Picture of Jeremy Corbyn
So, Jeremy Corbyn, who believes in re-industrializing England, re-nationalizing the railroads and various other genuine left-wing policies is cruising towards the Labour nomination, leading every poll.
I am, of course, pleased.
Let us examine why:
- Neoliberalism has been in charge in England since Thatcher in the 70s. There were some good years, but the simple fact is that most of the population is no better off than before her, and many are worse off. Neoliberalism, for most people in Britain, has failed. Incomes are stagnant or down, university tuitions are way up, universal healthcare is being dismantled, the welfare state is mean and stingy, and increasing amounts of people can’t afford to buy a home where the jobs are (London). Thatcherism, and Blair’s “New Left” has failed.
- Corbyn talks like an ordinary human being. He has held to the same principles and policies for his entire life, even when times were against him. It is credible that if elected Corbyn will actually implement those policies. Being yesterday’s man is important, because the media is full of stories about how the younger generations are doing worse than their parents and grandparents. Sure, Corbyn wants to do stuff that is out of fashion, but those old-fashioned politics, according to the media, worked better than the new-fangled ones.
- Labour has lost two elections in a row. Worse, they were wiped out of their Scottish stronghold by the SNP, who won because they ran to Labour’s left. Contrary to all the squealing from neoliberals like Blair, the evidence is that Labour lost more seats because it was too right-wing, rather than because it was too left-wing.
A lot of Labour politicians and officials are whining about Corbyn, stating that Labor will be wiped out if he wins the election. All that doom-mongering has done nothing I can see to slow Corbyn down. I would go further, I would say that having Tony Blair against him is to his benefit. Labour may have been better than Conservative, but Blair accelerated neoliberal policies, and got Britain into a war that is very unpopular on the Left. The more Blairites blare, the better for Corbyn.
As I noted before, the most important thing for people with genuine belief (and Blair is a true believer) is maintaining control of all parties likely to gain power. Labour falling would be a major blow to neoliberalism (of which the New Left is part).
I’ll discuss Corbyn’s policies later. They aren’t bad ideas, per se, but as with Syriza (in a much less serious way), I wonder if he understands just what would be required to make them work. The current world economic structure was set up specifically to make sure that the sort of policies which worked in the post-war, liberal period, the sort of policies Corbyn wants to institute, can’t work. Indeed, they aren’t even allowed by the various, existing trade agreements.
In the meantime, barring something major, I expect Corbyn will be the new Labour leader. And I expect he will be the next Prime Minister of Britain, because Cameron is going to keep driving most Britons’ standard of living into the ground.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
markfromireland
Proofread mode = 1
Worse, they were wiped out of their Scottish stronghold by the the SNP, who won because the ran to Labour’s left.
‘the the SNP … who won because the ran’
There’s a hanging ‘rent.’ at the end of the article.
Proofread mode = 0
mfi
markfromireland
I agree with you that there are major systemic impediments to Corbyn implementing his policies not the least of which is the need to get elected in an England and Wales that has swung steadily to the right for a lifetime. Then there’s the internal Labour Party political difficulties; a successful Corbyn will face the same problems that a victorious Tony Benn would have faced except an order of magnitude worse. I think it entirely possible that the current Blairite establishment in the party will provoke a schism and either leave to form a new party much as the original Limehouse gang of four did or force Corbyn to do so.
In the event of a Corbyn led Labour victory in England and Wales he’d have to go into coalition with the SNP to govern. In many ways that would be a very good thing indeed BUT I invite you to reflect of how successfully Cameron’s Conservative party played that particular card in the last election. The Conservatives very explicitly whipped up anti-Scottish hysteria saying that Miliband would be in Salmond’s/Sturgeon’s pocket and it worked.
None of this is to say that Corbyn or a Corbynite successor couldn’t win. I think (and hope) that such a victory is possible. But Corbyn will first have to win the Labour leadership then he’ll have to consolidate his hold on the party while at the same time opening a political debate as to whether there is in fact an alternative to Neo-liberalism.
mfi
Stirling Newberry
Blair coming out was a stupid mistake. the current generation has gone more extreme, and people around the globe are not willing to do much, but there not going to the floor yesterday’s old party of the right when there is yesterday’s old party of the left.
Stirling Newberry
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/14/al-gore-president-democrats-insider-explore
S Brennan
I don’t spend a lot of time on UK politics anymore, it seemed so hopeless after Tony Blair, but I agree with Ian’s point that, “the current world economic structure was set up specifically to make sure that the sort of policies which worked in the post-war liberal period…aren’t allowed under various trade agreements.”
The “free” trade agreements were/are specifically designed to destroy the lower 4 quintiles of a given country’s population, it’s democratic institutions, the very concept of democracy and then to act as a fire wall to prevent any attempt to break free from bondage. Any politician selling a trade agreement is no different than a slave ship’s captain delivering human cargo…and Democratic Presidents have been far more effective in this endevour than Republicans…and the plantation owners have noticed.
Ian Welsh
Thanks for the proof MFI.
Ian Welsh
Realignments can happen very fast. We’ll see if this is a realignment moment or not.
In a way I’m mostly betting on Cameron when it comes to the “Corbyn wins election” bet. I have great confidence in Cameron’s ability to make life even more terrible for a majority of Brits.
tatere
an interesting though somewhat dreamy look at Corbyn
http://dougald.nu/labour-through-the-looking-glass-15-early-morning-speculations-on-the-corbyn-surge/
markfromireland
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2015/aug/14/martin-rowson-on-the-future-of-the-labour-party-cartoon
Enjoy 🙂
mfi
Ian Welsh
The idea that Corbyn will resign while doing great is the strangest thing I’ve ever seen. Can’t think of any good reason why he’d do that.
Lisa
S Brennan: Yep.
Look we are in the final stages of the success of the neo-liberal ideology, particularly in the UK, the return to a pre Adam Smith, Rentier, anti democratic, anti social good and anti-capitalist society.
Countries that once had some sort of alternative are falling over themselves to going ‘all in’ (the EU) .
Have a look at this and Greece, we are starting to see the real desires and plans being implemented. In their minds this will be a template for the rest of the EU.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/greece-is-about-to-be-completely-dismantled-and-fed-to-profithungry-corporations-10452068.html?utm_content=buffer79131&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Typically neo-liberalism accentuates class/race/etc divisions, partially because in a racist society large numbers of powerless race are in the bottom classes. Partially because those at the top are adroit at exploiting race (etc) differences to keep the lower classes fragmented.
So looking at the UK where are they:
(1) Ethnic/class cleansing of London and SE England, turning it into a top 50% (maybe top 25%) enclave.
(2) The rest of England being a dump for the ‘useless’, with no colonies now available to get rid of surplus people (as they did to the US, Canada and later Australia) it is going to be the Midlands and North that become a giant slum for the ‘unworthy’.
(3) A totalitarian society, the application of incredible powers of the Govt now to classify anyone (for anything) as an ‘extremist’ and oppress them grows ever apace. Three year old children being taken from their parents and all that. Everyone ‘of them’ will be under 24/7 surveillance watching for the slightest deviance. Rich paedophiles don’t have to worry though (in fact I will predict that their future is looking very good in the UK).
(4) A rentier society, with them getting ever greater slices at every economic point in life.
You’d have to say the UK was about 70%-80% along the way on all this.
Prospects for a change without a lot of violence and chaos? About zero.
Realistically the UK is just one (real or made up) crisis from suspending elections ‘until the current crisis is over’.
The State has enough firepower, for now, to put down any sort of resistance to this.
Prospects for the majority of the English? Horrible. 50%+ in third world levels of poverty living in slums. Kept in place by a 24/7 surveillance, a privatised militarised police force, the army and no doubt things like regular drone strikes. Various sub groups (eg by race) within the lower classes will do even worse, some of which face internment camps in the near future (probably being worked to death as well).
The core of the neo-liberalism poltical (and moral) ideology are two simple concepts:
(1) Rich = good, because they are morally good they deserve more. Poor = bad, because they are morally bad they deserve less.
(2) Rentier profits are better than capitalist ones and rentiers must have more rights than anyone else (including the State).
The second point is important and is a major part of ever increasing wealth disparity.
A rentier gets a right to slice of economic action (by bribery, corruption, lobbying and all the rest), over time that rentier wants a bigger slice and/or other rentiers want their share.
More areas of economic activity are given to rentiers, with an ever greater share of the national ‘purse’ going to them.
Areas of society that were previously excluded from being purely economic activities are changed to allow rentiers to grab a share, the NHS being the poster child for this.
Rentiers ‘freeze’ industrial and technical development, as any changes can threaten their current income streams. Science, that does not pertain to their personal interests (like longevity), is shut down as such a possible disruption.
It is no accident that the most neo-liberal countries have de-industrialised and can no longer be considered capitalist.
I always thought that the neo-liberals wanted a return to a mythical Victorian England society, but looking at it in more detail they really want a pre Adam Smith and non capitalist society.
If course it is self destructive, because rentier societies don’t create any wealth, they simply extract it. Just to maintain their current position they have to extract ever more amounts.
More and more areas are opened to rentier exploitation, internal security is classic example. The future of the British police is to be a privatised militarised force, tasked with keeping the proles down, the ‘public police’ will no longer exist before long in the UK, with poor people having no protection from criminals. You can extrapolote that large ‘unworthy’ areas in the UK being controlled by criminal warlords esssentially, themselves being just another rentier and tolerated (even accepted of they become successfully enough) to the established ones (provided they don’t go too far).
But again this extraction means less and less is available to actually do anything productive. An organisation might survive 1% or even 10% rentier extraction, but 25% or 50%?
Think of it as a crippling overhead where even money for basic maintenance is extracted.
Rentier economics crushes capitalism (Adam Smith’s argument), new business formation (for example) dies. By direct or indirect (using the State) they will deter, crush and/or buy out any new competition.
The role of the State is critical in this, it has to allocate (and create new) rentier opportunities, It has to protect them, by force if necessary, from competition.
It has to ensure their rights are far higher in the pecking order than others.
Because of that the State through coopting, ideology and corruption becomes the enabler and protector of rentiers. This is a positive feedback mechanisms, the greater the share of wealth they get, the more they can corrupt and coopt the State. Eventually they are the State.
At first the State is an enabler and used to create and hand out new rentier opportunities, eventually (after they have all been filled) the role of the State is then to protect their income and their position.
The UK is at that second stage now.
The two parts to the neo-liberal ideology (poor = bad, rentier rights at the very top) combine together so those at the bottom get short shift economically or legally. They are seen basically as morally bad people and their rights are low down the pecking order.
This means that in the end they become legally disenfranchised from society (bit like women in the in the UK in the 1800s with no legal or economic rights whatsoever). A new serfdom (or neo feudalism) essentially.
The taking children away from ‘extremist’ parents is a classic example of this process. With both the parents and the children being seen as ‘bad’ they have no rights to their own life or their family whatsoever.
Health is a classic. If you are at the bottom you have no rights to having decent and affordable health care because (a) You are ‘bad’ and morally don’t deserve it and (b) this would interfere with some rentier’s income (which over time becomes the primary cost of the actual health care).
Re the second part you can’t get a higher wage (if you are working) to afford healthcare because that hits one rentier’s income, and the health costs can’t be dropped because that hits another rentier’s income.
The ultimate expression of renter rights is being enshrined in things like the TPP, where rentiers have to be compensated for even a ‘theoretical’ income drop as their rights are superior to any others, including the State itself . It is almost amusing to watch those ‘patriotic national sovereignty’ people fall over themselves to eliminate it.
Will Corbyn change this. Low odds. . Several things will happen, he will die (like Smith or Gateskill in the past) some scandal (real or made up) will wipe his political career out, the Labour party will shatter with the pro rentiers creating a new one (like the Social Democrats in the past), elections will be ended, a very large racism campaign will be created to split to lower classes…..or some combination of all of them. Ot somehow he will get into to power and sell out.
On large scale internment, it is interesting to note that all the most neo-liberal countries (the Anglo Saxon ones basically) have all the legal firepower (and successful ‘experiments’) to doing it in place.
I also note more and more open discussions from the various elites about doing it.
So I expect one of them, soon, to start implementing it. The UK would be my first pick, but it could be the US which has successfully done mass internment on black males by stealth, or Australia (yes really).
But don’t worry, some rentiers will get a big slice of the cost of doing it and any profits made from it by ‘work shall set you free’.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
Of course, like all oppressive systems throughout history, the neo-rentier oppressive system will succeed–right up until the day it fails.
That will be a very bad day for the rentiers, and many other people who deserve it less, or not at all.
As a conservative intellectual (ironically enough) observed, the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.
The pre-intellectual lust for higher rank in the simian dominance hierarchies always overcomes intellect sooner or later, and the same sorts of mistakes get repeated in slightly different fashions.
Lisa
Serendipity again, others are waking up to this (finally)..
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/08/kanburstiglitz-rent-seeking-as-a-major-driver-of-wealth-and-income-inequality.html
What many so called capitalists don’t realise is rentier behaviour is inherently anti-capitalist. With rentier dominance, they are screwed as well.
They will not get funding, roadblocks (of all kinds, such as regulatory) will be put in place to stop them, their direct and indirect costs will rise and all the rest.
A telling story was the successful moves by coal companies (and coal using electricty generators) to kill wind farrm deveopment here in Victoria Australia.
In Australia coal companies are the perfect examples of rentiers with massive poltical power.
Before the previous Liberal (conservative in Australian terms) Govt got into power there were odd (so called) various local campaigns against wind farms, claiming all the usual tripe and that the locals were against them.
The Liberal Govt got into power and put draconian restriction on new developments, ‘responding’ as they claimed to ‘local concerns’.
It was all carefully organised codswallop. The ‘local campiagns’ funding were later traced to coal companies, polls of the locals showed they had no concerns about wind farms. So it was carefully organised well in advance, to give a fig leaf for the bought and paid for Govt to kill energy competition.
So the end result was rentiers with their already owned assets that they make heaps of money from (including 60 year old coal power plants) protected themselves from a competitor.Now, with a National Liberal Govt, they are doing the same to end solar and wind power development in the whole of Australia.
Where commentators on this get it wrong is they frame this only in environmental grounds (which are obviously very important), but it is really a rentier vs capitalist fight, where the rentiers have won hands down.
Ian Welsh
Neoliberalism as rent seeking justification was discussed in the 90s.
anonymouscoward
@Lisa: there is no other type of capitalist than the rentier. Having everyone pay you for providing nothing in particular is the goal of ALL “CAPITALIST” ENTERPRISE. Always.
Ask yourself, how do we maximize returns on investment? Precisely by ceasing all investments, and compelling (with the aid of friendly government and legal regime) repeated payments on our existing property, endless npayment which results in no transfer of ownership, aka rents.
There. Is. No. Other. Capitalist. Nor ever was. Eventually all profit seeking enterprise must come to this.
Peter *
I thought this Corbyn fellow was just another professional Leftie selling the usual snake oils, ‘reindustrialize’ Brittan, buy back the trains, is quite the program. Are they going to resurrect British Leyland or impose the ‘Prince of Darkness’ Lucas on the masses again.
Now I read that Corbyn was knee deep in the filth of the child sex trafficking crimes in his district.
Social workers reported directly to him about what they had seen or suspected in the government run children homes and apparently he ignored their warnings either intentionally or under pressure.
I haven’t read the Daily Mail story only excerpts but it appears Corbyn may not be as progressive as hoped.
S Brennan
Congrats Ian;
You made somebodies psych-ops list.
To see if this guy is up to US MilSpecs.
Restricted U.S. Army Psychological Operations (PSYOP) Officer Training Manual (2007) & Specialist Training Guide (2008)
http://leaksource.info/2013/12/04/restricted-u-s-army-psychological-operations-psyop-officer-training-manual-2007-specialist-training-guide-2008/
Joe
Peter – interesting comment – but the stories are old. The problem with the child abuse in the UK is the Labour party condoned it and turned a blind eye while the conservatives were too busy abusing children themselves to make a big deal of this.
If someone from outside ran on a “off with their heads” campaign they would likely have a good shot. Would be fascinating to see senior people from both parties both trying to keep out of jail. You could even see a scenario for a merger between Labour and Conservatives – the sleaze party.
The British elite – oth left and right – is vile.
S Brennan
and the obligatory water boy…sheesh
markfromireland
I learnt today that Simon Fletcher is part of Corbyn’s team. Whose he? He’s the Simon Fletcher who was Ken Livingstone’s chief of staff and campaign manager that’s who he is. He’s a very tough and effective operator used to working at a severe disadvantage.
mfi
Peter*
@Joe
The story may be old but the organized crimes against children continue. The most recent investigation had to solicit a head investigator from outside the UK to bring any legitimacy to the proceedings.
My ire is not only directed at Corbyn who is just a professional member of that vile elite with impeccable Left credentials but those who would support this kind of leader whose words sound progressive but whose actions show a lack of moral or even legal responsibility to children who are the most dependent on government for protection.
We have a similar type of shallow Polyannaish Liberal behavior here in the US with the Cult of Sanders where winning is the paramount goal and any real examination below the surface or confrontation is immediately branded as heresy or covert support for the opposition.