SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
MaxBut what we're talking about now is not just criticism, it's a campaign of directed attack against Corbyn, that will likely produce few if any positive results. So what's the point? I've already suggested a couple of simple questions should be asked befroe any sustained campaigning is undertaken. The main one being, what is the aim of the campaign? Or to put it in even simpler terms, what do you hope to achieve? The answer should be, to connect in a positive way with as many people as possible.Such a basic question should lead on to another, who are we more likely to connect with? Is it with, racists, homophobes and all manner of conservative bigots? Or with those who oppose such attitudes, the ones who already share similar outlooks to us? I know that's a tricky one.Whatever it is the SPGB are doing now, it isn't working. It's that simple.The reality is that the likes of Brand and Corbyn are tapping into a growing swell of disillusionment with mainstream politics. It's not about the personalities, it's about those they attract.Think of it this way, if the SPGB can't get the attention of our fellow disilusioned and pissed of workers now, in this current economic environment, just think of what It will be like when capitalism moves into an up phase.
ALB,I know you attack the Tories as well, but I haven't seen anything so sustained as the current anti-Corbyn mania.Where is the sustained attack towards IDS and his welfare policies that have probably led to numerous deaths in Britain. Surely he is worthy of more hostility than Corbyn?I suspect the hostility displayed towards the likes of Brand and Corbyn, is that they've managed to tap into the growing pool of disilusionment with mainstream politics, whereas the SPGB haven't.
Perhaps instead of a campaign against the likes of Corbyn, whoever came up with the anti-Corbyn visuals could do something similar to press home the reasons for the current migration crisis.Perhaps some hard hitting images with facts linking the causes to the effects. Care would need to be taken not to exploit the recent tragedy of the drowned children, or the lorry load of dead men, women and children found in Austria. Weapons are being sold to all sides in these conflicts, so some people are getting rich while desperate people flee their homes in search of safety, only to die cruely in foreign lands.
Just been looking at Derek Wall's Twitter conversations about the SPGB. What strikes me is the view that the SPGB do nothing else but have a go at the "left".Seems it's the same old SPGB vs "the left" now on digital social media. Someone once said something about history repeating itself?Seems the battle with the "left" will go on and on, while the "right" laugh their socks off at our futility, all the while continuing getting rich at our expense.Here's an outrageous suggestion, why not leave the "left" alone for a change and conduct a sustained campaign against some "right wing" aspect of capitalism (there's plenty to choose from) and see what response you get. Might get a surprise. Maybe even get a nod from the "left", that in turn might allow possible helpful dialogue to be exchanged.Or continue to lock horns with the "left" as usual.
Maybe this should be on the negative/positive campaign thread, but hey, this one is getting more interest so here I go.Someone wrote that having a go at the "right wing" and government is futile since it is self evident. But is it. This government are very hostile to our class, and there are a few rather unpleasant individuals in power right now.You gotta ask who is our intended audience? Do we expect rich "right wing" Tory supporters to muster under our banner of world socialist revolution? No! They never will.The more fertile audience are those people who are drawn to the "left wing". There are more people on the "left" who share similar humane values to us than there are on the "right".Does attacking figures on the left who are making waves seem like a good move? Remember I pointed out some research that suggested political ad campaigns only appeal to those already fixed in their opinion. If that is the case then waging an openly hostile campaign against him will more likely turn away the very people who are more open to our ideas.We need to be smart when it comes to propaganda.To summarize. Is the openly hostile attack campaign for the benefit of Corbyn's detractors, or those who he has enthused? If it's for his detractors, then it's a waste of time. If it's aimed at those who are enthused with the potential for change, then reactionary attack is the wrong approach.The choice is simple. Stay small or aim to become strong.
AlanI'm well aware of your articles on SOYMB. I also know that discussion does not take place there, though I don't know why. That's why I suggested you start a specific thread here, to encourage discussion on a discussion forum.Yes, omission can be negative. Like you, I think the SPGB miss a trick or two when it comes to connecting with grass roots, for want of a better phrase, protest movements. The word, aloof, is appropriate, and I think it is why the WSM movement get left behind every time. Instead of complaining about reformists not seeing the light and joining us, we (and I include myself in with the SPGB) need to be out there, a part of those movements. It's the only way to connect with people who are starting their journey to enlightenment.Instead of attacking, we need to be drawing people in. I'm filled with hope that there are people in the SPGB who can see that change is long overdue. We owe it to ourselves and our class as a whole.
I like it.It's challenging without being sarcastic.It's not just having a dig, it's potentialy inviting. It has a purpose.
Regarding negative and positive campaigning, two questions spring to mind.1) What is the aim of the campaign?2) What constitutes negative and positive, when it comes to SPGB campaigns? Any others?
Alan,I notice on the first page list in general discussion you have discussion titles "Ursula Le Guin on Muray Bookchin", "The rise of RISE", "Muslim McCarthyism on the theatre stage", "Spain 1937 – Spain turns", "The Statesman and Marx" and lastly "Nasty Labour, New Labour, Old Labour".Why not set up a discussion about the desperation that drives people to risk everything in search of safety in other countries?
In the interests of balance.
Quote:Although early scholarly work on negative campaigning primarily spoke of its negative effects – it would make voters cynical about politics and stimulate voter withdrawal from the electoral process[5] – more recent work is less disapproving. The presumed negative effects of negative campaigning are often not found to exist at all, and some analysts even report positive effects. These scholars report that negative campaigning tends to be more informative than positive campaigning; that voters remember negative campaign messages better than positive campaign messages; and that negative campaigning has the potential to mobilize voters. Consequently, some of these scholars question the assumption that negative campaigning is damaging for democracy.http://nottspolitics.org/2015/05/06/negative-campaigning-does-not-need-to-be-defended/
Something else of interest.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/28/uk.conservatives2
Quote:At the same time, deep down Labour fears "going negative" may work. It is especially effective if it plays into a live issue, and resonates with what voters already feel about the person under attack.So "going negative" may only resonate with those already against the intended target.
Quote:There is a large body of academic literature on negative advertising, with some of the leading authors arguing that the practice tends to depress voter turnout. They say political consultants know this, and use negative campaigning for this very purpose.As independent voters are driven away by all the negativity, the voting public is reduced to its partisan extremes.It warrants the question. What is the hoped for outcome of waging a negative campaign against Corbyn?
I found this bit of interesting research into political advertising in the UK.
Quote:British television in 2001 had very little direct effect on voters’ images of the threemain political parties. The likely reasons for this derive, inter alia, from the filteringeffects of partisanship and from the low levels of trust that most UK voters place inthe information provided by PEBs. Second, attack PEBs in the UK can have thecounterproductive of increasing relative support for the target of the attack. Ourspeculation is that this reflects widespread public disillusion in the UK with the sort ofconfrontational politics that characterises much of the broadcast proceedings of theHouse of Commons.While it is far from conclusive proof, in the absence of any further research showing otherwise, it should be obvious to any political organisation that caution is required when considering what tactics to use against a political opponent.The paper can be found at the following link.http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/PRQ%20Impact%20of%20Political%20Advertising%202001%20final.pdf
gnome wrote: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.
GnomeI really can't believe I'm having to lead you by the hand, there there mind your step, back to what I said in post 80#. But I guess you must find it difficult to follow threads these days.
SocialistPunk wrote:I was thinking. If Corbyn is successful in winning the Labour leadership, all that will be achieved is a further distraction from revolutionary thinking, as our class will once again be led down a blind alley of mainstream reformist promises, as Labour attempt to retake the "left" by jumping on the anti austerity band wagon.I'm probably stating the obvious?And if you really think that Russell Brand is as bad as Nigel Farage and Ian Duncan Smith, then you are truly lost.
Russell Brand wrote:"….what I think revolution really means, and what it literally does mean, is a change of power not using the conventional means of power. We're gonna have to come together in a different way to create that change."I suppose like the proverbial ostrich, you have proved the research first brought to attention by DJP that I refer to in post 252#.But hey, don't worry, you sell a few Standards now and then, yet the party membership is at an all time low.
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.
