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
-
Our usual critique that Labour V. Tory is that it is a choice between Coca Cola and Pepsi, austerity versus austerity-liteThis isn't going to work any longer as long as fellow workers discern that there is a difference between Corbyn and Cameron and while Corbyn holds the moral highground and cannot be so easily made complicit in New Labour policies of the past so it won't be easy to attack him.So our task is to reveal what they share in common – a trust in capitalist economic relationships albeit different flavours of it.We have to scrutinise what Vin describes as a newer version of Clause 4 and expose its weaknesses (we have done much of the ground-work in explaining the failures of co-ops) and its reliance upon the State for it to even get off the ground. It means us expending more space on deeper analytical economic analysis of the supposed alternatives that he and McDonnell propose often via the New Economic Project website.And some are aware that when it comes to economics, it is not my favourite topic, so we have to frame our articles in an imaginative style to make them readable but just as instructive and biting. Time will give us more opportunity and openings to undermine Corbyn's reformism as policy papers are published.This is playing the ball…Offering "match-reports" of Corbyn's game-plays but also questioning if it is still the old-fashioned 2-3-5 style when it comes to going for goal. (feel free to improve on this analogy) But we cannot be like a bunch of little laddies playing 0-0-10 chasing the ball helter-skelter and not watching our own back for counter-attacks on our own principles – such as the one from Derek Wall.
No, it remains Coke v. Pepsi, plus 50 shades of austerity.Corbyn changes nothing in the anti-socialist cocktail, apart from adding false allure, like the communist party did for 70 years.Capitalism will continue to operate the way it always must, in order to reproduce itself as it always must ― neither better nor worse than it must always be ― by daily reproducing society as the necessary byproduct of capital expansion.The socialist case against capitalism remains the same as ever ― that capitalism is a social mode of production driven by the need for capital to expand itself ― that capitalism rests on the deprivation of a majority class of society from ownership and control over the means of social reproduction ― in the interests of a minority class of society that owns and controls those means of necessary social reproduction.The socialist case for socialism remains the same as ever ― that socialism is a mode of production in which all of society takes ownership and control over the means of social reproduction ― in the interests of the whole of society.Get that case over, and you proagate the sole case for socialism, from which all else follows.As for imaginative economics, the party case against capitalism and for socialism (as described in the preceding paragraphs) is based on marxian economics. We'd better get that right before we get it imaginative. No, it remains Coke v. Pepsi, plus 50 shades of austerity.Nothing substantial changes when soft drinks are revamped as diet Coke and Pepsi lite.
Quote:As for imaginative economics, the party case against capitalismand for socialism (as described in the preceding paragraphs) is based on marxian economics. We'd better get that right before we get it imaginative.Perhaps i did not make myself clear.Some people can understand dry boring Marxian economics as written in Capital (although the most read and popular pages are the historical narrative sections). I am not one and if you followed any of my other contributions on other threads you will know i have criticised any economic explanations that reduces itself to algebraic formulas (my weakness and failing, i grant you).This post was an expansion on what is meant by playing the ball and not the player. It seems you chose to ignore the recommendation that we do concentrate on the economic foundations of Corbyns policies but in a more imaginative and illustrative way than in my experience it has been previously expressed. What Marxian crime have i committed by suggesting that, i ask you? As for simply saying nothing changes in peoples opinions, i have my misgivings about this approach. Ideas do change because of changing material conditions. Yesterday is not today and today is not tomorrow. It is futile to banter quotes but sometimes it is useful to cite the long-dead and gone“One cannot drum the theory into them beforehand, but their own experience and their own blunders and the evil consequences of them will soon bump their noses up against theory” – Engelshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_01_11.htm“The ill-advised strike of angry passion is, as matters stand, the usual way that large new strata of workers are brought in our direction.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/letters/91_05_01.htm“Here in England one can see that it is impossible simply to drill a theory in an abstract dogmatic way into a great nation, even if one has the best of theories, developed out of their own conditions of life, and even if the tutors are relatively better than the S.L.P….https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1889/letters/89_12_07.htmWhat the Germans ought to do is to act up to their own theory –if they understand it, as we did in 1845 and 1848–to go in for any real general working-class movement, accept its faktische starting points as such and work it gradually up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made, every reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical views in the original programme; they ought, in the words of The Communist Manifesto, to represent the movement of the future in the movement of the present. But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not make the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by forcing down people's throats things which at present they cannot properly understand, but which they soon will learn. A million or two of workingmen's votes next November for a bona fide workingmen's party is worth infinitely more at present than a hundred thousand votes for a doctrinally perfect platform.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_12_28.htmMy opinion has always been that SPGB propaganda alone cannot produce sufficient numbers of socialists to establish socialism and thatpeople themselves will develop a class consciousness which grows into socialist consciousness that you recognise as a requisite for socialism. We are only a part (albeit a rather important part imho) of the process of acquiring the necessary level of political consciousness. Socialism will be established by the working class and that its establishment will result from an intensification and escalation of the class struggle. That follows almost by definition–obviously, if the working class are going to overthrow capitalism and capitalist class rule the class struggle is going to be stepped up. That's not the interesting question. The real question is what is it that is going to provoke the working class into intensifying/escalating the class struggle and/or acquiring socialist consciousness. Do you have the answer, because i don't. Workers don’t just wake up one morning and think to themselves – "Ah that’s it! Socialism is the answer!" This is the mechanistic theory that a socialist consciousness can somehow materialise by circumventing the realm of ideology. We come to a socialist view of the world by interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them. And that is perhaps the role of the Socialist Party – as a catalyst in the process of changing consciousness. To do that requires an approach that makes contact with people and a message that connects and resonates with people. It doesn't come from as some of the quotes i cited, simply being right in theory. It is all about how we communicate the theory. People make history by actions. Capitalism as you say will continue in the same old way as it always has until it is overthrown. You haven't offer too much argument why people should upturn the old world for a new one. I don't think you recognise sufficiently that peoples ideas are constantly changing, ebbing and flowing. What were the motives in this huge change of views to the liberal/left that is not just parochial to the UK bet reflected in many countries…and not always positively sadly when you consider the rise of the Right. Can Corbyn supporters be equated as exactly the same as with the supporters of Hungary's Orban merely because they object to the status quo?I'll end this with another quote
Quote:“If we hoped to achieve Socialism ONLY by our propaganda , the outlook would indeed be bad. But it is Capitalism itself unable to solve crises, unemployment, and poverty, engaging in horrifying wars, which is digging its own grave. Workers are learning by bitter experience and bloody sacrifice for interests not their own. They are learning slowly. Our job is to shorten the time, to speed up the process.”I think you'll recognise it is from the SPA's Socialism or Chaos
So we must obliterate our only case because people are once more forced by circumstances into having grave misgivings about capitalism as a social system, which misgivings have for decades been suppressed by the wholescale victory in the battle of ideas by the capitalist class.These are such rare times to show a receptive working class our unswerving steadfastness to our sole justifiable case for socialism. To miss that is truly to take one’s eye off the ball, and play merely to the crowd like all the others.
TWC, i really am beginning to suspect that you fail to read what i say and simply note the name of the author of the message and instantly find an excuse to issue accusations. Where on earth do you reach the conclusion that i "obliterate our only case"i shall reiterate what i said since you obviously are determined to ignore it
Quote:our task is to reveal what they [Cameron and Corbyn] share in common – a trust in capitalist economic relationships albeit different flavours of it.We have to scrutinise what Vin describes as a newer version of Clause 4 and expose its weaknesses (we have done much of the ground-work in explaining the failures of co-ops) and its reliance upon the State for it to even get off the ground. It means us expending more space on deeper analytical economic analysis of the supposed alternatives that he and McDonnell propose often via the New Economic Project website.And some are aware that when it comes to economics, it is not my favourite topic, so we have to frame our articles in an imaginative style to make them readable but just as instructive and biting. Time will give us more opportunity and openings to undermine Corbyn's reformism as policy papers are published.Now PLEEEEEEESE tell me how that differs from your view or the views of the rest of the party.As said by ALB
Quote:Labour shadow Chancellor saying he wants to overthrow capitalism. Our kind of language. We can't miss this opportunity.If we do as you yourself state have a much more receptive audience and we always tailor our case for socialism to those who are listening by choosing appropriately our words and expressions to suit the occasion, and it is our responsibility to ensure we do not alienate possible recruits by being too aggressive or demanding in the way we communicate our ideas. Not rocket science that we can drive away potential audience by attacking them rather than showing what we share in common before moving on to explain the differences that exist.And don't say we have not made errors in past atitudes because it was partially one of the reasons i left the Party many years ago. We have to be nuanced in our propaganda and publicity campaigns. That is open to debate and discussion and members will not always agree with one another but we can reach a consensus and hopefully the ADM meeting on key messages will go some way towards that. I have not disguised my own belief that it will not be enough and we should have a special conference on such things as basic as the Party's name.Many workers do fall for the allure of false promises and political party leadrs false advertising, not all have the advantage of being born into a socialist family and nurtured on the socialist message BUT we do not make friends by treating FELLOW workers as enemies for holding wrong ideas and when they show signs of acquiring incresed knowledge we don't cut the ground away from under them. As i said earlier in this thread, we are not leaders, pulling workers behind us forward but as the CM says we are pushing them forward to certain conclusions about the world and society…if you get the difference.
Ozymandias wrote:Global membership of WSM = 350(?)Average age of membership = 75 (?)= Atrophy…The are clear and obvious reasons why the party is small and they can be found in this thread'When we refer to people calling for revolution as clowns etc and hold the belief that we are at war with 99.9999999% of the working class. Absolute insanity. I introduced my son to our facebook to find out more about socialism and the open democratic party I belong to and his first post was censored and he was blocked. WE must remain pure.As I I say, it is blindingly obvious why we are so tiny.
twc wrote:So we must obliterate our only case because people are once more forced by circumstances into having grave misgivings about capitalism as a social system, which misgivings have for decades been suppressed by the wholescale victory in the battle of ideas by the capitalist class.These are such rare times to show a receptive working class our unswerving steadfastness to our sole justifiable case for socialism. To miss that is truly to take one’s eye off the ball, and play merely to the crowd like all the others.robbo203 wrote: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?FFS, what else do they need to have in common to be seen as the anti-socialists they both are? They both believe that capitalism, suitably 'adjusted', can be made to work in the interests of us all. At least with Cameron workers know, or should know, what they're going to get; with Corbyn there's an attractive label on his bottle describing the contents as an elixir, which when eventually opened, turns out to be remarkably similar and as equally unpalatable as the snake oil in all the other bottles.
At tonight's meeting you stand up and declare that the Green Party is the exact same as the Tories, that Caroline Lucas is no different from Iain Duncan Smith, that the Greens and she are fakes, not deserving of any sympathy or support from the working class and we will see if the SPGB are given any sort of hearing in the future from the membership of the Green Party or their voters in Brighton. On the other hand, you can stand up and tell them that we share their aspirations for new society based upon egalitarian principles, of a sustainable steady-state economy based upon industrial and community democracy but we find we cannot agree their policies will achieve such a just world and suggest they listen to an alternative that we believe is the only real solution to the problems that they and ourselves wish to end. Your choice, Gnome.
The Tory attack ad herehttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/14/conservtives-corbyn-attack-video-demon-eyes-smear-with-legs
gnome wrote: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…He is still exposing capitalism the last time I looked, and to a lot more workers than we do.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvoqQT41wos
jondwhite wrote:The Tory attack ad herehttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/14/conservtives-corbyn-attack-video-demon-eyes-smear-with-legsThe Socialist Standard needs to be careful or we will again be confused with the right wing pro capitalists
alanjjohnstone wrote:At tonight's meeting you stand up and declare that the Green Party is the exact same as the Tories, that Caroline Lucas is no different from Iain Duncan Smith, that the Greens and she are fakes, not deserving of any sympathy or support from the working class and we will see if the SPGB are given any sort of hearing in the future from the membership of the Green Party or their voters in Brighton. On the other hand, you can stand up and tell them that we share their aspirations for new society based upon egalitarian principles, of a sustainable steady-state economy based upon industrial and community democracy but we find we cannot agree their policies will achieve such a just world and suggest they listen to an alternative that we believe is the only real solution to the problems that they and ourselves wish to end. Your choice, Gnome.alanjjohnstone wrote:At tonight's meeting you stand up and declare that the Green Party is the exact same as the Tories, that Caroline Lucas is no different from Iain Duncan Smith, that the Greens and she are fakes, not deserving of any sympathy or support from the working class and we will see if the SPGB are given any sort of hearing in the future from the membership of the Green Party or their voters in Brighton. On the other hand, you can stand up and tell them that we share their aspirations for new society based upon egalitarian principles, of a sustainable steady-state economy based upon industrial and community democracy but we find we cannot agree their policies will achieve such a just world and suggest they listen to an alternative that we believe is the only real solution to the problems that they and ourselves wish to end. Your choice, Gnome.No need to teach your Grandmother to suck eggs, Alan. I've probably been around the party a darn sight longer than you have and introduced quite a few more workers into membership.At tonight's meeting we'll do both. We'll declare that all reformist parties are deluders and pretenders not deserving any sympathy or support from the working class AND we'll tell those present that we share their aspirations for a new society and suggest they listen to our alternative. No incongruity there.
Quote:we'll tell them that we share their aspirations for a new society and suggest they listen to our alternative.So, do you do agree that those outside the party cannot all be tarred with the same brush because we do not share the same aspirations as the Tory Party (or do you say we do, because a case can be made that we do understand and sympathise with why workers sometimes vote for them although we don't agree with it) and also that no one size fits all when it comes to propaganda and we should shape our campaign in various different styles and levels of emphasis to achieve a hearing and an audience. Which has been my point all along. No doubt you may say i ignored your remark
Quote:We'll declare that all reformist parties are deluders and pretenders not deserving any sympathy or support from the working classSuch a statement is made in the explanation of our alternative, it is all a matter of how it is expressed and the context it is made in… nuancedI'll pay no attention to your other remarks because when i entered the party there was no hierachy of members – the observation and views of all members were treated equal, even if they were saying the obvious, regardless of time served within the party or the degree of any personal contribution made by them. Anyways, i hope tonights meeting is fruitful and we do get a receptive audience for our ideas. I hope that for all our public meetings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.