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
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think many endorsed DJP's earlier contribution that we should not go for the player but play the ball.But at times i think there is a good case of shooting the messenger, IDS being one such person deserving of personal attack, in that he launches many such character assassinations himself against claimants. One of the regular columns i very much appreciate is Greasy Pole and its personification of capitalist politics as expressed by Ivan. (Like Tony Blair, IDS was born in Edinburgh, so i think a few Weegies can also be free with their invective)Even the capitalist legal system admits various levels culpability in crime and motives can be a mitigating factor in the sentencing. Our resources are limited so we must be nuanced in their deployment and make sure our criticisms and campaigns are used to best effect.
Better to be noticed for giving loathsome politicians in positions of power (power to destroy lives) like IDS a good savaging than someone like Corbyn who hasn't been put to the test yet. The Greasy Pole is more often than not an eye opening read. Surely it could be followed up with a ruthless publicity campaign now and then. Sooner or later such an approach would get the SPGB noticed. Unless the SPGB don't want to draw the attention of the establishment?
Why do we criticise Corbyn by attacking clause 4 when Corbyn's criticism of the old clause 4 is the very same criticism we make of it. It makes us seem like a stuck repetative record
Vin wrote:Corbyn's criticism of the old clause 4 is the very same criticism we make of it.We criticise Clause 4 because it includes "of exchange" which implies the existence of markets, banks, etc. I don't think that's his criticism. In fact I don't think he would criticise its wording at all. His criticism would be of the way the term "common ownership" was interpreted by previous Labour governments who provided for the state-owned industries to be run by state-appointed boards while he wants there to be some sort of "workers control" of them. Not at all "the very same criticism".
Didnt have time to amend, you pretty fastMy point is he criticises the old nationalisation and I don't think we take it into account. He does not mention 'exchange'
"I believe in public ownership, but 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."This has been used against my criticism of a return to old labour. Corbyn -they say – is not suggesting the same thing so we cannot use the same knee jerk response. We have to criticise his form of 'common ownership' and recognise it is not the same as Stalin's.Or we will look stupid. There is also the fact that he wishes to put the party's questions to the opposition not his own. Never heard any labour politician say that
ALB wrote:imposs1904 wrote:A Tom and Jerry front cover would be a bad idea. Please don't.It was only meant as joke (the was the clue), too tempting given the names of the Leader and Deputy Leader. I just thought I'd be the first to make it (though I got from another member). Don't worry it's not going to happen.
I assume that is the considered and democratic majority opinion of the entire Editorial Committee?
Vin wrote:We have to criticise his form of 'common ownership' and recognise it is not the same as Stalin's.Or we will look stupid.We've never said or even implied that his "form of common ownership" is the same as Stalin's (which wasn't even a form of common ownership, except by a collective exploiting class). That would make us look stupid but we've never said it was or even that "the remove nationalised model that prevailed in post-war era" was.
ALB wrote:We've never said or even implied that his "form of common ownership" is the same as Stalin's (which wasn't even a form of common ownership, except by a collective exploiting class). That would make us look stupid but we've never said it was or even that "the remove nationalised model that prevailed in post-war era" was.What? We imply it. When we say all left wingers are anti working class and therefore as bad as each other.Or is Corbyn less anti working class than Stalin? I think you may agree but does the party? If so we need to clearly state the differences. Corbyn IS more pro-working class than IDS.This implies that there is no difference between Corbyn and IDSWhich is nonsense Its like trying to get a bunch of catholics to confess lolPainful
That front cover is aimed at saying that we shouldn't rely on any politician to do anything for us (subtext: but should act for ourselves). And, anyway, textual deconstruction shows that Corbyn isn't criticised as much as the other two. Look at it again …Anyway, discussions as to whether a particular politician is sincere or not are irrelevant. It's not a question of what they want to do. It's a question of what they can do. Not even a saint can make capitalism work in the interests of the working class.We have never denied that some politicians are sincere (I'm sure Corbyn does sincerely want to improve the lot of the working class and the poor within capitalism) or that some are not (I'm equally convinced that Duncan Smith is a sanctimonious bastard), but so what? And we have always said that political democracy is important to the working class. So why this "no different from Stalin" crap?
For the past number of years i have been impressed with the covers designed by the lay-out team and i have no reason nor any wish to question them over one specific cover that may or may not be to my personal taste or reflects my own individual opinion on an issue. It will take a lot more for my trust in the talents of the Socialist Standard lay-our design team to be shaken…time to move on…Lets give them the slack they need to be imaginative and innovative.
Vin wrote:"I believe in public ownership, but 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."This has been used against my criticism of a return to old labour. Corbyn -they say – is not suggesting the same thing so we cannot use the same knee jerk response. We have to criticise his form of 'common ownership' and recognise it is not the same as Stalin's.Or we will look stupid. There is also the fact that he wishes to put the Party's questions to the opposition not his own. Never heard any labour politician say thatTo be fair though, Vin, Corbyn's "common ownership" is still an essentially statist construction except that its "not simply state control". Its still nationalisation -state capitalism – albeit with a particular Corbynite twist. Socialists can reasonably attack this but at the same time acknowlege the particularities of what he is promoting. In general, though, I agree with your position. Socialists need to be very very careful about the way in which they go about attacking Corbyn otherwise they could spoil things for themselves big time. You cannot be seen to be lumping together Corbyn and, say, Cameron as if there was absolutely no difference whatsoever between them. Thats just stupid and it would certainly do the SPGB no favours going down this road. It would just make the Party seem less credible. And it would close off completely any possibility of tapping into this surge of political consciousness and nudging it in a more positive and socialist direction Far better to acknowledge the differences and also to acknowlege the apparent intent behind the difference – so IDS for example would clearly be fully deserving of a more personalised attack (as some have argued here) rather than say Corbyn since the sentiments of the former are indeed loathsomely anti working class. But you cannot say that of the latter. He may be politically naive but his heart is in the right place at least. It would seem churlish – even foolish – to deny that. The point is that in the long run the needs of capital will prevail over the intentions of the politicians, however well intentioned, and this is what we should be focussing on and emphasising . Or, as Alan says, we should keep our eye on the ball and not the player – except perhaps for the occasional obnoxious player like IDS who is not intent on playing ball but on viciously headbutting those unfortunates who stand in his way and apparently relishing it.
Interesting statistic from a YOuGov poll reported in today's Times:
Quote:About 70,000 people who voted in the leadership election did not vote Labour in the general election. About 40,000 voted Green and 96 per cent of these Green voters backed Mr Corbyn. We estimate that the other non-Labour voters were: Liberal Democrats, 10,000; Conservatives, 3,000; Ukip, 3,000; other parties, 6,000; did not vote, 8,000.(These are voters not party members). Doesn't bode well for the Greens. Corbyn seems to being taking back from them Old Labour's clothes which they stole.
Perhaps I should have used the term 'hardliners' rather than party because I have no doubt that some claim that all capitalist politicians are the same and lumped together. I will not bother researching to prove the obvious but if my statement is incorrect perhaps I can be directed sections of this forum where 'non-socialist' receives a bit respect. I seem to remember arguing against the claim that Steve Coleman was a working class traitor ffs and indeed I myself was a threat to the socialist movement. jeez
ALB wrote:These are voters not party members). Doesn't bode well for the Greens. Corbyn seems to being taking back from them Old Labour's clothes which they stole.Then there's the SNP. They must be shaking in their boots.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.