alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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.
Many anarchists, of course, disavowed Bookchin as an anarchist when he began to express criticisms of some of what passes for as "anarchism" so you are right to write "one of the best recent writers to come out of Anarchism." Looking forward to your review if it reaches the Socialist Standard or this forum.
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)
In his Summer School talk BrianG stated that it is his view that the Party was part of the Left, something he acknowledged other members would dispute. I think this might be the core issue of this thread.Do we accept some politicians (or even groups) as part of the same tradition as ourselves even if they may have diverged and now differ greatly but deserving of less criticism?Is Corbyn such a person?Our case for bourgeois democracy is that it is preferable to dictatorship and we defend it as an institution despite its flaws and failings.Can this principle apply to Corbyn?I return to an earlier observation, different strokes for different folks. It means we tailor our message to our audience and don't offer a one size fits all approach. That does not mean we "soft-pedal" our criticisms but it does mean we use tact and skill in the way we communicate.We are, of course, hoping to connect and persuade fellow workers, not our class enemies or their lackeys. IMHO, Corbyn has brought us a receptive audience and it is up to us to capture their attention and draw them to our soap-box.Experienced outdoor speakers often use humour as a device for just doing that…Perhaps that is what we are lacking…the tool of ridicule that some were so adept at once. …Righteous anger is another way, but i don't think insults and name-calling ever worked although i think some speakers did resort to that style. Lets try and be imaginative and innovative in how we campaign…a task of the highest order….kow-towing to public sentiment has its weaknesses as well.
Quote:"it's time to quit the negative attack policy and use more creative and clever tactics/campaigns etc."No and Yes, SPWe have to still attack capitalism as a flawed and sterile system and that means attacking its defenders even if they don't consider themselves to be. We require to criticise mystifiers who substitute reform for revolution. But we don't need to solely rely on this approach of exposure and unmasking.I, for one, have consistently suggested that we do need to project a clearer picture of what socialism would be like…If we say socialism is a feasible, practical reality for today then we are the generation that must detail and describe what we desire to create, building upon the foundations that exists today and offering a re-model and re-shaping of today's society. I fail to see the positive side of abdicating responsibility and passing it on to future generations. That only confirms those doubters that say socialism is something to be achieved in the far-off future. A postponing a debate and discussion that socialism is possible right now. We have to instil confidence in the future of the socialist movement. We have to bring to the fore a vision of what socialism means and if we don't then we will be seen as Moaning Minnies rather than presenting a positive alternative that people can contribute their own ideas and activity to as in that the emancipation must be of the working class itself…not the children or children of today's workers…Lets really argue that you and i will actually see socialism in our life-times and not another 111 years away…that simply agrees with Lenin's guess of 500 years for socialism to come (okay, give or take the odd century)
i never sign off my letters SPGB to WW but the editor adds SPGB to my letters to them. It has led to some confusion in the past as if i was an official spokes-person for the Party.
Lanz, you persist in stating that the SPGB believes in the necessity and inevitablity of austerity as if we advocate such policies. We merely keep pointing out that capitalism to return to its purpose – the accumulation of capital, a price has to be paid…and it is the workers who the employers seek to pay it. Iceland is an example where the working class willingly accepted self-sacrifice to over-come the effects of their financial collapse. Our blog recently posted on the consequences. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2015/06/icelands-class-war.htmlIf capitalism is the cause of war and we say it cannot exist without it in some form or other, are we therefore then to be described as a war-mongering political party, advocating armed conflict?Other contributors to the thread have responded to your accusation but i don't think you have taken on board their replies and explanations of our position.We do not reject the working class resisting austerity but it is not through political action they will be effective but by industrial struggle, reclaiming a bigger share of the surplus value that they produce and forcing the owners and the parasitical hangers-on such as the banks and land-owners to take the pain of a cut. That is class war and we support that fight. But there are limits, it is not a level battlefield.
Quote:We are not a mass party and so cannot really claim to be party of the working class.Perhaps it is more accurate to describe ourselves as "the party of working class interests" or "the party in the interests of the working class".To describe ourselves simply as a "socialist propagandist group" i don't think offers a full reflection of our role…We are an active political party, standing candidates for election, albeit not too many, and issuing manifestos appealing for the votes of those who agree with our position. We are registered and have fought hard to retain our identity as a socialist party. I think socialist propagandist group is more appropriate to the reality of our companion parties in the WSM than to ourselves.Just a small quibble.
There has been a few pieces of research into the lack of empathy for others within the ruling class, hasn't there?But to put the findings more crudely, scum floats to the top and, like smoking hash, the more you suck, the higher you get …
This survey may be of interest and figure-crunchers within the party may offer an analysis of them and try to translate it into practical policies for ourselves to try and apply and benefit from.https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/27/you-may-say-im-dreamer-inside-mindset-jeremy-corby/
Quote:How would you suggest we characterise his policies?Been away for a few days and i think what some people over-looked from my last post is that our focus should not be on Corbyn the prospective Labour Party leader, at all, but on the reasons why he has gained such sympathy and support plus genuinely has given certain ruling class elements some fear and trepidation, something that i haven't previously noticed. If added to the Scots Referendum result of the independence vote and the subsequent election result, which BrianG described in his Scool talk but which i think not many members have fully taken aboard, i do detect now a willingness of my fellow workers to seek political alternatives that are not simply PR party-spin such as Blair's Third Way was but fundamental issues. I am very curious about this shift in political consciousness that may well be a follow up to Occupy…decentralise power and take it from the Rich Elite. We are failing to identify the aspirations of our fellow workers and until we manage that, we cannot engage with them effectively.We can have a field day deconstructing Corbyn's fiscal and financial policies but as i said previously i am more interested in the motivation of why people now rejecting "expert" or "mainstream" media and BBC analyses and go with their gut feelings that there must be something else out there and the more the Establishment attacks it, the more it must be "correct"It could well be merely a blip in the manipulation of the electorate but also something deeper, perhaps material conditions of austerity and cutbacks are having their social consequences and peoples' politics are changing despite "ruling class ideas prevailing" to paraphrase Marx.Are we at a crossroads? If i think so then we should be asking many more questions on the lines of how do we characterise our rival case and present our own as the realistic other option. I know we, at this moment in time, have little influence so i am not as critical as Vin and Imposs of one approach, for the simple reason is that few in real numbers if any will actually be alienated if we get it wrong. I am on record as saying let a thousand flowers bloom in our propaganda and campaigns and that we should not have a political approach which is one-size fits all. Trial and error will always provide an insight in how well we do (but that leads to one question…how do we measure success in communication and more importantly, who are we aiming our message at.)YMS suggests that we waste resources criticising Cameron …true enough…shooting fish in a barrel on certain policies such as the cuts …Not so when it comes to others such as immigration because he has the support of Labour Party voters and i would guess the majority of the electorate backs his stance to some degree. We still have a lot of persuading and convincing to do across the broad political spectrum.Corbyn and the Labour Party?? I don't think we can simplify it down. I think we must de-eulogise Corbyn as much as the Right demonise him and counter the rhapsodies that some are singing in his praise. It's painful for some to see their idols stripped to the bare bones of their ideas but it has to be done. So KSRB go for it in the way you think will resonate with your audience. A lot of it is targetting your audience. But our problem is not the negative attacks that as a Party we have become so adept at over the 100-plus years of our existence. We have to offer socialism …OUR socialism, the real socialism that goes back to the 1840s and earlier, (so like Imposs i'm not impressed by referring to past decades as something that exposes our rivals).I think, and shoot me down by all means, but i feel the we are approaching a moment in history that BIG IDEAS are again on the agenda to be discussed and debated. On the Paul Mason thread i think this is being shown – Piketty a couple of years ago, Brand last year…Radical solutions being published mainstream once again not on the margins and peripharyIf we are to have an input then it is the FUTURE we must direct the attention towards. Socialism is something for the here and now to be heard and known.We have to characterise our criticsm of Corbyn by explaining, describing and detailing our alternative and that doesn't require even a passing mention of Corbyn's policies except merely saying how conservative and short-sighted he really is but we concentrate our case more to do with the "values" he is supposedly representing. (We are yet to define these "values" just as Corbyn's rivals have so dramatically failed in their purge campaign." We have never had a problem showing the virtues of socialism, it has always been an issue of "can it work"…when we see, regardless of how vaguely or generalised it is, new and old left, wanting social change, it is those people we have to reach out to for recruits. We need to poach them from their existing organisations. First, we must be clear on what we are fighting for and demonstrate that these objectives are the same to what people are also wanting in New New Labour, once the slogans and the ideological props are kicked away…a hope for a new world…and to steal from an anarchist also, new hope in our hearts.To sum up …and we have all heard it said …we have to story to tell and it is in the way of telling it which will determine if people will listen of not. And a story has many chapters to recount its narrative. Enough for now…
Our task in the SPGB is to persuade and convince fellow workers of the validity of our case. This does mean being critical of the ideas they hold and the political persoanlities they hold in esteem. However, we are addressing ourselves to fellow workers, brothers and sisters in our human family. It is how we communicate and convey our views which is at issue. And as i have tried to say, how we do it changes and adapts to the situation. If we are not heard because we have no presence in the conversions taking place who is to blame for that exclusion? No-one says we should soft-peddle our position but are discussing the most effective way of presenting it. What we should be doing is trying to understand why there was such an unexpected ground-swell of support for Corbyn. An earlier post on the thread linking to a vox pop interview video seems to show that people are seeing through the charade of professional politicians…and it has been highlighted here by some posters…sincerity, honesty, principles are drawing sympathy to Corbyn added to a very idealistic interpretation of his policies. So it is clear to me that we too have political integrity and this must emphasisd when we make a critique of Corbyn's economic solutions.As i said in an earlier post, we can either strike a chord with our fellow workers or create discord between them and ourselves through our attitudes and that includes the manner and tone of our language and the way we use propaganda tools. We are not appealing to the politician but to those who are listening to him. We can do this in the most non-confrontational way we can.We can also when the occasion arises be blunt and forthright. It depends on the audience and i think we have to learn and discover who our audience really is, just who are we delivering our message to. Once we know that, we can then shape the delivery of our campaigns and exchanges.
