You don't need to educate me, I'm aware of the situation we're in. Why put any stock in political outcomes if you're resigned to believing they're always bad? Either you shouldn't care enough about Labour not rise to any nominal support of them, or you believe Labour actually has some utility in opposing Capitalism. Which one is it?
If it's the latter then you should agree with what I've said. Building credibility back is necessary to get the votes, to get the MP's. I'm not supporting the system, Labour or Starmer. I'm simply looking at it objectively. I'd never suggest that supersedes the need for alternative action.
I'm sorry, but this concept of 'credibility' doesn't exist or, to put it another way, it's only exists as complete and total submission to the whims of a media owning ultra-right wing capitalist class. Labour will be credible as long as they're carrying out the brutalisation and exploitation of working people on behalf of the ruling elite, and doing a better job of it that the Tories or anyone else. The moment they even consider doing anything else they'll no longer be 'credible'.
Labour can help to build a leftwing movement or it can strengthen enemies of such a movement, that's it.
You can't start a successful lineage by eating your young.
I appreciate your perspective on this because I simply wouldn't be able to contextualise things like you have. I have my own set of principles and I pursue them for the same ends. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right and you've almost push me to believe I'm wrong. It's a definite calculated risk to 'strengthen the enemies of such a movement' I agree, but ultimately I have no say in that outcome. My only point was not to agitate against Starmer as I think this would be counterproductive and that there could be some consolation if he has to play to a Liberal base.
A left-wing movement was built and it was knocked down and brushed aside. In retrospect it brought to light flaws in that movement that should have been apparent at the time. What got in the way was faith in the political order to ever achieve an outcome that was satisfactory. I accept what Starmer is and the realities of what that means but don't confuse that with thinking I condone it. I'm still undecided on what a Labour government under him would achieve but any immediate improvement on the Tories is preferable to me.
I'll be completely honest with you, I think you're walking into a trap and doing it at the worst possible time. And worse still, whether you mean to or not, you'll drag people with you as a result.
Don't get me wrong, I've tried my hand at and pinned some hope on playing the electoralist game before. It was part of what helped radicalise me all those years ago. But even then, when the fight was to make to Labour Party less imperialist, less racist, less authoritarian, and push back against mere neoliberal reforms, it wasn't at all effective because there was no real countermanding force outside the party. Union leadership had been wholly absorbed into the party. Anti-war marches were brushed aside. And New Labour's authoritarian streak enabled them to go after those engaging in direct action and even pre-emptively lock up people who might. Our odds were better then. There was more organised labour, more organised broad-left support springing from the anti-war movement, and the press slightly less homogenous.
We don't have any of that now and are going to have to contend with the resurgence of fascism, increased militarisation and free reign of police and intelligence services, the totality of the media establishment and the mechanisms of control and influence that come with a corporate internet. In other words, it's going to be fucking hard, and perhaps the one advantage we have is that the current system is falling down all around us, that people are fucking pissed, and their lives are getting worse. If we can't harness and use that to build solidarity and an actual threat (or at least costly disturbance) to power - including the Labour Party - we're not going to get anywhere.
The Labour Party and the establishment will only make leftward reforms or concessions if they're forced to because the alternative is worse. The social safety net was introduced because the powerful considered it preferential to the USSR and growing international communist movements. The Civil Rights Act passed because the Democrats would rather deal with MLK and marchers than Malcolm X and an armed Black Panther movement (and they still killed them all anyway). And so on...
I supported the Corbyn project despite its many shortcomings because its goals made building dual power easier, because it opened up spaces in society and organising for the left. If the Labour Party doesn't make our bigger fight easier, it's not only not worth supporting, but worth fighting along with the rest of the status quo.
Even if all you can hold out hope for is a electorally focused social democracy, the way to get it is through radical, strong opposition. Make that the lesser of two evils to the ghouls in power.
Personally I'd like to go much, much further than that of cours, but for even mild improvement on route we're going to have to fight like hell and take no prisoners.
I've personally never thought of politics as a viable route in to power anyway., except making an exception for Corbyn's moonshot. Even the flags, banners and names of socialism I see as completely superfluous to something that is universal and self-evident. Pushing one way or the other is always a tactical choice, never a principled one, which is why I'll give time to allow a full picture to emerge on Starmer's leadership. I fear the day we have a socialist half-way into power who is then discredited by parts of the left because they didn't pay lip-service to condemn a certain aspect of capitalism. It's so easy to have our own principles twisted back on us, and it happens all the time. You're worried Starmer is the opposite, paying lip-service to socialists. That's fair.
I agree with everything you're saying but I don't very much believe in taking up a position of certainty in situations that are ambiguous because they're so vastly complex. We don't know how events will unfold. Actions that have failed under the best conditions could work under the worst ones. Starmer could be the worse outcome for Labour, but right now I don't see that as that case. But in respect of what you said I will be more careful about promoting this view.
I do have an idea of how I want to pursue alternative action, only because I've examined the actions that have failed. It's always been my opinion that a resistance needs to be like waves the effort to apply unrelenting pressure with reactive force just tends to give the worst outcomes sadly.
I genuinely don't know how Starmer could be any more transparent and up front about his politics or his active attempt to destroy and exile the left. If you want to cross you fingers and ignore it, or can't see it, then I honestly don't know what to tell you.
I appreciate you engaging with me though. And sorry about the delayed response, busy weekend.
I’d never suggest that supersedes the need for alternative action.
I'm genuinely curious how you'd go about building dual power when activist, popular movement can be infiltrated and discredited by state operatives who, thanks in part to the party, now have the green light to use, murder, rape, and terrorism to get the job done on top of all the classic advantages.
I'm not being glib, I earnestly want to know what your thinking is in regard to how the left builds power and how an unapologetically right wing Labour Party helps that.
I don't quite get it but okay. It's fun to meme but Liberalism appeals to people because it somehow homogenises vastly different views. It would be worth trying to figure out that secret sauce. People only need to be as radical as "fuck the wealthy" to be of some use. If you have conviction you should have no problem widening that net a little bit.
You don't need to educate me, I'm aware of the situation we're in. Why put any stock in political outcomes if you're resigned to believing they're always bad? Either you shouldn't care enough about Labour not rise to any nominal support of them, or you believe Labour actually has some utility in opposing Capitalism. Which one is it?
If it's the latter then you should agree with what I've said. Building credibility back is necessary to get the votes, to get the MP's. I'm not supporting the system, Labour or Starmer. I'm simply looking at it objectively. I'd never suggest that supersedes the need for alternative action.
I'm sorry, but this concept of 'credibility' doesn't exist or, to put it another way, it's only exists as complete and total submission to the whims of a media owning ultra-right wing capitalist class. Labour will be credible as long as they're carrying out the brutalisation and exploitation of working people on behalf of the ruling elite, and doing a better job of it that the Tories or anyone else. The moment they even consider doing anything else they'll no longer be 'credible'.
Labour can help to build a leftwing movement or it can strengthen enemies of such a movement, that's it.
You can't start a successful lineage by eating your young.
I appreciate your perspective on this because I simply wouldn't be able to contextualise things like you have. I have my own set of principles and I pursue them for the same ends. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right and you've almost push me to believe I'm wrong. It's a definite calculated risk to 'strengthen the enemies of such a movement' I agree, but ultimately I have no say in that outcome. My only point was not to agitate against Starmer as I think this would be counterproductive and that there could be some consolation if he has to play to a Liberal base.
A left-wing movement was built and it was knocked down and brushed aside. In retrospect it brought to light flaws in that movement that should have been apparent at the time. What got in the way was faith in the political order to ever achieve an outcome that was satisfactory. I accept what Starmer is and the realities of what that means but don't confuse that with thinking I condone it. I'm still undecided on what a Labour government under him would achieve but any immediate improvement on the Tories is preferable to me.
I'll be completely honest with you, I think you're walking into a trap and doing it at the worst possible time. And worse still, whether you mean to or not, you'll drag people with you as a result.
Don't get me wrong, I've tried my hand at and pinned some hope on playing the electoralist game before. It was part of what helped radicalise me all those years ago. But even then, when the fight was to make to Labour Party less imperialist, less racist, less authoritarian, and push back against mere neoliberal reforms, it wasn't at all effective because there was no real countermanding force outside the party. Union leadership had been wholly absorbed into the party. Anti-war marches were brushed aside. And New Labour's authoritarian streak enabled them to go after those engaging in direct action and even pre-emptively lock up people who might. Our odds were better then. There was more organised labour, more organised broad-left support springing from the anti-war movement, and the press slightly less homogenous.
We don't have any of that now and are going to have to contend with the resurgence of fascism, increased militarisation and free reign of police and intelligence services, the totality of the media establishment and the mechanisms of control and influence that come with a corporate internet. In other words, it's going to be fucking hard, and perhaps the one advantage we have is that the current system is falling down all around us, that people are fucking pissed, and their lives are getting worse. If we can't harness and use that to build solidarity and an actual threat (or at least costly disturbance) to power - including the Labour Party - we're not going to get anywhere.
The Labour Party and the establishment will only make leftward reforms or concessions if they're forced to because the alternative is worse. The social safety net was introduced because the powerful considered it preferential to the USSR and growing international communist movements. The Civil Rights Act passed because the Democrats would rather deal with MLK and marchers than Malcolm X and an armed Black Panther movement (and they still killed them all anyway). And so on...
I supported the Corbyn project despite its many shortcomings because its goals made building dual power easier, because it opened up spaces in society and organising for the left. If the Labour Party doesn't make our bigger fight easier, it's not only not worth supporting, but worth fighting along with the rest of the status quo.
Even if all you can hold out hope for is a electorally focused social democracy, the way to get it is through radical, strong opposition. Make that the lesser of two evils to the ghouls in power.
Personally I'd like to go much, much further than that of cours, but for even mild improvement on route we're going to have to fight like hell and take no prisoners.
I've personally never thought of politics as a viable route in to power anyway., except making an exception for Corbyn's moonshot. Even the flags, banners and names of socialism I see as completely superfluous to something that is universal and self-evident. Pushing one way or the other is always a tactical choice, never a principled one, which is why I'll give time to allow a full picture to emerge on Starmer's leadership. I fear the day we have a socialist half-way into power who is then discredited by parts of the left because they didn't pay lip-service to condemn a certain aspect of capitalism. It's so easy to have our own principles twisted back on us, and it happens all the time. You're worried Starmer is the opposite, paying lip-service to socialists. That's fair.
I agree with everything you're saying but I don't very much believe in taking up a position of certainty in situations that are ambiguous because they're so vastly complex. We don't know how events will unfold. Actions that have failed under the best conditions could work under the worst ones. Starmer could be the worse outcome for Labour, but right now I don't see that as that case. But in respect of what you said I will be more careful about promoting this view.
I do have an idea of how I want to pursue alternative action, only because I've examined the actions that have failed. It's always been my opinion that a resistance needs to be like waves the effort to apply unrelenting pressure with reactive force just tends to give the worst outcomes sadly.
deleted by creator
I genuinely don't know how Starmer could be any more transparent and up front about his politics or his active attempt to destroy and exile the left. If you want to cross you fingers and ignore it, or can't see it, then I honestly don't know what to tell you.
I appreciate you engaging with me though. And sorry about the delayed response, busy weekend.
To your other point...
I'm genuinely curious how you'd go about building dual power when activist, popular movement can be infiltrated and discredited by state operatives who, thanks in part to the party, now have the green light to use, murder, rape, and terrorism to get the job done on top of all the classic advantages.
I'm not being glib, I earnestly want to know what your thinking is in regard to how the left builds power and how an unapologetically right wing Labour Party helps that.
You should read what Lenin says about opportunism. You're doing it.
I'll have a look.
Embarrassing lib shit lmfao
Don't attack peoples esteem, that's bad socialism.
It's embarrassing lib shit. Sorry the person labour posting about "credibility" is a liberal.
I don't quite get it but okay. It's fun to meme but Liberalism appeals to people because it somehow homogenises vastly different views. It would be worth trying to figure out that secret sauce. People only need to be as radical as "fuck the wealthy" to be of some use. If you have conviction you should have no problem widening that net a little bit.
Nah
deleted by creator
You can call for the death of the bourgeoisie but you can't be mean to posters online
Calling for the death of the bourgeoisie is....good socialism? I don't make the rules but I gladly will if you're into that sort of thing.