So Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership convincingly! His victory is a wake-up call for the bunch of self-satisfied good ole boys, yes-men, and American neo-liberal think-tank chums who, for years, have been privatizing everything owned by taxpayers for the profit of corporations and their friends I could never easily detect the difference between the Conservatives and the Blair labourites, but maybe I was too turned off to try to work it out. I personally have, by using my head and my heart, come a long way from the time in my youth when I worked for two Conservative M.P’s (decent ones).
As an Epicurean I believe in moderation and am no firebrand. I am also an historian, and know a bit about both the French and the Russian revolutions. As in, if you consistently – and really stupidly – insist on making the lives of the poor and the once-middle class increasingly miserable; if you sell off prime property to foreigners so that ordinary people can’t afford houses; if you keep “reforming” benefits so that few can benefit; and if you ignore the widening gap between rich and poor, guess what? Given time, the mass of the people, with little to lose, will rise and remove your wealth and maybe your life. The guillotine is out of fashion, but by the middle of this century something like it could be employed again. This is what I am really very worried about. The powers that be are ignorant, self-entranced, unempathetic and just plain short-sighted. Guess what, Jeremy Corbyn could actually help save their bacon by altering the vital balance between rulers and ruled, rich and poor. I suggest they stop rubbishing him and treat him with respect.
Firstly, I know this isn’t content related, but can you please spell Corbyn’s name properly? Its with a y, not an i.
Secondly, I agree with your overall critique of neoliberalism, but I think its very far-fetched to compare 21st century Britain with pre-revolutionary France and Russia. In France and Russia before their respective revolutions, the state redistributed wealth upwards, whereas the British state redistributes wealth downwards (even if it is not enough.) In France and Russia, there was mass starvation, chronic poverty, endemic corruption, the complete fusion of church and state, the absolute absence of democratic accountability, horrific brutality on the part of the police and military- just to name but a few of the features of those societies that in no way, are a part of British society today.
But the most important distinction between Britain and any pre-revolutionary society is the intentions of those in power. In the case of both France and Russia, as well as Spain, Iran, Italy and countless other countries; the elites intended to enrich themselves, knowing full well that it would come at the expense of the masses. The neoliberals that have determined much (but by no means all) of British public policy have expressed no such intention, or even implied it, even if the impoverishment of the masses is the result of their policies. Describing Tony Blair or David Cameron as the same sort of self-interested elites as the French Kings or Russian Tsars is a very far-fetched comparison.
Even as an avid supporter of the mixed economy Corbyn is promoting, I must admit the limits of his support. Unlike the French Revolution, the Corbyn movement is not a mass movement, nor is it representative of the national mood. Corbyn, for the most part, is preaching to the converted; the thousands that turned up to his rallies were likely like-minded ideological socialists. Even if you accept that the British left has become more socialist, you cannot say that about the British people as a whole. The false impression of mass support given by public events or social media is that there is a big left wing majority in Britain. This impression is given because left-wingers are generally more politically active, whereas most conservatives are ‘shy Tories.’ In reality, the election results showed that there is not even a centre-left majority, let alone a socialist majority- the Conservatives, UKIP and the DUP won over half of the vote.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that Labour ought to proceed with caution. The rhetoric of the Left- the appeals to morality, the urge of compassion and the denunciation of opponents as prejudice- may be arguments that the Left itself believes, but it will not convince the masses by publicly stating them. (It is worth noting that UKIP won over 12% despite constantly called racist.) Instead, the case for socialism must be based on the belief that it is good for business and the economy, that it affords people security in an increasingly globalised world, and that society can achieve far more when it is cohesive than when it is divided. But if the worst elements of the Left: the pedantic political correctness, the constant name-calling of opponents as ‘racist’ or ‘homophobic’ when there is insufficient evidence to justify such an attack, the assertion of moral and intellectual superiority, the needless bickering and factionalism- dominate the Corbyn campaign, then it is doomed to fail miserably.
Well, you are entitled, of course, to your views. I strongly disagree with some of Corbyn’s views and policy statements, but believe that what he is saying badly needs to be said. For instance, Trident is only there to give a British Prime Minister access to theWhite House – it is totally useless. There are 4 million children in poverty, and no one discussing it. Privatization has been an economic disaster. Even if he is not electable it is time that the real issues are put to the electorate. The behaviour of the British media at the moment is a disgrace.