Starmer didn't win because the right had more votes. He won because he convinced left wing members that he's left wing enough. At least a third of Corbyn voters voted for Starmer. You can read more about the reasons behind it in Owen Jones' new book. Basically it comes down to the left not having a succession plan, the left wing candidate not really wanting to be the leader and most importantly after the 2019 result a significant portion of the left admitted defeat and thought someone like Corbyn will never win enough boomer votes to win in UK politics.
We've still got the numbers to get more socialist MPs selected and regain control of the NEC for the time being. In time, with the right candidate, we can try to get the leadership back. I personally won't vote for my local neoliberal candidate but I'll stay in the party for now. It's too early to give up. This is the strongest the lefts been in British politics since at least the early 80s.
What is it with the left and never having succession plans? I feel like this Has happened a bunch in the last 5 years alone. Pre coup MAS didn’t Have a candidate popular enough to win Which is arguably why Morales ran again. Lula’s replacement was not popular in the slightest and just down right terrible. Labor now. Am I overthinking something or is there a legit issue with popular left leaders not really working on growing a popular successor.
Tito not having a succesor, Nasser not having a succesor, stalin kinda, etc etc
Tito and Stalin was the specific threat of a Popular (Or capable) successor Usurping them. Come to think of it Evo had a bit of that too.
Tankies don’t kill me but like, maybe we need to actually have a deep discussion about this.
stalin kinda stroked the fuck out and khrushchev basically couped his way to general secretary, shoulda been molotov feelsbad
i don't remember exactly but there were a few non revisionists who had a chance
National Executive Committee , basically like the DNC. The left only controlled it for a few years under Corbyn and didn't have the balls to do much with it (like adding primaries) because they were too worried about Blairite MPs.
I will never let it go unstated that Starmer looks uncannily like ole Punching Bag himself, R*chard Sp*ncer.
Never forget that he hid his power level during the Labour internal election to undermine RLB and then immediately purge her and all of the Momentum left as soon as elected.
Either he expected them to fall in line because they insist the leftists in Labour fall in line and Corbyn forgot they're hypocritical backstabbers, or he wanted to and lacked a viable way to do it. Corbyn seems a bit more aware of the villainy of the center-right than Sanders, so I hope it's the latter.
they were calling him a stalinist when he left them alone imagine if he actually purged them lel
Moderates so moderate they would hug hitler in the name of national unity.
Yeah it's bullshit but I'm not anti-Starmer yet. I'd rather be under a shit labour than a good Tories any day.
Classic Labour was nuked by Blair and it fucked Corbyn two decades later. He was outflanked by "Labour bad because Neoliberal" and "Corbyn bad because Socialism" despite them being two conflicting things.The whole "move things left gradually" has more merit in the UK because of structural and ideological differences but that doesn't transfer into reality very easily and that isn't what's going to happen here. Labour need to eat Tory votes, that's the long and short of it. Without Scotland there's no chance of a left-wing Labour any time soon. It's gone.
The only way is to build credibility through numbing centralism and hope the Tories implode post-Brexit. I'm apprehensive about agitating against a centralist Labour and I'd ask caution of any socialists who want to do so. There's a chance a Labour/Starmer second term could see FPTP abolished in favor of AV or STV which would be a massive gain for the left.
Make note that Labour is largely beholden to the Unions and the electorate. They're not the Democrats by virtue of corporate backing being secondary.
Starmer is a wholly owned property of the intelligence services and Murdoch media. He's actively purging everyone anywhere near the left, and his constituency within the Labour Party is actively trying to disconnect the party from unions and members to pursue a Democrat style billionaire donor funding model.
The idea that he'd somehow be able to appease vulture capitalists, who are shorting the country and actively trying to use the fascism that's increasingly gripping the US & Europe for their consolidation of power, before suddenly changing tack to democratise the country to benefit the left seems like absolute fantasy to me. The Tories will always be able to move further right and be able to whip up nationalist hysteria better than a supposedly centrist Labour Party.
The next decade of this country is going to be an absolute shitshow of anti-worker's rights, anti-human rights, state repression, and a gig economy hellscape as everything from local services to national infrastructure completely crumble. People are going to be piss poor, increasingly desperate, and incandescently angry. And if the Labour response to that is cutting corporate tax rates, talking about liberal values, and slashing what's left of the safety net then not only will they not find power, but they may be overtaken by a bonafide fascist movement.
And finally, at the danger of making this a personal rant rather than about strategy... I have family that were brutalized and arrested by informants in the miners strikes. I know people whose lives were ruined by undercover police officers in activist movements. I've worked with refugees who were raped and beaten by soldiers in conflict zones. I've worked with refugees who saw family members tortured to death. The idea that I would vote for a Labour Party that at best seeks to excuse war crimes, torture, or rape and murder by intelligence service proxies is absurd and morally repugnant.
So now that earnest bit is out of the way, let me just say that, as always, Starmer gets the wall.
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.
To your other point...
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.
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.
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.
The only way is to build credibility through numbing centralism and hope the Tories implode post-Brexit. I’m apprehensive about agitating against a centralist Labour and I’d ask caution of any socialists who want to do so.
Please turn in your chapo posting privileges. Your services here will no longer be necessary.
Lol I put everything in to trying to make Corbyn happen. You can't say the entire system is corrupt because of Capitalism and then also put faith in the system to deliver an outcome that isn't just more Capitalism. It's one other the other. I pathologically despise Tories you don't have a clue. Don't front me on this shit. I'd end every one of them indiscriminately if I could.
You can’t say the entire system is corrupt because of Capitalism and then also put faith in the system to deliver an outcome that isn’t just more Capitalism.
Isn't that exactly what your original post just suggested? That some how strengthening capital, peeling off anger and activism toward a rightward political shift, and defending the corrupt institutions of the status quo in order to get elected will somehow then allow a right wing Labour Party to go against it's own interests to somehow enable the left.
Maybe I'm missing something in your arguement.
You're having a laugh if you think Starmer is going to get a FIRST term let alone a second. The man is viewed as the very reason Labour switched from Labour-Brexit to Remain. He isn't winning any Tory votes because he will be hit two-fold by Labour abandonment to the Green party as a result of him being a neoliberal who's a fucking member of the Trilateral Commission alongside Epstein and fucking Henry Kissinger. Brexiteers won't go near him when he's accused of wanting to just steer Britain back to the EU and 5-10% is going to abandon the party for the Greens.
Let's not forget the Lib Dems are going to run left of Labour and confuse the shit out of everyone.
Call it a philosophical difference. Hoping to improve conditions through concession is a terrible position to be in and I understand that people would reject it completely. I don't personally.
I think there's a significant difference. Both sides exploit the power dynamic but only one side disrupts it's equilibrium. On one side you have the placating effect of maintaining that power dynamic in a somewhat functional way....not great for humanity for one reason. And you have the other side who exposes it's violence through their absolute corruption but are a spiraling display of increasingly evil actions....not great for humanity for another reason.
This is why accelerationism is a thing.
I'd be making the concession despite know what the outcome is likely to be, is what I was trying to articulate.
You mean I'm not in denial and that's bad? I'm not even America so I have no say in the outcome anyway. I was just pointing out my own rationalisations for why one side may be better than the other. It's all a shit train but lets not pretend like you have a third revolutionary option just waiting to spring if you just had a few more bodies in your corner. The scales aren't even close to being tipped by public support alone, not in America anyway.
lets not pretend like you have a third revolutionary option just waiting to spring if you just had a few more bodies in your corner.
That ... is exactly what we have though. We need to organize in order to build networks of allies who are ready when the time comes. We don't just have "a third option," we have countless different revolutionary options we could choose if we had the manpower.
