Corbyn and struggle for material resources of government

39 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lionsafterslumber
Offline
Joined: 2-08-16
Aug 3 2016 18:47

The problem with the likes of Syriza was the lack of harnessing outside mass movements. Corbyn seems more committed to (of course in an anarchist ultimate goal sense entirely insufficient) forms of potentially catalysing participation through the state, and even if he wasn't, Momentum could pressure him to. As for specifically some kind of bottom up defence of Labour party infrastructure when the NEC owns it, it's clear the NEC is capable of subverting democracy in opposition to Corbyn and if those assets were stripped and given to the Blairite faction that could be the end of even the above possibility.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Aug 3 2016 18:49
Steven. wrote:
not storming barricades with crusties.

Thanks. Now I will have this image stuck in my mind all day!

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Aug 3 2016 19:17

For god's sake, Jeremy Corbyn has been an unremarkable member of the Labour Party since god knows when and isn't even particularly far to the left, although he's been made to look like he is because the PLP has drifted to the right and now occupies about the same place in the political spectrum as the Thatcher government did. And even if he was old labour as we are supposed to believe he is, old Labour was in power throughout most of the 1970s and it was hardly a workers' paradise then.

The massive amount of projection people have put on the man about how he's going to bring about socialism or whatever is beyond ridiculous and most of this stuff that people are swearing is going to happen under a Corbyn government, like nationalising the railways, sorting out the housing crisis, UBI etc is not going to happen. For one thing, no-one has promised these things, or are in a position to do so, give me a break, how are Labour going to form the next government anyway -Scotland's never going back, you know. And also since when do political parties actually come through with their promises after the elections anyway? Answers on a postcard.

Vote if you want, don't vote if you don't want, join Momentum, go to a rally, have a whip round for Jeremy's office supplies, but securing the position of the government is not exactly an anarchist concern. They have law enforcement for that.

So, looking down my list of things I'd be willing to get arrested for - sorry but I can't spot securing funds and nice central London office space, with full communications set-ups, regional offices and a nice fleet of cars to go with, for the use of Jeremy Corbyn and his hypothetical ministers.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Aug 3 2016 19:23
Lionsafterslumber wrote:
The problem with the likes of Syriza was the lack of harnessing outside mass movements. Corbyn seems more committed to (of course in an anarchist ultimate goal sense entirely insufficient) forms of potentially catalysing participation through the state, and even if he wasn't, Momentum could pressure him to. As for specifically some kind of bottom up defence of Labour party infrastructure when the NEC owns it, it's clear the NEC is capable of subverting democracy in opposition to Corbyn and if those assets were stripped and given to the Blairite faction that could be the end of even the above possibility.

You don't understand how the Labour party works do you.

For starters the NEC is dominated by Corbyn supporters http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/labours-national-executive-committee

Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn MP
Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Tom Watson MP

Treasurer Diana Holland
Opposition Front Bench Rebecca Long-Bailey MP
Opposition Front Bench Jon Trickett MP
Opposition Front Bench Jonathan Ashworth MP
EPLP Leader Glenis Willmott MEP
Young Labour Jasmin Beckett
Div. I - Trade Unions Keith Birch
Div. I - Trade Unions Jim Kennedy
Div. I - Trade Unions Andi Fox
Div. I - Trade Unions Paddy Lillis (Chair)
Div. I - Trade Unions Wendy Nichols
Div. I -Trade Unions Andy Kerr
Div. I - Trade Unions Martin Mayer
Div. I - Trade Unions Mary Turner
Div. I - Trade Unions Jennie Formby
Div. I - Trade Unions Cath Speight
Div. I - Trade Unions Pauline McCarthy
Div. I - Trade Unions Jamie Bramwell
Div. II - Socialist Societies James Asser
Div. II - BAME Labour Keith Vaz MP
Div. III - CLPs Darren Williams
Div. III - CLPs Johanna Baxter
Div. III - CLPs Ann Black
Div. III - CLPs Ellie Reeves (Vice Chair)
Div. III - CLPs Christine Shawcroft
Div. III - CLPs Pete Willsman
Div. IV - Labour Councillors Ann Lucas
Div. IV - Labour Councillors Alice Perry
Div. V - PLP/EPLP Margaret Beckett MP
Div. V - PLP/EPLP Dennis Skinner MP
Div. V - PLP/EPLP Shabana Mahmood MP

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 3 2016 19:25

I'm starting to think that The Natural Law Party's ideas are not really weird at all compared with the ones being proposed by the author of this thread.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Aug 3 2016 19:41

Lionsafterslumber, I think you 'd find the Anarchists for Jeremy Corbyn collective more amenable than us narrow sectarians.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Aug 3 2016 22:12
Quote:
It is important to remember that Jeremy Corbyn (Peace Be Upon Him) represents true independent working class organisation, such as the Labour Party.

The counter-revolutionary ultra-leftists at "Anarchists for Jeremy Corbyn" will have their day for their mockery will come back to haunt them. We have asked Comrade Jeremy to raise this at the Central Revolutionary Caucus (UK parliament). https://www.facebook.com/Revolutionary-Workers-Proletarian-Party-Marxist...

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Aug 4 2016 08:25
Lionsafterslumber wrote:
If Corbyn is re-elected Labour leader and even as prime minister, while potentially Blairites are still present within the party, there will likely be a physical conflict over the material resources of government: buildings, office space, etc. I may be wrong but it seems like there is a real issue here about who will take part in this struggle on either side. Would it be a feasible idea that a black bloc could be arranged to secure these resources for Corbyn? But done so of course in return for a policy of nationalisation that rejects directorships, democratises the board that runs industries, and enables co-operatives to run social housing and the like.

There will not be a physical conflict at all. If he is elected then the MPs will shut up and take positions in the cabinet. They might plot to take the leadership off him but that would be an internal thing and they'd probably have the sense to not try it against someone who at that point would have: won a leadership election, defeated a parliamentary rebellion, fought off a leadership challenge and won a general election.
If there were any physical challenge to Corbyn (surely that would be inspiring direct action too!) then he could call bailiffs, cops etc. and who is this challenge from? Are you talking about the Labour party feuding over its resources or are you talking about government buildings etc, in which case you're talking about something approaching a coup, which is pretty unlikely and in the event that anyone tried a coup then black blockers would be cut to pieces.
How big do you think that these black blocs are that they can demand all these things? How many people are you talking about on the streets to achieve this? And nationalistation of industry and housing would cause an international backlash and a complete collapse of the economy. Do you think that the EU and the US will allow the UK to nationalise things without compensation? And if there is compensation then how will they pay it? And more importantly how would that be any different from a business as the money would need to be printed (who would trust it?) or borrowed (who would lend it?) and in the second case which is the only one that is remotely possible then the interest etc would have to be paid, requiring those industries etc to remain profitable, so you would have self-managed exploitation.

Lionsafterslumber wrote:
Securing material party resources is very very different to then being able to use those offices and buildings as some sort of hub for a libertarian communist society, the latter has no real basis in the current landscape.

So you want people to fight for resources that they can't use?

Quote:
However, engaging through force from the bottom up to secure resources for Corbyn would provide a glimpse of direct action to the mainstream public who have been attuned only to parliamentary politics.

Why would we use direct action tactics to defend representative democracy?

Lionsafterslumber wrote:
A return to conventional welfare state would be unfit for today's global capitalism but things like Universal Basic Income are not unaffordable or otherwise impossible because of the nature of global capitalism as you might believe. UBI would be incredibly significant (as long as we fought against a Charles Murray version that wants to simultaneously collapse public services). It would free people financially and through free time to engage in direct action. To just dismiss any of this because it involves short term engagements with an ultimately antagonistic state is naive.

A return to the conventional welfare state would be as possible as a universal basic income. Why would the government give an income designed to free people? One of the arguments against the dole was precisely that!
Either UBI would lead to a loss of benefits etc or it would be worthless. (Also no-one has ever explained to me how a leaningful sum of UBI wouldn't lead to rampant inflation, from a combination of extra money in the system (printing money is hardly frowned upon these days but for thee purposes...) and a burst in consumer demand and purchasing power.
In order to have the power to demand a meaningful universal income then you'd need a movement so powerful then you might as well just ask for communism.

You've used the word naive, this is incorrect. You are of the opinion that you can make massive demands of a state that will: grant them to its detriment, not realise that it will lead to more demands, will not react etc. It is not dismissed because it requires a deal with the state (although deals with the state are a bad move, the state only deals when it is in its interest, and, once again, if you think the state in the UK is in such difficulty as to agree to what a few hundred anarchists (at most) ask for then you really need to have a think about the power that it holds If the state made a deal it would be to protect itself and buy time for a counter-attack as pretty much every deal with the state ever has proved.