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
-
This discussion is essentially about more than Corbyn, it's about SPGB strategy. Whether it's effective to continually hammer the "left" of politics or whether to press the attack on the existing powers that actively promote and defend capitalism.There has been economic upheaval around the globe since 2008. As usual it's our class that bears the brunt of the in built insanity of capitalism, with no end to austerity measures in sight. This should be a time when the SPGB/WSM makes its biggest gains, in terms of support/membership, as people frustrated with the status quo look for alternatives.There is plenty of evidence that alternatives are being sought after. The question should be, how does the SPGB/WSM tap into this pool of frustration.I've already said the "left" hold more in common with us lot, regarding progressive social ideas, than do the "right". Given that fact, does it make sense to attack the "left" with more venom than the "right"?I suggest the SPGB use intensive attacks on the current overtly pro-capitalist government in order that it might attract the attention of those who gravitate towards the "left", precisely because this UK government revolts them so much.
SocialistPunk wrote:This discussion is essentially about more than Corbyn, it's about SPGB strategy.The SPGB doesn't have a strategy and all attempts to adopt one have failed (eg over the name we call ourselves by). Members argue the case in their own way. Some emphasise what's wrong with capitalism; others what a nice society socialism would be. Not being a "democratic centralist" party, they can't be forced to argue the case for socialism in a way they don't want to. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's the way it is.
ALBI would suggest not having a general strategy or a way to organise appropriate responses is part of the problem with the lack of progress the SPGB has achieved in getting noticed.One thing's for sure, not having a strategy is probably a good strategy to keep a movement small.
ALB wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:This discussion is essentially about more than Corbyn, it's about SPGB strategy.The SPGB doesn't have a strategy and all attempts to adopt one have failed (eg over the name we call ourselves by). Members argue the case in their own way. Some emphasise what's wrong with capitalism; others what a nice society socialism would be. Not being a "democratic centralist" party, they can't be forced to argue the case for socialism in a way they don't want to. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's the way it is.
Actually the SPGB does have a strategy and has had ever since its inception. That strategy has been to keep alive and promote the vision of genuine socialism, against all the odds and all the pretenders, for 111 years. We've done that by publishing an extensive range of literature (which other organisation can boast continuous publication of a monthly journal for that period?), holding meetings, contesting elections, issuing press releases, having street stalls, and, more recently, a website of which to be proud.And we'll be discussing the party's future communication strategy at a special workshop which takes place on the weekend of the Autumn Delegate Meeting next month.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/workshop-key-messages-and-communication-strategy-head-office-1030amBut what of those hundreds of political parties which had their "strategies" when the SPGB allegedly didn't? Where are they now?
What is the point of agreeing a communication strategy if we ignore the outcome because "each member has their own way of putting the socialist case"? Even though the way the case is presented by some could Jeopardise and retard our growth. https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/workshop-key-messages-and-communication-strategy
To return to Corbyn, here's his message today to Daily Mirror readers:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-expose-toriesbluster-boldly-6437112including
Quote:We are back as the party standing up for working peopleBe interesting to see how this message goes down.
SocialistPunk wrote:There has been economic upheaval around the globe since 2008. As usual it's our class that bears the brunt of the in built insanity of capitalism, with no end to austerity measures in sight. This should be a time when the SPGB/WSM makes its biggest gains, in terms of support/membership, as people frustrated with the status quo look for alternatives.There is plenty of evidence that alternatives are being sought after. The question should be, how does the SPGB/WSM tap into this pool of frustration.I've already said the "left" hold more in common with us lot, regarding progressive social ideas, than do the "right". Given that fact, does it make sense to attack the "left" with more venom than the "right"?I suggest the SPGB use intensive attacks on the current overtly pro-capitalist government in order that it might attract the attention of those who gravitate towards the "left", precisely because this UK government revolts them so much.Hear hear.! I fully endorse this – which doesnt mean refraining from criticising the Left. Its a question of tone and emphasis. It is also to be noted that the heyday of the SPGB was actually when the Attlee Labour government was in power. Not that this should be interpreted as a suggestion that socialists should support Corbyn in the hope that this will swell the membership of the SPGB Of course not. Corbyn is the leader of a capitalist political party that must be opposed. The real question is HOW do we oppose him. What kind of approach do we use in opposing him. It cannot be precisely the same way in which one might oppose say IDS or Cameron. Surely no one can seriously believe that?
Interesting times. Labour leader saying that Labour is the workers' party again and Labour shadow Chancellor saying he wants to overthrow capitalism. Our kind of language. We can't miss this opportunity.
Ozymandias wrote:Global membership of WSM = 350(?)Average age of membership = 75 (?)= Atrophy…I think you have the figures the wrong way around.But seriously, if you think the Socialist Party is so doomed why waste your time posting here?
What you mean total WSM membership is only 75? Oh shit. We've been living in some form or other of private property society for some 10,000 (?) years now plus we are brainwashed from day one of life into believing this is the only way of running things and all this allied with the fact that the 1% own every possible organ of the media makes me think there's no way out of this. I can't help it.
Ozymandias wrote:Global membership of WSM = 350(?)Average age of membership = 75 (?)= Atrophy…75?Yeah, I'm still a young gun. 44 and counting.
ALB wrote:Interesting times. Labour leader saying that Labour is the workers' party again and Labour shadow Chancellor saying he wants to overthrow capitalism. Our kind of language. We can't miss this opportunity.Haven't we been here before, quite recently? Seem to recall Russell Brand was supposedly speaking "our kind of language". And look what happened to him…
From the BBC Website… "24 things that Jeremy Corbyn believes" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=inxmail_newsletter&ns_campaign=bbcnewsmagazine_news__&ns_linkname=na&ns_fee=0 Not socialism unfortunately – leastways not what we call socialism. But does Cameron (say) believe in the things that Corbyn believes in? Clearly not. Beyond the fact that for neither of them their political horizons don't extend beyond capitalism and some kind of configuration in which the market and the state both play a role, they don't seem to have much in common, do they? It would be foolish therefore to regard them as effectively identical Point is – which viewpoint is more likely to evolve in a socialist direction or, to put it differently, which viewpoint is closer to a socialist viewpoint even if it is not itself a socialist viewpoint. I'm pretty sure most people here would know the answer to that even if some might not fully appreciate what that implies – that you have to adapt your tone and approach according to the individual or political party you are criticising
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.