FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

I’d Rather be Leftist than Leftovers

Like many a Leftist Brit who refuses to “pivot” (I hate that word) rightwards, I was outraged by the less than sly effort by leftover Blairites in the British Labour party to effectively charge people to vote for Jeremy Corbyn to remain as party leader. He was elected on September 12, 2015 so the fact that there is another leadership election already is suspicious enough.

But in a not too thinly veiled attempt to subvert democratic rights — specifically those of the multitude who have flocked to Corbyn since he was voted in as leader the first time— Labour party members who have been in the party for less than six months will be barred from taking part in the September 2016 leadership election unless they pay £25.  That’s about $33 under the current post-Brexit exchange rate that decimated the value of the pound.

When I posted a home-made Keep Calm and Keep Corbyn poster on my Facebook page, I expected a “dislike” from any lingering Blairites out there  —I think I have only one such “friend” — still clinging to “New Labour,” the disaster that handed us the Tories and Brexit. But the pushback came from a more surprising quarter.

“A Putin apologist with a 19th Century mindset leading a party that wants to relive the 1890, 1920 and 1970s? Britain needs at least two new progressive parties fit for the 21st Century. Labour is not it,” wrote R. Andreas Kraemer.

Kraemer is one of those Facebook friends I am not sure how I acquired but who I definitely respect. Founder of the Ecologic Institute, he is also a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany; Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance in Waterloo, Ontario; and Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science and Adjunct Professor of German Studies at Duke University. He has credentials.

But I was thrown by this particular critique of Corbyn. Some of my best friends are Corbynites. Could this possibly be true?

Most of the “Putin apologist” accusations come from right wing rags like the Daily Mail, instantly undermining credibility (this is the paper, after all, that headlined Corbyn as a “Sexpot Trot.”)

Yet Corbyn’s stance doesn’t really seem to be about Putin personally, much though the Blairites would like to paint him as some sort of Stalinist throwback. It seems to be about the futility of war.

Maybe the humble Corbyn, who sits on the floor of packed trains and rides the bus to work, doesn’t believe in the cult of personality, either. Here is what Corbyn actually said about his preferred response if Russia invaded a NATO ally:

“I would want to avoid us getting involved militarily by building up the diplomatic relationships and not isolate any country in Europe.

“I don’t wish to go to war, what I want to do is achieve a world where we don’t need to go to war, where there is no need for it — that can be done.”

Does this stance exemplify the nostalgia my friend Andreas was scorning? Has the alternative really worked better? Or is Corbyn at worst guilty of not being very Three Musketeerish when it comes to NATO?

Corbyn does not want any more Aleppo Boys or Drowned Boys on the Beach. He does not share the American value of invade first, ask questions later, which leads to the destruction and collapse of countries with the poor and disenfranchised suffering the most. While U.S. Republicans are chafing at the bit to start a new Cold War with Russia, Corbyn would rather talk. This seems pragmatic to me, however villainous Putin almost certainly is.

I’ll admit though that I am guilty as charged when it comes to yearning for the Leftie Days of Yore. I miss the spectacular trades union banners, the candle-lit windows during the miners’ strike, the marches to restore democracies in Greece, Argentina, Chile. I have a whole collection of pins I can’t even remember how I acquired, including “MPLA for Angola,” “Chile Resists,” “Stop the Sackings,” and “Recognize the PRG.” I am glad that CND is still going and is still meaningful. Greenham Common women? Presente!

We should not repeat the mistakes of history and we should most definitely learn from them. But should we also perhaps replicate, rather than disavow, our successes?

Recently, during one of my nostalgia binges, I stumbled upon the archives of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, a collection of largely Marxist scientists intent on changing society, and thereby the role of science within it, to benefit working people. During my search, I came across a pamphlet entitled, “Nuclear Power — The Rigged Debate,” published in 1981 by the BSSRS’s Politics of Energy Group.

Early in the first section there were some telling observations that still ring true.  Sadly.

“The anti-nuclear arguments have often been on the defensive against an industry possessing much of the key information and specialists (and virtually all of the money),” the unnamed authors wrote. “The ‘debate’ is reduced to a battle of plausibilities, which few people can be bothered to follow even when we take the trouble to decode the jargon.”

The authors argued that nuclear energy was developed, at least in the UK, because it was the easiest form of energy supply the state could control. It was an excellent way to destroy the coal miners’ union. It was also quite useful in suppressing Third World countries into submission as we plundered their uranium.

The “rigged” debate they refer to, is relished today even more eagerly than before, especially by the mainstream media. It is all about conflicting opinion.

But the authors wanted us to look deeper.  For example, rather than just debate the so-called “safe” level of exposure to radiation, we should “at the same time understand how and why such a unit was devised in the first place, as a way of making the risks of deadly radiation more ‘acceptable’ to workers.”

There is not space here to do this pamphlet justice and it is a fascinating tract. It forces us to see that nuclear energy was chosen for political, not scientific reasons, for control of the workforce, not the benefit of humankind.

Is it a wonderful throwback written in language so rooted in Marxism as to be dismissed or even ridiculed by today’s modernists? Is reading it now symptomatic of an attempt to relive the past? Possibly. Or is it an important document that informs our present, a reminder that we in fact refused to learn the lessons it sought to teach us?

Yes, Britain does need progressive parties. Corbyn is well positioned to put the “you” back in Labour and restore it to working people. Blair destroyed that. The strongholds of Brexit in the working north are the most compelling evidence of this.

Those who labour need Corbyn. Messiah he is not. But, like far too few of us, age has not edged him toward the center. He has held fast to his principles and his integrity. He has not betrayed working people. If that makes him a Leftie of the 1970s or even the 1890s, then that’s fine with me.

More articles by:

Linda Pentz Gunter is the editor and curator of BeyondNuclearInternational.org and the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear. She can be contacted at linda@beyondnuclear.org.

July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS class struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail