Clive Lewis Is He The Answer

[Wales-Bales]

This is a good civil debate with interesting arguments on both sides, but I would like to see a bit more pushing of the boundaries and thinking outside of the box. This is 2017 and all the rules are about to be rewritten, and the past is about to become irrelevant. It won't be long before the storm clouds from across the Atlantic reach our shores. We are living in momentous times, so it's time for everybody to open their minds and broaden their outlooks. Whatever you think is impossible or unbelievable today, may not be so impossible or unbelievable tomorrow.

[jon1959]

I voted for Corbyn as a Registered Supporter first time around, and would have done again in the second election if I hadn't been disenfranchised by Labour Party administrative cock-ups. That was after carrying a membership card from 1985-2013 (and a period earlier in the late 70s). I hoped to see a different type of politics emerge, based on mass active party membership, informed and wide-ranging debate and campaigning, digital inclusive communication and all located in an international context where globalised people-power and resistance could stand up to globalised capital. I was also attracted to the idea that the Labour Party could have a purpose beyond that of an electoral machine where (in the last 25 years at least) the poor bloody infantry - whether ordinary members or the wider pool of supporters - were taken for granted, excluded from policy making, and used as nothing but a source of funding and door-knocking. Corbyn seemed to offer that prospect, and the supporter/member growth backed that early optimism.

However, I never gave up on the idea that any party to be effective had to go beyond campaigning to taking hold of governmental power, in order to make the changes needed. Corbyn could have been a left wing populist of the sort that has emerged in Spain, Greece and Portugal (and to some extent with Bernie Sanders in the USA) and used that to mount an effective push for electoral success. However, he hasn't been able to do that, and is going backwards rather than forward in public support. It isn't all his fault - he has been under siege from enemies inside and outside the Labour Party. The deck is stacked against him. But he could and should have played his hand much better. I have become disillusioned with him as a leader (or even the figurehead of a larger leadership group), and many people I know who shared my early hope now think the same.

There is still time for the left of the Labour Party to find a more effective leader, but as every month passes the window for that sort of progressive and populist reboot closes more. The PLP and party machine are working quietly and (I think) effectively to stop any new candidate of the left winning the leadership (they have learned after the failed coup last year), and time is running out to reposition and reinvent Labour to be able to challenge at the next election.

[Wales-Bales]

I hoped to see a different type of politics emerge, based on mass active party membership, informed and wide-ranging debate and campaigning, digital inclusive communication and all located in an international context where globalised people-power and resistance could stand up to globalised capital.

It could possibly still happen, but it won't be under Corbyn. He was beaten by the establishment machinery, because he engaged them on their own terms. Trump, Farage and Let Pen simply dismiss the current hierarchy, which seems to be the better strategy. But events may just overtake everybody, as a tsunami is building that once unleashed will be impossible to stop.

[David Vincent]

I voted for Corbyn as a Registered Supporter first time around, and would have done again in the second election if I hadn't been disenfranchised by Labour Party administrative cock-ups. That was after carrying a membership card from 1985-2013 (and a period earlier in the late 70s). I hoped to see a different type of politics emerge, based on mass active party membership, informed and wide-ranging debate and campaigning, digital inclusive communication and all located in an international context where globalised people-power and resistance could stand up to globalised capital. I was also attracted to the idea that the Labour Party could have a purpose beyond that of an electoral machine where (in the last 25 years at least) the poor bloody infantry - whether ordinary members or the wider pool of supporters - were taken for granted, excluded from policy making, and used as nothing but a source of funding and door-knocking. Corbyn seemed to offer that prospect, and the supporter/member growth backed that early optimism.

However, I never gave up on the idea that any party to be effective had to go beyond campaigning to taking hold of governmental power, in order to make the changes needed. Corbyn could have been a left wing populist of the sort that has emerged in Spain, Greece and Portugal (and to some extent with Bernie Sanders in the USA) and used that to mount an effective push for electoral success. However, he hasn't been able to do that, and is going backwards rather than forward in public support. It isn't all his fault - he has been under siege from enemies inside and outside the Labour Party. The deck is stacked against him. But he could and should have played his hand much better. I have become disillusioned with him as a leader (or even the figurehead of a larger leadership group), and many people I know who shared my early hope now think the same.

There is still time for the left of the Labour Party to find a more effective leader, but as every month passes the window for that sort of progressive and populist reboot closes more. The PLP and party machine are working quietly and (I think) effectively to stop any new candidate of the left winning the leadership (they have learned after the failed coup last year), and time is running out to reposition and reinvent Labour to be able to challenge at the next election.

I can see that you haven't got it yet. You sound like some International Socialist from the 1970s. All this talk about left and right is meaningless now. As Wales-Bales has pointed out, it now elites verses the populists. Although the mainstream media like to portray populists like Le Pen as far right she is in fact not classifiable as left or right. Corbyn is the nearest you have got to a populist leader in the Labour Party - i.e. someone opposed to the elites.

[jon1959]

I can see that you haven't got it yet. You sound like some International Socialist from the 1970s. All this talk about left and right is meaningless now. As Wales-Bales has pointed out, it now elites verses the populists. Although the mainstream media like to portray populists like Le Pen as far right she is in fact not classifiable as left or right. Corbyn is the nearest you have got to a populist leader in the Labour Party - i.e. someone opposed to the elites.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll stick with my own language and analysis. If I ever get to the sad stage of agreeing with either you or Wales-Bales I will certainly have 'got it', and I don't want 'it'.

[the other bob wilson]

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll stick with my own language and analysis. If I ever get to the sad stage of agreeing with either you or Wales-Bales I will certainly have 'got it', and I don't want 'it'.

David Vincent's last message reads suspiciously like someone who has come up with a way of explaining away why he now thinks politically in a way that would have made him feel uncomfortable a few decades ago. It's that old journey from socialist firebrand in your teens and twenties to "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" in your "dotage - I was thinking of it as a journey from left to right, but, apparently such terms don't exist any more.

I think it's not much of an exaggeration to say that I have been anti elite for fifty years or more, but I'll have to rethink that if being anti elite now means you must support racists like Le Pen, Wilders and Farage.

[David Vincent]

David Vincent's last message reads suspiciously like someone who has come up with a way of explaining away why he now thinks politically in a way that would have made him feel uncomfortable a few decades ago. It's that old journey from socialist firebrand in your teens and twenties to "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" in your "dotage - I was thinking of it as a journey from left to right, but, apparently such terms don't exist any more.

I think it's not much of an exaggeration to say that I have been anti elite for fifty years or more, but I'll have to rethink that if being anti elite now means you must support racists like Le Pen, Wilders and Farage.

See, now you've got Bob talking about left and right. That false dichotomy is holding you both back. If you continue to think like that you're thinking will be controlled by the elites because they are defining what is left and right.

To understand what is happening today you need to go back a bit in time. Lets go back to the end of the Roman Republic. The Romans had a very clear idea of what it meant to be a Roman and this was called Romanitas. A Roman was a citizen, a soldier and a farmer. There was no standing army and soldiers would leave their farms to fight when the need arose. For a long time they had a stable society. But then they created a standing army and got involved in a lot of wars which resulted in an increase of slaves. These slaves were used by the elites on their farms and this meant that the citizen/soldier/farmers could not compete economically with the elite farmers. The elites took over their farms and they ended up on the Roman equivalent of the dole. All this led to civil wars and slave revolts.

Here's a relevant quote :

Cheap slave labor replaced work for the average citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic proportions. These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct role in the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern. Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its effects rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

If a citizen/soldier/farmer had said to the local patrician that he didn't like all these slaves coming into the country I imagine he would have been dismissed as a right wing racist. The same argument is used by globalists today against workers who see their wages and jobs undermined by free trade and immigration which only benefit the elites.

Globalism will end in civil wars and slave revolts.

[life on mars]

See, now you've got Bob talking about left and right. That false dichotomy is holding you both back. If you continue to think like that you're thinking will be controlled by the elites because they are defining what is left and right.

To understand what is happening today you need to go back a bit in time. Lets go back to the end of the Roman Republic. The Romans had a very clear idea of what it meant to be a Roman and this was called Romanitas. A Roman was a citizen, a soldier and a farmer. There was no standing army and soldiers would leave their farms to fight when the need arose. For a long time they had a stable society. But then they created a standing army and got involved in a lot of wars which resulted in an increase of slaves. These slaves were used by the elites on their farms and this meant that the citizen/soldier/farmers could not compete economically with the elite farmers. The elites took over their farms and they ended up on the Roman equivalent of the dole. All this led to civil wars and slave revolts.

Here's a relevant quote :

Cheap slave labor replaced work for the average citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic proportions. These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct role in the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern. Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its effects rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

If a citizen/soldier/farmer had said to the local patrician that he didn't like all these slaves coming into the country I imagine he would have been dismissed as a right wing racist. The same argument is used by globalists today against workers who see their wages and jobs undermined by free trade and immigration which only benefit the elites.

Globalism will end in civil wars and slave revolts.

lets get back to the original post

[the other bob wilson]

See, now you've got Bob talking about left and right. That false dichotomy is holding you both back. If you continue to think like that you're thinking will be controlled by the elites because they are defining what is left and right.

To understand what is happening today you need to go back a bit in time. Lets go back to the end of the Roman Republic. The Romans had a very clear idea of what it meant to be a Roman and this was called Romanitas. A Roman was a citizen, a soldier and a farmer. There was no standing army and soldiers would leave their farms to fight when the need arose. For a long time they had a stable society. But then they created a standing army and got involved in a lot of wars which resulted in an increase of slaves. These slaves were used by the elites on their farms and this meant that the citizen/soldier/farmers could not compete economically with the elite farmers. The elites took over their farms and they ended up on the Roman equivalent of the dole. All this led to civil wars and slave revolts.

Here's a relevant quote :

Cheap slave labor replaced work for the average citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic proportions. These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct role in the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern. Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its effects rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

If a citizen/soldier/farmer had said to the local patrician that he didn't like all these slaves coming into the country I imagine he would have been dismissed as a right wing racist. The same argument is used by globalists today against workers who see their wages and jobs undermined by free trade and immigration which only benefit the elites.

Globalism will end in civil wars and slave revolts.

Fascinating. Tell me, when do you think Jeremy Corbyn will endorse Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders in the soon to be held elections in France and the Netherlands?

[Wales-Bales]

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll stick with my own language and analysis. If I ever get to the sad stage of agreeing with either you or Wales-Bales I will certainly have 'got it', and I don't want 'it'.

Bookmarked