Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC - Owen Jones

articul8 said:
I'm saying that it's necessary *in order precisely to realise the best aspects of a century's experience of working class involvement in the Labour project* to win a section of the Labour party and the unions over to a different kind of politics and link up with forces who are already outside. It's as someone who values aspects of the Labour tradition that you;re best placed to evaluate what has to go. Like you're in the house of a recently deceased relative.

But dismissing this is like saying to someone who's close family member has just died "come on, are you a bit slow or something, they're dead - now cheer the fuck up". People are still fighting for the memory of what they thought Labour stood for - even where some have written off Labour today. But what Labour means is contested, not just in the party but in the country - but being in the party gives you full access to that "working through" that's going on.
Click to expand...
It's amazing- one minute it's not necessary and the next it is. And in between a post that demands evidence of your flip-flopping. You're like some sort of wretched bubble parody.

Tell me, how often do you say that the party is dead within the party, how often in your vote work and join labour arguments do you say that the reason they should join is because the party is dead?

Everyone went home hours ago you cloth-brained twat btw. They don't need you shouting after them that they come back. The class has moved on, yet articul8 insists the voice of the 20 000- are what count.
 
It's dead but there's a battle over the inheritance. Ok some of the kids in the family don't care and are playing outside. But the family is still mourning and we need time to sort out the funeral arrangements
 
articul8 said:
It's dead but there's a battle over the inheritance. Ok some of the kids in the family don't care and are playing outside. But the family is still mourning and we need time to sort out the funeral arrangements
Click to expand...
It's dead but we need to get right in it and re-animate the corpse. We, ffs. You get worse by the week and you were a pathetic two faced cunt to start with.
 
articul8 said:
Where do I keep saying join labour, vote labour?
Click to expand...
In all your posts that says that. Jesus, what is wrong with you? You shift between saying that people will vote labour so this means that you need to join and vote to kill it and people should join and vote because it's a good thing dragging a beating labour heart leftward. But you can never remember which face you're supposed to have on.

Your performance here today is beyond shambolic.
 
Let me be clear (if you've any interest beyond misrepresenting what I'm saying) - I know it's annoying that I refuse your simple binary: uncritical supporter of Labour vs pro w/c opponent.

A significant section of people, whatever their reservations and "nose-holding", will be drawn to vote Labour in 2015 as the only way of kicking out the coalition parties. I think this is a perfectly understandable and rational behaviour - but hardly needs any exhortation from me. Given this, in the short term it is worth attempting to shift Labour to the left *to the extent that this is possible*, whilst working with forces outside the party to build an effective anti-austerity bloc. The popular impression of Labour achievements (welfare state, NHS, rail nationalisation etc) means there it is a privileged strategic position from which to contest the battleground. And it is not possible to determine in advance exactly how far the above can be achieved. But at a certain point in time there will, of necessity, be a break from the working assumptions of Labourist politics, and new opportunities will emerge for sections of the class who previously looked to Labour to look for a realignment of the left.

The principle alternative - to embark on building a new mass workers party when the conditions are unfavourable, and without substantial support from the unions or anywhere else - is self-defeating and the loss of credibility it entails makes it even harder to realise what it sets out to do. Whether the Labour left succeeds (and whilst some amelioration of the neoliberal onslaught seems possible, it appears very unlikely that the party will be shifted to an all-out anti-austerity position) or not, a new electoral formation will be more likely to emerge if the left has left no stone unturned in trying, and in the process has utilised whatever mainstream platforms are available to argue the case.

I suppose there's always your perspective - political parties are fucked, the unions are fucked, it's a matter of time before the jackboots start stomping up Whitehall - but I think we're some way off this yet.
 
articul8 said:
Let me be clear (if you've any interest beyond misrepresenting what I'm saying) - I know it's annoying that I refuse your simple binary: uncritical supporter of Labour vs pro w/c opponent.

A significant section of people, whatever their reservations and "nose-holding", will be drawn to vote Labour in 2015 as the only way of kicking out the coalition parties. I think this is a perfectly understandable and rational behaviour - but hardly needs any exhortation from me. Given this, in the short term it is worth attempting to shift Labour to the left *to the extent that this is possible*, whilst working with forces outside the party to build an effective anti-austerity bloc. The popular impression of Labour achievements (welfare state, NHS, rail nationalisation etc) means there it is a privileged strategic position from which to contest the battleground. And it is not possible to determine in advance exactly how far the above can be achieved. But at a certain point in time there will, of necessity, be a break from the working assumptions of Labourist politics, and new opportunities will emerge for sections of the class who previously looked to Labour to look for a realignment of the left.

The principle alternative - to embark on building a new mass workers party when the conditions are unfavourable, and without substantial support from the unions or anywhere else - is self-defeating and the loss of credibility it entails makes it even harder to realise what it sets out to do. Whether the Labour left succeeds (and whilst some amelioration of the neoliberal onslaught seems possible, it appears very unlikely that the party will be shifted to an all-out anti-austerity position) or not, a new electoral formation will be more likely to emerge if the left has left no stone unturned in trying, and in the process has utilised whatever mainstream platforms are available to argue the case.

I suppose there's always your perspective - political parties are fucked, the unions are fucked, it's a matter of time before the jackboots start stomping up Whitehall - but I think we're some way off this yet.
Click to expand...


This is really confused.

1. If people will vote Labour without 'any exhortation' (and I think that they will in sufficient numbers to defeat the coalition), then why bother promoting Labour at all (which you are doing consistently despite all your equivocations and qualifications)?

2. What would constitute victory for the Labour left (the 20,000 Campaign Group voters or the 200 conference attendees?); is it your break with 'Labourist assumptions' or a recovery and reassertion of precisely those assumptions (I'm guessing that some of the 20,000 would be up for that)?

3. Why is the principle alternative to build a 'new mass workers party'? Why not to help build effective anti-austerity/pro-working class activity, from which the working class will develop its own political tools?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
articul8 said:
Let me be clear (if you've any interest beyond misrepresenting what I'm saying) - I know it's annoying that I refuse your simple binary: uncritical supporter of Labour vs pro w/c opponent.

A significant section of people, whatever their reservations and "nose-holding", will be drawn to vote Labour in 2015 as the only way of kicking out the coalition parties. I think this is a perfectly understandable and rational behaviour - but hardly needs any exhortation from me. Given this, in the short term it is worth attempting to shift Labour to the left *to the extent that this is possible*, whilst working with forces outside the party to build an effective anti-austerity bloc. The popular impression of Labour achievements (welfare state, NHS, rail nationalisation etc) means there it is a privileged strategic position from which to contest the battleground. And it is not possible to determine in advance exactly how far the above can be achieved. But at a certain point in time there will, of necessity, be a break from the working assumptions of Labourist politics, and new opportunities will emerge for sections of the class who previously looked to Labour to look for a realignment of the left.

The principle alternative - to embark on building a new mass workers party when the conditions are unfavourable, and without substantial support from the unions or anywhere else - is self-defeating and the loss of credibility it entails makes it even harder to realise what it sets out to do. Whether the Labour left succeeds (and whilst some amelioration of the neoliberal onslaught seems possible, it appears very unlikely that the party will be shifted to an all-out anti-austerity position) or not, a new electoral formation will be more likely to emerge if the left has left no stone unturned in trying, and in the process has utilised whatever mainstream platforms are available to argue the case.

I suppose there's always your perspective - political parties are fucked, the unions are fucked, it's a matter of time before the jackboots start stomping up Whitehall - but I think we're some way off this yet.
Click to expand...
The last two paragraphs are a disgrace but entirely in line with what i have come to expect from you, so i'm largely going to ignore them beyond a few brief points. Building a new mass workers party is not the principal alternative to your join/work/vote labour plan (i won't say strategy as you don't have one, your inability to outline one or your belief that a strategy simply means you outlining what you would like to happen demonstrates this in the clearest possible terms). Even if it were the principal alternative, i still neither support it nor believe that it's possible. It's just another way for you to say but the trots only have a few thousands, there's billions in labour. And on top of that you know damn well that i don't support the idea and have criticised it over and over.

The last paragraph: real shocker this, you really should be ashamed - and you say that you were sober? You know even better than on the other one that this isn't my position, doesn't come close to my position and is a lie to say that it is. And it should be in your memory as you only recently accused me of it, and i had to point out to you the article i wrote for your shit mag that argued the exact opposite. This is taking dishonesty to a new level here, you've done the double lie. And you've done it because of the failings of your own shambolic two-faced positions. And you actually typed out "if you've any interest beyond misrepresenting what I'm saying".

Onto the first para: You undermine yourself from the opening line. How on earth can labour be in a privileged position when, as you say, the bulk of their votes don't come from a commitment to labour and the future possibilities they open but from well red shit is 1% better than blue/yellow shit? You can't - and only someone so bought in and so buried into the idea of join/work/vote labour forever could not see this staring them in the face. What do you think would happen to the second part of your master-plan if the first part happened btw? If the labour party shifted leftwards and for some reason (reasons you think are impossible remember, they can't happen - that's the result of your immanent critique - despite you arguing that it is now your primary short term aim) started to aggressively represent and pursue w/c class interests?

What a mess.
 
Louis MacNeice said:
1. If people will vote Labour without 'any exhortation' (and I think that they will in sufficient numbers to defeat the coalition), then why bother promoting Labour at all (which you are doing consistently despite all your equivocations and qualifications)?
Click to expand...

I spend very little time "promoting" the Labour party, as opposed to arguing that limited achievements are possible for lefts within it, and that some committed class fighters - like McDonnell - do play a good role from within the party. I do think voting Labour makes sense at the next election, and there is a point to joining and getting involved with the left within it. But it's not the only way of making an important contribution, far from it

2. What would constitute victory for the Labour left (the 20,000 Campaign Group voters or the 200 conference attendees?); is it your break with 'Labourist assumptions' or a recovery and reassertion of precisely those assumptions (I'm guessing that some of the 20,000 would be up for that)?
Click to expand...

A majority want to go back to a fantasy world of party democracy, radical social democratic policies, and left union leaders having a word in the ear of decent sorts sat around the cabinet table. Come back Michael Foot types. Not a view I share.

3. Why is the principle alternative to build a 'new mass workers party'? Why not to help build effective anti-austerity/pro-working class activity, from which the working class will develop its own political tools?
Click to expand...
I'm all in favour of organising effective anti-austerity and pro-working class activity. But state power is a reality, electoral politics does have a legitimating function and we need to contest these spaces too.[/quote][/quote]
 
Not a view you share? I think it is. That is all your pressure amounts to - but with an oh-so-radical rhetorical substitution of members for leaders - no question of structural stuff. All these people and positions that you think that you're not, you are. And your 'we' above makes me wretch (yes, i know).
 
articul8 said:
I spend very little time "promoting" the Labour party, as opposed to arguing that limited achievements are possible for lefts within it, and that some committed class fighters - like McDonnell - do play a good role from within the party. I do think voting Labour makes sense at the next election, and there is a point to joining and getting involved with the left within it. But it's not the only way of making an important contribution, far from it



A majority want to go back to a fantasy world of party democracy, radical social democratic policies, and left union leaders having a word in the ear of decent sorts sat around the cabinet table. Come back Michael Foot types. Not a view I share.


I'm all in favour of organising effective anti-austerity and pro-working class activity. But state power is a reality, electoral politics does have a legitimating function and we need to contest these spaces too.
Click to expand...
[/quote][/quote]


You've done nothing to overcome your confusion.

1. Just look at the bits in bold; I don't promote the Labour Party but you really should join...its worth it.

2. if a majority of the Labour left wants what you describe (and you may well be right), that doesn't constitute what you see as a victory for the Labour left namely a break with 'Labourist assumptions'; i.e. your appeal to/demand of the Labour left is to do something fundamentally opposed to their desires, their aspirations and their hopes.

3. Yes electoral spaces need contesting, but it doesn't need to be the 'tail wagging the dog' manner that your 'Labour is the battle ground' rhetoric requires.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Ok, not jackboots along Whitehall, permanent neoliberalism.

butchersapron said:
Onto the first para: You undermine yourself from the opening line. How on earth can labour be in a privileged position when, as you say, the bulk of their votes don't come from a commitment to labour and the future possibilities they open but from well red shit is 1% better than blue/yellow shit? You can't - and only someone so bought in and so buried into the idea of join/work/vote labour forever could not see this staring them in the face. What do you think would happen to the second part of your master-plan if the first part happened btw? If the labour party shifted leftwards and for some reason (reasons you think are impossible remember, they can't happen - that's the result of your immanent critique - despite you arguing that it is now your primary short term aim) started to aggressively represent and pursue w/c class interests?
Click to expand...

a) When people rally to "save the NHS", "defend the welfare state", "renationalise the railways" - this all points to the popular memory of Labour achievements, even if it also illustrates the inadequacy of the present leadership.

b) I'm not arguing that the Labour party leadership can be won to militant pro w/c politics. It can't and won't. But concessions can be wrought in the short term, and it can provide some platform for allowing a minority to demonstrate what fighting class represenatives would look like (and I don't mean Eric Joyce).
 
articul8 said:
But dismissing this is like saying to someone who's close family member has just died "come on, are you a bit slow or something, they're dead - now cheer the fuck up". People are still fighting for the memory of what they thought Labour stood for - even where some have written off Labour today.
Click to expand...
But a) Labour weren't the only people who stood for whatever 'that' is, or even the best ones and b) that's just conflating pointless,. delusional nostalgia with hard political reality. Anyone with half a braincell realised that Labour, as a means of socialist advance, was a dead letter years ago.
What you're really suggesting on this thread is not rescue, but trying to revive the rotting corpse. There's no point. It's a corpse.
 
butchersapron said:
Not a view you share? I think it is. That is all your pressure amounts to - but with an oh-so-radical rhetorical substitution of members for leaders - no question of structural stuff. All these people and positions that you think that you're not, you are. And your 'we' above makes me wretch (yes, i know).
Click to expand...
So I'm simulatenously accused of harbouring after a return to the politics of Michael Foot, and a cheerleader for Syriza. How can I be both?
 
articul8 said:
Ok, not jackboots along Whitehall, permanent neoliberalism.



a) When people rally to "save the NHS", "defend the welfare state", "renationalise the railways" - this all points to the popular memory of Labour achievements, even if it also illustrates the inadequacy of the present leadership.

b) I'm not arguing that the Labour party leadership can be won to militant pro w/c politics. It can't and won't. But concessions can be wrought in the short term, and it can provide some platform for allowing a minority to demonstrate what fighting class represenatives would look like (and I don't mean Eric Joyce).
Click to expand...

No, i've never ever said any such thing. Can you give some examples of me arguing what you say that i have?

No, it points to their enduring interest in collective provision of social needs - and your attempt to capture these needs for your own join/work/vote labour because it's shit and can't meet these needs but you have to join/work/vote labour because we can make it meet those needs bollocks is duly noted again.

Who said that you were? Why do you keep starting paragraphs by stating that you're not saying something that no one has said you've said? It's almost like a trick to avoid answering the points put to you. So As above, your immanent critique leads to the conclusion that labour is now incapable of meeting/representing and fighting for w/c needs, but people must join/work/vote labour because it can meet those needs in some way. And this is essential so that the children can see what they might really gain if they went beyond labour. The labour that can both be won to the left (which in your world =w/c needs) and never won to the left. They need to go on a journey through labour (one which millions have already been on, sort of slips by you) but a journey which you also deny arguing needs to happen. You are such a mess.
 
articul8 said:
So I'm simulatenously accused of harbouring after a return to the politics of Michael Foot, and a cheerleader for Syriza. How can I be both?
Click to expand...
If we put side by side the various contradictory positions that you've attempted to hold the thread would be rivaling the Laurie Penny one for length. And the answer is easy anyway, because you're two faced and say different things to different audiences.
 
I do think voting Labour makes sense at the next election, and there is a point to joining and getting involved with the left within it. But it's not the only way of making an important contribution, far from it
Click to expand...

Happy Mayday, but you must be more explicit on the kind of anti-austerity vehicle you desire - that after all was, what you suggested was necessary.


I'm all in favour of organising effective anti-austerity and pro-working class activity. But state power is a reality, electoral politics does have a legitimating function and we need to contest these spaces too.
Click to expand...

It feels like you want to legitimate electoral politics at a time when the ballot box is the cuts box. Especially by tying in Greens, TUSC and others to the Labour wagon.
How would it work in Scotland BTW or is it only an England thing?

What exactly is the anti-austerity electoral bloc you desire, as much detail as possible, please.
 
[/quote]

You've done nothing to overcome your confusion.

1. Just look at the bits in bold; I don't promote the Labour Party but you really should join...its worth it. [/quote]

I am not promoting or exhorting people to join Labour. But it is not senseless to do so.

if a majority of the Labour left wants what you describe (and you may well be right), that doesn't constitute what you see as a victory for the Labour left namely a break with 'Labourist assumptions'; i.e. your appeal to/demand of the Labour left is to do something fundamentally opposed to their desires, their aspirations and their hopes.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - the Labour left (at least since the late 70s, but actually well before in the likes of GDH Cole) has contained an element which looks to extra-parliamentary sources of power, and doesn't limit itself to Labourist assumptions. Ralph Miliband saw this and took another look at Labour. Benn was kind of riding both horses. But when the left as a whole is relatively weak and marginal (I've not disputed this - I've disputed that it's not there or it counts for nothing) these debates aren't really going to go anywhere.

3. Yes electoral spaces need contesting, but it doesn't need to be the 'tail wagging the dog' manner that your 'Labour is the battle ground' rhetoric requires.
Click to expand...
How else can the electoral space be effectively contested in the next couple of years?
 
but when is the new statesman article about this thread going to come out?

""All I'm saying is we need to vote labour without illusions so we can pressure the leadership," articul8 says wistfully, while drinking his coffee. "Some people may say that's a waste of time, but I don't.""
 
Hey you, care about the health of your family - then you're really caring about and showing a commitment to labour. Who can't meet you needs and are shit but you need to join/work/vote for them because they can make things better by not being able to meet your needs and then your illusions will be dispersed and another party can be formed. But first, vote/work/join labour - because they're shit.
 
articul8 said:
Or articulating a position that the simple-minded find deeply confusing
Click to expand...

How is it simple minded to ask what your anti-austerity vehicle actually is or will be? Will Greens have to stand aside for Labour Lefts?

How do you think the rest of Labour will view its Left that
1 is happy to set up beyond-Labour challengers in seats where it doesn't like the prospective MPs?
2 has ensured it will not receive any such challenges?
 
sihhi said:
How is it simple minded to ask what your anti-austerity vehicle actually is or will be? Will Greens have to stand aside for Labour Lefts?

How do you think the rest of Labour will view its Left that
1 is happy to set up beyond-Labour challengers in seats where it doesn't like the prospective MPs?
2 has ensured it will not receive any such challenges?
Click to expand...
He answered this a few months back by unilaterally declaring that any outside labour party that came from the assembly movements would not be allowed to challenge labour candidates. Nice of him to sort that out for everyone prior to the assemblies.
 
butchersapron said:
your immanent critique leads to the conclusion that labour is now incapable of meeting/representing and fighting for w/c needs, but people must join/work/vote labour because it can meet those needs in some way. And this is essential so that the children can see what they might really gain if they went beyond labour. The labour that can both be won to the left (which in your world =w/c needs) and never won to the left. They need to go on a journey through labour (one which millions have already been on, sort of slips by you) but a journey which you also deny arguing needs to happen. You are such a mess.
Click to expand...

You seem incapable of registering the difference between small but important short-term incremental gains (which are all any electoral strategy can aim at in the present conditions), and long-term structural necessities. The point is not about "illusions" in Labour - it's about the structural inevitability of people turning to Labour if they want to kick out the coalition parties. *There is no other way to do it*. Given that we know this, why isn't it relevant to force concessions in the short term *to the extent that this is possible*?

How we transform the structural logic of the electoral space is a much more challenging question, and of course this entails questions of strategy at a level which goes way beyond the electoral (the production of a counter-hegemonic anti-austerity bloc) - I'm not talking about an electoral bloc in the first instance, but an ideological one.

In the medium term the deeper and more widespread the attempt to build the latter (and here is where the Peoples Assembly could play a role, although I'm certainly not saying it's fit for the purpose in terms of its organisation and structure) - together with the frustrations of a Labour government constrained by the demands of capital - is likely to raise opportunities which go beyond short term electoral lesser evilism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Rewatching the 1997 General Election (bbc iplayer) and memories of it
2 3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
4K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
Gramsci
Gramsci
hash tag
Sainsbury's are going down the pan
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
cesare
cesare
krtek a houby
King William’s time is up
Replies
3
Views
292
A380
A380
Larry O'Hara
Bowyer Bell Secret Army BBC 27.3.24
Replies
21
Views
627
JimW
JimW
Back
Top Bottom