citizenJA wrote:
Carolyn Leckie, former member of the Scottish Parliament for the Scottish Socialist Party:
[Corbyn is] wedded to the old Labourite left, which has never quite managed to break with the idea of the British Road
to Socialism. It may have made some sense in bygone decades, before globalisation, devolution and the emergence of
progressive, civic nationalism in various parts of Europe. But it’s an idea whose time has gone. However, I also believe
in giving credit where it’s due. Corbyn is a consistent, principled politician.
Generally speaking, socialists are internationalists - the free movement of labour is central to socialist ideology, is that not true? I'm not writing about the European Union (EU) when I write that. I don't like the chauvinistic
'British' thing Leckie throws in there, cutting people apart, creating divisions between people in the UK.
'old Labourite left' - Leckie should just call Corbyn opprobrious names instead of the passive aggressive horseshit - it'd be more honest. Socialists stick together, that's whole point of cooperative endeavour. Giving credit where credit is due, I believe Leckie is a 'Blairite out to destroy' the Labour party leader.
Socialist internationalism, to me, is based on the working class of all countries having far more interests in common than things that divide us. Capital is international and always has been. Those who try to drive down wages and employment conditions and the social wage in Britain are the same class (and often the same people) who do the same thing in Africa, the Americas, the Pacific rim countries and pretty much everywhere else.
None of which negates supporting national liberation movements that are based on anti-imperialism. The alternative would be to argue, as some Labourites and Trotskyites amongst others once did, that India and the rest of the British colonies should be denied independence even though that's what the vast majority living there wanted and without which they had no control at all over who governed them. Essentially a position of asking people in other countries to wait upon the British revolution before seeking to implement any demands of their own on the one hand and straightforward support of the concept of Empire on the other.
Scotland I leave as a decision for Scots and those living in Scotland. Partly because I can see both sides of the argument as having merit and partly because, well, I'm an English resident of the once-industrial English midlands and can well understand why someone in Scotland might be willing to regard escaping the Bullingdon Club as their most pressing political/ economic issue.
As for the BRS, I don't think it ever really had much impact outside the (defunct) CPGB and (miniscule and almost defunct) CPB. Personally I've always regarded it as too inflexible, prescriptive and formulaic and maybe also ran the risk if implemented of creating a re-run of Chile in 1973/4. By the 1980s 'Marxism Today' (sic) was too the right of Foot, Benn Snr., Corbyn, Meacher etc. and pretty much presented Thatcherism and Reaganism as done irreversible deals that were "the end of history", the way forward being to support moderate, liberal (and Liberal/SDP) social policies while leaving capitalism pretty much unchallenged. At least one MT leading light of that period has since said their intention all along was to pull the entire political environment to the right.
In many ways a precursor of Blairite-Mandelsonism and Progress Ltd.
I'm getting tired of calming down....
