Good statement opposing bans and proscriptions in Labour, giving some background to the history of proscriptions and expulsions from the party.
https://twitter.com/workersliberty/status/1417164856759881731
Some supporters of the ban, I’m sure, aren’t thinking beyond, “I’m bothered about antisemitism, these groups are the worst offenders, they should be kicked out.” I understand that impulse, but administrative/disciplinary mechanisms can’t deal with an ideological problem.
Other supporters of the ban undoubtedly see this is as part of a move against the left more generally, part of a tightening up of party culture that will inevitably have a deadening effect on political debate in general and criticism of the leadership specifically.
There are folks on my TL lauding the ban because of Socialist Appeal’s crap line on Syria. Again, I get it. But they’re not being kicked out for being soft on Assad or insufficiently supportive of democratic struggle in Syria - and I still wouldn’t support a ban if they were.
Take a different case: the agitation by Labour Friends of India that led to Starmer’s u-turn over Kashmir last year. I’d like a Labour Party where those views didn’t find a home. But we won’t get there by proscribing Labour Friends of India.
Bans, expulsions, proscriptions all feel like the most effective “direct action” you can take against shit ideas, because it feels like a way of directly excising them. But that’s not how ideological composition and re-composition works, especially in a party like Labour.
The long-term work of ideological confrontation and political education is much harder - and messier/uglier because it involves direct confrontation with the ideas you’re trying to marginalise, rather than just saying “you can’t say that here, get out” - but it’s the only way.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
