[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The<snip>done.

You make two interesting posts. Lots of interesting points.

May I ask you a couple of questions?

1. Where do you stand on Mao and Stalin?

A friend of mine (he's 80 now and sharp as a blade) has told me how he was a member of CPGB in the 50s. One of the leaders was on the Isle of Wight (where my friend lived) doing some rallying. Then Russia invaded Hungary. That was 56 I think. The local CPGB lot asked WTF was going on and the brave CPGB leader had no answers and simply legged it. The CPGB lost quite a few members overnight. Later we learned Stalin killed maybe 25 million of his own people. Mao, similar.

2. Who whould you describe as a successful socialist leader anywhere in the world and time in history?

I appreciate that all political careers end in failure, and I can think of several leaders who effected great and lasting change, but they are all centre or right of centre. I can't think of anyone on the left (unless you count the Chinese leaders who have transformed the Chinese economy - albeit I would exclude any leader who tolerates or encourages forced displacement of people or imprisonment torture and murder of political opponents - anyone can effect change by fear and brutality).

I wonder whether you might invoke the Leftists in Nicaragua? It could be argued that fierce and often illegal opposition by the US meant the Sandinistas and related never got to show their worth, but that still doesn't mean they were successful by default. Also, "On September 29, 2018, President Ortega declared that political protests were "illegal" in Nicaragua, stating that demonstrators would "respond to justice" if they attempted to publicly voice their opinions. The United Nations condemned the actions as being a violation of human rights regarding freedom of assembly". That is not compatible with success, and is more reminiscent of Mao and Stalin than anyone on the legitimate left I can name.

As I have said many times, I have been and still am a labour voter, but I find little on the left (as you might define it) to inspire me (and let's please not have another argument about how Corbyn isn't left but mainstream and to the right of MacMillan etc). You know what I'm asking - why should we place our hope in the new current left?

Finally your last comment downplaying any possible deselection of the likes of Starmer as something to not focus on worries me. If you seriously think labour could deselect Starmer with equanimity and the proles should and will simply keep marching on, heads held high, I'd be tempted to class you as a Marxist of the Stalin wing, rather than a democratic socialist

Anyway, the great festival of Christmas, beloved of Anthony Wedgewood Benn among other athiests, becons. Have a good one.

 

[kemptown kid]

Baloney. NSC’s lefties had plenty to say about Tory leadership contests. Plus many of us are swing voters, who voted for the pre-Momentum Labour Party. All entitled to a view in a non-Stalinist NSC.

Everyone entitled to a view, of course, but curious that some whose posts suggest their views are diametrically opposed to those of every shade of Labour opinion think their views on who should lead the Labour Party (a decision that will be made by Labour Party members based on a selection made by Labour MPs - hardly Stalinist) are worth posting.

Similarly, I don't have much constructive to offer on who should lead the EDL, the Brexit Party or the Tories - or who should manage Crystal Palace when Roy is offered the Real Madrid job for that matter.
Self evidently, the views of 'swing voters' are much more relevant.

 

[WilburySeagull]

The LP was founded as a socialist party - originally as the political wing of the trade union movement. On foundation the LP was a federalist party that invited anyone who supported the principles espoused by the party, including many socialist clubs and societies and groups like the Independent Labour Party, the Fabian Society and the Social Democratic Federation. Most of the leading individuals who drove the formation of the LP - Keir Hardie, Robert Smillie, Tom Mann, John Burns and Ben Tillett - were Marxists. The right-wing elements who emerged within the PLP in the pre-WW1 period - Philip Snowden and Ramsay MacDonald - were openly hostile to the trade unions, and in particular opposed the idea that the LP should operate as an independent left-wing party outside the control of the Liberals. The LP officially adopted Clause IV of the LP constitution in 1918 committing the LP to socialist policies as the primary objective of the LP. Blair removed Clause IV in 1995. To suggest that the LP did not have a socialist outlook at its foundation flies in the face of historical evidence.


Since its foundation the LP has seen a constant battle between the right-wing of the party and the left of the party - it replicated the class struggle that exists in society as a whole. The socialists within the LP have always welcomed people of differing political views, approaching these differences on the basis of robust argument and debate with the conference deciding policy - the right-wing have always been the elements who have shut down political debate within the party because they lose the debate when it is open, fair and based on the involvement of the membership. Furthermore, the right-wing of the LP have always been the elements who have initiated and engaged in witch-hunts, expelling left-wing members and groups within the LP and shutting down the democratic structures - Blair and the Blairites took this to the ultimate extreme - removing any vestiges of democracy within the LP over the past 25 years.


Socialism is not a 'sect' - a majority of the population in Britain support socialist policies (as demonstrated by the comment I posted earlier in this thread from the opinion poll last week). For the LP to be elected the membership of the LP (including the trade unions) must decide LP policy - the membership of the LP must decide the candidates who will represent the LP - and those in a minority must accept and work for those policies under the leadership of whoever is elected the leader. Unfortunately - this has not been the case over the past 4 years - the Blairites have consciously and consistently engaged in a smear campaign against Corbyn and the policies decided by the LP conference - and they have consistently prevented anyone they believed might support Corbyn from joining the LP - 170,000 people at the last count.

For decades left-wing activists have fought for socialist policies at the LP conference - for decades the LP conference adopted socialist policies - for decades the PLP ignored conference policies - yet left wing activists went out and canvassed for right-wing candidates. Their reward consistently has been to be expelled from the LP by the right-wing. Over the past 25 years the Blairites have removed all elements of democracy from the LP, including having policy decided by the LP conference - and up until 2016 the LP membership collapsed - losing more than 80% of the membership over that period.


No I have not - and this demonstrates that you failed to read what I actually posted. I argued for mandatory reselection of candidates - with the membership deciding who should be the candidate. If the membership chose a Blairite as candidate then so be it - and every LP member should canvass for the candidate irrespective of their political views. However, the Blairites blocked mandatory reselection because they knew that many of the Blairite MPs would be deselected (and unfortunately Corbyn again compromised with the Blairites despite their sabotage).


Yet people on here were claiming that Kyle was elected because he was a good constituency MP, rather than because he was a LP candidate. But that isn't really the issue - when the membership of the Brighton and Hove LP indicated that a majority wanted to have reselection of the LP candidates for the election the Blairite LP HQ shut down the B&H LP organisation - depriving the LP membership in the region of their democratic rights.

You decry the approach of Russell-Moyle and praise Kyle - yet both Kyle and Russel-Moyle both saw a drop in the LP vote of roughly the same amount - Kyle slightly less - Hove had a LP MP from 1997-2010 - Kyle won it in 2015. Kemptown had a Tory from 2010-2017 before Russell-Moyle won it. Yet people here praise Kyle for winning a seat for the LP - but attack Russell-Moyle despite the fact that he did exactly the same thing with a higher percentage of the vote in Kempton than any MP since the Tories controlled the constituency in the 1980s. People view two similar situations - one in a positive light and one negative - depending on their political outlook.


This is nonsense - as I said before Britain is the 5th richest country in the world - of course it could afford these policies. Most of the measures would have returned Britain to the level of spending that existed in 2010. Someone linked to a report saying that neither the LP or Tory policies were affordable - a right-wing think-tank that opposes public spending of any description. The policies in the LP manifesto weren't very radical - far less radical than in 1945 when there was a lot less money in the economy after WW2 (when Britain was effectively broke).


I would argue that this is the wrong approach - you should vote for LP because of the policies it is putting forward in its manifesto. There have been plenty of Blairites who have praised Johnson for his 'approach' as mayor - and their are many Blairites who have imposed policies as bad as what Johnson has done.

I thank you for your comprehensive response. It is unlikely we will ever agree on everything but I think it is important to debate with those of different views. Brexit has exacebated the tendency just to talk to those you agree with rather than be open to opposing views. There are a couple of points I would like to make though. If as you say many of the votes for Kyle reflect the view of him as a good constituency mp rather than as a LP member, deselecting him would be a crass error by the party as a whole. In any event I know from my wife who is a party member that the latest attempt at deselection ended because the election was called not because anyone blocked it.It is usually better to support a winning candidate rather than rubbish him as not pure enough. Also I was not attaking Russell-Moyle for in general, just for suggesting it was everyone's fault but the leaders for losing the election. It may be unpalatable to youbut there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from a whole range of LP mps that however popular the policies might have been Corbyn himself was toxic on the doorstep. If you lose an election that badly the leaders should hold up their hands and let othets move the party on. The LP is crying out for a leader who can knit the various tendencies together not drive the less pure out. I remember the 1980s when a similar disaster occurred when labour decided it was not left wing enough and left the country with endless years of Thacherism. The danger of your approach is that in the end voters decide elections, not party members and we all need to remember that.

Anyway I hope you have a good Christmas and the debate can resume afterwards.

 

[beorhthelm]

As has been pointed out - these CEOs would get substantial share options as part of their package -

wait, thats even more absurd, a CEO's working class status depends on whether they receive options or not? any employees with share options switch from working class to middle class? this means those that work for say Tescos are working class unless take the share options; work for John Lewis and they are middle class automatically. delightfully bonkers.

and we have to conclude as most people will have some form of company pension, owning shares, the majority of people are middle class now.

 

[warmleyseagull]

Anyone who works by hand or brain for a wage or salary (when they are given the opportunity to do so).

Bugger. My wife and I run a café. Along with c.5m of the UK's labour force (not my words - Office of National Statistics defines us thus) we don't count for you. Any ideas how we are classified?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Bugger. My wife and I run a café. Along with c.5m of the UK's labour force (not my words - Office of National Statistics defines us thus) we don't count for you. Any ideas how we are classified?

Think JRS put his foot in it on this one. Anyway, great work, this country needs hard working entrepreneurs like you and your wife

 

[beorhthelm]

Bugger. My wife and I run a café. Along with c.5m of the UK's labour force (not my words - Office of National Statistics defines us thus) we don't count for you. Any ideas how we are classified?

you'll be part of the capitalist bourgeoisie, exploiting the workers.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

So you are saying Momentum has no power or influence within labour?

It has some but its hugely overblown by the media the unions are much more powerful (I'm a member of both Momentum and Unite)

 

[Sirnormangall]

It has some but its hugely overblown by the media the unions are much more powerful (I'm a member of both Momentum and Unite)

I’d be interested to know what Unite members feel about their Union taking legal action against Anna Turley. A good use of members contributions?

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

This will take a while -

You make two interesting posts. Lots of interesting points.

May I ask you a couple of questions?

1. Where do you stand on Mao and Stalin?

Stalin was a brutal dictator that rested on a massive bureaucratic power base. The leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution (which Stalin initially opposed) understood that socialism could not be built in Russia - it was a rural, agrarian, largely feudal society and required the assistance of a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country. Socialism is internationalist in outlook - Stalin promoted 'socialism in one country' which is the very antithesis of international socialism. Now - the rise of Stalinism was not inevitable - but the Bolsheviks understood that a socialist revolution isolated just in Russia, would come under enormous counter-revolutionary pressures and Stalinism proved to be the counter-revolutionary force that would usurp the revolutionary potential of the Russian working class.

Mao is a different kettle of fish - from a very wealthy farming background he was predominantly a Chinese nationalist - inspired by Washington, Napoleon, Adam Smith and the neo-Kantian Friedrich Paulsen (who's emphasis that 'strong individuals' should not be bound by 'moral codes' - which demonstrated how Mao justified his later actions). Mao flirted with Marxism around the time of the Russian Revolution but was more influenced by anarchism. As the Japanese expanded into China Mao drifted back into Chinese nationalism. While Mao joined the newly formed Chinese communist party he still adopted what could best be described as a liberal nationalist outlook - promoting 'civil liberties' etc. He argued for a cross-class nationalist alliance to oppose Japanese imperialism. He became a prominent member of the Kuomintang - the Chinese Nationalist Party in the 1920s - representing the CCP on its executive. By the mid-1920s Mao was turning away from the Marxist view of the working class being the key revolutionary force in society - and instead began training peasants are a process of building a peasant army (a key indicator of a nationalist outlook in a agrarian society). The CCP expelled Mao in 1927 for 'military opportunism' - building a peasant army under his control, rather than CCP control. Mao suffered some significant defeats in the late 1920s but by the 1930s had built a substantial peasant army. In one incident members of the CCP attempted to overthrow Mao's control of the army resulting in the torture and massacre of thousands of CCP members by Mao's supporters. By sheer size of his forces Mao was able to become the de-facto leader of the CCP. Again demonstrating his nationalist, rather than socialist outlook, Mao joined with the right-wing Chinese nationalists that he had been fighting for 10 year to oppose Japanese expansion in the later 1930s - and as soon as the Japanese were on the back-foot Mao resumed his drive for control of China - succeeding in 1949 (on a much smaller scale Castro had a similar trajectory in Cuba). Now China was never a socialist state - from the outset it was a bureaucratic dictatorship with Mao at its head - based primarily on the wealthier peasant class (like Stalin had used the Kulaks before they became too powerful and posed a threat to his rule). When you have dictatorship - you have people dying as a result.

Now - the purpose of the history lesson is to demonstrate that the processes in Russian and China were different - and while the outcome appears the same there is a different foundation to the dictatorships and a different outlook from the leaderships of each.

A friend of mine (he's 80 now and sharp as a blade) has told me how he was a member of CPGB in the 50s. One of the leaders was on the Isle of Wight (where my friend lived) doing some rallying. Then Russia invaded Hungary. That was 56 I think. The local CPGB lot asked WTF was going on and the brave CPGB leader had no answers and simply legged it. The CPGB lost quite a few members overnight.

Not an uncommon story - happened regularly from the 1930s onwards - initially many of the old die-hard Stalinists refused to acknowledge any criticism of the 'Boss' - but later it served the interests of the bureaucracy to support Stalinism (many of the bureaucratic leaders of the trade union movement globally supported Stalinism as it game them a power-base within the trade union movement and assisted their efforts to usurp trade union democracy - and there are numerous examples of this in the UK).

Later we learned Stalin killed maybe 25 million of his own people. Mao, similar.

All dictators behave in this fashion - not just those supposed to be catagorised as on the left.

2. Who whould you describe as a successful socialist leader anywhere in the world and time in history?

This poses the wrong question - socialist movements are not about individual leaders, they are about a social class, the working class, developing a class consciousness and acting in its own class interests. A key component of this is the development of a revolutionary party - a political party with a conscious socialist outlook with mass support among the working class (something the Bolsheviks had in 1917). While individual leaders can play an important role at different times - it is the much wider leadership of the class movement that is crucial. The most 'successful' socialist 'leader' in the world would have to be Lenin given that he was a key figure in the Russian Revolution - and Trotsky who built the Red Army and defeated the Western Imperialist invasion and the White counter-revolution after WW1.

I appreciate that all political careers end in failure, and I can think of several leaders who effected great and lasting change, but they are all centre or right of centre. I can't think of anyone on the left (unless you count the Chinese leaders who have transformed the Chinese economy - albeit I would exclude any leader who tolerates or encourages forced displacement of people or imprisonment torture and murder of political opponents - anyone can effect change by fear and brutality).

If you were to pick an 'individual' that effected great and lasting change then that would have to be Lenin - the Russian Revolution was the most transformative event in human history because of the overthrow of the propertied class who had dominated human society since the neolithic period.

I wonder whether you might invoke the Leftists in Nicaragua? It could be argued that fierce and often illegal opposition by the US meant the Sandinistas and related never got to show their worth, but that still doesn't mean they were successful by default. Also, "On September 29, 2018, President Ortega declared that political protests were "illegal" in Nicaragua, stating that demonstrators would "respond to justice" if they attempted to publicly voice their opinions. The United Nations condemned the actions as being a violation of human rights regarding freedom of assembly". That is not compatible with success, and is more reminiscent of Mao and Stalin than anyone on the legitimate left I can name.

The overthrow of a right-wing dictator by leftist guerrillas does not automatically result in a leftist society (it can - but there is no example of it in human history). Ortega, like Mao and Castro was a liberal nationalist - he would have happily come to an accommodation with US imperialism if given the chance - like Mao and Castro (and Ho Chi Minh) - US imperialism rejected their advances for strategic reasons (and partially stupidity), instead choosing to support right-wing counter-revolutionary forces out of fear that a successful revolutionary upheaval in one country could have a domino effect much wider. Ortega has turned out to be an utter scumbag - allegedly having sexually abused his step-daughter over years - becoming a right-wing tin-pot dictator and siphoning away vasts amounts of money into off-shore accounts.

I protested against US intervention in the 1980s - without having any illusions that Ortega and the Sandanistas were going to move towards the establishment of any kind of socialist society in Nicaragua.

As I have said many times, I have been and still am a labour voter, but I find little on the left (as you might define it) to inspire me (and let's please not have another argument about how Corbyn isn't left but mainstream and to the right of MacMillan etc). You know what I'm asking - why should we place our hope in the new current left?

The first thing that you have to address is what type of society you want to live in - what type of society you thinks should exist - what is needed to solve the current difficulties facing society etc

Human society is constantly changing - constantly being modified - constantly in motion - nothing stand still - nothing can exist outside of societal developments - and not all of the changes are positive. Socialists support any measure that benefits working class people. That is why socialists support the measures contained in the LP manifesto at the last election and the one before that. However, socialists also recognise that reforms are not introduced under capitalism for altruistic reasons - they are introduced to fend off social upheaval. The welfare state was introduced after WW2 in an effort to fend off revolutionary upheavals like happened after WW1 (these upheavals did occur, not in Europe, but in the neo-colonial world). The welfare state was to be welcomed - but socialists recognised that the welfare state would come under sustained attack once it inhibited the ability of the capitalist class to make profits. After the 1973 depression world capitalism moved to reduce welfare (in the broadest sense of the word) and this was epitomised by Thatcherism and Reaganism - a return by capitalism to the markets unfettered by regulation, the free movement of money and a drastic reduction in government involvement in the economy (effectively an attempt to return to lassiez-faire capitalism). The reason for this is because capitalism can no longer afford the welfare state - hence the ongoing and sustained attacks by the Tories and the Blairites on the welfare state over decades.

Now this leads to a further problem - the LP - the LP is traditionally a social democratic party - a party of reforms operating within the capitalism system - a party for managing capitalism. The LP was not established as a party of social democracy - but as a party of class struggle, the political wing of the trade union movement. It evolved into a party of social democracy following the Russian Revolution, largely as a result of the European social democracies adopting a policy of national chauvinism during WW1.. The hayday of social democracy was the post-war welfare state period - it was this period that saw the social democracies hold political sway over large parts of the globe (particularly the industrial developed countries) - it was counter-posed as an alternative to Stalinism and socialist revolution. Social democracy began to lose it power and influence following 1973 - capitalism could no longer support the reforms and social democracy could no longer exercise political influence. As a result - social democracy on a global basis shifted dramatically to the right. Being completely embedded into the capitalist system of representative parliamentary democracy - the LP had two directions it could go in - back to its roots as the socialist political wing of the trade union movement - or abandoning any semblance of being a left party and becoming a second string Tory party for when the Tories were unable to maintain power because of incompetence and/or corruption.

We now have a society in Britain (and Ireland - and the US - and moving in this direction in every other country with a welfare state of any sort) - of rampant neo-liberalism - of control primarily by financial capital (new money in contrast to old money (property) - and Trump is a representative of old money in the US). We live in a society of divisiveness - of division - of attacks on welfare - of paying for basic necessities - of zero hour contracts - of laws to attack trade union rights - of bubble and crash - of rapidly growing inequality - of environmental destruction. This is also a period where capitalism - consciously or sub-consciously - whips up divisions in order to maintain control - racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, misogyny, attacks on the LGBTQ community etc (in Ireland sectarianism is another weapon that is used) - if you can keep the oppressed layers fighting among themselves then it is easier to control them. This poses the question of how do you counteract these developments? - liberalism no longer can play this role - the welfare state is going down the tubes and social democracy is past its sell-by date. The only alternative is to build unity based on class politics - building a working class movement to fight the division of capitalist society. Capitalism is in its death-agony - not alone is it galloping towards a society of rampant division based on inequality - it is hurtling at an unmerciful pace towards environmental disaster. For decades the danger was nuclear annihilation - but that was under the control if the elites and launching a nuclear attack was based on the understanding of mutually assured destruction. The ruling elites think they can survive environmental disaster and continue to exploit the population of the planet from the bunkers they are building on the south island in New Zealand. They don't care about the planet - they will use the disaster just as they use every disaster - to profit from scarce resources. Johnson has promised increased NHS spending - and he may well do so in order to fend off criticism - but the Tories have already in the last few days engaged in attacks on people with disabilities - and are now floating the notion of compulsory health insurance for the NHS. This is the process that is underway - a process of continued dismantling of the welfare state.

Now this brings us back to the LP under Corbyn - Corbyn is not and was not a messiah for the left. Like McDonnell and Skinner and a few others - he hung around the fringes of the PLP for decades - easily ignored by the Blairites - and not making any effort to mobilise a real opposition. Corbyn became leader because of the utter incompetence of the Blairites - they had a dull, unnoticed leadership contest and decided - let's nominated Corbyn and we can all attack him and get people interested in us again. It blew up in their face in a spectacular fashion. Nobody in socialist circles had any illusions in Corbyn - he had spent nearly 40 years in the PLP doing little - and a leopard wasn't going to change his spots. What Corbyn's leadership allowed was the opening up of a new offensive against neo-liberal capitalism - about changing the content of the debate - about putting class politics back on the agenda - about creating the potential for the building of a mass movement of working class people. A river takes the easiest route available from its source to the sea - it is much easier to build a working class movement through an existing political party of social democracy than it is to build a new party from scratch. Corbyn was always going to come under sustained attack from the Tories, the media and the Blairites - his leadership threatened to open up a new front of class conflict. They weren't threatened by a LP majority (there has been many of these in the past) - they were threatened by what such a LP majority would represent in the eyes of working class people - a major push back against neo-liberalism, attacks on welfare and environmental destruction. For them it was not a case of trying to control a Corbyn government (that would not be a difficult task) - it would be on how to keep a lid on a potential social explosion as working class people went on the offensive. The movement have to be cut off at the ankles before it could develop any momentum. Corbyn made numerous mistakes - most of his own making - but it was almost inevitable that he was going to make these - the only question posed was whether these f*ck-ups (combined with the attacks from the right and the Blairites) would do enough damage to prevent a LP majority - and now we know that answer.

And this brings us to your final point -

Finally your last comment downplaying any possible deselection of the likes of Starmer as something to not focus on worries me. If you seriously think labour could deselect Starmer with equanimity and the proles should and will simply keep marching on, heads held high, I'd be tempted to class you as a Marxist of the Stalin wing, rather than a democratic socialist

So to be clear - I am a Marxist of the anti-Stalinist variety - in political terms I would be regarded as a Trotskyist. Now - in the modern political world these terms are rather archaic. Stalinism is in the dustbin of history - there are still a few die-hard Stalinists around but they are small and declining in number and have little influence anywhere - the KKE in Greece is probably the most influential Stalinist party globally. The most influential Trotskyist party globally these days is probably the party I am a member of - the Socialist Party in Ireland. We have parliamentary representation, local council representation - and have played a leading national role in a whole series of successful campaigns over the past 20 years - most recently the campaign to defeat a water tax, a household charge, the campaign for marriage equality, the campaign for abortion rights as well as preventing evictions etc. On a comparable basis - if the SP was in Britain with would have about 10,000 members, 10 MPs, a hundred local councillors - but more important than the representation - it would have led a series of mass movements. Trotskyism did have a significant base in Britain in the 1980s - around the Militant and the the socialist council in Liverpool - and later in the campaign to defeat the poll tax - but it has lost its way in recent times and has now only in the past few months set the task of reorganising itself.

The issue with Starmer and deselection has nothing to do with personalities - it has to do with democracy within the LP. Beginning with Kinnock, the Blairites nuked the democratic structures of the LP. One of these key processes was the reselection of LP MPs as candidates - based on does the MP represent the views of the membership of the local LP - and what is their record as a public representative (even the Irish Tories guard reselection with a passion when it comes to selecting their candidates - it is actually quite unusual for a political party with the election system like we have on these islands, not to have reselection and deselection as a mechanism for selecting candidates for elections.. Whether Starmer was to be deselected is not and should not be a matter for me - it is a matter for the membership of his CLP. The PLP does not represent the views of the LP membership - and it should. It represents the views of the dim and distant remnants of Blairism.

The question of this thread was who should be the 'next leader of the LP' - and that is a very difficult question - not least because you need 35 MPs to be nominated as a candidate - and there aren't 35 MPs that would be considered as left-wing like Corbyn. Of those most close to Corbyn - RLB is the leading contender - but she will need to soften her position in order to even get nominated. Along with that, RLB is a technocrat - and politically is a Keynesian. That is a long way from where Corbyn is and what is needed for the LP to become a mass working class party. The new leader of the LP will be facing (in parliamentary terms) five years of Tory rule - a brexit that is likely to end up a shambles - an impending economic downturn - and likely social upheaval. Unless the new LP leader is capable of articulating on these issues from a left perspective then the LP will revert back to becoming a second-string Tory selection and will continue the removal of the last vestiges of social democracy from the political scene. This would be unfortunate. Social upheaval is very likely in Britain in the short to medium term - what cannot be predicted is the character of this social upheaval. From a Tory perspective it would be better if this social upheaval was directed in an internal class fashion - sowing division among the working class - with a rise of the far-right and racial conflict etc. From a working class perspective it would be better that this social upheaval is directed in a class fashion against the policies of the Tories and the far-right. A left LP would facilitate the second alternative and would be far more beneficial in that the opposition would be organised, disciplined and have a specific objective. If the LP fails to play this role then it opens the opportunity for the far-right to whip up destructive conflict along ethnic, racial, gender etc lines that will have major and long-term consequences for British society.

Anyway, the great festival of Christmas, beloved of Anthony Wedgewood Benn among other athiests, becons. Have a good one.

Thanks for the best wishes - despite being an atheist, I always enjoy Christmas - my daughter was home from London, I have been spending a lot of time playing with my grand-daughter etc. And I have another 10 days before I am back to work. As a festival it is not my favourite - but I always have a good time - my favourite festival, hands down, is the Fallas Festival (another festival with religious roots) in Valencia in March each year. Wishing you a happy new year - and I hope you didn't find the contribution to this debate to long and over-powering - but it is a topic that does require some explanation.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

wait, thats even more absurd, a CEO's working class status depends on whether they receive options or not? any employees with share options switch from working class to middle class? this means those that work for say Tescos are working class unless take the share options; work for John Lewis and they are middle class automatically. delightfully bonkers.

and we have to conclude as most people will have some form of company pension, owning shares, the majority of people are middle class now.

This is a case of adding 2+2 and getting 200.

CEO's receive share options for achieving profit, turnover, share price etc targets - it is in their interests to engage in an exploitative fashion against their workforce and their customers. Workers who receive share options do so as part of a bonus scheme - they have no control in how these share schemes are implemented or in what they are. They are similar to receiving overtime payments where the overtime is determined by the employer.

And yes - under capitalism people are forced to pay substantial sums into a private pension fund where a fund manager then gambles these funds on stocks etc - and changes hefty fees for doing so. Those contributing to these pension funds have no control over what happens the money - or even if they get anything back when they retire. Same scenario plays out with a worker who buys a rented property as a nest egg for retirement.

Social class is not determined by share ownership - it is determined by the relationship an individual has with the means of production. Shares are a mechanism used as part of the control of the means of production - but this control is also determined by the relationship individuals have with the shares they own.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Bugger. My wife and I run a café. Along with c.5m of the UK's labour force (not my words - Office of National Statistics defines us thus) we don't count for you. Any ideas how we are classified?

There are different types of self-employed workers - some are forced into self-employment for exploitative reasons (e.g. workers in construction who are forced to work as sub-contractors so that the developers can avoid legal obligations to their workforce - a massive problem in Ireland and I suspect also in the UK). Other workers operate as a single self-employed worker because of the nature of their profession - tradesmen for example, in Ireland doctors, dentists, physios etc also operate on this basis. Some people run a small business by themselves, like a coffee shop - or will have a workforce. Here the lines get a bit blurry - and there are no hard and fast rules - but, generally, if you run a business and employ workers then your relationship with the means of production changes from a worker to an employer and you class interests also change. People who are self-employed in this fashion tend to view society from a perspective of their own self-interest - they do not have a collective outlook - while they may combine with others in a similar position, self-interest will always be the driving force. Now the problem here is that a cafe owner who is also an employer is also exploited by larger capitalist interests - suppliers, banks, competition etc. - and will be driven under by these exploitative forces more often than not (6 out of 10 new businesses fail within 3 years). It is very difficult to run a small business - and those that do face enormous pressure and stress. While the vast majority may not realise it - socialist policies, while not geared specifically towards this social strata, are very much more beneficial to the small business than the Tory policies that operate in the interests of the 1%.

So yes - c.5m people may be classed as 'self-employed' - but I suspect that a very large proportion of those are in reality workers who by circumstances are forced into that position, rather than doing so by choice.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That is an absolutely superb reply, and I thank you for the time and consideration that you put into it. There were several points you mentioned that made me think 'yes, that makes much better sense to me now'. And you said all the right things about some of the issues about which I do have some detailed knowledge (and attitude).

I suspect that we differ mainly in only two respects: I don't think that a real socialist state/world will emerge any time soon (whereas I assume you think it will arrive soon enough to justify it being the principle objective in your political engagement), and I am prepared to accept compromises with the right (among the electorate) in order to see some societal shift to the left (whereas I get the impression you think the left should stick to it's guns and hope for the best). I say that as someone who is not a natural compromiser (indeed I did the Briggs Myesr test recently and came out as 'the captain' - the most uncompromising of the personality types).

It would be interesting (for me at least) to spend a couple of hours in a pub with you learning more about your journey and experiences. I have always had a problem following leaders (see above) and it interest me that you see the movement as being the thing (not the leaders - who may come and go). I rather like that, albeit I would, being a slave to reason and an opponent of 'tacit expertise'. The problem with that of course is that in our system the party leaders embody the platform, so they are important, de facto.

Anyway, thanks again. With best wishes for the New Year. HWT.

This will take a while -


Stalin was a brutal dictator that rested on a massive bureaucratic power base. The leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution (which Stalin initially opposed) understood that socialism could not be built in Russia - it was a rural, agrarian, largely feudal society and required the assistance of a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country. Socialism is internationalist in outlook - Stalin promoted 'socialism in one country' which is the very antithesis of international socialism. Now - the rise of Stalinism was not inevitable - but the Bolsheviks understood that a socialist revolution isolated just in Russia, would come under enormous counter-revolutionary pressures and Stalinism proved to be the counter-revolutionary force that would usurp the revolutionary potential of the Russian working class.

Mao is a different kettle of fish - from a very wealthy farming background he was predominantly a Chinese nationalist - inspired by Washington, Napoleon, Adam Smith and the neo-Kantian Friedrich Paulsen (who's emphasis that 'strong individuals' should not be bound by 'moral codes' - which demonstrated how Mao justified his later actions). Mao flirted with Marxism around the time of the Russian Revolution but was more influenced by anarchism. As the Japanese expanded into China Mao drifted back into Chinese nationalism. While Mao joined the newly formed Chinese communist party he still adopted what could best be described as a liberal nationalist outlook - promoting 'civil liberties' etc. He argued for a cross-class nationalist alliance to oppose Japanese imperialism. He became a prominent member of the Kuomintang - the Chinese Nationalist Party in the 1920s - representing the CCP on its executive. By the mid-1920s Mao was turning away from the Marxist view of the working class being the key revolutionary force in society - and instead began training peasants are a process of building a peasant army (a key indicator of a nationalist outlook in a agrarian society). The CCP expelled Mao in 1927 for 'military opportunism' - building a peasant army under his control, rather than CCP control. Mao suffered some significant defeats in the late 1920s but by the 1930s had built a substantial peasant army. In one incident members of the CCP attempted to overthrow Mao's control of the army resulting in the torture and massacre of thousands of CCP members by Mao's supporters. By sheer size of his forces Mao was able to become the de-facto leader of the CCP. Again demonstrating his nationalist, rather than socialist outlook, Mao joined with the right-wing Chinese nationalists that he had been fighting for 10 year to oppose Japanese expansion in the later 1930s - and as soon as the Japanese were on the back-foot Mao resumed his drive for control of China - succeeding in 1949 (on a much smaller scale Castro had a similar trajectory in Cuba). Now China was never a socialist state - from the outset it was a bureaucratic dictatorship with Mao at its head - based primarily on the wealthier peasant class (like Stalin had used the Kulaks before they became too powerful and posed a threat to his rule). When you have dictatorship - you have people dying as a result.

Now - the purpose of the history lesson is to demonstrate that the processes in Russian and China were different - and while the outcome appears the same there is a different foundation to the dictatorships and a different outlook from the leaderships of each.


Not an uncommon story - happened regularly from the 1930s onwards - initially many of the old die-hard Stalinists refused to acknowledge any criticism of the 'Boss' - but later it served the interests of the bureaucracy to support Stalinism (many of the bureaucratic leaders of the trade union movement globally supported Stalinism as it game them a power-base within the trade union movement and assisted their efforts to usurp trade union democracy - and there are numerous examples of this in the UK).


All dictators behave in this fashion - not just those supposed to be catagorised as on the left.


This poses the wrong question - socialist movements are not about individual leaders, they are about a social class, the working class, developing a class consciousness and acting in its own class interests. A key component of this is the development of a revolutionary party - a political party with a conscious socialist outlook with mass support among the working class (something the Bolsheviks had in 1917). While individual leaders can play an important role at different times - it is the much wider leadership of the class movement that is crucial. The most 'successful' socialist 'leader' in the world would have to be Lenin given that he was a key figure in the Russian Revolution - and Trotsky who built the Red Army and defeated the Western Imperialist invasion and the White counter-revolution after WW1.


If you were to pick an 'individual' that effected great and lasting change then that would have to be Lenin - the Russian Revolution was the most transformative event in human history because of the overthrow of the propertied class who had dominated human society since the neolithic period.


The overthrow of a right-wing dictator by leftist guerrillas does not automatically result in a leftist society (it can - but there is no example of it in human history). Ortega, like Mao and Castro was a liberal nationalist - he would have happily come to an accommodation with US imperialism if given the chance - like Mao and Castro (and Ho Chi Minh) - US imperialism rejected their advances for strategic reasons (and partially stupidity), instead choosing to support right-wing counter-revolutionary forces out of fear that a successful revolutionary upheaval in one country could have a domino effect much wider. Ortega has turned out to be an utter scumbag - allegedly having sexually abused his step-daughter over years - becoming a right-wing tin-pot dictator and siphoning away vasts amounts of money into off-shore accounts.

I protested against US intervention in the 1980s - without having any illusions that Ortega and the Sandanistas were going to move towards the establishment of any kind of socialist society in Nicaragua.


The first thing that you have to address is what type of society you want to live in - what type of society you thinks should exist - what is needed to solve the current difficulties facing society etc

Human society is constantly changing - constantly being modified - constantly in motion - nothing stand still - nothing can exist outside of societal developments - and not all of the changes are positive. Socialists support any measure that benefits working class people. That is why socialists support the measures contained in the LP manifesto at the last election and the one before that. However, socialists also recognise that reforms are not introduced under capitalism for altruistic reasons - they are introduced to fend off social upheaval. The welfare state was introduced after WW2 in an effort to fend off revolutionary upheavals like happened after WW1 (these upheavals did occur, not in Europe, but in the neo-colonial world). The welfare state was to be welcomed - but socialists recognised that the welfare state would come under sustained attack once it inhibited the ability of the capitalist class to make profits. After the 1973 depression world capitalism moved to reduce welfare (in the broadest sense of the word) and this was epitomised by Thatcherism and Reaganism - a return by capitalism to the markets unfettered by regulation, the free movement of money and a drastic reduction in government involvement in the economy (effectively an attempt to return to lassiez-faire capitalism). The reason for this is because capitalism can no longer afford the welfare state - hence the ongoing and sustained attacks by the Tories and the Blairites on the welfare state over decades.

Now this leads to a further problem - the LP - the LP is traditionally a social democratic party - a party of reforms operating within the capitalism system - a party for managing capitalism. The LP was not established as a party of social democracy - but as a party of class struggle, the political wing of the trade union movement. It evolved into a party of social democracy following the Russian Revolution, largely as a result of the European social democracies adopting a policy of national chauvinism during WW1.. The hayday of social democracy was the post-war welfare state period - it was this period that saw the social democracies hold political sway over large parts of the globe (particularly the industrial developed countries) - it was counter-posed as an alternative to Stalinism and socialist revolution. Social democracy began to lose it power and influence following 1973 - capitalism could no longer support the reforms and social democracy could no longer exercise political influence. As a result - social democracy on a global basis shifted dramatically to the right. Being completely embedded into the capitalist system of representative parliamentary democracy - the LP had two directions it could go in - back to its roots as the socialist political wing of the trade union movement - or abandoning any semblance of being a left party and becoming a second string Tory party for when the Tories were unable to maintain power because of incompetence and/or corruption.

We now have a society in Britain (and Ireland - and the US - and moving in this direction in every other country with a welfare state of any sort) - of rampant neo-liberalism - of control primarily by financial capital (new money in contrast to old money (property) - and Trump is a representative of old money in the US). We live in a society of divisiveness - of division - of attacks on welfare - of paying for basic necessities - of zero hour contracts - of laws to attack trade union rights - of bubble and crash - of rapidly growing inequality - of environmental destruction. This is also a period where capitalism - consciously or sub-consciously - whips up divisions in order to maintain control - racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, misogyny, attacks on the LGBTQ community etc (in Ireland sectarianism is another weapon that is used) - if you can keep the oppressed layers fighting among themselves then it is easier to control them. This poses the question of how do you counteract these developments? - liberalism no longer can play this role - the welfare state is going down the tubes and social democracy is past its sell-by date. The only alternative is to build unity based on class politics - building a working class movement to fight the division of capitalist society. Capitalism is in its death-agony - not alone is it galloping towards a society of rampant division based on inequality - it is hurtling at an unmerciful pace towards environmental disaster. For decades the danger was nuclear annihilation - but that was under the control if the elites and launching a nuclear attack was based on the understanding of mutually assured destruction. The ruling elites think they can survive environmental disaster and continue to exploit the population of the planet from the bunkers they are building on the south island in New Zealand. They don't care about the planet - they will use the disaster just as they use every disaster - to profit from scarce resources. Johnson has promised increased NHS spending - and he may well do so in order to fend off criticism - but the Tories have already in the last few days engaged in attacks on people with disabilities - and are now floating the notion of compulsory health insurance for the NHS. This is the process that is underway - a process of continued dismantling of the welfare state.

Now this brings us back to the LP under Corbyn - Corbyn is not and was not a messiah for the left. Like McDonnell and Skinner and a few others - he hung around the fringes of the PLP for decades - easily ignored by the Blairites - and not making any effort to mobilise a real opposition. Corbyn became leader because of the utter incompetence of the Blairites - they had a dull, unnoticed leadership contest and decided - let's nominated Corbyn and we can all attack him and get people interested in us again. It blew up in their face in a spectacular fashion. Nobody in socialist circles had any illusions in Corbyn - he had spent nearly 40 years in the PLP doing little - and a leopard wasn't going to change his spots. What Corbyn's leadership allowed was the opening up of a new offensive against neo-liberal capitalism - about changing the content of the debate - about putting class politics back on the agenda - about creating the potential for the building of a mass movement of working class people. A river takes the easiest route available from its source to the sea - it is much easier to build a working class movement through an existing political party of social democracy than it is to build a new party from scratch. Corbyn was always going to come under sustained attack from the Tories, the media and the Blairites - his leadership threatened to open up a new front of class conflict. They weren't threatened by a LP majority (there has been many of these in the past) - they were threatened by what such a LP majority would represent in the eyes of working class people - a major push back against neo-liberalism, attacks on welfare and environmental destruction. For them it was not a case of trying to control a Corbyn government (that would not be a difficult task) - it would be on how to keep a lid on a potential social explosion as working class people went on the offensive. The movement have to be cut off at the ankles before it could develop any momentum. Corbyn made numerous mistakes - most of his own making - but it was almost inevitable that he was going to make these - the only question posed was whether these f*ck-ups (combined with the attacks from the right and the Blairites) would do enough damage to prevent a LP majority - and now we know that answer.

And this brings us to your final point -


So to be clear - I am a Marxist of the anti-Stalinist variety - in political terms I would be regarded as a Trotskyist. Now - in the modern political world these terms are rather archaic. Stalinism is in the dustbin of history - there are still a few die-hard Stalinists around but they are small and declining in number and have little influence anywhere - the KKE in Greece is probably the most influential Stalinist party globally. The most influential Trotskyist party globally these days is probably the party I am a member of - the Socialist Party in Ireland. We have parliamentary representation, local council representation - and have played a leading national role in a whole series of successful campaigns over the past 20 years - most recently the campaign to defeat a water tax, a household charge, the campaign for marriage equality, the campaign for abortion rights as well as preventing evictions etc. On a comparable basis - if the SP was in Britain with would have about 10,000 members, 10 MPs, a hundred local councillors - but more important than the representation - it would have led a series of mass movements. Trotskyism did have a significant base in Britain in the 1980s - around the Militant and the the socialist council in Liverpool - and later in the campaign to defeat the poll tax - but it has lost its way in recent times and has now only in the past few months set the task of reorganising itself.

The issue with Starmer and deselection has nothing to do with personalities - it has to do with democracy within the LP. Beginning with Kinnock, the Blairites nuked the democratic structures of the LP. One of these key processes was the reselection of LP MPs as candidates - based on does the MP represent the views of the membership of the local LP - and what is their record as a public representative (even the Irish Tories guard reselection with a passion when it comes to selecting their candidates - it is actually quite unusual for a political party with the election system like we have on these islands, not to have reselection and deselection as a mechanism for selecting candidates for elections.. Whether Starmer was to be deselected is not and should not be a matter for me - it is a matter for the membership of his CLP. The PLP does not represent the views of the LP membership - and it should. It represents the views of the dim and distant remnants of Blairism.

The question of this thread was who should be the 'next leader of the LP' - and that is a very difficult question - not least because you need 35 MPs to be nominated as a candidate - and there aren't 35 MPs that would be considered as left-wing like Corbyn. Of those most close to Corbyn - RLB is the leading contender - but she will need to soften her position in order to even get nominated. Along with that, RLB is a technocrat - and politically is a Keynesian. That is a long way from where Corbyn is and what is needed for the LP to become a mass working class party. The new leader of the LP will be facing (in parliamentary terms) five years of Tory rule - a brexit that is likely to end up a shambles - an impending economic downturn - and likely social upheaval. Unless the new LP leader is capable of articulating on these issues from a left perspective then the LP will revert back to becoming a second-string Tory selection and will continue the removal of the last vestiges of social democracy from the political scene. This would be unfortunate. Social upheaval is very likely in Britain in the short to medium term - what cannot be predicted is the character of this social upheaval. From a Tory perspective it would be better if this social upheaval was directed in an internal class fashion - sowing division among the working class - with a rise of the far-right and racial conflict etc. From a working class perspective it would be better that this social upheaval is directed in a class fashion against the policies of the Tories and the far-right. A left LP would facilitate the second alternative and would be far more beneficial in that the opposition would be organised, disciplined and have a specific objective. If the LP fails to play this role then it opens the opportunity for the far-right to whip up destructive conflict along ethnic, racial, gender etc lines that will have major and long-term consequences for British society.


Thanks for the best wishes - despite being an atheist, I always enjoy Christmas - my daughter was home from London, I have been spending a lot of time playing with my grand-daughter etc. And I have another 10 days before I am back to work. As a festival it is not my favourite - but I always have a good time - my favourite festival, hands down, is the Fallas Festival (another festival with religious roots) in Valencia in March each year. Wishing you a happy new year - and I hope you didn't find the contribution to this debate to long and over-powering - but it is a topic that does require some explanation.

 

[warmleyseagull]

There are different types of self-employed workers - some are forced into self-employment for exploitative reasons (e.g. workers in construction who are forced to work as sub-contractors so that the developers can avoid legal obligations to their workforce - a massive problem in Ireland and I suspect also in the UK). Other workers operate as a single self-employed worker because of the nature of their profession - tradesmen for example, in Ireland doctors, dentists, physios etc also operate on this basis. Some people run a small business by themselves, like a coffee shop - or will have a workforce. Here the lines get a bit blurry - and there are no hard and fast rules - but, generally, if you run a business and employ workers then your relationship with the means of production changes from a worker to an employer and you class interests also change. People who are self-employed in this fashion tend to view society from a perspective of their own self-interest - they do not have a collective outlook - while they may combine with others in a similar position, self-interest will always be the driving force. Now the problem here is that a cafe owner who is also an employer is also exploited by larger capitalist interests - suppliers, banks, competition etc. - and will be driven under by these exploitative forces more often than not (6 out of 10 new businesses fail within 3 years). It is very difficult to run a small business - and those that do face enormous pressure and stress. While the vast majority may not realise it - socialist policies, while not geared specifically towards this social strata, are very much more beneficial to the small business than the Tory policies that operate in the interests of the 1%.

So yes - c.5m people may be classed as 'self-employed' - but I suspect that a very large proportion of those are in reality workers who by circumstances are forced into that position, rather than doing so by choice.

You have got it bad, haven't you?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is a case of adding 2+2 and getting 200.

CEO's receive share options for achieving profit, turnover, share price etc targets - it is in their interests to engage in an exploitative fashion against their workforce and their customers. Workers who receive share options do so as part of a bonus scheme - they have no control in how these share schemes are implemented or in what they are. They are similar to receiving overtime payments where the overtime is determined by the employer.

And yes - under capitalism people are forced to pay substantial sums into a private pension fund where a fund manager then gambles these funds on stocks etc - and changes hefty fees for doing so. Those contributing to these pension funds have no control over what happens the money - or even if they get anything back when they retire. Same scenario plays out with a worker who buys a rented property as a nest egg for retirement.

Social class is not determined by share ownership - it is determined by the relationship an individual has with the means of production. Shares are a mechanism used as part of the control of the means of production - but this control is also determined by the relationship individuals have with the shares they own.

My take on social class is akin to George Orwell’s I.e it is determined by your beliefs, values and to a lesser extend your traditions. I also believe that even if one’s circumstances change, you are still in control of these items so you can always control which class you are.

#workingclass.

 

[Two Professors]

Dan Jarvis would get my vote but seems too normal to stand any chance.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is a case of adding 2+2 and getting 200.

CEO's receive share options...

i can stop you there, you're making an assumption that a CEO receives options. it may be common but not a given. so the point stands that you claim that social status is determine by their entitlement to share inducements. also they typically dont determine options themselves, its controlled by board or renumeration committee. mechanics is no different to the managers and shop floor who get options. CEO have executive authority, they control the means of production, so part of the bourgeoisie. same as doctors, who essentially renting their set of skills.

Social class is not determined by share ownership - it is determined by the relationship an individual has with the means of production.

only in Marx's 19th century world view. no one outside the small band of followers takes this classification seriously.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I suspect that we differ mainly in only two respects: I don't think that a real socialist state/world will emerge any time soon (whereas I assume you think it will arrive soon enough to justify it being the principle objective in your political engagement), and I am prepared to accept compromises with the right (among the electorate) in order to see some societal shift to the left (whereas I get the impression you think the left should stick to it's guns and hope for the best). I say that as someone who is not a natural compromiser (indeed I did the Briggs Myesr test recently and came out as 'the captain' - the most uncompromising of the personality types).

1. When I was (a lot) younger I held the view that a socialist society was imminent - as you mature you realise that time is relative. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been on the planet somewhere between 30K-75K years - the stone age existed for the bulk of that time - followed by slave society for maybe 4K years and feudalism for 1K years . Capitalism has been on the planet for about 250 years. As society changed/evolved the pace that the evolution accelerated. It is not possible to predict when (of even if) a socialist society will emerge - what we can say is that capitalism has reached its limits and is in what could be called its 'death agony'. Since WW2 the elites have held the power to destroy the planet by the use of nuclear weapons (and there haven't been just 2 atomic bombs - there have been in excess of 2,000 atomic bombs exploded since then) - but there has been a much more long-term destruction as a result of capitalism - the use of fossil fuels that has driven capitalist development over the past 250 years. Unlike a nuclear war - there would be no 'judgement day' - and as I pointed out before, the elites believe they can exploit this crisis for profit. Unfortunately - environmental destruction makes a socialist revolution all the more imperative because capitalism is killing the planet and cannot but act in that fashion because the driving force of capitalism is the use of fossil fuels. The alternative is environmental collapse and a return to what some have termed 'barbarism' - the world of the redneck preppers and survivalists. As a result - socialist revolution is far more likely in the near to mid-term than at any time since the inter-war period.

What we can predict is that revolutions will occur - and will occur on a consistent and ongoing basis - today we have revolutionary upheavals taking place in Hong Kong, Iran, Chile, Ecuador, Lebanon and the opposition to the counter-revolutionary coup in Bolivia. These upheavals are a symptom of the death agony of capitalism - people will protest and will revolt. Most of these upheavals will be suppressed - often with extreme brutality - but all that is needed is for one of these revolutionary upheavals to develop a socialist character and be carried through to a successful conclusion - this would have a domino effect globally. We have no idea where this might take place - there are reasons why they might happen and reasons that would mitigate against such a movement in every part of the world. In Britain and Ireland for example - and the situation in both countries is very closely linked - it is not remotely a prospect at the moment, in the short to medium term - a Tory Brexit and the potential of sectarian conflict in the North of Ireland because of the national question are significant counter-revolutionary pressures on these islands - yet the whiff of counter-revolution can often provoke a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary movement that would not have seemed the remotest possibility only months earlier. Socialists agitate around these points - putting forward arguments in support of reforms and linking them to the need to change society. Socialists do not ferment discontent or upheaval - but recognise that it is inevitable under capitalism and the task for socialists is to give it an organised and disciplined character with clear objectives.

2. I don't have a problem working on political objectives with people of all strands of political outlook (except fascists) - for example - when the Blairite council decided to close Hove library the Tories launched a campaign against the closure. If I was in Hove I would had no problem participating in a campaign against that closure - but I would have done so on the basis of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories, the fact that the closure was been driven by Tory policies of austerity (that were being supported by the Blairites) and by arguing that working class people should take ownership of the campaign and not allow the Tories to use it as a political football. You take every measure on an issue-by-issue basis and, as a socialist, ask the question - is this in the interests of working class people? Your approach as a socialist is then determined by that answer (and yes it is subjective). What I do oppose is political compromise with pro-capitalist elements - because the only outcome of such a compromise are pro-capitalist (i.e. Tory) policies - and there is copious amounts of evidence to demonstrate this across all countries and political issues.

The problem with that of course is that in our system the party leaders embody the platform, so they are important, de facto.

Yes it is - and there is a reason for that - it serves the interests of the political establishment to portray politics as comprising of 'leaders' and 'followers' - god forbid that people are capable of thinking for themselves. And even when leaders don't exist - the political establishment create them. Case in point - for 25 years the media and political circles in Ireland portrayed a guy called Joe Higgins as the 'leader' of the Socialist Party. Joe Higgins was, over this time, a member of the Irish Parliament and also for a period an MEP. To start with the Socialist Party does not have a leader - it has a collective leadership made up of a national committee - but in terms of influence Joe Higgins (or any member of the SP national committee) has no more power or influence within the SP than I do as an ordinary rank-and-file member. As you correctly pointed out - I consistently speak about a 'movement' - not a leader - and when I mention Corbyn, the vast majority of the time I am not talking about Corbyn as an individual - rather what his leadership of the LP represents in political terms for rank-and-file members of the LP and for working class people. In fact the biggest issue for the LP is the focus on who should be 'leader' - rather than the politics it should promote.

 

[Chicken Run]

1. When I was (a lot) younger I held the view that a socialist society was imminent - as you mature you realise that time is relative. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been on the planet somewhere between 30K-75K years - the stone age existed for the bulk of that time - followed by slave society for maybe 4K years and feudalism for 1K years . Capitalism has been on the planet for about 250 years. As society changed/evolved the pace that the evolution accelerated. It is not possible to predict when (of even if) a socialist society will emerge - what we can say is that capitalism has reached its limits and is in what could be called its 'death agony'. Since WW2 the elites have held the power to destroy the planet by the use of nuclear weapons (and there haven't been just 2 atomic bombs - there have been in excess of 2,000 atomic bombs exploded since then) - but there has been a much more long-term destruction as a result of capitalism - the use of fossil fuels that has driven capitalist development over the past 250 years. Unlike a nuclear war - there would be no 'judgement day' - and as I pointed out before, the elites believe they can exploit this crisis for profit. Unfortunately - environmental destruction makes a socialist revolution all the more imperative because capitalism is killing the planet and cannot but act in that fashion because the driving force of capitalism is the use of fossil fuels. The alternative is environmental collapse and a return to what some have termed 'barbarism' - the world of the redneck preppers and survivalists. As a result - socialist revolution is far more likely in the near to mid-term than at any time since the inter-war period.

What we can predict is that revolutions will occur - and will occur on a consistent and ongoing basis - today we have revolutionary upheavals taking place in Hong Kong, Iran, Chile, Ecuador, Lebanon and the opposition to the counter-revolutionary coup in Bolivia. These upheavals are a symptom of the death agony of capitalism - people will protest and will revolt. Most of these upheavals will be suppressed - often with extreme brutality - but all that is needed is for one of these revolutionary upheavals to develop a socialist character and be carried through to a successful conclusion - this would have a domino effect globally. We have no idea where this might take place - there are reasons why they might happen and reasons that would mitigate against such a movement in every part of the world. In Britain and Ireland for example - and the situation in both countries is very closely linked - it is not remotely a prospect at the moment, in the short to medium term - a Tory Brexit and the potential of sectarian conflict in the North of Ireland because of the national question are significant counter-revolutionary pressures on these islands - yet the whiff of counter-revolution can often provoke a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary movement that would not have seemed the remotest possibility only months earlier. Socialists agitate around these points - putting forward arguments in support of reforms and linking them to the need to change society. Socialists do not ferment discontent or upheaval - but recognise that it is inevitable under capitalism and the task for socialists is to give it an organised and disciplined character with clear objectives.

2. I don't have a problem working on political objectives with people of all strands of political outlook (except fascists) - for example - when the Blairite council decided to close Hove library the Tories launched a campaign against the closure. If I was in Hove I would had no problem participating in a campaign against that closure - but I would have done so on the basis of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories, the fact that the closure was been driven by Tory policies of austerity (that were being supported by the Blairites) and by arguing that working class people should take ownership of the campaign and not allow the Tories to use it as a political football. You take every measure on an issue-by-issue basis and, as a socialist, ask the question - is this in the interests of working class people? Your approach as a socialist is then determined by that answer (and yes it is subjective). What I do oppose is political compromise with pro-capitalist elements - because the only outcome of such a compromise are pro-capitalist (i.e. Tory) policies - and there is copious amounts of evidence to demonstrate this across all countries and political issues.


Yes it is - and there is a reason for that - it serves the interests of the political establishment to portray politics as comprising of 'leaders' and 'followers' - god forbid that people are capable of thinking for themselves. And even when leaders don't exist - the political establishment create them. Case in point - for 25 years the media and political circles in Ireland portrayed a guy called Joe Higgins as the 'leader' of the Socialist Party. Joe Higgins was, over this time, a member of the Irish Parliament and also for a period an MEP. To start with the Socialist Party does not have a leader - it has a collective leadership made up of a national committee - but in terms of influence Joe Higgins (or any member of the SP national committee) has no more power or influence within the SP than I do as an ordinary rank-and-file member. As you correctly pointed out - I consistently speak about a 'movement' - not a leader - and when I mention Corbyn, the vast majority of the time I am not talking about Corbyn as an individual - rather what his leadership of the LP represents in political terms for rank-and-file members of the LP and for working class people. In fact the biggest issue for the LP is the focus on who should be 'leader' - rather than the politics it should promote.

Corbyn’s leadership has represented nothing more than FAILURE.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Corbyn’s leadership has represented nothing more than FAILURE.

membership grown from 150,000 to almost 600,000

more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Milliband in 2015, Brown in 2010 and Blair in 2005

higher percentage of the vote in 2017 than in the above 3 elections

promoting socialist policies that clearly have a support of the majority of the population

been subjected to more smears and personal abuse that any party leader since Michael Foot (including by most of his own PLP)

mobilising thousands of people on the streets in support of socialist policies

and he never ran away and hid in a fridge.

given the sh*t he has had to deal with his leadership has actually been a relative success - certainly more successful than most Blairite LP leaders over the past 40 years.