Corbyn supporter changes mind

Posted: November 1, 2015 by Admin in British politics, Capitalist ideology, Class Matters, Parasites, Political & economic power, Poverty & Inequality

Far from upsetting the capitalist apple cart, Jeremy Corbyn is already ‘playing the game’

The following is a letter that appeared in the current issue of a British Marxist paper, the Weekly Worker:

Jeremy Corbyn fell into line at the queen’s banquet. He questioned the unelected Chinese president on China’s dodgy human rights record and then sat down to a dinner with him and the unelected UK monarch, where champagne costing up to £1,400 a bottle was served.

This was one of those occasions where Jezza could have held a press conference and explained that, while benefits are being cut, he would refuse to attend such a lavish dinner. But he put on an ill-fitting suit and basically bowed down to the establishment.

In an earlier letter I said that the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party was a big step in the right direction. However, I have to say I was wrong; it is a big step in the ‘same old same old’ direction.

Tony Roberts

  1. Political Tourist says:

    No quite a YES voter goes No but better than nothing.

  2. Peter says:

    I would say if you weren’t opposed to Corbyn from the beginning (and there are good reasons to be opposed), then it would really be too soon to judge his effectiveness. I suspect that his utopian decency will ultimately lead to failure, and that even his vision of ‘socialist’ change is uninspiring and will leave the capitalist system largely intact. However, as I’ve said before, his presence as Labour leader may open up opportunities for more significant and promising social change. Unlikely, but not impossible. Therefore, for now, I have no real opinion on the meaningless dinners Corbyn has or has not attended.

  3. Admin says:

    I agree with the first part of your comment and I also think the fact he got elected has some significance, just like the success of Bernie Sanders in the States. It shows there is an appetite and audience for *some* sort of radical politics, although it’s expressed in naive and distorted ways (through the capitalist Democratic and Labour parties).

    However, you’re wrong to say the dinner was a “meaningless dinner”. It was a very important state function and Corbyn behaved impeccably, establishing his credentials as reliable to not be so unseemly as to rock the boat.

    Phil F

  4. Thomas R says:

    Placing the election of any leader of a bourgeois party as a step in a correct direction strikes me as bizarre. Corbyn certainly has better credentials than Cunliffe for example – but the point must always be that it wouldn’t bloody matter if the reanimated corpse of Marx was elected to be leader of a Labour Party.

    What is interesting about Corbyn, and more interesting than Sanders is that the new energy in the Labour Party actually is a new generation of people fed up with same old politics (even if they are potentially getting burned). Sandernistas, as they’re jokingly called in the US, are majority already true-believer democrats, not a new generation of young people pissed off with capitalism. So that’s one difference where Corbyn is more of an opportunity, while Sanders strikes me as an expansion of liberalism – not a popularisation of anything like ‘socialism’ no matter what he calls himself.

    The other thing I think is potentially different is that Corbyn may well succeed – because his policy changes are a shift to a tried and true form of capitalist economics, one that empowers Labour more and can deal with some elements of crises – if briefly. In fact, the brutal austerity of the tories is considered a bit crude and unnecessary even by international monetary institutions. Deposing austerity politics does not have the same obstacles as in, say, Greece.