Corbynism will not burn itself out, predicts James Bloodworth
The long-term aim of the far left is very different to that of Labour’s moderates – and not only in terms of a political programme. Whereas the Labour mainstream places a great deal of emphasis on winning general elections, the far left is far more interested in controlling the Labour party machinery over the long term.
Thus the logic runs something like this: as long as the far left controls the Labour party then at some point – whether in five, 10 or 20 years’ time – the Conservatives will come unstuck and an ‘authentic’ Labour party can sweep to power. Never mind that Labour might be destroyed as a credible electoral vehicle in the process; for the far left, control of the Labour ‘brand’ is the only surefire way (or so they believe) of detoxifying their own politics to the extent that they might have some marginal appeal to the public (Trotskyism just does not have the mass appeal).
Threats to this new leftwing order seem thin on the ground at present – or at least confined to sections of the Labour party one would expect to be opposed to Corbyn. However, if things continue to go less than swimmingly for the new leadership, expect fissures to open up between the Labour left and some of the aforementioned hard-left factions. Unlike the far left, taking a hammering in elections (or looking likely to do so) has a direct impact on membership of trade unions which have hitherto supported Jeremy Corbyn. Even if it may not always appear thus, there will invariably be those in the leadership of the unions who recognise that ideological purity without a modicum of power will badly damage their members’ interests. A similar break – between ideology and pragmatism – can already be glimpsed in the battle over the renewal of Trident, where trade unions like GMB and Unite are seeking to put the bread-and-butter interests of their members ahead of utopian visions of a nuclear-free world.
What should be clear in all of this is that, now the far left feels it has a (relatively) firm hold on the Labour party, getting the party back will be like extracting teeth from a bad-tempered dog. Many on the hard left see Corbyn as their big chance to bring forward what they see as irrevocable changes to both the structure of the Labour party and its ideological compass. And this is what ought to be borne in mind at all times by Corbyn’s moderate opponents. Corbynism will not burn itself out – many of its leading lights would rather, like Samson, pull the temple down on everyone’s heads than surrender what they have spent a lifetime chasing.
———————————
View the full Corbyn universe here
———————————
James Bloodworth is a contributing editor to Progress
———————————
Are you Luke Akehurst’s doppelganger? I note that today, the Daily Politics used the phrase: “so called moderates, whether they are or not?” to refer to certain individuals who are now being referred to as “The Bitterites”.
Former Progress contributing authors have publicly started to distance themselves from the most odious dissenters but some of the more insidious still appear to wish to damage the Party, rather than attempting to make a positive contribution.
They want to destroy Labour and rebuild the ruins with themselves in their pre-ordained glory atop the party.
Screw the members. Screw democracy.
What a disgrace.
As far as I am aware Progress have never held secret meetings in a Labour held constituency without informing the MP, threatened to deselt MPs who disagree with their views or allowed their memebers to intimdate MPs who disagree with their views.
Mate. Point to a rule broken please.
Owen Jones has an article in today’s Guardian on the difficulty of having a rational discussion on Jeremy Corbyn. Reading the above it appears he has a point. It may be some time before Labour is ready to see itself as an alternative
party of government.
First I’d like rational fair loyal conduct from Progress.
It only needs a large majority of Labour MP’s refusing to do his will in the Commons and Corbyn would have to resign. The problem then is “would he be able to stand again for leader and win again”. Until the moderates win this point we are in for failure at the polls at every opportunity. Corbyn is not interested in winning any election where the issue is decided on a marginal basis so we will lose in 2020. Will he then, as Michael Foot did in 1983, resign and let the membership have another chance to pick a leader. Momentum would ensure that any one endorsed by them will win so it is down to a constitutional change to prevent this. I suggest the same change as the Tories put in where the MP’s select the two candidates and the members and associates choose between them. I would also insert a condition that “The candidate must affirm that s/he is committed to winning every election that Labour is represented at”. Corbyn could not make that affirmation on present form.
Yeah I mean it’s not like 60% of the membership supported him is it?
Momentum took over the Party at £3 a head. I did not realise it at the time but this was the cheapest take-over in history.
Oh I’m sorry was this not something that ALL other candidates could have taken advantage of?
Don’t waste my time.
Momentum is designed to give Corbyn support on the ground because it’s clear his party are the most disloyal bunch of self interested spoiled arrogant aggressive bastards you’ll ever find.
I’ll also point out Momentum “took over” nothing.
Progress dominates and bullies Corbyn and his fellow travellers constantly despite him having a mandate.
Actually, he didn’t have the votes of 60% of the **membership**. He had less than 50% from the members, though not much less. Anyway, Corbyn’s 60% is impressive but is smaller than the percentages Kinnock had when he won leadership elections (71% in 1983, 89% in 1988).
Eligible voters. Membership. It doesn’t matter.
These are Progress’ bloody rules!
Please also remind me how did Andy and Liz go?
Are you advocating a fascist regime where democracy and members don’t matter?
Is that where you’re going?
Not at all. I want a Labour government and JC is not interested in that. He is also not in the slightest bit concerned about the Labour constituency that Labour represents.
That’s bullshit and you bloody well know it.
Stop drinking the vitriolic Progress Murdoch propaganda.
Are you a Progress member?
I struggle to understand the hate that Labour comrades of Corbyn feel for him. A man duly elected on a very clear platform and set of values.
My view is Progress and people like yourself want to destroy him and therefore the party, not matter the damage or how much you upset members, because they can’t handle the idea of a Corbyn Government.
This is ratfucking.
The writer and other Progress contributors do not understand (or perhaps do not wish to do
so) the immense anger and dissatisfaction that has built up in the Grassroots Labour Party over the years. But then, the complacent [arrogant?] leadership became disconnected from the members and the general public, especially Career Politicians swimming in the Westminster bubble and wine bars – which many in Progress represent. They really do not understand that in a democratic member organisation, they are servants of the members, not their masters. This applies to all the NGOs that they have infiltrated and dominate. The Public, in general, have nothing but contempt for Career Politicians in ALL parties. This Tory government is full of these incompetent people. What makes it worse is that they are well off or extremely rich which makes them arrogant and lacking in empathy.
The “Corbyn Revolution” is a rejection of the so-called Blairite agenda which lost us two General elections. So, we need more of the same? I tried to warn Progress but the editorial team ignored me…but then, Progress appears to hold us in the Grey Vote with contempt [one young MP, Progress Career Politician chairing a conference platform described me as “Medallion Man” {a putdown, an insult?}].
The “Bright Young (not now so young) Things at the top of Progress appear to be scratching their heads as to what sort of aims it ought to have!!! I understand their difficulty. Having been brought up in Thatcher’s Britain and socialised into her norms, mores and “values” – the resultant conventional wisdom – universal truths (e.g. the Market God) – it will be a hard journey for many of them!!!!”
I consider myself as a “Moderate” Democratic Socialist [certainly not a Stalinist or Unilateralist disarmer] and strong supporter of Corbyn. It took the Tribune editor to acknowledge the validity of my moderate explanation as to why Progress and the Labour Right are in fear [partly self-interest, partly their socialisation into Thatcherism]. If the reader wants to look beyond Progress propaganda, then look at my article’s analysis in the 22 Nov 2015 edition of Tribune:
http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2015/11/labour-party-a-co-operative-revolution/
Vic Parks [email protected]
To be fair – at no point does the article contradict what you’ve said about grassroots dissatisfaction in the Labour party. The whole thrust of the article is to highlight that there are two different groups supporting Corbyn, who have very different aims.
The first are the grassroots dissatisfied, whose voices weren’t heard or respected during the Blair years and who believe (rightly or wrongly) that we lost two elections because we weren’t left wing enough. These are the people who do want to oust the Tories as soon as possible and genuinely believe Corbyn is the route to doing that. As James Bloodworth points out – this group ultimately includes most union leaders as well as many ordinary members.
The second are the proper hard left, who don’t care about getting rid of the Tories. Who are in fact happy to see the Tories do as much damage as possible to the UK over the next ten, fifteen years because it brings their ideologically pure socialist vision closer to reality.
The break between the two will come, if it starts becoming clear that Corbyn cannot win an election. It that happens it is up to the first group to decide whether they really want to support the agenda of people who fundamentally don’t care about the welfare of the UK.