Labour MPs revolt against Corbyn
- This topic has 116 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If this were printed media the editor would have stepped in and declared this (tedious) subject closed.Do we really need to hear the "C" word any more?
At least it's a thread about something going on in the real world not revolving around some obsession of someone or other.
ALB said:
Quote:At least it's a thread about something going on in the real world not revolving around some obsession of someone or other.You took the words right out of my mouth. :)If any members of the real world should stray onto this forum, it would look a lot better if it seems like the SP is engaged with the 21 century.
Meel wrote:ALB wroteQuote:My (conspiracy) theory as to why the ruling class, echoed by their media, are so hostile to Corbyn is that he is against Britain having nuclear weapons and being part of NATO.Not a bad (conspiracy) theory; you’re probably correct. (I made a similar point in my post #80.)I disagree that this should be a “side show” for the SP, for a couple of reasons. The first is that this topic is currently one that currently engages the man and woman in street; walk into any pub and the patrons will have an opinion on the Corbyn question – much more so than more or less obscure thinkers from the 19th century (not that these discussions don’t have their place, not least the man himself, Marx – but you get my drift.)Secondly, because the democratic process is so central to what the SP stands for. If the SP ignores threats to democracy – especially the way it is blatantly and openly carried out for all to see over today’s social media – they are close to “sinning” against this famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemoeller:First they came for the CommunistsAnd I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for meIn other words, if democracy is being subverted, the SP should have an opinion on it, and speak out on behalf of those whose democratic rights are being threatened.Meel
Sorry YMS, this was what I was responding to when I said we needn't sympathise with persecuted Labour party members or leaders.
jondwhite wrote:Sorry YMS, this was what I was responding to when I said we needn't sympathise with persecuted Labour party members or leaders.Ah, well, yes, and you're right, we don't need to defend the democratic rights of Labour Party members, what we can say is how this shows the contempt for democracy in the Labour party higher echelons, bunch of wanna be stalinists and fixers. On the otehr hand, s with Corbyn appointing Chakrobati, refusing to return to an Elected Shadow Cabinet, relying on the Leaders' office to ram through his policies, it shows how the Labour left is not much better.
Whether you sympathise with Corbyn or not is by the by.The SP is very strong on the principle of the parliamentary road to socialism.It should therefore speak up wherever and whenever the principle of free and fair elections is undermined; whether or not they agree with the likely outcome of the election and whether or not they think the outcome is going to make a difference to workers. (Obviously, the fact that the likely outcome is not going to make a difference to workers can be pointed out at the same time.)This was my point. I thought I had made it clearly. It seems I have to feed my points of view in with teaspoons.Also, this subversion of democracy is happening right here, in our back yard, which is all the more reason for the SP to speak out on the importance of fair elections.Presumably, in a socialist society, there may be elections where you think your opinion may lose. Are you therefore going to be totally disinterested in whether it is carried out fairly?
Meel wrote:Whether you sympathise with Corbyn or not is by the by.The SP is very strong on the principle of the parliamentary road to socialism.It should therefore speak up wherever and whenever the principle of free and fair elections is undermined; whether or not they agree with the likely outcome of the election and whether or not they think the outcome is going to make a difference to workers. (Obviously, the fact that the likely outcome is not going to make a difference to workers can be pointed out at the same time.)Also, this subversion of democracy is happening right here, in our back yard, which is all the more reason for the SP to speak out on the importance of fair elections.Presumably, in a socialist society, there may be elections where you think your opinion may lose. Are you therefore going to be totally disinterested in whether it is carried out fairly?Of course we should speak up when there is subervsion of democracy, but the Labour Party is not an example of a democratic organisation, othwerwise it wouldn't appoint leaders–the organisation is already subversed. It is not happening "in our back yard", but in Labour's. Because the Labour Party is a party of capitalism, they have tended to pick up that society's bad habits.Where is the subversion of democracy in the electoral system, which is supposed to hamper our parliamentary road to socialism? The principle of free and fair elections is not undermined, however the opportunities to put the socialist case are severely limited, because capitalist parties (including Labour) hijack elections for their own interests, and make it virtually impossible for dissenting, socialist, voices to be heard.
rodmanlewis said:
Quote:Where is the subversion of democracy in the electoral system, which is supposed to hamper our parliamentary road to socialism?At the moment you are perhaps correct, as long as the only thing that happens in an election is the see-sawing between Tory and Labour. If there was growth of revolutionary consciousness, and this was reflected in increasing support for (proper) socialist policies at election time, there might be a temptation to interfere with the process. That’s why I think that the SP ought to be on the side of fostering respect for fair elections at all times, in all groups and in all parties – to help to settle this concept in the minds of the population.Anyway, there’s a good analysis in this month’s Socialist Standard of the Momentum/Corbyn situation (good cover, too):https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1345-september-2016/lack-momentum
Meel wrote:rodmanlewis said:Quote:Where is the subversion of democracy in the electoral system, which is supposed to hamper our parliamentary road to socialism?At the moment you are perhaps correct, as long as the only thing that happens in an election is the see-sawing between Tory and Labour. If there was growth of revolutionary consciousness, and this was reflected in increasing support for (proper) socialist policies at election time, there might be a temptation to interfere with the process. That’s why I think that the SP ought to be on the side of fostering respect for fair elections at all times, in all groups and in all parties – to help to settle this concept in the minds of the population.
Who are these groups and parties that we should be offering our support to regarding "fostering respect for fair elections at all times"? "Fair elections" don't occur under capitalism. All political parties which have leaders can be ruled out. True, in the UK we have one-person-one-vote, but it's not an informed vote. Workers only get to hear the case for continuing to support capitalism. Our socialist voice is swamped out. While the socialist voice is a small one, workers will continue to support capitalism, regardless of whether we support the current electoral system or not.If the capitalist state, sensing a socialist victory, decides to impose martial law they may try to do it if they think they can get away with it. No amount of "support" for the current voting system will change that.
I thought Question Time tonight was revealing about the relative popularity of the two candidateshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MnSxcKrLKY
Does anyone ever question why the support for supposedly political campaigns such as for Owen Smith, evaporate following unsuccessful campaigns to elect an individual? In particular those publicly visible people photographed as supporters at rallies? Does anyone deride the impression that participation is standing quietly behind the candidate at a rally?
jondwhite wrote:Does anyone ever question why the support for supposedly political campaigns such as for Owen Smith, evaporate following unsuccessful campaigns to elect an individual? In particular those publicly visible people photographed as supporters at rallies? Does anyone deride the impression that participation is standing quietly behind the candidate at a rally?These people are desperate to be led, so they will be prepared to take "second best" in that department. They are unable to think for themselves, so they require someone else to do that for them. This poses the question: "In a political party who formulates its policies, the leader or the members?"People who require leadership should have leadership thrust upon them, rather than choosing it.
rodmanlewis wrote:jondwhite wrote:Does anyone ever question why the support for supposedly political campaigns such as for Owen Smith, evaporate following unsuccessful campaigns to elect an individual? In particular those publicly visible people photographed as supporters at rallies? Does anyone deride the impression that participation is standing quietly behind the candidate at a rally?These people are desperate to be led, so they will be prepared to take "second best" in that department. They are unable to think for themselves, so they require someone else to do that for them. This poses the question: "In a political party who formulates its policies, the leader or the members?"People who require leadership should have leadership thrust upon them, rather than choosing it.
More often it's the case and something of a paradox, particularly in bourgeois liberal democracies, that leaders follow public opinion because that is, after all, what is likely to get them elected to office. Whether or not the leaders are able to carry out those policies is a different matter entirely It is then, and examples are manifold, that disenchantment with that particular leader sets in. This is why those who possess a rudimentary understanding of how capitalism works are able to predict the whole boringly repetitive process with such uncanny accuracy. It really is quite amazing that more people don't cotton on…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.