Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[inva]

by coincidence two sheds given your mention of Stalinism I was just about to ask what do Corbyn supporters think about this piece by Sam Hamad? A few quotes to give an idea of the argument:

Indeed, in almost every debate held in the British parliament regarding Syria, Jeremy Corbyn has used his voice to oppose and slander the plight of the Syrian rebels. Of course he maintains that he has no sympathy for Assad, but all of his interventions on this subject reproduce narratives that essentially justify the Assad's counter-revolutionary war effort and hostility to the revolutionary forces.

This is not ignorance on his part. His interventions have been intricate and calculated in putting forward the idea that rebels in Syria ought never to be materially supported. The figurehead of a movement that considers itself to be opposed to the fearmongering politics of the "war on terror" has been remarkably fervent in accusing the Syrian rebels of being akin to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The actually existing evil of the Assad regime pales in comparison to the abstract evil of the rebels, here so squalidly elided with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

It's the intricacy of Corbyn's hostility to the Syrian revolution that is quite extraordinary. A quick look through his interventions in parliament regarding Syria will illustrate the above notion being repeated over the course of a few years.

Regarding this bit:

Corbyn's politics are rooted in Stalinism, and in many ways, he and his movement represent the Stalinism of the 21st century, with history repeating the initial tragedy of Stalinism in a more farcical but nonetheless dismal and dangerous manner.

I'm not sure about the Stalinist angle. He has links with the Morning Star lot which I guess is a descendent of Stalinists, but he seems more to be a product of the decayed liberal left which contains the dregs of Labourism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and other stuff in a cartoonish anti-imperialist swamp, hence why he was chair of the decidedly dodgy Stop the War Coalition. As usual, his politics are top down - calling for imperialist powers and a savage dictatorship to get round the table and sideline the opposition on the ground.

 

[two sheds]

If it's true then definitely a mark against Corbyn, but I'd reserve judgment until seeing what Corbyn's actually said about Syria rather than what he's said Corbyn's said.

Not saying it will be the same but in just about every criticism of Chomsky where I've seen someone say "Chomsky says ... " you look at what he actually said and he didn't say that at all.

 

[inva]

If it's true then definitely a mark against Corbyn, but I'd reserve judgment until seeing what Corbyn's actually said about Syria rather than what he's said Corbyn's said.

Not saying it will be the same but in just about every criticism of Chomsky where I've seen someone say "Chomsky says ... " you look at what he actually said and he didn't say that at all.

as it happens Chomsky's pretty shit on Syria too as far as I know.

 

[two sheds]

as it happens Chomsky's pretty shit on Syria too as far as I know.

What did he say?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

'thankyou for your money but we cyberstalked you and so we'll keep them p's but you get no vote'

They PAID to be spied on ffs

 

[Rob Ray]

by coincidence two sheds He has links with the Morning Star lot which I guess is a descendent of Stalinists.

Probably more accurate to say it still has a lot of old Tankies in it and a bit of a streak of grumpy "they'll be first against the wall" going on, but the CPB/Star core document Britain's Road to Socialism has for a while been very much on the old Labour left wavelength when it comes to the core economic policies rather than Corbyn being on theirs. Their 2011 document for example includes a very familiar list:

• Increase tax rates on higher rates of income.
• Levy an annual wealth tax on the richest section of the population.
• Impose a ‘Robin Hood’ tax on City financial transactions.
• Increase the rate of corporation tax on the profits of large companies.
• Place a windfall tax on monopoly profits in specific industries as necessary.
• Close all tax havens under British jurisdiction.
• Implement deep cuts in VAT on essential goods and services.
• Replace the council tax by local income, wealth, land and property taxes based clearly on the ability to pay.
• Renegotiate and, where appropriate, cancel Private Finance Initiative contracts in order to eliminate excessive corporate profiteering.
• Cut British military spending and end all state subsidies for armaments exports.
• Control movements of capital in and out of Britain.

 

[inva]

What did he say?

on one of the Syria threads Geri posted this article also by Hamad:

It claims to be “anti-imperialist,” yet you have no less a figure as Noam Chomsky so absurdly and pathetically claim that Russia’s intervention in Syria is not “imperialist” since “it’s supporting a government,” while he endorses the conservative “realism” of Patrick Cockburn whose writing has often come down on the side of the Assad regime.

In that link Hamad provides a source which is a youtube video of a talk by Chomsky, and having listened to it, I'd also add that he talks of the US and it's allies backing Islamists, but fails to mention Shia Islamists and their role in Syria. I wonder why? He says, 'if you attack Assad, you're undermining resistance to the Islamic State and al-Nusra'. Where to start with that? He also says wrongly, 'if you go back to the 2012 there was no uprising' - news to the countless people who during that time and earlier were arrested, tortured, murdered and disappeared during largely peaceful (on their side at least) protests against the regime.

e2a: in fact in a short space of time he manages to be wrong about an impressive number of things

 

[mauvais]

Some interesting if vague and wishy-washy stuff in today's Digital Manifesto (PDF)

Already attracting fire from people who don't appear to know anything about software

 

[gosub]

'thankyou for your money but we cyberstalked you and so we'll keep them p's but you get no vote'

must get the money back surely?

 

[inva]

Probably more accurate to say it still has a lot of old Tankies in it and a bit of a streak of grumpy "they'll be first against the wall" going on, but the CPB/Star core document Britain's Road to Socialism has for a while been very much on the old Labour left wavelength when it comes to the core economic policies rather than Corbyn being on theirs. Their 2011 document for example includes a very familiar list:

• Increase tax rates on higher rates of income.
• Levy an annual wealth tax on the richest section of the population.
• Impose a ‘Robin Hood’ tax on City financial transactions.
• Increase the rate of corporation tax on the profits of large companies.
• Place a windfall tax on monopoly profits in specific industries as necessary.
• Close all tax havens under British jurisdiction.
• Implement deep cuts in VAT on essential goods and services.
• Replace the council tax by local income, wealth, land and property taxes based clearly on the ability to pay.
• Renegotiate and, where appropriate, cancel Private Finance Initiative contracts in order to eliminate excessive corporate profiteering.
• Cut British military spending and end all state subsidies for armaments exports.
• Control movements of capital in and out of Britain.

cheers, not something I've spent much time investigating I have to admit

 

[two sheds]

on one of the Syria threads Geri posted this article also by Hamad:

In that link Hamad provides a source which is a youtube video of a talk by Chomsky, and having listened to it, I'd also add that he talks of the US and it's allies backing Islamists, but fails to mention Shia Islamists and their role in Syria. I wonder why? He says, 'if you attack Assad, you're undermining resistance to the Islamic State and al-Nusra'. Where to start with that? He also says wrongly, 'if you go back to the 2012 there was no uprising' - news to the countless people who during that time and earlier were arrested, tortured, murdered and disappeared during largely peaceful (on their side at least) protests against the regime.

Bookmarked, ta, will take a look.

On that article, if nothing else it's a useless piece of writing for making up your mind. If what Corbyn said was so atrocious you'd think it would be easy enough for him to quote it to show us how atrocious it was.

 

[inva]

Bookmarked, ta, will take a look.

On that article, if nothing else it's a useless piece of writing for making up your mind. If what Corbyn said was so atrocious you'd think it would be easy enough for him to quote it to show us how atrocious it was.

he provides some quotes and there's a number of links to speeches etc by Corbyn. I don't think the article claims he's said anything specifically atrocious exactly, and as Hamad says he criticises Assad - it's more about what his politics and warped anti imperialism mean in practice. The characterisation of Corbyn's views on Syria certainly matches what I remember of the debates that ocurred around UK military intervention as well as the wider politics of Stop the War etc, which Corbyn was (and is?) a part of.

 

[Knotted]

Indeed, in almost every debate held in the British parliament regarding Syria, Jeremy Corbyn has used his voice to oppose and slander the plight of the Syrian rebels. Of course he maintains that he has no sympathy for Assad, but all of his interventions on this subject reproduce narratives that essentially justify the Assad's counter-revolutionary war effort and hostility to the revolutionary forces.

How the cult of the Syrian "revolution" works. Criticise the rebels and you side with Assad. Love the use of the word "essentially".

The actually existing evil of the Assad regime pales in comparison to the abstract evil of the rebels, here so squalidly elided with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Abstract evil of he rebels. What do you mean? The rebels deserve the right to actualise their evil? Assad has a state apparatus of oppression and torture, an airforce that kills thousands with barrel bombs, give the rebels a bit gear so that their horrors can compete on a similar scale! Or are we waiting for them to win before they can be criticised? File under other bright ideas like don't criticise the Mullahs when fighting the Shah.

Corbyn's position is terrible and it can't be anything but terrible. He wants a negotiated solution to end the fighting and negotiations mean the various parties all of whom are collectively responsible for the plight of Syria get all the say and ordinary Syrians get to say nothing at all. But good grief, at least he isn't supporting the "rebels".

The interesting thing about this piece is that this sort of thing isn't being said all the time. It shows just how far in retreat the foreign policy outlook of 1999-2003 is. At one point foreign intervention was the orthodoxy of all three major parties, along with hyperbolic attacks on Milosevic and Saddam and simple narratives of good and evil. Go back fifteen years and we would all supposed to be overlooking al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham in order to fight genocide in the shape of the new Hitler.

 

[two sheds]

he provides some quotes and there's a number of links to speeches etc by Corbyn. I don't think the article claims he's said anything specifically atrocious exactly, and as Hamad says he criticises Assad - it's more about what his politics and warped anti imperialism mean in practice. The characterisation of Corbyn's views on Syria certainly matches what I remember of the debates that ocurred around UK military intervention as well as the wider politics of Stop the War etc, which Corbyn was (and is?) a part of.

ah ok sorry I only read the bits of the article you quoted, will look at the rest. butchersapron would be the man to judge I'd have thought (others too of course).

 

[inva]

How the cult of the Syrian "revolution" works. Criticise the rebels and you side with Assad. Love the use of the word "essentially".

Abstract evil of he rebels. What do you mean? The rebels deserve the right to actualise their evil? Assad has a state apparatus of oppression and torture, an airforce that kills thousands with barrel bombs, give the rebels a bit gear so that their horrors can compete on a similar scale! Or are we waiting for them to win before they can be criticised? File under other bright ideas like don't criticise the Mullahs when fighting the Shah.

Corbyn's position is terrible and it can't be anything but terrible. He wants a negotiated solution to end the fighting and negotiations mean the various parties all of whom are collectively responsible for the plight of Syria get all the say and ordinary Syrians get to say nothing at all. But good grief, at least he isn't supporting the "rebels".

 

[rioted]

- it's more about what his politics and warped anti imperialism mean in practice.

You think, in practice, Western governments should support regime change by military means?

 

[two sheds]

Probably more accurate to say it still has a lot of old Tankies in it and a bit of a streak of grumpy "they'll be first against the wall" going on, but the CPB/Star core document Britain's Road to Socialism has for a while been very much on the old Labour left wavelength when it comes to the core economic policies rather than Corbyn being on theirs. Their 2011 document for example includes a very familiar list:

• Increase tax rates on higher rates of income.
• Levy an annual wealth tax on the richest section of the population.
• Impose a ‘Robin Hood’ tax on City financial transactions.
• Increase the rate of corporation tax on the profits of large companies.
• Place a windfall tax on monopoly profits in specific industries as necessary.
• Close all tax havens under British jurisdiction.
• Implement deep cuts in VAT on essential goods and services.
• Replace the council tax by local income, wealth, land and property taxes based clearly on the ability to pay.
• Renegotiate and, where appropriate, cancel Private Finance Initiative contracts in order to eliminate excessive corporate profiteering.
• Cut British military spending and end all state subsidies for armaments exports.
• Control movements of capital in and out of Britain.

Fairly uncontentious middle of the road stuff then.

 

[inva]

You think, in practice, Western governments should support regime change by military means?

not generally. Do I think those on the left should support a popular uprising against a dictatorship and those who, between the horrors of the regime and IS/JaF etc are still struggling to live freely of all of them? Yes.

 

[Wilf]

On the registered supporter application, they ask you why you want to register. My partner put something like 'cos I love Jezzer'. I was hoping they'd reject her on those grounds alone. But even for McNicol's happy band of censors, loving the leader of the party isn't yet a grounds for returning our hard earned booze money.

 

[free spirit]

They ask if you support the aims and values *now*, not if you always have or if you've never supported anyone else. Once again, they break their own contractual wording.

indeed, but luckily the high court decided that the NEC can basically do whatever it wants whatever any other rules might say.

 

[Ted Striker]

You get your £25/whatever back though, right?

 

[Vintage Paw]

On the registered supporter application, they ask you why you want to register. My partner put something like 'cos I love Jezzer'. I was hoping they'd reject her on those grounds alone. But even for McNicol's happy band of censors, loving the leader of the party isn't yet a grounds for returning our hard earned booze money.

They key thing, I thought, was to not put your facebook or twitter details on the form. Seemed like really fucking obvious common sense but I bet there were LOADS of people who did it anyway. Also keeping your privacy settings on fb and twitter so no one can find you via your email seems like a good idea, also not using your real name, like.

I don't have a fb account, so that's not an issue, and my twitter name isn't my real name.

The rest of it is down to whether someone locally who knows you dobs you in for personal reasons, as is happening an awful lot. There are lots of personal beefs in local CLPs, and there are some people who revel in being a grass even if they don't know you personally.

 

[rioted]

not generally. Do I think those on the left should support a popular uprising against a dictatorship and those who, between the horrors of the regime and IS/JaF etc are still struggling to live freely of all of them? Yes.

But what do you mean "support"? Get the RAF to drop bombs on them? What else do you suggest? Pass motions of condemnation? Rant on obscure bulletin boards? You're critical of Corbyn's position, what's yours?

 

[Wilf]

They key thing, I thought, was to not put your facebook or twitter details on the form. Seemed like really fucking obvious common sense but I bet there were LOADS of people who did it anyway. Also keeping your privacy settings on fb and twitter so no one can find you via your email seems like a good idea, also not using your real name, like.

I don't have a fb account, so that's not an issue, and my twitter name isn't my real name.

The rest of it is down to whether someone locally who knows you dobs you in for personal reasons, as is happening an awful lot. There are lots of personal beefs in local CLPs, and there are some people who revel in being a grass even if they don't know you personally.

Yep, bet there's only been a handful of central investigations, bulk of it has been local grassing. Whole thing has got laughable, Mcnicol deliberately spending his days with a process designed to defeat his own boss - and that boss seemingly incapable of doing anything about it (even if he will almost certainly win). Under normal circumstances NcNicol would resign after the result, but the Corbynistas are not yet secure - or for that matter, capable - of pulling that off.

 

[inva]

But what do you mean "support"? Get the RAF to drop bombs on them? What else do you suggest? Pass motions of condemnation? Rant on obscure bulletin boards? You're critical of Corbyn's position, what's yours?

The start of solidarity is to correct the narrative

By support I mean show solidarity with, like we would for many other causes. A fair bit was done in support of Kurds during the Islamic State's attack on Kobani, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about - and equally the PYD/PKK deserve their share of criticisms. Does support for Palestinians end the conflict there? No, but perhaps it's worth something all the same.

On the other hand:

I am afraid that it is too late for the leftists in the West to express any solidarity with the Syrians ... Before helping Syrians or showing solidarity with Syrians, the mainstream Western left needs to help themselves

Maybe we aren't really capable of helping any more if we ever were, with all that has happened since the uprising began and was met with total repression. Trying to see events on a deeper level than state rivalries, learning some kind of lesson for developing our politics so we can see the people who have vanished in so many narratives, that could be a start.

e2a: if we're going to go further down this route it should probably move to the Syria thread instead of here though

 

[Pickman's model]

not generally. Do I think those on the left should support a popular uprising against a dictatorship and those who, between the horrors of the regime and IS/JaF etc are still struggling to live freely of all of them? Yes.

tbh there are popular uprisings and popular uprisings. i wouldn't want to say 'let's support the most popular one' just because it is most popular.

 

[inva]

tbh there are popular uprisings and popular uprisings. i wouldn't want to say 'let's support the most popular one' just because it is most popular.

that's a fair point

 

[Diamond]

They ask if you support the aims and values *now*, not if you always have or if you've never supported anyone else. Once again, they break their own contractual wording.

Out of interest, where do they use that "wording"?

 

[Wilf]

Out of interest, where do they use that "wording"?

Haven't seen the wording but, presumably, so that past supporters of other parties who have 'seen the light' can join. Something they now seem less keen on. Even in the proud history of gerrymandering, NcNicol et al should feel a tiny bit embarrassed.

 

[treelover]

Ta for that, seems that some of the modest pledges he seems to have made,have been somewhat "exaggerated" bit disappointing though.

Outside of foreign policy, human rights, etc Corbyn has been quite cautious.