Setting aside the notion that state ownership renders “production defined by wage labour” “minimal or non-existent” (which will come as news to anyone who’s ever worked in a publicly-owned industry), are we really still doing “socialism is when the state owns things” in 2021?
But in a way, the worst bit is the throwaway “bad things still happened” remark. Presumably that refers to… industrialised state terror, mass repression, hyper-militarism, deep social conservatism on nationality, gender, sexuality… etc. etc?
If you can look at all that and say “sure, there are bad things, but it’s still good and socialist because the state owns means of production”, then you reduce “socialism” to a (misapplied) mechanical label for a property relation, rather than a project for human emancipation.
Socialism has to mean freedom, or it’s meaningless. Freedom from the wage relation is fundamental (NB: replacing a private capitalist boss with a state bureaucrat boss is not freedom from the wage relation), but the whole point of emancipating ourselves from the wage relation >
< is to *emancipate ourselves*, to be free, including from the whole gamut of other oppressions linked to and fuelled by the division of society into classes and the exploitation of labour by a ruling class.
If that’s not your horizon, then, as @IrateBen rightly says in the QT… maybe you’re a wannabe statist technocrat rather than a revolutionary.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
I’m against the Labour leadership proscribing organisations because I’m against bureaucratic and disciplinary mechanisms for dealing with political problems - and if you license the use of those mechanisms, at some point they’ll be turned on you.
There are reactionary views across the spectrum in the Labour Party, including plenty held by individuals who aren’t in a group/faction (how do you “proscribe” that?). The only way to sort that is a more robust culture of open political debate and ideological confrontation.
In terms of my critique of the groups facing proscription, especially the ones whose main purpose is promoting left antisemitism, I undoubtedly have more in common with many who’ll support proscription than those opposing it.
A problem with these “[thing] of the oppressor/[thing] of the oppressed” distinctions is that people invoking them often (not always, but often) stretch the category of “the oppressed” so it can include the ruling classes of basically any state claiming to oppose US imperialism.
In a relationship of direct colonial subjugation (e.g., Israel/Palestine, Turkey/Kurdistan, etc.), there is a national oppression that affects capitalists within the colonised national group as well as workers (although it doesn’t affect them equally/evenly!).
In a direct struggle for national liberation there *is* an important distinction between (say) the use of violence/other forms of coercion (although I wouldn’t call that “authoritarianism”, personally) on the part of an oppressed people and use by the state oppressing them.
“Dog whistle racism”? I’m not sure. That might be the case if it said “Johnson is Modi’s man”, or suggested Johnson was being puppeteered by a powerful “Indian lobby” in the UK, but as far as it goes, the actual content of the leaflet doesn’t seem objectionable to me.
What *can* be said is that it’s a late-in-the-day, opportunistic grab for votes. I want Labour to campaign about the issues on this leaflet all the time, not only when electorally expedient, and not only amongst voters assumed to already know/care about them.
There is a real conversation to be had about how the left navigates “communal” politics. There’s waaaay too much conceded to communalism (i.e., seeing “communities” as blocs with unitary interests that should be engaged with via “community leaders”) and not enough class politics.
This thread seems right. Some of the flack OJ is getting for “platforming” GG is unreasonable IMO, there’s a journalistic case for interviewing him. But if you see your journalism as fundamentally connected to your politics, as OJ does, the considerations in this thread matter.
I’m not accusing Owen of this, but there’s still too much “well, Galloway has gone off the rails a bit, but he’s still basically good on anti-imperialism/Palestine/Iraq, etc.”-type sentiment around on the left.
He’s not “good” on those things - he never was. His “anti-imperialism” is inseparable from his vicarious nationalism/sycophancy towards authoritarian regimes. His politics on “Palestine” are what impelled him to tweet about “no Israel flags on the cup” when Spurs (?!) didn’t win.
I’ve always stressed that antisemitism on the left has to be distinguished from the racialised antisemitism of the far right. Whilst the former is ideologically toxifying, the latter poses a far greater physical threat to Jewish safety. (1/9)
That’s still true, but if Williamson’s “Zionist teachers are violating children’s rights” rhetoric turns into any sort of serious campaign, I think that could also have implications for Jewish safety. (2/9)
The only way such a campaign could be enacted would be by demanding Jewish, or presumed-to-be-Jewish, teachers declare their views on Israel/Palestine, and if they refuse to respond, or fail to meet the “anti-Zionist” standard set by Williamson and co, hounding them. (3/9)