Last week, one of the troll army who stalk on-line media made a comment that - well - dare I say "made me see red" He asked if "all the mainstream Labour members really going to be overwhelmed by the fanatics"? With the votes in, it looks mainstream members overwhelmed themselves. 50% of the party and 57% of affiliates would have won the first round for JC even without the army of "registered fanatics".
Not that I've seen much evidence of fanaticism among Corbyn supporters. In two rallies I saw all ages and backgrounds - without doubt they were feeling angry, undervalued, ripped-off and betrayed, but fanatical?
In my eyes, there are fanatics in the UK political scene, but they aren't the teachers, nurses, midwives, firemen, trade unionists, manual workers, OAP's and small businessmen who gathered at Burston last Sunday to hear Corbyn speak. It's the Tory right.
IDS's murderous policies towards the sick and disabled; taxpayer subsidies for oil exploration and fracking while blocking the development of renewable energy; the deliberate blindness to the plight of refugees fleeing a war we helped precipitate and the winks and nods to tax dodging corporations. Add to this the bedroom tax and the stealth kick in teeth for "hardworking families", with the tax credit cuts announced alongside the introduction of the national living wage set to make 3 million families over £1000 a year worse off, and we see the true fanatics at work.
Not content with libelling a group of people who, for the most part, spent their days, calmly and quietly making the world work, my Troll went on to say Corbyn's solutions are problematic, "because the agenda of the Left has never worked anywhere ever".
It's not the first time this particular old chestnut has thrown back into the the roasting oven of an almost universally hostile media. Nothing like grand sweeping statements for overwhelming reason. Big lies work, or did, until the internet changed the way politics work.
Now we have Google for access to instant history lessons. "The left has never worked anywhere ever"? Is there any evidence to support this particular big lie?
What do we mean by right and left anyway? We think in terms of political parties but the origin of the term goes right back to the French Revolution of 1789 when the National Assembly divided, with supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. In essence, the left is "the rest" versus the right, "the elite".
The tension between right and left, the elite and the rest, is inevitable. There's a problem with the vastly rich. It's more than the exploitation and repression that allowed the historic accumulation of wealth and privilege. It isn't even ignorance of the price of a loaf of bread or a pint of milk. There's strong evidence connecting wealth to a lack of empathy . Look back to the court of Louis 16th to see wealth and privilege at it's most ostentatious. "Let them eat cake" weren't truly the words of Marie Antoinette, but it's a fair indication of the mindset. There's something about the psychology of wealth created isolation. It turns people into arrogant heartless fools - think IDS.
Establishing the roots of the words "left" and "right" in revolutionary France takes us neatly to a left policy that, from the perspective of French serfs and workers, worked very well. The left's policy of beheading, the French court and aristocracy, was a resounding success.
Admittedly, it was a messy policy, some would argue a little too radical - and because the roots of elitism are seemingly hard wired into our psyches, a new elite quickly took on the parasitic arrogance of their aristocratic predecessors - albeit with slightly less outlandish dress codes.
We've found less messy ways of making adjustments to human governance today, and, while the the guillotine may have it's merits, the occasional bloodless coup we call democracy is a better option.
That democratic process has brought many "left" policies that have worked. The health service, pensions, state education, public sewers and public infrastructure are left wing policies (I'm presuming any social democratic redistributive measure is "left" - we're not talking about political parties but policies) as are health and safety laws, environmental protection, not allowing small children to work down pits and under moving machinery paid holidays and public parks. Some set of failed policies.
In truth, much of what people see as "making our Britain great" are social democratic measures. They demand a redistribution of the nation's wealth for the benefit of all. Not so much failed left policies - more like successes Cameron's government are intent on destroying or privatising.
Far from the left being doomed to failure, it's the right is in deep trouble. It may look like the tories are riding high but there's a huge problem with classic capitalism, and it's one that's been compounded in its modern neo-liberal incarnation. It's sole criteria is the bottom line, and it's a bottom line that has to be delivered on an ever decreasing timescale.
Yes, good old shareholder value, the modern capitalist holy grail. It's a "perfect" expression of a perfect market place. Or maybe not.
Adam Smith would see little that's free or fair about the modern market place. Bent, corrupt, set up to allow the fraudulent peddling of worthless goods and some strange mix of blind brag and russian roulette with the surefire knowledge that if your reckless gambling on worthless junk goes belly up, socialism for the rich will bail you out. A media owned by the elite will of course blame Labour's recklessness for economic catastrophe.
I suppose we could go on playing this game forever but there's a limiting factor. It's the great undeclared, defining issue of the 21st century. It's called climate change and capitalism can do nothing about it.
In fact, the main response of capitalism has been to marshal billions on creating a barrage a fake science to try and delay the dreadful day when the world finally needs to stare it's biggest problem in the face. The climate denial machine is so bizarre it still feels like a paranoid nightmare - but it is an appalling reality. It's modelled closely on the tobacco industry campaign to "muddy the waters" of the science behind the links between smoking and cancer. It's used tobacco industry tactics, establishing false front organisations, fake science and masters of spin to maintain the big lies about climate - but as scientific certainty grows there's a new tactic - own the politicians.
In the USA, the energy industry has been so successful in seducing or installing it's cheerleaders that only one of next year's Republican presidential hopefuls acknowledges the existence of climate change .
Capitalism can't deal with climate change because it's the primary cause of the problem. It's not necessary to have an economy that's based on throw away consumption. Consumerism isn't the only route to prosperity, but it is a route to huge profitability. Pour in oil at one end and trashy beads and trade goods out from the other. Even better - export the manufacturing processes to the least developed countries in the world. No unions, no environmental regulation, no heath and safety laws.
Who cares that shipping this junk around the globe covers the world's sea in a giant sulphur dioxide cloud?
Who cares about the crushed burnt Bangladeshi sweat shop workers stocking Primani - or the Citizens of Beijing choking under a pall of smog? Keep the shareholders happy - the environment is just another global common to mine.
Failure to address the environmental crisis is a massive fail for the right and it's philosophies, it deliberately ignores the catastrophic nature of climate change because so much capitalist wealth is tied up in coal and oil. They'd rather put our planetary eco-system at risk than risk profit.
Corbyn - he understands this. He understands that for all the eyes squeezed hard closed denial, we face clear and present danger, and most of all - he understands that if we want a prosperous society, that's not underwritten by utterly unsustainable consumerism, only social democratic policies can deliver.
Not that I've seen much evidence of fanaticism among Corbyn supporters. In two rallies I saw all ages and backgrounds - without doubt they were feeling angry, undervalued, ripped-off and betrayed, but fanatical?
 |
| a crowd of extremists at Burston Strike School Rally |
In my eyes, there are fanatics in the UK political scene, but they aren't the teachers, nurses, midwives, firemen, trade unionists, manual workers, OAP's and small businessmen who gathered at Burston last Sunday to hear Corbyn speak. It's the Tory right.
IDS's murderous policies towards the sick and disabled; taxpayer subsidies for oil exploration and fracking while blocking the development of renewable energy; the deliberate blindness to the plight of refugees fleeing a war we helped precipitate and the winks and nods to tax dodging corporations. Add to this the bedroom tax and the stealth kick in teeth for "hardworking families", with the tax credit cuts announced alongside the introduction of the national living wage set to make 3 million families over £1000 a year worse off, and we see the true fanatics at work.
Not content with libelling a group of people who, for the most part, spent their days, calmly and quietly making the world work, my Troll went on to say Corbyn's solutions are problematic, "because the agenda of the Left has never worked anywhere ever".
It's not the first time this particular old chestnut has thrown back into the the roasting oven of an almost universally hostile media. Nothing like grand sweeping statements for overwhelming reason. Big lies work, or did, until the internet changed the way politics work.
Now we have Google for access to instant history lessons. "The left has never worked anywhere ever"? Is there any evidence to support this particular big lie?
What do we mean by right and left anyway? We think in terms of political parties but the origin of the term goes right back to the French Revolution of 1789 when the National Assembly divided, with supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. In essence, the left is "the rest" versus the right, "the elite".
The tension between right and left, the elite and the rest, is inevitable. There's a problem with the vastly rich. It's more than the exploitation and repression that allowed the historic accumulation of wealth and privilege. It isn't even ignorance of the price of a loaf of bread or a pint of milk. There's strong evidence connecting wealth to a lack of empathy . Look back to the court of Louis 16th to see wealth and privilege at it's most ostentatious. "Let them eat cake" weren't truly the words of Marie Antoinette, but it's a fair indication of the mindset. There's something about the psychology of wealth created isolation. It turns people into arrogant heartless fools - think IDS.
Admittedly, it was a messy policy, some would argue a little too radical - and because the roots of elitism are seemingly hard wired into our psyches, a new elite quickly took on the parasitic arrogance of their aristocratic predecessors - albeit with slightly less outlandish dress codes.
We've found less messy ways of making adjustments to human governance today, and, while the the guillotine may have it's merits, the occasional bloodless coup we call democracy is a better option.
That democratic process has brought many "left" policies that have worked. The health service, pensions, state education, public sewers and public infrastructure are left wing policies (I'm presuming any social democratic redistributive measure is "left" - we're not talking about political parties but policies) as are health and safety laws, environmental protection, not allowing small children to work down pits and under moving machinery paid holidays and public parks. Some set of failed policies.
In truth, much of what people see as "making our Britain great" are social democratic measures. They demand a redistribution of the nation's wealth for the benefit of all. Not so much failed left policies - more like successes Cameron's government are intent on destroying or privatising.
Far from the left being doomed to failure, it's the right is in deep trouble. It may look like the tories are riding high but there's a huge problem with classic capitalism, and it's one that's been compounded in its modern neo-liberal incarnation. It's sole criteria is the bottom line, and it's a bottom line that has to be delivered on an ever decreasing timescale.
Yes, good old shareholder value, the modern capitalist holy grail. It's a "perfect" expression of a perfect market place. Or maybe not.
Adam Smith would see little that's free or fair about the modern market place. Bent, corrupt, set up to allow the fraudulent peddling of worthless goods and some strange mix of blind brag and russian roulette with the surefire knowledge that if your reckless gambling on worthless junk goes belly up, socialism for the rich will bail you out. A media owned by the elite will of course blame Labour's recklessness for economic catastrophe.
I suppose we could go on playing this game forever but there's a limiting factor. It's the great undeclared, defining issue of the 21st century. It's called climate change and capitalism can do nothing about it.
In fact, the main response of capitalism has been to marshal billions on creating a barrage a fake science to try and delay the dreadful day when the world finally needs to stare it's biggest problem in the face. The climate denial machine is so bizarre it still feels like a paranoid nightmare - but it is an appalling reality. It's modelled closely on the tobacco industry campaign to "muddy the waters" of the science behind the links between smoking and cancer. It's used tobacco industry tactics, establishing false front organisations, fake science and masters of spin to maintain the big lies about climate - but as scientific certainty grows there's a new tactic - own the politicians.
In the USA, the energy industry has been so successful in seducing or installing it's cheerleaders that only one of next year's Republican presidential hopefuls acknowledges the existence of climate change .
Capitalism can't deal with climate change because it's the primary cause of the problem. It's not necessary to have an economy that's based on throw away consumption. Consumerism isn't the only route to prosperity, but it is a route to huge profitability. Pour in oil at one end and trashy beads and trade goods out from the other. Even better - export the manufacturing processes to the least developed countries in the world. No unions, no environmental regulation, no heath and safety laws.
Who cares that shipping this junk around the globe covers the world's sea in a giant sulphur dioxide cloud?
Who cares about the crushed burnt Bangladeshi sweat shop workers stocking Primani - or the Citizens of Beijing choking under a pall of smog? Keep the shareholders happy - the environment is just another global common to mine.
Failure to address the environmental crisis is a massive fail for the right and it's philosophies, it deliberately ignores the catastrophic nature of climate change because so much capitalist wealth is tied up in coal and oil. They'd rather put our planetary eco-system at risk than risk profit.
Corbyn - he understands this. He understands that for all the eyes squeezed hard closed denial, we face clear and present danger, and most of all - he understands that if we want a prosperous society, that's not underwritten by utterly unsustainable consumerism, only social democratic policies can deliver.
No comments:
Post a Comment