Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?
- This topic has 621 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:No evidence whatever of this 'dissuasion' at the Kent Miners' Festival today. Four copies of the September Standard sold (besides other literature) and several amicable conversations held on the Corbyn 'phenomenon'.
Our experience (and sales) in Carshalton was similar. People did want to talk about the Corbyn phenomenon, even the Tories on the stall next to ours. Met one former Labour member who signed up and paid his £3 to vote for him (even though he'd voted Green at the general election, but we're not telling). Others seemed to expect us to support him. Green Party members were rather sceptical.
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.
I think what you say should be clearly noted, Imposs, although some of us have had their suspicioins that a change in consciousness (to the better) since Occupy has been taking place, particularly in the language being used if that can in any way be a guide of reflecting peoples ideas Perhaps some Home County members may feel i am harking on about nothing but when i was in Scotland for the referendum, able to see things from a different perspective because of an extended absence, there was political debate and discussion that surprised me. Politics had once more become something to exchange personal opinions and views and not merely to parrot the sound-bites of the media. As you say, Imposs, the Corbyn campaign caught everyone unawares because although on the surface the subject is different, the essence is the same…a search for change and an alternative. People are delving into the basics once more. People are aware they have been hood-winked in the past, and perhaps that is why they are polling high on the quality of candidates…their honesty, sincerity and integrity. Did not the same sort of appreciation of SNP's Nicola Sturgeon strike a similar chord in the general election debates? It is a worldwide phenomenon as seen in Sanders, Podemos, Syriza and elsewhere. But also we cannot ignore that political frustration can easily lead to the rise of the right..Hungary..French National Front…even social democrat Sweden are showing a right-wing swing. I think in the Communist Manifesto it does not really talk about socialists being leaders but it does say we push our fellow workers forward. I think we have to take the motivation behind the support for Corbyn and say …why settle for less…go further, you have come this far, don't stop now , don't accept even Corbyn's self-imposed limits…Brand argued we could actually take the big leap…revolution…We must say…this is the type of revolution it is to be…..And this is how we will we make it…The positive message Vin and SP and Gnome all agree that should be centre-piece in out campaignWe can approach Corbyn supporters positvely by concentrating our campaign on what is possible…and we cannot avoid but highlight the short-comings of Corbyn's own political career as Labour Party politician, albeit a dissident one. We have to take apart his policies and maybe that does mean saying he is a 1970s man in some respects…(Personally i think the analogy is more 1930s with some seeking an ILP Labour Party and Corbyn as a Maxton) But once again i suggest we must have meat on the bone when we offer socialism as an alternative …a skeleton is hardly attractive …We require to present socialism as an inspiration and aspiration for today, not tomorrow.If Corbyn supporters have gone so far in rejecting New Labour, there is no reason they cannot go further, and make further advances in political thought. We need to be present at all those turnings on the road towards socialism, holding out the signposts that say – this way, not that side-track detour or that cul-de-sac.We have to help the workers make choices on thir tour of self-discovery and eventuall self-emancipation.For instance, there is a debate on how party democracy is conducted within the Labour Party, some have raised the idea of primaries within our own conception of party democracy, but have we actually had articles and leaflets that draw attention to why we do not have a leadership ffight within the SPGB…because we have no leaders…and once more highlight that as a socialist position and a Marxist one. We are addressing our fellow workers and our best advice and, yes, reproaches there must be, too, must be in a comradely fashion. To compare our criticisms of Corbyn as the same as the gutter press of the mainstream media who have conducted a shameful smear campaign is not quite accurate.But once more i direct attention to one of my earlier messages on this thread …this deserved a principled comment from the party explaining, despite our own political differences, we accuse the capitalist class of scare tactics and dirty coverage over Corbyn's attempt to become leader. (if he succeeds, we will have seen nothing like the campaign it will then embark upon to ensure he isn't elected Prime Minister)
Can i recommend John Bisset's article on Clause 4 in the current issue of the Standardhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1333-september-2015/clause-four-resurfacesWell worth adapting into a leaflet to distribute to Corbyn's supporters and at other left-wing events.John's approach uses historical facts presented from a socialist perspective to undermine Corbyn and left labourites using little rancour and reserves his vituperative descriptions for those who deserved it …even if they themselves and history viewed them as so-called "friends" of the workers. People will reach their own intelligent conclusions upon reading John's article on who today's Webbs and Shaws are and we need not lead our fellow workers by the leash to such deductions.
I should have linked to this reply to my letter to the Islington Tribune before: http://www.islingtontribune.com/letters/2015/aug/letters%E2%80%88corbyn-and-ghost-harold-wilsonAs I sort of suspected, some people might like the idea of going back to harold Wilson:
Quote:I’m probably one of the youngest in Islington to remember his reference to Harold Wilson, and miss Wilson’s grasp of facts and reality, including decolonisation, and keeping out of foreign wars.Some people support him because he is going back to the 1970's
ALB wrote:I don't care who else is saying that Corbyn wants to go back to the 70s or why because it's true.Well he denies it. Was this in the Socialist Standard? If not then why was it left out? "I have never favoured the remote nationalised model that prevailed in the post-war era. Like a majority of the population and a majority of even Tory voters, I want the railways back in public ownership. But public control should mean just that, not simply state control: so we should have passengers, rail workers and government too, co-operatively running the railways to ensure they are run in our interests and not for private profit."Corbynhttps://www.thenews.coop/96639/news/co-operatives/labour-leader-candidates-debate-co-operation/
That's not denying that he wants to try to relaunch the economy by increasing government spending (via his neo-leynesian "People's QE") as was the prevailing view prior to the 1980s. In fact, it's got nothing to do with it.
That's not denying going back to the 1970's and government regulation, investment plans, etc. that's one specific policy (which is the 1940's policy, anyway).
steve colborn wrote:The problem is Adam, that the Front cover of this months Standard, probably dissuades some from looking at the "sweetmeats" inside. Gnome tells us;No evidence whatever of this 'dissuasion' at the Kent Miners' Festival today. Four copies of the September Standard sold (besides other literature) and several amicable conversations held on the Corbyn 'phenomenon'. Luckily, not all workers are taken in by the radical sounding rhetoric of these new pretenders.So thats 4 September Standards plus, several (several could mean as little as 3/4) amicable conversations on the Corbyn 'penomenon'. Not nearly enough for a representative survey is it Gnome?But you are missing the point I, along with others are trying to make. Personally, I could'nt give a flying fuck about Corbyn, I see him as another cul-de-sac that only results in workers being lead up a blind alley! No, its those he is enthusing, enthusing in their thousands that I and others are concerned with. Even the possibility that these enthused individuals (a lot of them young people) could be put off our message, before they even get to read it, by what, to some of us, is a snide attack on Corbyn, is saddening and depressing.There "are" good articles inside but unless one is a member already, of The Socialist Party, these young members of our class could be put off by a seeming attack on someone they see as offering something different. Why could'nt the front page have been "less" confrontatory? Remember, we are'nt talking about fully politically aware Socialists here. But no, give them both barrels, before we even "get them into range"! Very astute thinking Dr Venkman.
Vin can you perhaps refer me to a fuller description of the Corbyn model. A brief google led me to this nationalisation proposal of his, another version of your own quote but with a little extra“I would want the public ownership of the gas and the National Grid . . .I would personally wish that the big six were under public control, or public ownership in some form.” He explained: “You can do it by majority shareholding; you can do it by increased share sales, which are then bought by the government in order to give a controlling interest.”He also told the Financial Times (£) that under his vision, central government wouldn’t be in control of power supply. Rather, he said: “With a national investment bank, new infrastructure — like energy — should be publicly owned, whether that’s at community, municipal or national level.”I simply confused here. Is it back to the 1890s with the town council owning the local gas-works? …Or is he proposing every few streets have solar panels on the roofs under their community control and sell any surplus to the National Grid. I'm lost here. If he is saying it is up to the people to decide, then just where is his plans for us to make these decisions. It all seems rather top-to-bottom democracy, not so radical, at all.As a ex-postie i am well experienced at all the various different pre-privatision management structures they contruct as camoflage…but effectively "workers" nor the "public" nor the "business users" of the service had any say. Royal Mail knows about so called government share-holding when it was a public corporation…and they still had me sweating and toiling (slight personal exaggeration there)http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/08/07/jeremy-corbyn-interview-nationalise-the-big-six-a-solar-panel-on-every-rooftop-clean-coal/http://labourlist.org/2015/08/jeremy-corbyn-i-support-taking-the-big-six-energy-companies-into-public-control/He also neglects to say what compensation will be paid to the owners from the profits of re-nationalised industries. Plus he is advocating back to coal so i wonder why the Greens support him.How is it I keep getting the feeling i'm watching the three card shuffle to find the queen…We should be submitting Corbyn to a rigourous interrogation
steve colborn wrote:Personally, I could'nt give a flying fuck about Corbyn, I see him as another cul-de-sac that only results in workers being lead up a blind alley!I think you're being a bit over-protective of his supporters. People out there understand perfectly well Private Eye type covers are meant as amusing caricatures. I think he might prefer to be caricatured as a Back-to-the-70s-er than called a "cul de sac ". In fact, that's another charge his critics within the Labour Party are making. Here's Frank Field:
Quote:One only has to read the findings of Jon Cruddas’s research on the movement of voters away from Labour at the election to realise that Corbyn will be leading Labour into a political cul-de-sac.And here's another (anonymous) Labour MP:
Quote:“Unite have nailed their colors to the mast. They want to take the Labour Party down a Corbyn cul-de-sac."If you want more just type "Corbyn" + "cul de sac" into a search engine.Imgine the reaction of the critics here if the bubble on the front cover had said "Follow me down a cul de sac".
Just goes to show the old aphorism is correct, the one about leading a horse to water!I'm not being overly protective of "his supporters" at all, nor should we presuppose they are "supporters" but after years of austerity, these workers are "looking around for an answer".Nor would I use images of cul-de-sacs, any more than use the front cover we did, in fact, use!If one were running a cake shop, one wouldn't make a cake in the shape of a turd. No matter the dilicacy awaiting consumption on the inside, I'm betting there would be few, if any, takers.Thats the message I'm trying to get across!!! Not that we should be soft on Corbyn but that we should at least be circumspect with those that see something in "an alternative". At least, that is, until we get them in range of our "intellectual guns" so to speak, then give them both barrels and if gnome and yourself like, the odd pineapple too.Its about "method" and the delivery system of said message. Oh look mam, there's a cake shop, can I have one of those that look like a turd!!!!
I don't think members are getting the point being made hereMemeber 1. "We need a different approach, some people are closer to socialism than others" Member2 "All non members are our enemies.. Go play with your anti working class friends, Brown noser, Corbynites, Brandites!"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.