudiated the dynamic essence of social things.That society will not let him do just what he wants to scarcely, if ever, crosses his voluntaristic mind.  Consequently the stream of supposedly ‘socialist’ subsystems desired to coexist and survive within an obligingly accommodating capitalism.The intellectual false consciousness that denies society is a necessarily self-generating system is the very philosophical mindset that Marx and Engels devoted their entire theoretical lives to demolishing.  It is not our stance.The noteworthy intellectuals who cling to such illusions stand in need of learning socialism from us, not we from them.Advocating democratic methods, making rational criticisms of capitalist society, or even advocating a moneyless future is not socialist if there’s no necessity, determinism, scientific force in getting there and, once there, in maintaining socialism as a self-reproducing social formation.This won’t happen by voluntarist chance in a social formation driven by necessity, if that social necessity to which all must submit, remains uncomprehended.Our Object and our Declaration of Principles remain to this day, after a century, the only practical scientific way of achieving just that.  The rest is anti-scientific day dreaming, i.e. utopian!No, Derek Wall is not a socialist outside of the Socialist Party, any more than Eduard Bernstein, Paul Mason, etc.I may continue on to the anarchists, if you are willing, but their position on the substantive issue is similarly tainted.

 1st Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I therefore challenge you to point out just one of the 50 or 50,000 shades of capitalist criticism ― just one of them will do ― that actually advocates the same practical solution as we do.

I provided one individual and one political organisation which met your request. The means to achieve that solution may not be the SPGB's but they seek the same society as we do as a solution to all the social ills. The Party has no claim to the means and methods of achieving socialism other than our own opinion and our evaluation of the evidence, that didn't appear from nowhere in an idealistic fashion but from direct experience of membership of the SDF, hence the language and context of Clause 7.Others disagree and differ. Our task is to convince them of the correctness of our approach. You demand that a socialist must be an adherent of our D of P and that simply is not so. It is a conclusion reached from members of the SDF who were expelled from that organisation. Others reached different conclusions and sought other roads. We may have out-lived them but longevity is not proof of infallibility, although it does strengthen the case that we reflect a tradition within the labour movement that has some worth and value to workers. 

Quote:

Whether we disagree with Bookchin’s hypothesis here or not, it is clear that he is on the same wavelength as us. This is not a discussion between supporters and opponents of socialism but a discussion amongst people who are agreed that the way forward for humanity lies in the establishment of a world of common ownership, democratic participation and production to meet needs.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1990/no-1027-march-1990/socialism-and-ecologyIn case you think that was a blip

Quote:

Murray Bookchin is on the same wavelength as us in that he, too, stands for a classless, stateless society of common ownership in which money becomes redundant and the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" applies. But the agreement does not stop there. He recommends Marx's analysis of how the capitalist economic system works ("As a study of the capitalist economy as a whole, it [Capital] has no equal today. Marx's economic studies are central to any socialist analysis").

Book Reviews

Quote:

Murray Bookchin is one contemporary thinker and writer who comes close to us on a number of key points. He stands for a democratic society of common ownership where there'd be no production for profit, no working for wages and no money and where the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” would apply, even if he doesn't call this socialism (though he might if you got him into a corner).

Quote:

There are anarchists and anarchists. Some share our aim of a classless, stateless society of common ownership and popular participation where the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" will apply and where money will be redundant This is the view put forward, in the past, by such anarchists as Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker and Alexander Berkman and, today, by Murray Bookchin.

Can't you accept that others may well be right and we wrong? And in the long run, its not ourselves or our  opponents who will decide who has the worthier case – that is the decision of the working class as they embark upon emancipating themselves…and whether we exist as a Party with a D or P is neither here or there. We could disappear into the mists of history and footnotes in obscure text-books and a new socialist party will arise without the baggage of the past and there need not be any D of P treated as the Ten Commandments although much of its essence will still be held and promulgated. At worse, it will merely slow down the acquisition by the working class of the pre-requisite consciousness.  I have hitched my colours to the flag-staff by being an active member of the SPGB but i still think i have things to learn from others and when we disagree, it is not because they are all anti-socialists and deserving of hostility. Do we have to return to the days that calling the SLP political "cousins" became a reason to throw about accusations of party disloyalty.On a personal level i found it hard to be on a picket line with a co-worker, united to stop the bosses, and then to treat him and on occasions her as a political enemy because they had a different understanding upon how to reach socialism from my own. Argument and discussion took place but they were conducted on the basis of comradely disagreement, and not based on accusations of being an accomplice of the capitalist class because opinions differed.  If there is not a reversal of attitude and approach, the Partywill soon be preaching only to the converted and that is sadly a diminishing number because i am  not convinced that the same old style of politics is any longer valid. And i hastily add, i have not seen alternatives proved as an improvement, hence and for the umpteenth time i keep suggesting a dedicated conference where no part of the party case is taboo or sacred cow…everything is up for dissection – even if it is only to re-affirm our positions.   

[alanjjohnstone]

I see the moderator is firing a warning shot across our bows again…Will take his earlier advice  c and p my last reply and re-post on a separate thread

[twc]

I request moderator1 to move my post #512 (which was a reply to an earlier post) to become the start of a new topic, under General Discussion, called Socialists Outside the Socialist Party.

[ALB]

There was an "autonomist Marxist" at the West London public meeting last night at which we discussed the Corbyn phenomenon.  He asked a different question: from a capitalist point of view the Labour Party's role(as of left reformist parties everywhere) has been to channel off and dampen down discontent within capitalism in case it takes a revolutionary course; to do this it has to put on a left face otherwise it won't attract the support of discontented workers. Therefore, isn't Corbyn's victory and a turn to the left by the Labour Party a bad thing from a revolutionary point of view?He just posed this as a question because he knows that there aren't actually any "autonomous" (i.e spontaneous and outside and against the unions) workers struggles going on at the moment. I've not been following the discussions on Libcom but I imagine this point of view is being argued there and also, perhaps, at the Anarchist Federation meeting in London next week mentioned in the events section here. We, on the other hand, are more interested in the battle of ideas and how a left turn by Labour will affect thi,s and of course don't think that socialist ideas and revolutionary action will arise spontaneously from  day-to-day struggles..

[alanjjohnstone]

Afed's response to Corbyn herehttps://wearetherabl.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/this-is-not-our-victory/I have not got any disagreement with what it says…nor any great disagreement with the comment to the article which is asking much the same question as we all are 

Quote:

Now, the question of how we can best communicate that criticism and get people to engage with our ideas is certainly an important one. After all, we are as you say a marginal group within the working class as a whole, and we need to be conscious of that when putting across our ideas. It’s important not to be dismissive of the hopes and aspirations people attach to parliamentary politics, and I hope I’ve managed to avoid that in my piece here. But that doesn’t mean we must accept the politics of Corbynism simply because they are currently popular, or that those who currently subscribe to his ideas are not interested in or capable of engaging with criticism.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

Just seen he refused to sing the National Anthem at a Battle of Britain commemoration in St Pauls bCathedral. Got to given that. Better than Michael Foot's dufflecoat.

He may not have sung it but he stood up for it…

What? The bastard!  The Judean Peoples Front,  Fuckin traiters.  

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

gnome wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

But does Cameron (say) believe in the things that Corbyn believes in? Clearly not. Beyond the fact that for neither of them their political horizons don't extend beyond capitalism and some kind of configuration in which the market and the state both play a role, they don't seem to have much in common, do they? 

FFS, what else do they need to have in common to be seen as the anti-socialists they both are?  They both believe that capitalism, suitably 'adjusted', can be made to work in the interests of us all.  At least with Cameron workers know, or should know, what they're going to get; with Corbyn there's an attractive label on his bottle describing the contents as an elixir, which when eventually opened, turns out to be remarkably similar and as equally unpalatable as the snake oil in all the other bottles.

Going in with all guns blazing as far as Corbyn is concerned is a recipe for simply shooting yourself in the foot

"Guns blazing"?  What are you on about; been watching too many Westerns, Robin?   Look, it's always been 'horses for courses' but when one's dealing with a quasi-religious phenomenen it matters little which approach is taken when confronting those who find the allure of a 'pied-piper' quite irresistible.  Ask the party member whose spouse was totally unconvinced by laid-back, calm and reasoned argument and ended up joining the Labour Party in the days following the coronation of King Corbyn.

[alanjjohnstone]

I did read one commentator who referred Corbyn to his own defence of using the word "friend" in regards to Hamas, that it is a normal usual sort of diplomatic nicety.Now, isn't singing the National Anthem similar diplomatic protocol and not singing or (even mouthing the words as Redwood did with the Welsh anthem) going to alienate a potential voters of patriotic Brits over something that is simply symbolic and with no real importance.He has accepted a place in the Privy Council but i believe that comes with the job and he has already taken the oath of allegience when he became MP.Storm in teacupAs a disclaimer, i have to stand up for the Kings National Anthem here, every time i go to the movie…(or exit the theatre while its played which i rarely do unless it coincides with a need for a pee.Anyway on Rembrance Sunday the press will be out in droves to see what colour of poppy he will wear…red or white or both. 

[moderator1]

twc wrote:

I request moderator1 to move my post #512 (which was a reply to an earlier post) to become the start of a new topic, under General Discussion, called Socialists Outside the Socialist Party.

Please note because I've already issued you with a 1st Warning if I was to do what you suggest and delete #512 this would cause a disconnect in the thread.  In light of this I suggest you copy and paste #512 to the new thread "SPGBers- Socialists – Non-Socialists and Anti-socialists"  which in my estimate covers what you wish to discuss.

[ALB]

As expected the media are really going for him and MacDonnell with guns blazing, The front page of today's Times calls him a "bigot" for not singing the national dirge under a picture showing various members of the Establishment entoning this bigot song.Inside there's an even worse example of bigotry in an article by a certain Oliver Kamm denouncing him for having worn a white as well as/or instead of a red poppy. Declaring "the pacifism symbolised by white poppies is offensive", he justifies this offensive remark as follows:

Quote:

The white poppy was conceived in the 1930s by the Co-operative Women's Guild and adopted in 1936 by a pacifist organisation, the Peace Pledge Union (PPU). The PPU still exists and sells the poppies as "a symbol of grief for all people of all nationalities, armed forces and civilians alike, who are victims of war".Let's be clear. The armed forces of Nazi Germany were not victims of war. They were aggressors. The red poppies sold in aid of the Royal British Legion are not only signs of remembrance: they are an expression of gratitude for those who took up arms against genocidal despotism. The message of the white-poppy campaign is that Britain's servicemen and women were wrong then and are wrong now. That's what pacifism is. And that's why it's offensive as well as ignorant to treat red and white poppies as complementary.

I don't think that's the message of the white poppy. What it is is clearly stated in the passage the bigot quotes. And only a bigot couldn't care a fig for people from the "enemy" country who get killed. It's almost the definition of one.We know lots of journalists are scumbags, this one in particular.

[imposs1904]

ALB wrote:

As expected the media are really going for him and MacDonnell with guns blazing, The front page of today's Times calls him a "bigot" for not singing the national dirge under a picture showing various members of the Establishment entoning this bigot song.Inside there's an even worse example of bigotry in an article by a certain Oliver Kamm denouncing him for having worn a white as well as/or instead of a red poppy. Declaring "the pacifism symbolised by white poppies is offensive", he justifies this offensive remark as follows:

Quote:

The white poppy was conceived in the 1930s by the Co-operative Women's Guild and adopted in 1936 by a pacifist organisation, the Peace Pledge Union (PPU). The PPU still exists and sells the poppies as "a symbol of grief for all people of all nationalities, armed forces and civilians alike, who are victims of war".Let's be clear. The armed forces of Nazi Germany were not victims of war. They were aggressors. The red poppies sold in aid of the Royal British Legion are not only signs of remembrance: they are an expression of gratitude for those who took up arms against genocidal despotism. The message of the white-poppy campaign is that Britain's servicemen and women were wrong then and are wrong now. That's what pacifism is. And that's why it's offensive as well as ignorant to treat red and white poppies as complementary.

I don't think that's the message of the white poppy. What it is is clearly stated in the passage the bigot quotes. And only a bigot couldn't care a fig for people from the "enemy" country who get killed. It's almost the definition of one.We know lots of journalists are scumbags, this one in particular.

 On the matter of the poppy industry – and its use in propagating ruling class ideas – 'Ivan' wrote an excellent article in the Socialist Standardin 1973 on that subject:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/07/day-of-remembrance-for-what-1973.html

[SocialistPunk]

Post deleted (by me) and moved to the thread "How to disagree".

[Author]

Posts