Tories for Corbyn
- This topic has 18 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Teh Tories are going mad, the open primary system for Labour lets them sign up to vote: apparently they think Jeremy Corbyn winning would mean he end of Labour.
Now, obviously, I've met him. He's a nice man, a very effective speaker and debater, and unfailingly curteous. But, despite being known for being on the Labour left, he's hardly the most radical beast on the block: lets look at his website:
Quote:Our timeless task in the Labour Party is to stand up against injustice wherever we find it. That notion has driven me throughout my political life – and it's what drove me to stand for Parliament in the first place.He has said that the 2015 Labour manifesto was quite good, and he said little in the hustings to go beyond it.
The only radical thing is his call to turn his nomination into a 'grassroots movement' and his lack of specific policies.
Here is where you can become a registered supporter for £3https://supporters.labour.org.uk/leadership/1and an explanation herehttp://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/how-to-vote-for-our-next-leader-and-deputy-leaderIt is quite mad for any Tories to assume open primaries are a backdoor for trolls.In fact this seems to a story being run by the well-known Tory paper the Telegraph (aka the Torygraph) and ITV News.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11680098/Why-are-so-many-Tories-joining-Labour-after-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-announcement.htmlThe implicit lesson is that open primaries are vulnerable to manipulation and Tories are shrewd.In fact the Tories have used open primaries to select some Parliamentary candidates.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_%28UK%29_parliamentary_primariesAny party claiming to stand for workers interests ought to use open primaries.
Oh, no, like some Labourite opposed to them, I agre they conravene Freedom of association: we've come together as activist, to pick and control our candidate. Open primaries are a way to disarm organised mass parties in favour of indvidual candidates.Jeremy was very upset when I mentioned our policy of our delegates voting as instructed: he prides himself on his rebelliousness.
Self-appointed activists are for anarchists.As in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race, sex or party membership.this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself not a party.All political parties are but the expression of class interests, nothing more..Socialists have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat.We are not electing candidates to privileged positions within the party and open primaries are a good indication something is not a cult.
And the way we do that is through standing in open elections, primaries are used in the states as a means of holding de facto french style run off elections so the final choice is two candidates. Different stripes of workers party can stand for election and we can contest for the votes of the workers, but Socialist Party members should control their own political activity, and our aim should be to draw workers is to become party members so the party is in effect the class.
Primaries might not be the best term if that implies run-off.I don't think anyone is suggesting party members shouldn't control their own political activity, but where elections of members take place to hold party positions, they should be open to non-members to have a vote but not contest themselves.I think the word for the party becoming the class is 'substitutionist'.
No, substitutionist is where the party acts as if it is the class, or on behalf of what it considers to be the class' real intentions. Where the party is millions strong and is comprised of the majority of the class (opr of the politically active parts of the class) the class becomes the party.And, in particular, our choice of candidate is a technical matter, not a policy matter, our delegates will vote as instructed…
In 1986, 19 million workers were members of the old CPSU. Did the working-class in the Soviet Union become the CPSU? Or did the 85 million plus Chinese workers in the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 2013 mean the class became the party. Any principled party cannot encompass millions without serious disagreement or being substitutionist..
Yes, a mass movement will have serious disagrements within it: and those figures for membership in the SU and China hardly represent any sort of majority in the class (and also occurred under mobilisde dictatorships). A free movement of freely associating workrs is the goal, and that means rival parties, rather than the empty democracy of open primaries.
The abolition of class antagonisms is one goal and that will require a party aimed at capturing political power for this end and firmly under control by the class not just its self-selecting membership. Socialists have no interests separate and apart from those of the working-class and this means open primaries.
jondwhite wrote:Socialists have no interests separate and apart from those of the working-class and this means open primaries.That dosn't follow. Open elections do the same job, if any group of workers have a different policy idea, they can have their own party: much clearer and much more democratic.
And also contrary to Marx's instruction, the Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
Oh, well, he's dead, so he doesn't get a vote. Anyway, that phrase has been much disputed, it doesn't necessarily refer to the bureaucratic form or structure of an association, but to the general interests of the class in the class struggle, communists do not form a distinct interest/party but are part and parcel of the interest of the working class. In any case, whatever Charlie's theoretical contributions, tactical matters remain open to us alone and not ghosts.
Reminder: 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.
Here's another article about Tories 4 Corbynhttp://www.capx.co/tories4jeremycorbyn-could-be-britains-fastest-growing-political-movement/
Quote:Still, putting Corbyn on the ballot paper does have one unintended consequence, which is amusing the Conservatives greatly. Suddenly, there is great interest from senior Tories in helping Labour to elect Corbyn, because they think, rightly, that it would equal oblivion for Labour and a generation of Tory rule.There is a practical way Tory voters can help, the Conservatives have realised. For just £3 anyone can sign up as a Labour supporter and a get a vote in the party’s leadership contest. On Twitter, Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, has already described getting the chance to help make the completely unelectable Jeremy Corbyn Labour leader as a notable bargain.This Tories4JeremyCorbyn movement could take off. How long before someone establishes a website and Twitter account explaining how Tory voters can win it for Jeremy?I think it makes the Tories look stupid to be honest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.