The commies always do this when their projects fail.
They go all Trot, and declare that the project was somehow not "bottom-up" enough, that it wasn't enough of a "grassroots democracy", that it lacked "genuine mass participation", etc.
These are all just worthless soundbites.
They go all Trot, and declare that the project was somehow not "bottom-up" enough, that it wasn't enough of a "grassroots democracy", that it lacked "genuine mass participation", etc.
These are all just worthless soundbites.
Because, what does this mean in practice?
Obviously, an organisation with half a million members needs some degree of professionalisation, and, yes, that also means that there will be an internal bureaucracy, and not everyone will be directly involved in everything all the time.
Obviously, an organisation with half a million members needs some degree of professionalisation, and, yes, that also means that there will be an internal bureaucracy, and not everyone will be directly involved in everything all the time.
If you have a specific proposal for how an organisation can be run in a more democratic and participatory way, with greater involvement of rank-and-file members - fine, let's hear it. But they never do that. They just talk about it in vague, abstract terms.
And that's all bad enough.
But in this case, it worse. Because it's not even true on its own terms.
There WAS a Corbynite mass movement. And there still is. Twitter is little else but the digital church of St Jeremy. There's the Canary, Skwawkbox, Evolve Politics, Norovirus...
But in this case, it worse. Because it's not even true on its own terms.
There WAS a Corbynite mass movement. And there still is. Twitter is little else but the digital church of St Jeremy. There's the Canary, Skwawkbox, Evolve Politics, Norovirus...
Did this movement, and did the kids who chanted 🎵Ooooh Jeremy Coooooorbyn🎵 at Glastonbury, democratically determine Corbo's policies and strategy?
No. They did not. But what have been different if they had? Where did they ever disagree with him? They loved everything he said.
No. They did not. But what have been different if they had? Where did they ever disagree with him? They loved everything he said.
Mikko gets it.
Aaron does not.
