Labour MPs revolt against Corbyn
- This topic has 116 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:As others have been saying the media has been dishonestly smearing Corbyn and this report gives some backing to the claim.Academics at LSE analysed months of newspaper articles about the Labour leader and found 75% of newspaper stories about Jeremy Corbyn fail to accurately report his views.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.html
Why should we concern ourselves about Corbyn, an arch-supporter of capitalism? We're not in that lucky position of having OUR ideas distorted by the media. Then at least we would be in a position to counter them.
rodmanlewis wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:As others have been saying the media has been dishonestly smearing Corbyn and this report gives some backing to the claim.Academics at LSE analysed months of newspaper articles about the Labour leader and found 75% of newspaper stories about Jeremy Corbyn fail to accurately report his views.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.htmlWhy should we concern ourselves about Corbyn, an arch-supporter of capitalism? We're not in that lucky position of having OUR ideas distorted by the media. Then at least we would be in a position to counter them.
What are you talking about?. The (OUR) classical definition of socialism is constantly being distorted by the media as well as by Troskyists and Leninists. Spend a while surfing the net (specifically social networking sites and news channels) and you'd soon realise that. Some of us spend many of our waking hours doing our best to counter them…
Every day Corbyn is smeared, so too is our version of socialism. The vile piece in the Guardian today by Cohen is an example.We really can't let these go unchallenged. Their traducing of 'socialism' or Marxism defined by them will win by default.(At least 4 people have indicated they understand what I am driving at and hopefully, might click our link)https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-death-knell-for-labour#comment-79215009
Matt wrote:Every day Corbyn is smeared, so too is our version of socialism. The vile piece in the Guardian today by Cohen is an example.We really can't let these go unchallenged. Their traducing of 'socialism' or Marxism defined by them will win by default.(At least 4 people have indicated they understand what I am driving at and hopefully, might click our link)https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-death-knell-for-labour#comment-79215009But Corbyn himself is smearing socialism with his own distortions. By all means try to set the record straight, but please don't have any sympathy for Corbyn.
It goes without saying we correct those distortions also, without adding to, or being perceived to be a part of, the smear campaign against the individual. I do have sympathy for well meaning reformers of capitalism , subjected to vilification by the media, even if they (the reformers) are in error with their assumptions that capitalism can be reformed.I don't think Corbyn, while incorrect, is just another 'careerist', but I am willing to concede that at any point.
Matt wrote:It goes without saying we correct those distortions also, without adding to, or being perceived to be a part of, the smear campaign against the individual. I do have sympathy for well meaning reformers of capitalism , subjected to vilification by the media, even if they (the reformers) are in error with their assumptions that capitalism can be reformed.I don't think Corbyn, while incorrect, is just another 'careerist', but I am willing to concede that at any point.It's irrelevant as to whether he's a careerist or not. He is holding incorrect ideas about the nature of society, therefore he is as dangerous as any career politician, as his actions have the effect of perpetuating the system he wants to "improve".
I think the main point to take out of this thread is how the capitalists, plutocrats, the 1%, the 0.01% – whatever we wish to call them – ie the ruling class, disposes of those it considers a threat to their interests. Regardless of Corbyn's politics being reformist of the pinkest hue, i think it can be conceded that his proposals do challenge the wealthy in their own view, although in no way dispossesses or dis-empowers them. The media even the so-called liberal left joined together in a litany of falsehoods and half-truths to undermine Corbyn's credibility with his party and the voters. They sought to de-legitimise him as a person and as a politician. In the course of the socialist movement growing in strength and increasing its influence, we too will be subjected to this very same campaign of misinformation and disinformation. Since the mass media is under the control of the rich, to compete to gain a level playing field, i believe will fail. Therefore as many have suggested we need to create our own means of getting out our message and should concentrate on the social media outlets, because we do have access to those and it is something we can seed and cultivate now, no matter how limited it is for us at the moment.We have to keep up with the new developments and innovations that keep arising, and try to keep pace with them and not be left too far behind in adopting them – an important role for the Internet Committee – predicting future trends and adapting to them…a considerable task
rodmanlewis wrote:It's irrelevant as to whether he's a careerist or not. He is holding incorrect ideas about the nature of society, therefore he is as dangerous as any career politician, as his actions have the effect of perpetuating the system he wants to "improve".I don't think I said any different. It is on those incorrect ideas any attack must tbe made though and not his motivation or personal integrity, where most of the smear attacks have been made in the media, where I generally come in usually on 'leadership' or some such topic..I can be as hostile as you to his politics, as I would be to Blair or Cameron or May's without being hostile to, or resisting sympathy for the the individual.Just wouldn't be me.
Matt wrote:I don't think I said any different. It is on those incorrect ideas any attack must tbe made though and not his motivation or personal integrity, where most of the smear attacks have been made in the media, where I generally come in usually on 'leadership' or some such topic..I can be as hostile as you to his politics, as I would be to Blair or Cameron or May's without being hostile to, or resisting sympathy for the the individual.Just wouldn't be me.Well, the SPGB has spent the last 100 years-plus fighting sincerely-held, but incorrect, political views. Isn't it time we drew a line under this and said "Enough is enough, you people are a danger to society as much as your career political rivals." Additonally, in drawing attention to Corbyn etc, we are giving some sort of credence to their political leadership, as if their views are more substantial than their followers.What political leaders are tacitly saying to the capitalist class is "I am in charge of XXX units of ignorance, I await your instructions."
rodmanlewis wrote:Well, the SPGB has spent the last 100 years-plus fighting sincerely-held, but incorrect, political views. Isn't it time we drew a line under this and said "Enough is enough, you people are a danger to society as much as your career political rivals." Additonally, in drawing attention to Corbyn etc, we are giving some sort of credence to their political leadership, as if their views are more substantial than their followers.What political leaders are tacitly saying to the capitalist class is "I am in charge of XXX units of ignorance, I await your instructions."Where do I do this? Give credence to leaders? It is like watching paint dry, these objections of yours.
Trying to work out why the ruling class and their media should be so apparently unfairly opposed to Corbyn (when he's only a harmless reformist advocating what Harold Wilson did 60 years ago), I wonder whether the vote in parliament yesterday on Trident gives a clue — they don't want the main opposition party, which has a chance of forming a government, to be unilateralist? It might be a coincidence but they encouraged the SDP breakaway in 1981 which effectively ruled out a possibly unilaterialist Labour Party from getting into government in the likely future. They want nuclear weapons because, in the capitalist world of competing states, "might is right", so this is of vital interest to them.
ALB wrote:Trying to work out why the ruling class and their media should be so apparently unfairly opposed to Corbyn (when he's only a harmless reformist advocating what Harold Wilson did 60 years ago), I wonder whether the vote in parliament yesterday on Trident gives a clue — they don't want the main opposition party, which has a chance of forming a government, to be unilateralist? It might be a coincidence but they encouraged the SDP breakaway in 1981 which effectively ruled out a possibly unilaterialist Labour Party from getting into government in the likely future. They want nuclear weapons because, in the capitalist world of competing states, "might is right", so this is of vital interest to them.If those in the 'higher echelons' of society are as confused about the meaning of socialism as most members of the working class are, which is highly probable, then this is more likely to be the explanation. One only has to look at how the American ruling class got exercised about the prospect of the spread of 'communism' – among many other things they engaged in a protracted war in Indochina which couldn't simply be explained in terms of looking after their material interests and spheres of influence. I'm not sure the "might is right" argument in this instance holds much water either – 186 competing states in the capitalist world seem to manage quite nicely without nuclear weapons. More likely the British ruling class's present stance stems from imperialist delusions of grandeur…
The reported rise in labour party membership is a bit of a curious one. I thought to myself "187,000 new members couldn't all be entryist Trotskyites", then the thought struck me, perhaps with all of the different sectarian Trotskyite groups, all arguing about which tactics they are going to use to infiltrate the "mass workers party" in order to take control, the silly bastards didn't realise that there were 187,000 of them and they all ready were a mass party!
I saw Owen Smith, the stalking horse put up by the Labour MPs who see Corbyn as a threat to their career,on TV last night talking about the need for a "socialist revolution". The BBC showed him saying:
Quote:"A faith that our country can't just have a brilliant past but a future as bright as its past… where the fruits of our collective success are shared once more, more equally.To achieve that, he argued, "we need revolution not evolution", and added: "Not some misty-eyed romantic notion of a revolution to overthrow capitalism and return to a socialist nirvana."But a cold-eyed, practical, socialist revolution, where we build a better Britain and look the country in the eye and say 'this is possible'."Obviously a cynical, opportunist move to try to win over Corbyn voters. I doubt if it will work, though, given Smith's manifest insincerity as well as the incoherence of what he said, i.e he wants a "socialist revolution" but not one to "overthrow capitalism". And what "return" to a "socialist nirvana" which he seems to think once existed?if he really believes that "we need revolution not evolution" then it's him not Corbyn who is out of line with what the Labour Party has always stood for. In fact some of the anti-Corbyn MPs must be rather embarrassed at their champion using such language (which Corbyn himself doesn't), though, as experienced vote-catchers, they may take the view that the important thing is winning and that this end justifies any dishonest means.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.