[ALB]

Up to you, but if you don't send in a written cobtribution (whatever else you do) there'll be nothing in the Proceedings of ADM that will be sent to members.

[ALB]

I'd send a written statement to be read at ADM, if only because most of those likely to be delegates or attend ADM won't be on here.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But hope on the horizonA third of SNP voters may return to Labour http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/19/third-snp-voters-more-likely-back-labour-jeremy-corbyn-poll

Actually, I think a left turn under Corbyn might well help the Labour Party at all elections except a general election (very few see him as prime-ministeriable, not even us I suspect, not that that's a criticism of the man considering what you have to be to aspire to be prime minister). We'll see after the regional (London, Scotland, Wales) and local elections next May.Meanwhile the pathetic Liberals think they can gain by stealing the pro-business, pro-austerity, anti-welfare clothes of Corbyn's defeated rivals.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

I am however slightly sceptical about this "we are all leaders" approach that Corbyn is advancing here – not because I doubt that he sincerely means it  but because his whole appeal – as this whole Corbynmania phenomenon  has shown – is that for his hundreds or thousands of supporters, he as a person has made a profound difference to the political landscape  that is Britain. In other words he is being regarded by them as some kind of saviour figure even if he himself would like them to regard himself as just one more leader amongst hundreds of thousands of other  "leaders"You cant really have leaders in this sense with this implying followers and that is essentially what his supporters are

I'm not sure that this is entirely fair. At the West London Peace Market yesterday we met 2 of the 251,417 who voted for him in the Labour Leadership (sic!) election. One was a long-standing Labour Party member, the other someone who paid £3 to vote and was going to join it. Neither struck us as regarding Corbyn as a "saviour" but more, perhaps, as a symbol of the sort of Labour Party they want.They weren't the only people to ask us about Corbyn of course — everybody's talking about him. I would have thought that it's self-evident that we shouldn't start off by saying "he's just a reformist" or he's what Private Eye said we said he was(but which we didn't) a "capitalist shill" (whatever a shill is, anybody know, or was this a misprint for shit?). Needless to say we didn't. We started by saying things like "we don't support the Labour Party" or "at least he's livened up politics" before saying that neither he nor the Labour Party will be able to change things because it's capitalism that's the problem, etc, etc.  (and here's a copy of the Socialist Standard). One person liked our description of him as "Harold Wilson warmed up" but then he was an ex-member of the anarcho-syndicalist SolFed.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The most important word there is "reported"

Actually, I nearly wrote "widely" reported and could have added "credibly". I don't think it was a smear as that's what nationalism in particular lends itself to.  I haven't heard any cases of this sort of thing being reported during Corbyn's campaign. If it had been you can be sure that the press would have picked it up and exaggerated it. The incident regarding our head office will have been the work of a lone nutter.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Increased government spending is what the left-wing of capital have as their object.

I see. I thought you might have meant that they would welcome the resulting economic crisis as this would turn the workers against capitalism. But of course the Labour left are not Trotskyists.Governments can always increase their spending if they want (they control the amount of money created) even if the result may not be what they anticipate. The Mitterrand government did this in France in 1981 before having to reimpose "rigueur" (the French for austerity) a couple of years later.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

ALB wrote:

So it's true what they say, that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Probably true. Congrats to Bill and Max.

On the other hand, someone pasted this on Head Office window on seeing the front cover of this month's Socialist Standard displayed there:

Quote:

Socialist Party of Grotty Bastards. How dare you link Corbyn with Cameron and Farage. Scumbags.

We scraped it off but they they pasted it again the following night.So this does give some credence to the criticism expressed here of the cover. On the other hand it is also an example of the same sort of intolerance and intimidatory tactics reported to have been shown by independantists in Scotland towards those who disagreed with them. The downside of sudden significant changes in popular opinion.

[ALB]

What will be a left-wing victory — the increased government spending or the economic bust?

[ALB]

Actually, I never said that austerity was inevitable under capitalism but I agree that the word is ambiguous. I meant it in the sense of the government have to cut back on its spending (what Gladstone called "retrenchment") rather than the general rationing through the wages system that will last as long as capitalism. Austerity in this sense is only inevitable during a slump. In a boom governments can, and often do, increase their spending. This in fact is the whole rationale behind Social Democratic reformism: they want to engineer a permanent boom so that the government can tax away more money to spend on reforms (they come unstuck of course because booms cannot last for ever, but always end in a slump).As to what is likely to happen in the last days of capitalism it probably is reasonable to assume that the ruling class will be prepared to spend money on reforms to try to buy off the socialist movement and their pending expropriation. Whether they would do this faced with a mass working class anti-austerity but non-socialist movement is more dubious. But they might offer something (probably a share in government for some of its leaders). But if such a movement comes into existence, hopefully, it will opt for socialism, i.e. the bakery and corn fields as well as most of the loaf. But this is all speculation of course.

[ALB]

It was just something you have said a few times about our analysis of the reason for austerity (inevitable when capitalism is in a slump) letting the likes of IDS off the hook, i.e austerity is inevitable, so he's only doing what he has to and so not to be blamed personally. Hope I didn't misunderstand you.I'd just may two points. First, while all governments have to impose austerity they do have some leeway as to where to apply it (and this government has decided to clobber the working age poor rather than pensioners because they deem there's more votes in that). Second, they don't have to enjoy imposing it like Thatcher obviously did (but is a Labour minister imposing it saying this hurts me as much as you any better?).

[ALB]

I know this is going to send Vin (further) up the wall but these observations by Corbyn's critics in the Labour Party are accurate:Here's John Mills, one of their big funders:

Quote:

I'm not sure that Corbyn shares my view on what needs to be done to get away from austerity. The only way you can possibly get away from austerity is to grow the economy much more quickly.But the sort of policies that the far-left tends to go for don't unfortunately lend themselves very easily to getting the rate of economic growth up: you've got to get business on side, you've got to increase profitability – these aren't part of the far-left agenda.

And this from Hopi Sen of the left-of-centre thinktank Policy Network:

Quote:

Even on the most basic test – that of how his plans are paid for, Corbyn takes refuge in either the fantasy of tax gaps or the idiocy of unproblematic money being printed at the behest of politicians. How often has that ended well? (…)  Corbyn has embraced fantasy because he knows the realistic, expensive version of his radicalism would not appeal or prosper. Even if by some freakish chance we did win on such a programme, we would, like early Mitterrand or late Tsipras, abandon it or fail.

But what are we supposed to do if some of our opponents see things accurately too?The big difference is of course in the conclusion drawn from these facts. They conclude that you've got to accept capitalism and be business-friendly and put profits first. We conclude that that's why capitalism has to go because it is inherently incapabable of putting people before profits.

[ALB]

So it's true what they say, that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

[ALB]

In the end, he only wants to gradually reform capitalism out of existence:http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnell-i-want-to-change-capitalist-economic-model-31526147.html

Quote:

Mr McDonnell, who boasts in his Who's Who entry that his hobbies include "fermenting (sic) the overthrow of capitalism", told Channel 4 News: "The emphasis is on ferment, which was about brewing. It means ensuring people understand what capitalism is, and we talk together about how we change it because it is failing people at the moment."I think change is a gradual process … but at the end of the day, I do want to transform it."He said part of the shadow chancellor's job was to reform capitalism and "put forward an alternative to what's happening to people at the moment".

A classic Social Democrat, then.

[ALB]

As expected the media are really going for him and MacDonnell with guns blazing, The front page of today's Times calls him a "bigot" for not singing the national dirge under a picture showing various members of the Establishment entoning this bigot song.Inside there's an even worse example of bigotry in an article by a certain Oliver Kamm denouncing him for having worn a white as well as/or instead of a red poppy. Declaring "the pacifism symbolised by white poppies is offensive", he justifies this offensive remark as follows:

Quote:

The white poppy was conceived in the 1930s by the Co-operative Women's Guild and adopted in 1936 by a pacifist organisation, the Peace Pledge Union (PPU). The PPU still exists and sells the poppies as "a symbol of grief for all people of all nationalities, armed forces and civilians alike, who are victims of war".Let's be clear. The armed forces of Nazi Germany were not victims of war. They were aggressors. The red poppies sold in aid of the Royal British Legion are not only signs of remembrance: they are an expression of gratitude for those who took up arms against genocidal despotism. The message of the white-poppy campaign is that Britain's servicemen and women were wrong then and are wrong now. That's what pacifism is. And that's why it's offensive as well as ignorant to treat red and white poppies as complementary.

I don't think that's the message of the white poppy. What it is is clearly stated in the passage the bigot quotes. And only a bigot couldn't care a fig for people from the "enemy" country who get killed. It's almost the definition of one.We know lots of journalists are scumbags, this one in particular.

[ALB]

There was an "autonomist Marxist" at the West London public meeting last night at which we discussed the Corbyn phenomenon.  He asked a different question: from a capitalist point of view the Labour Party's role(as of left reformist parties everywhere) has been to channel off and dampen down discontent within capitalism in case it takes a revolutionary course; to do this it has to put on a left face otherwise it won't attract the support of discontented workers. Therefore, isn't Corbyn's victory and a turn to the left by the Labour Party a bad thing from a revolutionary point of view?He just posed this as a question because he knows that there aren't actually any "autonomous" (i.e spontaneous and outside and against the unions) workers struggles going on at the moment. I've not been following the discussions on Libcom but I imagine this point of view is being argued there and also, perhaps, at the Anarchist Federation meeting in London next week mentioned in the events section here. We, on the other hand, are more interested in the battle of ideas and how a left turn by Labour will affect thi,s and of course don't think that socialist ideas and revolutionary action will arise spontaneously from  day-to-day struggles..

[Author]

Posts