DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

UK - Election: Vote Corbyn

279 posts / 0 new
Last post
fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Oct 26 2016 10:40

Rob Ray, I know the other poster is being really rude, but I think it would be better if you did not respond in kind.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 26 2016 10:42

Given their total lack of respect for multiple polite and thoughtful responses thus far I doubt you'll get much joy without giving them a bit of a kick in the arse, but fine.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Oct 26 2016 10:44

You know I have to get on my high horse occasionally about being polite, I am a teacher after all.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 10:48
Rob Ray wrote:
That, I suspect, is because you aren't reading what's actually being said and are instead arguing against the anarchist in your head. As for what I mean by you having a misapprehension of what people want, if you start talking about:

copy pasting my responses back to me isn't an argument.

Quote:
That is a teenage view. The idea that what revolution entails is enough people coming to the conclusion "I want a revolution" and then going out and storming Westminster is not one that anybody here would entertain.

This is a straw man.

Quote:
No, I think I'll blame you. In part because of numerous lines from you which, for example, posit yourself as hard-nosed cynic and us as starry-eyed revolutionists. Neither is true.

You haven't given any alternative and you are putting words in my mouth.

I have also never indicated I am hard nosed; that would be your own prejudice.

Quote:
You are very clearly not hard-nosed as, even in your own terms, you seem to think your time is best spent persuading tiny numbers of fluffy revolutionists to be reformists rather than doing the actual hard work of persuading "centrists" and even right-wingers in marginal seats that Corbyn's Labour is a viable government. Which is understandable, because it must seem like an easier job and one you can do simply by bouncing over to the requisite forum and spouting "clear-eyed" hyperbole for a while.

I have plenty of time and I can decide how I spend it, so these 'time is best spent' lines are best ignored.

I am not interested in whether Corbyn is or isn't a reformist because I am not advocating that he remains in power.

What forum are you talking about. Your responses are just vague and obtuse. I am advocating that as many vote for Corbyn as required to put him in number 10 where he can actually do some good, however little. At the bvery least that takes the Tories out of power which is the absolute priority. I'll wait on your alternative though. I'm sure it's forthcoming.

Quote:
But as several (actually clear-eyed) other posters have pointed out, this is actually a foolish strategy which offers few returns and a lot of opprobrium from people who don't generally take very kindly to some know-nothing prat spouting off the same old guff they've heard a thousand times before from better minds than yours. That's the Reality of your situation, tough guy. You're asking people to believe your Napoleon of Politics line when the very strategy you're enacting, right now, is pathetically limp and poorly directed.

You haven't established I know nothing, you are just engaging in lazy ad hominem. Given that you have provided no alternative of any kind it's obvious you aren't serious.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 10:49
fingers malone wrote:
Rob Ray, I know the other poster is being really rude, but I think it would be better if you did not respond in kind.

Please provide evidence that I have been rude.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 10:51
Rob Ray wrote:
Given their total lack of respect for multiple polite and thoughtful responses thus far I doubt you'll get much joy without giving them a bit of a kick in the arse, but fine.

This just fallacious nonsense, please stick to the issues.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 10:56
fingers malone wrote:
No it won't,

Exactly.

All the reasons may be accurate and I don't disagree, which is why i snipped them, but they aren't really relevant to the issue.

There is a workable, if unpalatable, alternative: put Corbyn in power in 2020 and keep fighting in the meantime.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Oct 26 2016 10:59

If you want to have a debate about the politics, let's have one. Better than an argument about who was rude first, that won't go anywhere good, please trust me on that one

It's up to you how you spend your time, yes, but we're having an argument about what the most effective political strategy is, which does kind of imply that we are all telling each other what we ought to be doing. We can of course all reply 'I can do what I want!' as no one has the power to make anyone else do something based on the collected opinions of a libcom thread.

Or at least I fucking hope they don't as that would be awful.

The argument about how you spend your time is something that comes up because loads of us have experience of being involved in a difficult but worthwhile grassroots campaign and suddenly some of the participants stop and go off to do the electoral campaigning for six weeks and leave the rest of you in the lurch. This happened to me in an anti eviction campaign and I was one of the people living in the threatened block of flats so I was pretty upset about it.

On a wider level a big part of how political ideas 'compete' is about competing for people to get involved and put time and energy into them. And grassroots campaigners feel they lose out time and time again to electoralism and are angry about it.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Oct 26 2016 11:01
wishface wrote:
fingers malone wrote:
No it won't,

Exactly.

All the reasons may be accurate and I don't disagree, which is why i snipped them, but they aren't really relevant to the issue.

There is a workable, if unpalatable, alternative: put Corbyn in power in 2020 and keep fighting in the meantime.

mate, I thought we already agreed that I live in a labour safe seat and therefore can't really change the result of the general election? So this grassroots stuff is really the only thing I can do then.

So looks like I'm not a player in this debate then really. Ok. I should really have taken the dog out for a walk ages ago so will do that then.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 26 2016 11:41

Lol see what I mean fingers, wishface can't rethink their approach even when told bluntly that it's counterproductive.

Quote:
This is a straw man.

It's a direct quote. If you presented your own opinion wrongly then say so, but you stated that revolution was a matter of "enough interest in our society."

Quote:
You haven't given any alternative and you are putting words in my mouth

Am I.

Quote:
As I have said, there will not be a revolution. This isn't going to happen. I wish it weren't so, desperately. It's what this country needs. But what it needs it's not going to get ... I'm not naive ... It is a necessary evil and a simple brutal truth in the real world:

Quote:
All the class theory in the world isn't going to bring about change without activity ... I'm not interested in theory ... there is no hunger for class revolution. Even using this kind of language shuts down the discussion ... there won't be a revolutionary society anytime soon. If you don't like that reality, too bad because we are where we are ... What alternative do you offer to the pregnant single mother sanctioned off benefits? Ideology? A few books by Marx or Bakunin? ... Idealism isn't feeding people ... I am not disagreeing with the broader points being made. I am speaking in practical terms ...

You don't think that possibly lines like these might come across just a tiny bit like someone who is positing themselves as the hardnosed realist and the people they're arguing against as starry-eyed revolutionists?

Quote:
these 'time is best spent' lines are best ignored.

Genuine tip here, I don't think it helps you as much as you think to ignore the people you're trying to persuade when what they say is inconvenient to you and generally, if your approach is sparking "abuse" rather than engagement it'll be a bad approach. When going on forums full of people who disagree with you (where you are now is the libcom forums) one of the worst initial approaches is to spout off without:

1. Knowing the lay of the land - also known as "lurk moar" thanks to the efforts of 4chan. It's important, because it gives you an idea of the actual content of the board conversation, meaning you're less likely to go in guns blazing on topics which have already been done to death a hundred times over.
2. Knowing who you're talking to - ie. asking about and actually reading some of the key texts that drive the audience you're trying to convert
3. Being polite and respectful - Don't treat people like idiots, we're all aware that your tone is one of someone who thinks we're just a bit deluded and need to have the harsh realities of life explained to us, most of us have put up with similar for a very long time and aren't impressed by it - this also relates to point 2.
4. Knowing your shit - The people who populate boards like these are specialists, or at least many will be - and this is a board about politics. We don't just read about Bakunin and Marx, we read the lot. We know all about McDonnell's problems with presentation, Corbyn's shortcomings in international policy, Milne's "Stalinist Malcolm Tucker" incompetence as chief PR guy.

Quote:
You haven't established I know nothing

No, you did that when you came on with the line that what a board full of libertarian communists really needs is someone to explain to them that they just haven't thought through their positions and should really be voting for Corbyn.

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Oct 26 2016 11:33

I did mention that the Labour Party was the first party to impose charges on the NHS back in 1949, didn't i?

Aneurin Bevan resigned from the government. In a speech he made in the House of Commons he explained why he had made this decision:

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this year's Budget proposes to reduce the Health expenditure by £13 million - only £13 million out of £4,000 million... If he finds it necessary to mutilate, or begin to mutilate, the Health Services for £13 million out of £4,000 million, what will he do next year? Or are you next year going to take your stand on the upper denture? The lower half apparently does not matter, but the top half is sacrosanct. Is that right?... The Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting a financial ceiling on the Health Service. With rising prices the Health Service is squeezed between that artificial figure and rising prices. What is to be squeezed out next year? Is it the upper half? When that has been squeezed out and the same principle holds good, what do you squeeze out the year after? Prescriptions? Hospital charges? Where do you stop?...After all, the National Health Service was something of which we were all very proud, and even the Opposition were beginning to be proud of it. It only had to last a few more years to become a part of our traditions, and then the traditionalists would have claimed the credit for all of it. Why should we throw it away? In the Chancellor's Speech there was not one word of commendation for the Health Service - not one word. What is responsible for that?"

And since then it's been down-hill all the way, hasn't it? Or don't you think the Labour Party has a role in dismantling a free health service?

All three parties had some sort of NHS proposals in their 1945 manifestoes. The Conservatives, pledged:

"The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation..."

In 1944 the Ministry of Health (under the war-time coalition government) published a White Paper on a National Health Service, which put forward detailed proposals for a system of free universal healthcare funded by central taxation. The Conservatives favoured a future service in which local authorities would have the lead rather than separately on a regional basis as Bevan pushed for. He chose to nationalise the voluntary hospitals to be managed by unelected Regional Hospital Boards (RHBs) alongside ex-local government institutions, while GPs were administered separately and local authorities were left with residual public health and social care functions. Enoch Powell was instrumental in promoting The Hospital Plan of 1962, which unleashed a huge hospital building programme after more than 20 years of capital shortage in the NHS.

A NHS of some sort was an inescapable inevitability at the end of the war. When it comes to running capitalism, the division between Labour and Tory is exaggerated

rat's picture
rat
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Oct 26 2016 11:33

wishface; if you think revolutionary ideas are a waste of time, why are you here?

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 11:53
fingers malone wrote:
If you want to have a debate about the politics, let's have one. Better than an argument about who was rude first, that won't go anywhere good, please trust me on that one

It's up to you how you spend your time, yes, but we're having an argument about what the most effective political strategy is, which does kind of imply that we are all telling each other what we ought to be doing. We can of course all reply 'I can do what I want!' as no one has the power to make anyone else do something based on the collected opinions of a libcom thread.

Or at least I fucking hope they don't as that would be awful.

The argument about how you spend your time is something that comes up because loads of us have experience of being involved in a difficult but worthwhile grassroots campaign and suddenly some of the participants stop and go off to do the electoral campaigning for six weeks and leave the rest of you in the lurch. This happened to me in an anti eviction campaign and I was one of the people living in the threatened block of flats so I was pretty upset about it.

On a wider level a big part of how political ideas 'compete' is about competing for people to get involved and put time and energy into them. And grassroots campaigners feel they lose out time and time again to electoralism and are angry about it.

Right, but I'm not advocating people abandon worthwhile causes that's why I said it's perfectly possible to hold both positions.

If someone's minded to abandon an anti eviction campaign they are either selfish beyond reason or they didn't really care in the first place. I really don't see that as an argument. It is a matter of priorities and if there were people about to be evicted I would expect the fellow campaigners to prioritise accordingly. At worst all they would need to do, according to my position, is take ten minutes at the ballot box.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 11:54
rat wrote:
wishface; if you think revolutionary ideas are a waste of time, why are you here?

I didn't say they were and have repeatedly said otherwise. I'm not sure what your point is other than obvious trolling.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 26 2016 11:54
Quote:
If someone's minded to abandon an anti eviction campaign they are either selfish beyond reason or they didn't really care in the first place.

That's an extremely black and white statement from someone asking us to accept shades of grey.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 11:55
fingers malone wrote:
wishface wrote:
fingers malone wrote:
No it won't,

Exactly.

All the reasons may be accurate and I don't disagree, which is why i snipped them, but they aren't really relevant to the issue.

There is a workable, if unpalatable, alternative: put Corbyn in power in 2020 and keep fighting in the meantime.

mate, I thought we already agreed that I live in a labour safe seat and therefore can't really change the result of the general election? So this grassroots stuff is really the only thing I can do then.

So looks like I'm not a player in this debate then really. Ok. I should really have taken the dog out for a walk ages ago so will do that then.

Right, if that's all you can do then that's all you can do. I don't know why you think that prevents you from participating in a discussion, but that's your decision.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 12:03
Rob Ray wrote:

It's a direct quote. If you presented your own opinion wrongly then say so, but you stated that revolution was a matter of "enough interest in our society."

Again: there will not be a revolution by 2020. I don't care how you frame or describe that revolution. The Tories will be in power in 2020 and quite probably after. The system will not change, capitalism will not disappear. All the problems we are facing today will likely be even worse by then. We cannot afford another ive years of the Tories. That is the simple reality barring the alternative you have yet to provide.
The only sensible alternative is to put Corbyn into number 10. If this offends your ideological sensibilities then I'm very sorry, but this is the real world as it is now, not the works of a thinker from a completely different world.

Quote:
Am I.

By all means provide the alternative I have invited you to provide almost twenty times. What's stopping you?

Quote:
You don't think that possibly lines like these might come across just a tiny bit like someone who is positing themselves as the hardnosed realist and the people they're arguing against as starry-eyed revolutionists?

None of this is relevant.

It shouldn't matter to your ability to provide an alternative, and yet here I am repeatedly inviting you to provide one.

Quote:
Genuine tip here, I don't think it helps you as much as you think to ignore the people you're trying to persuade when what they say is inconvenient to you and generally, if your approach is sparking "abuse" rather than engagement it'll be a bad approach. When going on forums full of people who disagree with you (where you are now is the libcom forums) one of the worst initial approaches is to spout off without:

I haven't 'spouted off', that is just lazy ad hominem of my opinion. Once again, address the issues and provide an alternative. Being patronising isn't helping you. Accusations of ignoring people are easily refuted by the fact i've responded directly to almost everyone that has posted, including you, right now. Really this is facile.

Quote:

1. Knowing the lay of the land - also known as "lurk moar" thanks to the efforts of 4chan. It's important, because it gives you an idea of the actual content of the board conversation, meaning you're less likely to go in guns blazing on topics which have already been done to death a hundred times over.
2. Knowing who you're talking to - ie. asking about and actually reading some of the key texts that drive the audience you're trying to convert
3. Being polite and respectful - Don't treat people like idiots, we're all aware that your tone is one of someone who thinks we're just a bit deluded and need to have the harsh realities of life explained to us, most of us have put up with similar for a very long time and aren't impressed by it - this also relates to point 2.
4. Knowing your shit - The people who populate boards like these are specialists, or at least many will be - and this is a board about politics. We don't just read about Bakunin and Marx, we read the lot. We know all about McDonnell's problems with presentation, Corbyn's shortcomings in international policy, Milne's "Stalinist Malcolm Tucker" incompetence as chief PR guy.

Still not addressing the issue.

Quote:
No, you did that when you came on with the line that what a board full of libertarian communists really needs is someone to explain to them that they just haven't thought through their positions and should really be voting for Corbyn.

I made no comment that people haven't thought about this issue, that is again your own prejudice talking. I'm still waiting for you to address the issue at hand and not these trivialities.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 12:04
Rob Ray wrote:
Quote:
If someone's minded to abandon an anti eviction campaign they are either selfish beyond reason or they didn't really care in the first place.

That's an extremely black and white statement from someone asking us to accept shades of grey.

Ok...what's your point?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 26 2016 12:05
Quote:
At worst all they would need to do, according to my position, is take ten minutes at the ballot box.

Okay so this is the crux of your position in one line.

First, anarchism as a historic trend has never been as fussed about voting as you seem to think - even the CNT was fine with people voting in Spain's 1936 elections, and that's as close to a revolutionary moment as you're likely to get. Lots of anarchists I know vote, usually in the marginals.

Second, the logic of "just vote" is dodgy as hell, especially when predicated on the idea of keeping the Tories out as The Number One priority. If keeping the Tories out really is a priority, then it has to be campaigned for, as you can't beat Labour through far-left voters alone, meaning you inevitably have to draw people away from other activities in at least an election year and (more likely) in other years as well. There's really no way around that unless you're relying wholly on the liberal "centre" of the party to do the legwork, which itself leads us straight back to a Blairite Labour Party.

To take the realist view, you can't have your cake and eat it - especially in the marginals where generally speaking available activists are thin on the ground. Something has to give up its acvitist support base to provide to Labour's electoral one.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 12:08
ajjohnstone wrote:
I did mention that the Labour Party was the first party to impose charges on the NHS back in 1949, didn't i?

What is the relevance?

How does that compare to the Tories completely dismantling it entirely?

Quote:
And since then it's been down-hill all the way, hasn't it? Or don't you think the Labour Party has a role in dismantling a free health service?

I'm not a supporter of the Labour party. I am advocating putting Corbyn into number 10 because I believe there is a difference.

I see no evidence he will behave as New Labour or previous labour administrations did and, again, do not advocate keeping him in power.

And I invite you to provide your workable alternative that will stop the Tories.

Quote:
All three parties had some sort of NHS proposals in their 1945 manifestoes. The Conservatives, pledged:

How is that relevant to now?

Quote:
A NHS of some sort was an inescapable inevitability at the end of the war. When it comes to running capitalism, the division between Labour and Tory is exaggerated

That's an empty statement. The difference between Corbyn's proposals and what the Tories will continue doing is severe enough that something has to be done. I await your alternative

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 12:10
Rob Ray wrote:

Okay so this is the crux of your position in one line.

You don't need to be telling me what my position is, you need to be telling me what your alternative is.

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Oct 26 2016 13:02
Quote:
I see no evidence he will behave as New Labour or previous labour administrations did and, again, do not advocate keeping him in power.

And you have no evidence whatsoever that once in power he will carry out - or much more importantly - be able to carry out - his pledges.

You expect people to trust in promises despite a hundred years of Labour leaders breaking their word.

You keep suggesting because Labour say they will protect and improve the standard and quality of life of workers, they will do so. And that, therefore, is the practical alternative and the pragmatic choice to make.

You brush aside the experience and lessons of history as irrelevant and of no consequence.

You keep insisting we should offer an alternative. I beg to differ that the action as you subscribe to - a vote for Labour - will be beneficial.

Let me remind you of the physician's basic tenet

Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "first, do no harm."

Painful as it is, if conditions aren't ripe, if people aren't aware and educated enough, we follow Malcolm X's advice

Quote:
“A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket”

And indeed your whole attitude of the dire existential class consequences for workers of another Tory government reminds me of another Malcolm X quote

Quote:
the only way people would run toward the fox would be if you showed them a wolf.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 26 2016 13:35
Quote:
Again: there will not be a revolution by 2020.

Again, no-one has said there will be. And how "we" frame the concept of revolution probably should be a bit more important to you, otherwise you're simply saying "vote Corbyn, rather than relying on shmumbubbledub." Which is simply "Vote Corbyn" - something I can read in any Morning Star paper published over the last year.

In my own case, for example (and I hold only one of the myriad possible), I would regard "revolution" (I put it in speech marks because the word itself is so loaded) as being the end result of decades of patiently building practical grassroots working-class power in communities, workplaces and nationwide organisations, something that would only happen if we had already achieved the sort of collective leverage over capital (used here as a broad term for the social forces that tend to pressure working class needs) that would cause it to react by attempting broad repression. I wouldn't call for a general strike or a popular insurrection for the same reason I wouldn't call for the Big Rock Candy Mountain, they are both fantasies.

The building of a revolutionary project is in my view indivisible from, indeed can only come about through, everyday struggle. That means the core part of any "revolutionary" project is not, on the face of it, very revolutionary at all - it's simply the process of ongoing working class dissent and solidarity against the dominant socio-economic form.

Those forms of dissent are the important bit right now, far more so than whether anyone on here puts a cross next to Corbynism in three years' time and then has to watch while capital flight, CBI threats and media pressure either pushes him into a neoliberal-lite position or brings down his government (most likely both).

When it comes to 2020 itself, I have no problem with people voting for him, and certainly can't bothered to campaign against voting, though I have very little faith that his administration will actually achieve very much. What I won't do is vote for him myself, for several reasons:

  • While I hope for the best, I think a social-democratic victory in the current economic circumstances may well actually be counterproductive. Whatever small changes are brought in will be rolled back immediately when (and it is when) the right gets back into power five years later and critically, the vicious reaction of the Markets to a soc-dem government, allied to the enormous power of the right-wing media, in a situation where both grassroots labour and community leverage is basically zero, will almost certainly lead to an identical backlash against Failed Leftism as we've seen happen right across Europe.
  • As an activist I don't see the point of "just" voting. Either you think Corbynism is a priority or you don't. If it is, then you should campaign for Labour and its values, because the fight will at best be a very difficult one. You should be in the party because otherwise it'll simply be taken over by the right. And you should recruit more people, because otherwise it'll simply be taken over by the right and lose other elections.
  • I don't believe in quite a lot of his actual policies. I don't think nationalisation is a salve for all our ills, I don't think a vague commitment to reviving the welfare state stacks up against the real economic situation (ie. I think he's lying, even if he doesn't realise it yet), I think his position on Russia is pathetic one-dimensional "anti-imperialism," I find Labour's general attitude of limp British Nationalism vomit-inducing. They promise much, but say little about how any of it would be achieved because in the end they've got no ideas about how to get around the real roadblock - Britain can be bullied into practically anything by international capital and the bigger kids (EU/US/China), and all he's really able to do is reorganise a declining real State income, meaning that for every penny he moves to one group, another goes begging.
Quote:
By all means provide the alternative

You can shout "what's your alternative" until you're blue in the face. The initiative lies with you however. You've come on to a libertarian communist board to state your case, so it's your job to persuade us, not ours to persuade you. Clearly we have our own ideas on the matter (and various people have pointed you to an extensive library of related works on this very site, which you have rudely dismissed as irrelevant), otherwise we wouldn't be here - if you can't engage with us on those terms you're not going to get very far.

Quote:
that is just lazy ad hominem of my opinion

Yes yes we can all quote lines off that "art of debate" poster (though doing so accurately helps, "ad hominem" would suggest I'm attacking you as a person to deflect from your totes incisive argument, whereas I'm actually just asking you to wind your neck in and be a bit more respectful).

Quote:
Still not addressing the issue.

I was offering you some help on getting a conversation that doesn't just boil down to "you're all wrong" "who the fuck are you to tell us we're wrong?" I don't give a monkey's what you think "the issue" is.

Quote:
You don't need to be telling me what my position is, you need to be telling me what your alternative is.

I don't "need" to be doing anything sunshine, certainly not for someone who comes onto a forum asking people to agree with them and then can't respond to criticism of their position.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 26 2016 13:45

Hats off to all the posters who have patiently engaged with the OP, despite his refusal to actually engage back.

As for wishface, nobody owes you their time, especially if your only contribution to the discussion is yelling "What's your alternative?" You've come to libertarian communist site, which by it's very nature you're not going to find many supporters of lesser evilism, and have refused to engage with anyone who have put forward actual alternative points of view. If your imperative is to persuade people to vote Labour in 2020, then you'd be better off trying to persuade people who might actually want to vote Labour, like disaffected Libdems, rather than yelling at a handful of commies on the internet. On the other hand, that might involve four years of thankless hard slog and far less of a feeling of personal moral superiority than you're getting from shouting at a handful of commies. It's not as if you actually read anything they said or indeed the multitude of articles and discussions on this site, you might actually understand what the difference in political opinion is. However, that might take a little more time, interest and engagement (not to mention courtesy and respect for other peoples' time) than just yelling "What is your alternative?" at people who have taken time out of their lives to respond to you.

And as for suggesting that people who don't agree with your facile and proven by history to have failed argument are callous and don't care about the problems and suffering caused by capitalism (under governments of all parties,) GTFO. You don't know what people are doing, what they are involved with, above and beyond the pretty meaningless activity of taking 10 minutes of their time every 5 years to vote. Why do you think we are commies to start off with? We don't do it for the snacks or the impressive pension plan.

ajjohnstone:

You beat me to it on the Malcolm X quote smile

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 14:05
ajjohnstone wrote:
Quote:
I see no evidence he will behave as New Labour or previous labour administrations did and, again, do not advocate keeping him in power.

And you have no evidence whatsoever that once in power he will carry out - or much more importantly - be able to carry out - his pledges.

You expect people to trust in promises despite a hundred years of Labour leaders breaking their word.

No i expect people to be aware that some promises, not all, maybe even many, have been broken, and to accept this reality for a greater good. You aren't giving any reason why doing this is a bad thing given that there will be an election whether you participate or not and that, given where we are and who has the power, your principles mean nothing in practical reality. Instead you could oust a tory government that otherwise will further coarsen the political discourse, further the divisions in society, and further callous attitudes. This period hasn't led to a significant increase in revolutionary activity, of whatever kind you prefer, it has simply turned people against each other. That if nothing else is why it is absolutely the priority to get the tories out. If that means living with Corbyn for a few years, that is a price I am willing to pay. I have explicitly said he doesn't have all the answers, and that likely he won't achieve everything he wants to (and even that isn't enough in the long term), but it is enough to give respite to the eviscerated precariat that now exists.

I can't predict the future, any more than you, except when it comes to what will happen if the tories retain the power they have.

Again I await your alternative.

Quote:
You keep suggesting because Labour say they will protect and improve the standard and quality of life of workers, they will do so. And that, therefore, is the practical alternative and the pragmatic choice to make.

No, again, I say they will ameliorate conditions enough that those blasted by things like the bedroom tax will not have to resort to suicide.

again i await your alternative.

Quote:
You brush aside the experience and lessons of history as irrelevant and of no consequence.

given that i have repeatedly acknowledge these realities you are now engaged in lying.

Quote:
You keep insisting we should offer an alternative. I beg to differ that the action as you subscribe to - a vote for Labour - will be beneficial.

Prove that.

Quote:
Painful as it is, if conditions aren't ripe, if people aren't aware and educated enough, we follow Malcolm X's advice

Quote:
“A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket”

How does that help the people that are dying because of the Tories?

Really, if all you have are pithy quotes then you have nothing.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 14:10
Fleur wrote:
Hats off to all the posters who have patiently engaged with the OP, despite his refusal to actually engage back.

I have replied to almost every single post made in response, what do you think you are gaining by making such blatantly bullshit statements? If you haev somethign positive to contribute, I welcome and invite it. If you don't then seek your echo chamber elsewhere.

Quote:
As for wishface, nobody owes you their time, especially if your only contribution to the discussion is yelling "What's your alternative?"

Plainly it's not my only contribution, so its clera your agenda in participating is not honest. I have made no comment on whether i think I'm owed anything here; people are free to respond or not. Why on earth would you think otherwise except to behave in a puerile and insulting fashion.

Quote:
You've come to libertarian communist site, which by it's very nature you're not going to find many supporters of lesser evilism, and have refused to engage with anyone who have put forward actual alternative points of view.

You're just stating the obvious now. If i knew people agreed with this position prior I woudln't have made the point.

Quote:
If your imperative is to persuade people to vote Labour in 2020, then you'd be better off trying to persuade people who might actually want to vote Labour, like disaffected Libdems, rather than yelling at a handful of commies on the internet.

I've got a better idea: I'll post what I feel I want to discuss and you can decide if you'd like to reply without behaving like a child.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 26 2016 14:12

So what do folks reckon, how long til wishface fucks off back to Labourlist and triumphantly declares "I've talked to libertarian communists, they have no alternatives"?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 26 2016 14:22
Quote:
I've got a better idea: I'll post what I feel I want to discuss and you can decide if you'd like to reply without behaving like a child.

Try not to stamp your foot too hard, you'll damage your cuboid bone.

At this point I'm assuming that you're just a belligerent and arsey teenager (apologies and no disrespect intended to the actual teenagers who post here with well positioned arguments and decent manners.) As someone who has lived through many elections, on both sides of the Atlantic, every single goddamned last one of them was apparently the most important, most pivotal, without a doubt if people didn't vote this time the world was going to end. Anyone for hope and change?

So, to turn your question around, what's so alternative about what you are proposing? Sounds like the same fucking thing which happens every 5 years.

Actually, don't bother replying to that. You clearly don't have any answers.

wishface
Offline
Joined: 24-10-16
Oct 26 2016 14:24
Rob Ray wrote:
In my own case, for example (and I hold only one of the myriad possible), I would regard "revolution" (I put it in speech marks because the word itself is so loaded) as being the end result of decades of patiently building practical grassroots working-class power in communities, workplaces and nationwide organisations, something that would only happen if we had already achieved the sort of collective leverage over capital (used here as a broad term for the social forces that tend to pressure working class needs) that would cause it to react by attempting broad repression. I wouldn't call for a general strike or a popular insurrection for the same reason I wouldn't call for the Big Rock Candy Mountain, they are both fantasies.

And as I've repeatedly said you can build grassroots power while Corbyn helps out those who are in the direst of straits. You offer nothing to those people.

Quote:
The building of a revolutionary project is in my view indivisible from, indeed can only come about through, everyday struggle. That means the core part of any "revolutionary" project is not, on the face of it, very revolutionary at all - it's simply the process of ongoing working class dissent and solidarity against the dominant socio-economic form.

Those forms of dissent are the important bit right now, far more so than whether anyone on here puts a cross next to Corbynism in three years' time and then has to watch while capital flight, CBI threats and media pressure either pushes him into a neoliberal-lite position or brings down his government (most likely both).

Except that dissent isn't happening enough to make a difference, which is the basis of my argument.

Quote:
[*] While I hope for the best, I think a social-democratic victory in the current economic circumstances may well actually be counterproductive. Whatever small changes are brought in will be rolled back immediately when (and it is when) the right gets back into power five years later and critically, the vicious reaction of the Markets to a soc-dem government, allied to the enormous power of the right-wing media, in a situation where both grassroots labour and community leverage is basically zero, will almost certainly lead to an identical backlash against Failed Leftism as we've seen happen right across Europe.

They may well be rolled back, but that's a poor argument. If the Tories get in they won't be in a position to be rolled back. So which is worse? Helping people if only for five years while building grassroots power, or letting people suffer and die while building grassroots power. If that's counterproductive then you've all your work ahead of you to prove that.

Quote:
[*] As an activist I don't see the point of "just" voting. Either you think Corbynism is a priority or you don't. If it is, then you should campaign for Labour and its values, because the fight will at best be a very difficult one. You should be in the party because otherwise it'll simply be taken over by the right. And you should recruit more people, because otherwise it'll simply be taken over by the right and lose other elections.

Activisms has sadly not achieved enough over the last five years and I don't see that changing over the next three.

Quote:
[*] I don't believe in quite a lot of his actual policies. I don't think nationalisation is a salve for all our ills, I don't think a vague commitment to reviving the welfare state stacks up against the real economic situation (ie. I think he's lying, even if he doesn't realise it yet), I think his position on Russia is pathetic one-dimensional "anti-imperialism," I find Labour's general attitude of limp British Nationalism vomit-inducing. They promise much, but say little about how any of it would be achieved because in the end they've got no ideas about how to get around the real roadblock - Britain can be bullied into practically anything by international capital and the bigger kids (EU/US/China), and all he's really able to do is reorganise a declining real State income, meaning that for every penny he moves to one group, another goes begging.

But the problem here is that the alternative to this isn't a neutral position, it's more Tory misery.

Quote:
You can shout "what's your alternative" until you're blue in the face. The initiative lies with you however.

That's a poor answer. In my situation I do not have the power to effect change. Others are in different circumstances, some better, many a lot worse. Any of use could find ourselves in that latter boat. So it is imperative to ameliorate conditions while building a better future. All you're doing is refusing to answer my question; that's certainly you're right but that takes us nowhere.

Quote:
You've come on to a libertarian communist board to state your case, so it's your job to persuade us, not ours to persuade you.

Of course - except that a claim was made there are alternatives and so far that claim has remained unsubstantiated. Either back it up or back down. I can't force you to accept my position and if you refuse to see it then the consequences for all of us will be severe. But I can only make my case. The rest is up to you.

Quote:
Clearly we have our own ideas on the matter (and various people have pointed you to an extensive library of related works on this very site, which you have rudely dismissed as irrelevant), otherwise we wouldn't be here - if you can't engage with us on those terms you're not going to get very far.

I'm not interested in reading through an extensive library in the middle of a conversation. It should be a simple matter to support a claim as straightforward as 'there is an alternative'. It isn't my responsibility to back up claims made by others, the burden of proof lies with the persons making that claim. if you believe there is an alternative then you need to provide evidence to that effect. telling me to read an extensive library is not sufficient during a conversation, and you are not the only one who's time is precious.

Quote:
Yes yes we can all quote lines off that "art of debate" poster (though doing so accurately helps, "ad hominem" would suggest I'm attacking you as a person to deflect from your totes incisive argument, whereas I'm actually just asking you to wind your neck in and be a bit more respectful).

I've been prefectly respectful and I don't need to wind my neck in. If you ad hominem my point i will point that out. I have no time for fallacies that derail and smother the discourse.

Quote:
I don't "need" to be doing anything sunshine, certainly not for someone who comes onto a forum asking people to agree with them and then can't respond to criticism of their position.

I have responded to every single point. I don't need to hear lies about my intellectual honesty. If you can't stick to the issues you are free to discourse elsewhere.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 26 2016 14:26

Rob Roy:

Quote:
So what do folks reckon, how long til wishface fucks off back to Labourlist and triumphantly declares "I've talked to libertarian communists, they have no alternatives"?

You don't think he's this guy?

https://www.facebook.com/AnarchistsforJeremy/