Labour MPs revolt against Corbyn
- This topic has 116 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[/quote]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…[/quote]It is said that power corrupts, but does the process begin before that? Does the lust for power blinker one's view of the world? Why would a 67-year-old man want to get into power–presumably he wants to be prime minister–when others of his age are considering retirement and spending time in their local? He'll be 71 come the next general election. He'll be expected to work ungodly hours; attend conferences all over the world; deal with affairs of state; make decisions on defence etc. Does he believe in what he is doing in reforming capitalism, regardless of the historical evidence to the contrary? The pay's not particularly good by capitalism's standards, so is the guy just full of his own importance?Is there something wrong with our theory of society which fails to explain why more [workers] don't cotton on?
rodmanlewis wrote:gnome wrote: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…Why would a 67-year-old man want to get into power–presumably he wants to be prime minister–when others of his age are considering retirement and spending time in their local? He'll be 71 come the next general election.
What's so special about Corbyn? There have been no shortage of aspiring leaders of his age and older. Hillary Clinton (68) and Donald Trump (70) are two examples.
HollyHead wrote:"Power is a great aphrodisiac" (Henry Kissinger) Perhaps it's the sex they're after?What does that say about people who join the SPGB?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:HollyHead wrote:"Power is a great aphrodisiac" (Henry Kissinger) Perhaps it's the sex they're after?What does that say about people who join the SPGB?
They are so stressed out gaining the politcal power they require a group hug and some sexual cohesion?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:See you at ADM handsomeI thought it was the Young Conservatives who went in for match making!
rodmanlewis wrote:Is there something wrong with our theory of society which fails to explain why more [workers] don't cotton on?There is nothing wrong with our theory of society.The capitalist class owns and controls the means of production.The working class neither owns nor controls the means of production.As a result, the working class lives by producing wealth for the capitalist class.The working class accepts the necessity of its dependence upon the capitalist class for permission to work for it, to get wages from it, and to buy means of consumption from it in order to live.The working class rationally resigns itself to continuous exploitation under capitalism as a tamed dog rationally continues serving its master to survive off its master’s scraps.But such correctly conceived objective appearance is not the essence of the matter.Appearance is what must be analyzed. It is what must be explained. It is what demands comprehension.“All science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided”—Marx Capital Vol. 3, Ch. 48 [this is the fabulous Trinity Formula chapter that reveals Marx’s materialism at its most sublime].Biological intelligence would be superfluous—a mere spandrel of half-a-billion years of misdirected multicellular evolution—if it did not serve fitness, if it did not endow organisms with the necessary rationality, no matter how crude, to analyse appearance and synthesise necessity in the world they must struggle in and against.Human consciousness—our socially accumulative intelligence—has helped us comprehend and solve, to our rational satisfaction, countless problems.But human consciousness fails to comprehend and solve, to the rational satisfaction of worker and capitalist alike, a single problem that arises out of class ownership of the essentials of social life.Comprehension of the social implications of class ownership and their solution are what Marx’s Capital achieved. The Marxian solution is inscribed in our Party’s Object and Declaration of Principles, dating from 1904.Our Party openly lays bare to the world its Object and Declaration of Principles for rational comprehension by all.Any other conception of how to solve the problems inherent in class ownership, or to achieve World Socialism other than by rational comprehension of the social implications of class ownership of the means of life, misconceives the systemic nature of capitalism’s fundamental social problem, and is neither comprehension of it nor solution to it, but an obstacle to its very solution.Unfortunately, scientific rationality, must be comprehended. It cannot be forced. It takes time, and it means continued socialist education…
The return of the war criminal to lead the workers against the Tories?http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-esquire-interview-read-hints-return-politics-jeremy-corbyn-a7349621.htmlBut the way the media has been treating his wisdom and pronouncements, did he ever leave UK politics?Perhaps making another UK prime ministerial career is another reason he has closed down his commercial businesses…sweeping the damning evidence of his relationships with dictators under the carpet.
I have a friend who has started collecting ephemera from these odd campaigns: yvette Cooper oven gloves, Owen Smith mug etc. His only problem is that the campaign will evaporate before the corporate crap is produced (he had to threaten a letter to his local trading standards to get his Angela Eagle t-shirt)
The latest rat to leave the sinking ship is Tristram Hunt, author of a hostile biography of Frederick Engels. He is leaving parliament to take a higher paid job as head of the Victoria and Albert Museum. In doing so he shows two things.First, that many Labour MPs are just careerists. With Labour doomed to lose the next General Election there's no chance of any of them becoming a government Minister until at least 2025, i.e. for at least 8 years. Those who can change career — and as an academic Hunt can — are doing so. The rest are going to have to stick it out. But even without a minister's salary the money's not that bad..Second, at least he practises what he preaches. Under the headline ‘We’re furiously pro-business, Labour MP tells private sector’, the Times (9 February 2015) reported him as saying:
Quote:I’m enormously enthusiastic about businessmen and women making money, delivering shareholder return, about making profit.And historians.
It is only to be expected that Labour has its share of (h)unts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.