As someone who has been part of the mainstream movement in and around Labour for years the nagging doubt that the closer we got to the levers of state power (as much as any government does, anyway) the more all the weapons, soft as well as hard, would be deployed against us.
Do you interpret the dogged attacks on Corbyn as conclusive proof of this?
There were dogged attacks on Miliband as well. Note the attacks are coming from the right wing of the labour party and the Tories, not the CBI etc. I think the CBI would be relieved by a Corbyn government at this point (Keynesian stimulus, probably some configuration of EEA membership or similar terms). Corbyn's actual political proposals are barely to the left of Miliband if at all.
https://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=14738 is good on anti-Semitism in Labour.
Who is the mainstream movement?
Who is we?
All ruling class weapons are on the ruling class table for averting imminent revolution.
Corbyn will compromise like any good Labour leader.
C'mon Jon. You know what I meant.
I'm thinking of deleting this thread. I opened it in exasperation at the current situation. I'm not sure much constructive debate can ensue.
Why does Corbyn object to the IHRA definition?
I think the CBI would be relieved by a Corbyn government at this point (Keynesian stimulus, probably some configuration of EEA membership or similar terms).
Why does Corbyn object to the IHRA definition?Quote:
I think the CBI would be relieved by a Corbyn government at this point (Keynesian stimulus, probably some configuration of EEA membership or similar terms).
Because its dreadful and open to interpretation. Some top UK universities have also refused to use the IHRA definition because its too broad and could easily be used to prosecute anyone that criticised Israel.
I'm thinking of deleting this thread. I opened it in exasperation at the current situation. I'm not sure much constructive debate can ensue.
What constructive debate is there to be had about Corbyn? Maybe I’m misreading you but you give the impression that you think Corbyn and the left of Labour have some significance in class struggle?
What significance do they have iapart from absolute and indisputable position as our class enemy?
Why does Corbyn object to the IHRA definition?Quote:
I think the CBI would be relieved by a Corbyn government at this point (Keynesian stimulus, probably some configuration of EEA membership or similar terms).
CBI consultation on National Investment Banks: http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/responses-sought-on-cbi-s-submission-to-the-s...
CBI position on Brexit essentially the same as Labour's at this point (to the extent that Labour has put forward a position) http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/brexit-and-eu-negotiations/
Warm applause at the British Chamber of Commerce for John McDonnell: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mcdonnell-wins-applause-from-business...
They don't have to like it, they just have to think there would be a more stable business environment under Labour than the current Tory/DUP configuration, or that it wouldn't be worse.
What constructive debate is there to be had about Corbyn? Maybe I’m misreading you but you give the impression that you think Corbyn and the left of Labour have some significance in class struggle?
What significance do they have iapart from absolute and indisputable position as our class enemy?
I don't think you have to necessarily like Corbyn to think that the strategies used against him have some relevance to us. To take an extreme example, I don't think the ruling class are likely to go for a Chilean solution any time soon, but if they did it would definitely have consequences for us, no matter what you think about Corbyn.
I still struggle to comprehend people's indifference to the contrast between Labour and the Tories. Whilst, yes, Labour are not going to transform society or mitigate exploitation or even take our side in any future class conflict, there is a material, tangible and incredibly critical difference between the two parties. I know, as someone that relies on state benefits to keep me from destitution, that life under Labour is always preferable to life under the Tories. This is why, despite despising everything they stood for, I always voted Labour - even under Blair in 2005. I'm a million miles away from being a champagne Fabian like him, but as Stephen Fry succinctly put it - there may only be margins between Labour and the Tories but people live and die in those margins. Yes we want more, much more but surely self-preservation or a sense of class solidarity kicks in at some point and you look at the carnage created by the Tories. Disabled people have been dying in their thousands. Clearly the immiseration thesis is utterly bankrupt at this point. How does a vote for Labour in any way invalidate our work as revolutionaries beyond petty, ivory tower principle?
I don't think it is really breaking any sacred inviolable principle to vote as such. The arguments about parliamentary politics are a critique of the state and political parties, not a moral injunction against people never to vote. And it's going to take someone a few minutes to an hour.
Where you quickly run into trouble though is telling people to vote, canvassing for Labour Party politicians, joining the Labour Party to try to get into candidate selection etc.
The last General Election there were Momentum activists running around marginal seats (probably in some cases not even marginal ones) canvassing for Blairite Labour MPs because there was panic that a bad election result could mean a leadership challenge for Jezza. That is actual time and effort, in many cases by supposed 'communists' that could literally be spent doing almost anything else. If you look at some elements in Plan C moving towards a kind of advisory position for Labour, or Novara Media's by now complete transformation into Labour Party media outlet, there's a lot more going on than voting. To the point where they go on TV to defend NATO against Donald Trump or to argue that the Tories are cutting police officers too much. They're not 'moving the Labour Party to the left' but themselves being pulled massively to the right.
I do think "they're all the same" is a weak argument by itself at this point, since clearly there are differences between say Jacob Rees-Mogg and Diane Abbott. A lot of us would have said it was impossible for Corbyn to end up leader of the Labour Party (probably he would too), yet there he is. Whether there are differences between Frank Field, Stephen Kinnock, Jess Phillips and most Tory MPs is a much harder question to answer though.
Re. post #10:
The policies of Churchill in the 1950s, Anthony Eden & Harold Macmillan were to the left of Harold Wilson. In the logic of electoral politics, perhaps you would have voted for the first 3 rather than the latter.
As for your contemptuous idea that opposition to your contemptible servility to choices utterly outside of your control is
petty, ivory tower principle
- this caricatures (with a clichéd manipulative strawman-type argumentative tactic) all those who criticise idiotic Corbynistecism as mere armchair theoreticians. While many may be (and perhaps this is what you were before you became a member of Lackeys-for-Labouriousness), there are still lots of people who recognise that making your own mistakes, struggling directly with others without and against hierarchy, is infinitely more instructive than self-abasement. Plodding after the carrot of a Labour victory, submitting to mere membership of a gang of politicians that really don't give a flying fuck about you at the bottom except as petty pedlars of their ambitions to sit on the throne at Downing Street, is bound to lead you either into a disillusionment drowning in depression or into becoming a well-paid PR-man for future rulers.
As for quoting Stephen Fry, that all-pervading arrogant phoney who tries to hide his arrogance with contrived humility, that fundamental role-model for the rewards of well-paid acquiescence to this moronic society, that apologist for the monarchy (probably the most blatant expression of class privilege ) - well, if you ever had a splinter of critical insight you must have long extracted it to end up thinking quoting him could ever convince anyone other than those who never rebel at all. Which may well include the vast majority of those who post on libcom. After all, any genuine revolt against capital would not allow a social democrat like Vlad the Inhaler to post garbage on their site.
... Which may well include the vast majority of those who post on libcom. After all, any genuine revolt against capital would not allow a social democrat like Vlad the Inhaler to post garbage on their site.
I think there's a difference between "hosting social democrat propaganda" and "allowing space for people who have an interest in our ideas but are also influenced by different perspectives to discuss and develop their own ideas". What was that about people making their own mistakes again? Or is it only ok if they're the right kind of mistakes?
Why does Corbyn object to the IHRA definition?
Basically, it's because in amongst all the very fair enough definitions/examples of anti-Semitism, they've added:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor
So, I guess saying that Israel is a settler-colonialist project that was formed off the back of ethnic cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs (all true), then that could be considered anti-Semitic.
This actually comes back to R Totale's point about "the strategies used against [Corbyn] having some relevance to us": it seems fairly clear that the attacks on Corbyn from the Labour Right and beyond are actually about governing the space of 'reasonable' politics i.e. Corbyn is too left-wing so needs to be booted back into place. For those of us further to the left than Corbyn this is relevant but only insofar as we need to defend the principles being attacked (i.e. Trident, anti-war, anti-privatisation etc). Not imo, as many have ended up doing, campaign for Corbyn (including on principles we don't share i.e. more police and border guards).
Re. post #10:
The policies of Churchill in the 1950s, Anthony Eden & Harold Macmillan were to the left of Harold Wilson. In the logic of electoral politics, perhaps you would have voted for the first 3 rather than the latter.As for your contemptuous idea that opposition to your contemptible servility to choices utterly outside of your control is
Quote:
petty, ivory tower principle- this caricatures (with a clichéd manipulative strawman-type argumentative tactic) all those who criticise idiotic Corbynistecism as mere armchair theoreticians. While many may be (and perhaps this is what you were before you became a member of Lackeys-for-Labouriousness), there are still lots of people who recognise that making your own mistakes, struggling directly with others without and against hierarchy, is infinitely more instructive than self-abasement. Plodding after the carrot of a Labour victory, submitting to mere membership of a gang of politicians that really don't give a flying fuck about you at the bottom except as petty pedlars of their ambitions to sit on the throne at Downing Street, is bound to lead you either into a disillusionment drowning in depression or into becoming a well-paid PR-man for future rulers.
As for quoting Stephen Fry, that all-pervading arrogant phoney who tries to hide his arrogance with contrived humility, that fundamental role-model for the rewards of well-paid acquiescence to this moronic society, that apologist for the monarchy (probably the most blatant expression of class privilege ) - well, if you ever had a splinter of critical insight you must have long extracted it to end up thinking quoting him could ever convince anyone other than those who never rebel at all. Which may well include the vast majority of those who post on libcom. After all, any genuine revolt against capital would not allow a social democrat like Vlad the Inhaler to post garbage on their site.
Finished?
Feel better?
Good.
I am not even sure why I started this thread. It certainly wasn't to proselytise for Labour politics. I am not, nor have I ever been a Social Democrat. I have always subscribed to a version of revolutionary politics and rejected electoralism, gradualism and reformism. My point, which seems to have been lost on you, is that a vote for Labour seems to me to be a zero cost short term solution to social catastrophe, especially in light of, what I take to be, the refutation of the Immiseration theory, that being that all we have to do is let Capitalism kill, maim and impoverish enough proletarians that the penny finally drops and the proles wake up to their historic role as authors of the future socialist society.
I am trying as best I can to work through thoughts, ideas and feelings in the wake of walking away from Leninism. Returning to first principles, if you will. I'm trying to figure out what I actually believe (as opposed to what I'm supposed to believe), what I actually think is true (as opposed to what I have been told is true). Part of that is examining my complex feelings on the Labour party. I still reject the party as the mechanism through which Socialism or justice can be achieved.
...
This actually comes back to R Totale's point about "the strategies used against [Corbyn] having some relevance to us": it seems fairly clear that the attacks on Corbyn from the Labour Right and beyond are actually about governing the space of 'reasonable' politics i.e. Corbyn is too left-wing so needs to be booted back into place. For those of us further to the left than Corbyn this is relevant but only insofar as we need to defend the principles being attacked (i.e. Trident, anti-war, anti-privatisation etc). Not imo, as many have ended up doing, campaign for Corbyn (including on principles we don't share i.e. more police and border guards).
Just to expand on this, the moment when I was paying most attention to the whole saga was that really weird moment around Passover when Corbyn's attendance at the Jewdas Seder was seized on as further proof of his antisemitism, so there were people with perfectly straight faces essentially making the claim that being associated with politically radical, anti-racist and anti-zionist Jews is a bad thing and pretty much makes you a racist - I don't think you have to have any fondness for Corbyn, or even Jewdas, to think that's a really frightening line of argument and to be glad it was pretty much roundly defeated.
VTI mentions Immiseration " theory"? Again he sets up a strawman to answer something I do not subscribe to and never mentioned, and yet seems to think quoting everything I say and pretending that
Finished? Feel better? Good.
is an answer.
Clearly he thinks expressing disgust and anger is merely an exorcism. He would probably say
Finished? Feel better? Good.
about a riot. Typically smug & superior.
His walk away from Leninism into Corbynism must have taken all of 3 seconds, since Leninism was merely social democracy in a situation (1917 Russia) where gradual reform into state capitalist modes of production and control were not possible; hardly much distance to walk at all.
And both are utterly opposed to
making your own mistakes, struggling directly with others without and against hierarchy
... Which may well include the vast majority of those who post on libcom. After all, any genuine revolt against capital would not allow a social democrat like Vlad the Inhaler to post garbage on their site.
If you think we should ban a forum poster because they're mired in social democracy, why aren't you also campaigning for the removal of David Harvey from the library?
I would just like to confirm once again, lest there be any confusion...I. Am. Not. A. Social. Democrat. Or. A. Corbynista.
why aren't you also campaigning for the removal of David Harvey from the library?
Campaigning? There are loads of things in the library or in other parts of libcom that are obstacles to the struggle against dominant social relations. You seriously think I should waste time campaigning? Seriously seriously?
VTI. Says. He. Is. Not. A. Corbynista. Nor. A. Social. Democrat. He. Does. Not. Answer. Anything. I Say. For. Example. I. Never. Mentioned. Socialism. Or. Justice.
If he wants to "Return... to first principles" perhaps he could say what these "first principles" are that he has left behind and wants to return to? And why these "first principles" involve worrying about whether to vote Labour or not. Vote Labour if you feel like it. Have a wank if you feel like it. But there is no point in making either one of these actions public or turning them into a discussion. And neither wanking nor voting Labour seem to have anything to do with first principles. Better to go off and smash a window rather than have these dilemmas rumbling round your head.
He. Does. Not. Answer. Anything. I Say.
To be fair, I wouldn't bother answering someone who was so obviously spoiling for a fight unless I really had to. Better twenty people like Vlad who ask questions and discuss things openly than two ultra-leftists who think they know it all and are waiting to jump down each other's throats.
ultra-leftists
You are clearly
spoiling for a fight
- I am not an ultra-leftist.
I realise libcom admins far far prefer endless discussion without consequence with people who go round and round in circles
examining... complex feelings
about voting Labour (complex???) than actually getting involved in a fight. But why pretend you are involved in anything other than an acdemic debating society ?
This is my last post here - clearly we have very different ideas about what it means to participate in the struggle against dominant social relations.
I know, as someone that relies on state benefits to keep me from destitution, that life under Labour is always preferable to life under the Tories. This is why, despite despising everything they stood for, I always voted Labour - even under Blair in 2005.
Life on benefits was much easier under Thatcher. Benefit sanctions began under Labour;
https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-...
A Corbyn government would've enforced most of the Tory benefit cuts;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/20/labour-manifesto-keep-p...
Greece’s Syriza party had a programme considerably to the left of Corbynism but quickly capitulated to the EU/IMF dictates and have happily imposed more austerity and encouraged refugees to drown in the sea rather than reach their shores. It’s an old story; eg, the 'great liberation' of an ANC victory in SA was supposed to lead to the promised land. It led to massive enrichment of a new corrupt black elite as they imposed neo-liberal austerity that has kept the black townships as poor as under apartheid. All these things are theoretically ‘better’ than some other possibilities; but worse insofar as they perpetuate the idea that the limits of our horizons must remain submission to the slightly slower less-bad ruling class option - even as things get steadily worse with each successive government, even if at varying paces.
The overall politics of the piece are not good (iirc it ends up more or less arguing for a 'new party of the left' in the US), but this particular section on the Democrats vs. Republicans in the US as a 'ratchet' is interesting: http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/stopme/chapter02.html - except as Red points out this doesn't hold for the Labour Party anyway.
As well as introducing benefits cuts they're also responsible for Yarls Wood and the majority of the current detention and deportation infrastructure (not that there wasn't one under Thatcher, but the specific configuration and capacity we see now belongs to New Labour, as well as restrictions on refugees such as 'no recourse to public funds').
New releases from UK state archives show how one of the most left of post-WWII Labour governments treated their 'allies' in the unions;
Senior figures in Harold Wilson’s Labour government plotted to use a secret foreign office propaganda unit to smear a number of left-wing trade union leaders, according to government papers released on Tuesday to the National Archives at Kew.
James Callaghan, then home secretary, told the then cabinet secretary, Sir Burke Trend, that he was keen that action should betaken to bring down two unionists in particular: Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers Union and Hugh Scanlon of the Amalgamated Engineering Union.
According to a memo written in March 1969 by Daniel Gruffydd Jones, principal private secretary at the Cabinet Office, this plan had been raised in cabinet discussions. [...]
... a Cabinet Office file ... detailed the activities of a foreign office unit called the Information Research Department (IRD), which placed unattributed articles in the press both in the UK and abroad, and which covertly published books and academic articles, produced radio programmes, ran news agencies and influenced the BBC and Reuters.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/24/wilson-government-used-...
I see the point of this thread. Corbyn has been attacked from within his own Party, and now faces all kinds of smears after earlier snobbish 'well he is too radical and not savvy and wise like Blair' approaches didn't go as far as expected. There were always allegations that Corbyn was too radical and offensive (Momentum also received some complaints, for example from the more Blairite J. K. Rowling), that he wasn't pro-Israel enough, or that he was a distraction to the Labour Party.
That said, Corbyn did have a decent shot at the previous elections. It was too convincing to rule out a 'leftist' victory of that sort. This happened despite the more radical gestures of Corbyn's movement, which implies that there is space for radicals to operate in politics.
You're right, all kinds of attacks would have to be weathered. This includes attacks from the soft left and right, on topics such as this. In a radical movement which often expresses anger or frustration towards society, it is difficult not to find some kind of 'moral crisis' that could be manufactured.
Is the Jewish Community over-egging the pudding?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44957906
Is Labour an "existential threat to Jewish life" and has "The stain and shame of anti-Semitism has coursed through Her Majesty's Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015,"
Or is it Israeli actions the cause of anti-semitism
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/politics-fuelling-high-numb...
The CST said 77 antisemitic incidents in the first half of 2018 showed anti-Israel motivation alongside antisemitism yet nobody is placing the blame on the state of Israel for inciting anti-semitism even though the Jewish Bund predicted such occurrences long, long ago
I listened to George Galloway a couple of days ago and had to concede the point that the coincidence of this anti-Corbyn campaign is always related to Labour taking the lead in the opinion polls
Is the Jewish Community over-egging the pudding?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44957906
Please don't say things like "the Jewish community" when you mean "the small group of ruling-class people who play the role of professional representatives of the Jewish community". I don't think this statement was perfect, but its emphasis on introducing a class analysis to the differing interests that are hidden behind "community" was spot on: https://www.jewdas.org/enough-is-enough/
You do have a point, but three newspapers joined together plus various organisations, so will this "small group of ruling class" face criticism from the wider community or will they be endorsed. I think you know the answer. They do, rightly or wrongly, represent the feelings of the majority of the British Jewish community. Unless you suggest that there is a silent majority who oppose their public voices.
Regards a class analysis, nationalism (the zionist ideology) and religion has so far has prevailed over class solidarity despite some dissenting views, Sadly, such politics are also mirrored within the Palestinian community. I'm pretty much a pessimist and hold out not much hope for any positive change in attitudes in Israel or the Occupied Territories or among the Jewish and Palestinian diaspora and their supporters. At times i catch glimpses of changes for the better but then they are dashed.
I think on the specific target of Corbyn, i feel that his pro-Palestinian leanings (in contrast to Blair's Israeli sympathies), may well be the motivation for the attacks but declaring such brings the charge of anti-semitism against me for it contravenes one of the guidelines...that certain British Jews place loyalty towards Israel before loyalty to the British Labour Party.
And other anti-Corbynists and anti-Labour Party are using the dispute to advance their own interests.
I often wonder what the late Gerald Kaufman would have made of all this. This link shows what the readers of the Jerusalem Post thought of him and equates anti-zionism with anti-semitism
https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/On-the-Zionist-front-line/Sir-Gerald-Kaufman...
those who promote anti-Zionism are promoting anti-Semitism. They certainly don't intend to, but they do. Sir Gerald Kaufman, I am quite sure, would never knowingly have done such a thing, but there you have the problem. He didn't know he was doing it. He should have, but he didn't.
I could call them useful idiots, which does I am afraid describe nicely what they are (Kaufman, Chomsky, Finkelstein et al
[Corbyn] unthinking obsession with the myth of Palestinian victimhood makes it impossible to see him as intelligent enough to become Prime Minister.
Will come back to this later, but just dropping off this link that analyses the actual difference between the IHRA guidelines that Labour are being attacked for supposedly not using, and the Labour document, which really makes it clear how weird the whole artificial controversy is: https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brian-klug/code-of-conduct-for-antisemi...
Thinking about it, has there been much fuss over UKIP adopting a guy who's most famous for his catchphrase being "gas the jews"?
three newspapers joined together plus various organisations, so will this "small group of ruling class" face criticism from the wider community or will they be endorsed. I think you know the answer. They do, rightly or wrongly, represent the feelings of the majority of the British Jewish community.
Yeah, but if the Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph all put out a joint statement on some Islamaphobic shit or something similar, would you describe that as the opinion of the 'British community' or would you say it's the British ruling class trying to force-feed reactionary views to the public? Even if the majority of Jews come to accept this version of events, it doesn't mean that the statement comes from the 'Jewish community'; to use the old Chomsky terminology, it's the Jewish community's consent being manufactured by the statement (and ones like it that seem to be flying in all directions atm)..
I think on the specific target of Corbyn, i feel that his pro-Palestinian leanings (in contrast to Blair's Israeli sympathies), may well be the motivation for the attacks but declaring such brings the charge of anti-semitism against me for it contravenes one of the guidelines...that certain British Jews place loyalty towards Israel before loyalty to the British Labour Party.
I agree that this is part of it but I don't think it's the whole story and I think at least some of the motivation is actually much closer to home. So, yes, the Board of Deputies' Zionism puts them in opposition to Corbyn but more than just a geo-political issue 'over there', but also their general conservatism (whether connection to Tories or Labour Right) means that a Corbyn government could potentially upset their role as the go-to representatives for the Jewish community in Britain. This came to the fore imo when Corbyn was told he needed to meet with the 'Jewish community' and went to the Jewdas seder their reaction was essentially 'no, we didn't mean those Jews, we meant us!'
So, imo, it's not just about Israel and geo-politics but also about maintaining their role within the community, which I think would be diminished by a Corbyn government who would probably seek out other voices within the Jewish community in Britain.
The country-wide rebellion that was kicked off by the police murder of George Floyd continues to grow, as across the US people hit the streets in solidarity. Mass demonstrations, freeway shut-...
The history of a militant strike of streetcar workers in Kansas City in 1917 by Jeff Stilley, during which the population of the town drove out scabs who had been brought in by the employers.
Letter from a Japanese anarchist about the Hiroshima bombing, and the response of self-organisation and mutual aid from the local population following the explosion.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
▶ Can comment on articles and discussions
▶ Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
▶ Bookmark articles to your own reading list
▶ Use the site private messaging system
▶ Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Who is the mainstream movement?
Who is we?
All ruling class weapons are on the ruling class table for averting imminent revolution.
Corbyn will compromise like any good Labour leader.