|
MikeCrotch posted:Blair moved the party to the right due to the right winning an internal power struggle within the party combined with the perceived death of socialism worldwide due to the collapse of the USSR and social democracy, on top of deindustrialization crippling traditional trade unionism. ... honestly, now you're at why the whole thing started with "Labour is dead". You can hold left wing leaders to account if you have left wing leaders who have positions where holding them to account makes a difference. And without a force independent from the Labour party - and especially the PLP - holding them accountable ain't gonna do poo poo. (Because the internal conflicts within the Labour party are going to reduce any potential leader to a melt if they have any hope of being elected the leader.) The tent's well and truly burned down and the point to start from is the one the unions started from, a good while back. You can't reuse the foundations of the old one because they aren't going to carry poo poo, you've just got you and the swamp. That being said, ultra-local stuff can and does grow into bigger movements that are able to make coherent demands and to affect change. Having them be parties while FPTP still exists is at best questionable and that's why I use words like "organizations" and "movements". Starting a process like this while Brexit was ongoing would have been impossible due to time constraints and to avoid diluting the strength of the Labour party... but now Labour is more of a collection of albatross necklaces than an useful tool to bring about change. Bringing those organizations under the Labour tent is a poor idea because the Labour tent is structurally unsound and liable to collapse again and again from any amount of external force. Also there's a lot of trash inside. Or in much clearer terms: I think using the Labour clout is a trap because it brings with it all the problems with Labour not having anything approaching a coherent direction or a way to grow and change. You don't want anything committed to respecting Labour's structure, values or history - indeed you shouldn't be averse to just getting rid of it all if it better serves the cause. Or in even clearer terms: If you want to use Labour as a tool to hold the Tories accountable you first need to fight most of Labour to get them in line and there's approximately nobody with the force of will to even try in the foreseeable future. Julio Cruz posted:please elaborate on the context where "Labour under Blair triangulated to the left" is an accurate statement, tia brian already did (thanks brian) - it comes with the implied statement of "Labour under Blair aren't meaningfully distinguishable from the Tories".
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:brian already did (thanks brian) - it comes with the implied statement of "Labour under Blair aren't meaningfully distinguishable from the Tories". yes I know, which is why your point about Labour triangulating to the left is bullshit, since that never actually happened (see: 1997 onwards) Julio Cruz fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jan 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
You say Labour's falling apart as though leaving it as a vacuum for other interests to creep in is fine. Labour isn't a trash fire. It's being petrol bombed. The attack will follow the left to its new home should it decide to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
there's really not much choice apart from sticking with labour, the same people that have been attacking and smearing labour would also do everything they can to stop any sort of new movement from rising up though if the new leader actually caves to the board of deputies then poo poo is hosed, they'll purge the party of anyone even remotely leftist
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
There are obvious problems with actually doing that that extend outside the leader's office, so it remains to be seen whether it's just empty rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:You say Labour's falling apart as though leaving it as a vacuum for other interests to creep in is fine. The left isn't in control and it's not a home. The left needs a home of its own, and it's not Labour. ... and then I went "and there the metaphor breaks down because you can indeed defend Labour from being taken over while working in other organizations"... and then I went "hey wait what do you do to survive a firebombing you can't stop at the source?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:And without a force independent from the Labour party - and especially the PLP - holding them accountable ain't gonna do poo poo. (Because the internal conflicts within the Labour party are going to reduce any potential leader to a melt if they have any hope of being elected the leader.) I'm going to stop you there* because you very obviously have literally no idea about what's been happening within the Labour Party since 2015, which kind of invalidates your entire argument. * I'd also like to apologise for calling you a pound-shop ronya. Not to you, but to ronya who at least knows what they're talking about even if they frequently ignore the obvious conclusions of that knowledge, and to pound shops, who at least occasionally release something that is serviceable and usable within the constraints of costing a quid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I'm going to stop you there* because you very obviously have literally no idea about what's been happening within the Labour Party since 2015, which kind of invalidates your entire argument. What a quality argument there. Also I do know what you're referring to, and five years in, how well would you say that has worked for leftist causes and social progress in the United Kingdom? Living in a golden age are we. Everything worked out just fine. Certainly no threat of leftists being sidelined in the national decision-making process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Again, as opposed to when in the last... 30, 40 years?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Exactly. Corbyn failed at squaring the circle and the answer isn't to blame Corbyn, or to try again, or to theorycraft what you could have done differently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Right but your suggestion appears to be "abandon the labour party, all is forever lost" which uh... does not seem helpful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:What a quality argument there. I'm giving your arguments the respect they deserve because they have absolutely no substance. You're completely ignoring both the internal party democracy reforms, which means the party membership wields considerably more power over the party (which is still the second-largest in the Commons) than they could possibly hope to have outside of that party structure, and the existence of Momentum (and the other smaller groups both in and out of the party). This would be about the best possible endpoint of any process that you're proposing - the leftist bloc of Labour being organised from outside the Party and with almost complete control of the apparatus. We don't need thought experiments to work out what happens when the Left abandons the party and attempts to build a parallel structure - we saw it happen from 1984-2010. The party drifts right and pisses away one of the biggest majorities that any party has ever had with only the most superficial sticking plasters over the structural problems in the economy, which the Tories gleefully dismantled within 2 years of being in power, leaving us in a worse position than we were in 1996.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
So how DO you survive a firebombing if you can't stop one from happening? Because that turned out to be surprisingly insightful a metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
and onwards from 2010 there was TUSC
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:So how DO you survive a firebombing if you can't stop one from happening? Draw your own metaphor from this. Azza Bamboo posted:and onwards from 2010 there was TUSC
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
Whichever one of you made the gently caress THE TORIES playlist on Spotify is ace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:So how DO you survive a firebombing if you can't stop one from happening? That depends on whether you aspire to be the Nazi Party or Marinus van der Lubbe, really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Both seem like poor aspirations tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Sand and caustic potash solution. George Galloway's Respect 2: Respect Harder I have it on good authority that a flat cap is required party uniform ContinuityNewTimes fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jan 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
Respectful Communist Party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Sand and caustic potash solution. Hah! Unfortunately that wouldn't work - too much fire and the structures are still destroyed - the only thing that does is "scatter and stay hidden until you're prepared to deal with it". OwlFancier posted:Right but your suggestion appears to be "abandon the labour party, all is forever lost" which uh... does not seem helpful? It's not actually that, as I've now clearly stated multiple times. It's abandon the hope of using the Labour party as either a home or their clout as a tool. The Labour party is many things apart from just the natural vote of the leftists and that's also a liability in itself in certain situations. What it isn't to anybody is a home. Corbyn did get important reforms through, yes. But Momentum and Labour in general just took a massive hit. This wasn't a failure because success wasn't possible, but it's a massive hit nonetheless. And literally any singular front the left presents will immediately be under attack just the way Labour currently is. You need a lot of groups at best debatably unified but cooperating over shared values to dodge that. Leadership coming from within the Labour party proper suffers from both from the demands of electability as well as coming under attack constantly. When your primary means of influence is through the Labour party, the concessions Labour is forced to make limit your ability to act - when you're acting as a part of an external force toward the Labour party you can instead demand concessions. With enough such groups making ad hoc alliances you can have both the benefits of localism and influence leftist politics as a whole. Y'know, like CLPs only without Labour leadership being able to pass down rules or being necessarily restricted regionally in the age of instant communications.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:And without a force independent from the Labour party - and especially the PLP - holding them accountable ain't gonna do poo poo. (Because the internal conflicts within the Labour party are going to reduce any potential leader to a melt if they have any hope of being elected the leader.) endlessmonotony posted:That being said, ultra-local stuff can and does grow into bigger movements that are able to make coherent demands and to affect change. Having them be parties while FPTP still exists is at best questionable and that's why I use words like "organizations" and "movements". Starting a process like this while Brexit was ongoing would have been impossible due to time constraints and to avoid diluting the strength of the Labour party... but now Labour is more of a collection of albatross necklaces than an useful tool to bring about change. You've contradicted yourself within one post. Yes the PLP is a systemic impediment and yes ultra-local stuff can affect change. And one change that ultra-local organising can quite easily involve is changing the local Labour candidate, in fact it's a much easier change than a vague 'bigger movement' plan, and they aren't even contradictory it's chewing gum and walking. There's no benefit to abandoning the Labour Party in that analysis it's just pointlessly giving up an opportunity in favour of some lovely aesthetic choice. endlessmonotony posted:Or in much clearer terms: I think using the Labour clout is a trap because it brings with it all the problems with Labour not having anything approaching a coherent direction or a way to grow and change. You don't want anything committed to respecting Labour's structure, values or history - indeed you shouldn't be averse to just getting rid of it all if it better serves the cause. "the Labour clout" is a bullshit term and you know it, this country is FPTP, that isn't 'clout' it's structural power that exists and isn't going anywhere. If we don't use it then it will be working against us so using as much of it as we can is closer to optimal. The problems with Labour are miniscule compared to the problems throwing toys out the pram would mean, the CUKs were absolute slaves to power and they still didn't get anywhere, a left-wing version of that would do even worse. Using Labour as a tool doesn't mean fighting most of Labour at all, the Labour membership are sound, and that's a fake concept anyway. Aside from the Blairite PLP pedophiles the actual problem is how to tackle media bias (which would be even worse against any edgy labour-party-be-dead-movement btw) and sure that's a problem we've gotta figure out how to tackle but that can be tackled from within Labour too sooooo
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
I really wish the fascist Board of Deputies wasn’t being legitimised like this, but all the candidates are signing up to is enacting their own interpretations of that rubbish list. This is not the end of the Labour Party, lol. And 1917 is very very good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:When your primary means of influence is through the Labour party, the concessions Labour is forced to make limit your ability to act - when you're acting as a part of an external force toward the Labour party you can instead demand concessions. What are the alternative 'primary means of influence' you are alluding to here? Honest question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:you very obviously have literally no idea about what's been happening within the Labour Party since 2015 also, apparently, before 2015
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I really wish the fascist Board of Deputies wasn’t being legitimised like this, but all the candidates are signing up to is enacting their own interpretations of that rubbish list. This is not the end of the Labour Party, lol. Yeah it's absolutely bullshit, them and the MCB would be mates if their particular flavours of authoritarian sectarian anti-enlightenmentism didn't require them to flacidly hate each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:And literally any singular front the left presents will immediately be under attack just the way Labour currently is. Congratulations, you've just realised why everyone's having a go at you. Oh wait you've kept typing. endlessmonotony posted:When your primary means of influence is through the Labour party, the concessions Labour is forced to make limit your ability to act - when you're acting as a part of an external force toward the Labour party you can instead demand concessions. With enough such groups making ad hoc alliances you can have both the benefits of localism and influence leftist politics as a whole. Exactly what influence do you think any body acting independently of the Labour Party will have? How will it obtain that influence? How will it avoid having to make the concessions to the mainstream political thought of this country (or at least it's media/political class) that Labour inevitably has to make?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Exactly what influence do you think any body acting independently of the Labour Party will have? How will it obtain that influence? How will it avoid having to make the concessions to the mainstream political thought of this country (or at least it's media/political class) that Labour inevitably has to make? This is an important point, the problems of the labour party are partly institutional yes, but a lot of them are also the kind of problems that exist for any political organization which wants to operate across the country and in an electoral fashion, pandering to a largely disinterested populace for votes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:What are the alternative 'primary means of influence' you are alluding to here? Honest question. The entire point is "stop treating change from within the Labour party as a sensible option and organize outside it, then roll up to the party as an already unified group so you don't have to balance your values with the internal Labour politics while you're still trying to figure out trying how to express those values". Political organizing within-parties is a trap in itself because it makes it about the party and not about the values. The other side to that coin is organizing things around the communities that helps build local-only reputation for your group - that's then lent to Labour under a FPTP system. Also Labour has clout because it has a lot of existing supporters, it has name recognition and it has resources. That's on top of FPTP making any open competition between left-wingers just a recipe to get the right into power - unless there's mutual understanding that election time isn't the time to compete against each other. (And restating that the competition is good because it allows people to make choices about who, specifically, to support and avoids the triangulation trap of "eh the left wing will vote for us anyway".)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Perhaps the reason labour has a lot of supporters is also because the mechanism and terrain on which it operates is one which can attract a lot of supporters, which a definitely-not-the-labour-party focused entirely on non-parliamentary organizing with the intent of springing a revolutionary insurgency on the labour party at an indeterminate point in the future, would struggle to do. Or more bluntly, what makes you think you can attract labour party members to such a group and if you can't, where else are you planning to get members from in sufficient volume to take over the party?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:The entire point is "stop treating change from within the Labour party as a sensible option and organize outside it, then roll up to the party as an already unified group so you don't have to balance your values with the internal Labour politics while you're still trying to figure out trying how to express those values". Why is that preferable to organising whilst within Labour? Rocking up to the party with no links within it will be less effective than rocking up to it when you are already have links. endlessmonotony posted:Political organizing within-parties is a trap in itself because it makes it about the party and not about the values. Absolute false equivalence, parties are comprised of people unified around non-policy moral and intellectual values, that we currently have a lot of PLP careerists doesn't change that. If you are saying that party work is inherently unprincipled then gently caress off thats Guardian-op-ed level baby thinking. endlessmonotony posted:Also Labour has clout because it has a lot of existing supporters, it has name recognition and it has resources. That's on top of FPTP making any open competition between left-wingers just a recipe to get the right into power - unless there's mutual understanding that election time isn't the time to compete against each other. That's a very well made point for why we shouldn't abandon Labour so cool?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Absolute false equivalence, parties are comprised of people unified around non-policy moral and intellectual values, that we currently have a lot of PLP careerists doesn't change that. If you are saying that party work is inherently unprincipled then gently caress off thats Guardian-op-ed level baby thinking.That's a very well made point for why we shouldn't abandon Labour so cool? This too, like, the labour membership has demonstrated a very good ability in the last couple of years to work together for correct and cohesive goals. The membership is not remotely the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:(And restating that the competition is good because it allows people to make choices about who, specifically, to support and avoids the triangulation trap of "eh the left wing will vote for us anyway".) You are MI5 and I'm claiming my name on a blacklist, you've already mentioned FPTP so you definitely know it exists, this is the dumbest possible take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Absolute false equivalence, parties are comprised of people unified around non-policy moral and intellectual values, that we currently have a lot of PLP careerists doesn't change that. If you are saying that party work is inherently unprincipled then gently caress off thats Guardian-op-ed level baby thinking. Party work is inherently influenced by the good of the party and if the PLP isn't proof enough that the party values aren't always consistent with the values of the membership I don't know what is. Party rules enforce hierarchies and make it a lot harder to go "wait, are we wrong here?". Party clout and rules can be used as a weapon against dissent and even better values. ... all of this has happened and not such a long time ago and the party leadership not having any control (and we're heading into just such a time) could indeed be used by bad actors higher in the hierarchy to shut down competition and dissent. OwlFancier posted:This too, like, the labour membership has demonstrated a very good ability in the last couple of years to work together for correct and cohesive goals. The membership is not remotely the issue. The membership is indeed faring a lot better than the party as a whole. Could it be the trash like the careerists and outdated rules, alongside with the giant target Labour provides? (Attacking hundreds of local organizations with shitflinging is a lot harder than one big target, because the general public will lose track.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:You are MI5 and I'm claiming my name on a blacklist, you've already mentioned FPTP so you definitely know it exists, this is the dumbest possible take. I mean I did explicitly point out that that only works if the local organizations are good about not infighting during election time and otherwise using an umbrella organization like Labour works a lot better. Am I being just strung along by people deliberately getting what I said wrong so that I reply to correct them and repeat myself again in the most Sisyphean example of a name/post combo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:The membership is indeed faring a lot better than the party as a whole. The smaller organizations are going to have to stand under a single electoral banner to function in FPTP and in the media driven electoral landscape. So electorally I do not see the difference? Labour as a party is full of good people who struggle to win electoral victories because the press is incredibly hostile to them and we struggle to communicate with people otherwise because electoral politics is extremely media driven. What are you suggesting that would change this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Can you actually pretty provide any examples of where what you're suggest has worked There is a (correct imo) argument that the Labour party and parliamentary power is not the only method for achieving the lefts goals but that doesn't mean abandon the Labour party either unless you want to do "SDP but on the left" or literally give up hope of doing anything via government which seems unwise
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Am I being just strung along by people deliberately getting what I said wrong so that I reply to correct them and repeat myself again in the most Sisyphean example of a name/post combo? actual lol Saying that you acknowledge Labour as an umbrella organisation is essential whilst also saying Labour is dead and we should let it die and working within the party is a albatross is inconsistent so people are responding to your stupider statements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:actual lol This was answered by my fourth post into this subject. And the fact that you just ignored that either means you're posting in bad faith or that I've gone on about it long enough where anyone replying is going to just try to land sick burns based on fragments of my posts out of context because ain't nobody actually reading my posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
I've read then I just really don't understand what you're trying to say because it doesn't seem to make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 02:00
|
|