I want Labour to run on maximally left-wing policies, every time — because I think those policies are *right* and must be fought for, whether or not they’re electorally expedient. But “we lost because the policies weren’t left-wing enough” takes obscure more than they clarify.
“I would’ve voted Labour if they were fighting for renationalised utilities, a £15/hour minimum wage, more rights for migrants and asylum seekers, and the abolition of all anti-union laws, but they’re not... so I’m voting Tory.” That’s not really what’s going on here, is it?
It’s actually patronising to people to assume that they’re just voting Tory out of some unthinking reflex or displacement activity, rather than because they’re genuinely convinced by the nationalist political narrative the Tories are offering.
The choice for Labour is: continue to try and offer its own, watered down version of that same narrative in the hope that people will vote for that rather than the fully-leaded version (they won’t, and why should they?), or fight for a thoroughgoing counter-narrative.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Seems weird Starmer won’t sign personally if he’s instructing other to do so. But, whilst not signing a letter against fire and rehire is bad, scabbing on strikes against it (which is what Unite, at the direction of a leadership including Beckett, did in British Gas) is worse.
I don’t believe in the concept of “sin”, but if I did, crossing a picket line would be cardinal. And it’s even worse if done in exchange for a sweetheart deal for more facility time, apparently by overruling rank-and-file activists who wanted to support another union’s strike.
This is anecdotal, impressionistic, and perhaps superficial, but I can’t help but feel it says a lot about the health of the labour movement left that Beckett’s militant posturing seems to get boosted and amplified more than GMB activists’ attempts to hold Unite to account.
Yes, republicanism is a marginal, minority opinion in Britain, especially England, right now. I get the impulse of some on the left to take a “let’s pick our battles” attitude. But it won’t ever gain ground unless those who believe in it argue for it openly and consistently.
The monarchy is a key part of the ideological infrastructure of the state. It’s a feudal relic in some ways, but in others very much imbricated with contemporary capitalism. The British aristocracy managed to “bourgeoisify” itself more successfully than its counterparts.
I’m not into performative animus towards individual members of the ruling class (it’s a waste of energy, largely), but nor do I accept that it’s somehow distasteful or not appropriate to talk about the social institutions someone was part of in the wake of their death.
Reading @promiseli_’s comments about the left must acknowledge how demonisation of China feeds anti-Asian racism whilst also refusing to moderate our own (democratic, internationalist) critique of the Chinese state, I’m struck by some similarities with antisemitism/Israel.
To me there’s a parallel in terms of how some on the left refuse to understand how irrational demonisation of Israel/Zionism feeds antisemitism, *and* how some on the right, including many Zionists, insist opposing antisemitism has to entail defence of the Israeli state.
They’re both wrong. But FWIW, the fact that one of them is Jewish is only ultimately decisive if you believe someone’s ethnicity confers validity on an argument in a way that transcends what’s actually being said.
It’s a futile method of argument. The majority of British, and probably global, Jewish opinion is undoubtedly closer to Luke‘s argument than Rivkah‘s. But that doesn’t settle the matter! Engage critically, don’t rhetorically wield identities in abstraction from the argument.
And on the substance... until the left gets its head around the reality that Zionism is *both* a “settler colonial ideology” *and*, historically, a “national liberation movement of the Jewish people” that appeared to be, in Deutscher’s phrase, “a historical necessity”...
The SWP’s pandering to Islamism is a long and sorry tale, with the nadir either being the explicitly communalist Respect project or their support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, but I was still a bit shocked to see they’ve backed the Batley protests.
The Socialist Worker article supporting the protests quotes a Stand Up to Racism statement which says “insulting the Prophet Mohammed is [...] racist abuse”. What, regardless of context?! Anti-racism doesn’t imply support for the enforcement of religious taboos.
There is a long and rich tradition of anticlerical and antitheist propaganda and agitation from within revolutionary socialist and anarchist traditions, targeting all religions. Undoubtedly many adherents of those religions find it “insulting”.
There’s something grossly... I hesitate to say “racist”, but it’s hard to think of another word... about the fact that all these denialists focus on one white westerner researching the issue, as if his wider views somehow invalidate the voices of the actual victims.
Don’t like Zenz? Fine, ignore his research if you want. There’s abundant evidence in the Chinese state’s own official records and statements, both public and leaked, to show there’s a substantial infrastructure of mass surveillance and repression in Xinjiang/East Turkestan.
But it’s also just an inoperable attitude to knowledge; if the fact that someone has bigoted views, and might be saying something for their own, reactionary, reasons, does that automatically make the thing they’re saying necessarily factually untrue?