The answer, of course, is cowardice. Well, cowardice plus a certain degree of exhaustion with the whole tired, tedious argument, plus some socialist history.
On the whole, I like Corbyn's ideological positions: anti-colonialism, international solidarity, Irish reunification, a strong welfare state and
I also tend to think that someone seeking power needs to develop an ideological perspective that can adapt to changing contexts, and that is capable of being communicated vibrantly and persuasively in the teeth of a hostile media environment. Spending time outside your echo chamber is also a good idea, something Corbyn and Tony Blair failed to do: Alastair Campbell's diary records an instance in which Blair flatly refused to believe the shockingly low UK average earnings statistics because he personally didn't know anyone earning less than £50,000 ('cognitive dissonance'). People are the products of their environments – neither you nor I nor Corbyn are sufficiently aware of our own shortcomings because we are rarely exposed to alternative perspectives on our ingrained belief systems, mostly because it's emotionally painful to do so. That said, I do think that those seeking power should constantly interrogate their beliefs and seek alternative views more than the rest of us. However seductive rigid faith is, being a True Believer leads to mental inflexibility and an eventual tendency to see disembowelling as the solution to every argument.
Most importantly of all though, my lodestar – as far as I have one – is Lewis Jones, the communist councillor, activist and author who was deported from the USSR (it could have been a lot worse: this was 1936 and plenty of British Communists in Russia were executed) for refusing to join in a standing ovation for Stalin, on the basis that real communists don't have individual heroes, they build progressive mass movements. Jones himself wouldn't survive a day in modern politics: his enthusiastic sex life would feed constant Daily Mail headlines to the exclusion of all his work on behalf of Spain and the unemployed, while his political doubts (which to me make him more admirable) would be seen as weakness. The Communist Party of the time was certainly torn: he inspired thousands of people, but kept going 'off message' when the Party line and the need for discipline conflicted with the empathy that fuelled his activism.
'Put not your faith in princes' (Psalms 146 3-5) is a good maxim: they, like all human beings, have feet of clay and the world is complicated. One of the most pernicious aspects of contemporary society is the lynch-mob mentality that ruthlessly punishes personal flaws, mistakes or even inconsistency. Nobody can be expected to live up to perfection, and idolising a politician, a sports star or a pop singer will only lead to disappointment and anger.
So there are aspects of Corbyn's politics I like and others I don't. As to his personality: I largely don't care either way. Dreadful people (hello, Lyndon Johnson, Eric Gill, Morrissey) have done great things, apparently lovely people have done terrible things (yes, Mother Teresa, I mean you). Sometimes the people with the right ideas have no clear path to enacting them, sometimes people with the wrong ideas have all the skills to put them in place (I'm terrified of Mike Pence: evil and serious). As far as the Labour Party is concerned, I see Corbyn's wing as a group of people who have old – and mostly still relevant – solutions to structural problems but little idea of how to communicate, nor of how to cope with a ridiculous electoral system, and the right of the party as a group of people with some good communications skills but who were left high and dry by the failure of Third Way politics because technocracy isn't a viable political position when the machinery breaks down. It's not 1973 any more, but nor is it 1997. Pragmatism without purpose is managerialism; purpose without pragmatism is the impotence of those sects which have spent decades honing their ideology (with many purges) ready for the revolution without ever once trying to actually, you know, do something.
In the end, I just don't think that socialists should have messiahs, even if they do have the right initials. Socialists believe that structures generate subjects, not vice versa.
Nor do I want to spend my time on social media being abused for being either a fascist CIA agent centrist-dad or an anti-semitic Marxist terrorism-loving traitor, which seem to be the only two positions available in any debate about Mr Corbyn. I don't think it's healthy or constructive to either be or to accuse others of being Corbynites or Corbynistas, particularly as those people insecure enough to insist on rigid definitions must surely end up accusing Corbyn of not being sufficiently Corbynite. At some point, he'll have to change his mind about something (I'm hoping it's EU membership): being able to do so without being called a traitor would be good for him, us and at the moment, this country. Identify a point on the continuum that is socialism as you see it, sure, but don't over-invest in any individual or announce that everyone else is a betrayer. If you can't support or critique someone calmly, you're not doing politics, you're doing religion, and not the nice bits either. And you're outsourcing your moral and ideological responsibilities.
Doxxing to the usual address, please.
*While on the subject, I notice some shock that the Paratroop Regiment used Corbyn's image for target practice. It makes a change from unarmed teenagers and aged Irish priests waving white handkerchiefs, I suppose. But surprise? Only if you haven't been paying attention.
PS. All these arguments about leadership apply to universities as well. My heart sank when someone from the Leadership Foundation for HE enthusiastically said to me 'your VC is a visionary'. Lord, save us from visionaries…
No comments:
Post a Comment