POPULARITY
8 episodes with corbynism
5 episodes with corbynism
2 episodes with corbynism
3 episodes with corbynism
2 episodes with corbynism
2 episodes with corbynism
2 episodes with corbynism
2 episodes with corbynism
2 episodes with corbynism
Today marks five years since Keir Starmer became leader of the Labour party. In that time, he has gradually purged Labour of its leftist wing and wrestled the party back to the centre, winning a historic majority in 2024. But, five years on, the question remains: what does Keir Starmer stand for? He came in as the acceptable face of Corbynism but looks more and more like a Conservative with each passing domestic policy announcement (take your pick: winter fuel, waging war with the size of the state, welfare cuts etc.). Internationally, it is a different story. Despite saying little on foreign policy in the build-up to the general election, he has been widely praised for his foreign policy and his steady hand when dealing with Trump. Lucy Dunn, James Heale and John McTernan discuss the many faces of Keir Starmer. Produced by Oscar Edmondson.
It's been five long years since the decisive defeat of Corbynism at the ballot box. How, if at all, should the left reconstitute itself? Should everyone join the Greens? Or do we just need Mick Lynch to start a new party? In this episode, Richard Hames is joined by Rachel Godfrey Wood, Joe Todd, and […]
How does militant socialism compare to Corbynism? How did Labour's ‘remain' campaign go so wrong? And what should Labour be doing about immigration? On today's episode of Leading, Rory and Alastair are joined by long-serving Labour minister, Alan Johnson, to discuss all this and more Instagram: @restispolitics Twitter: @RestIsPolitics Email: restispolitics@gmail.com Assistant Producer: India Dunkley Video Editor: Teo Ayodeji-Ansell Social Producer: Jess Kidson Producer: Nicole Maslen and Fiona Douglas Senior Producer: Dom Johnson Head of Content: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
We've become so accustomed to bad news that Labour's landslide victory in the UK general election has been a hard one to process, despite it being a dead cert. The Tories are actually gone? Can it be real? So this week we decided to piece together our memories of the last 14 years of cuts, corruption and chaos, and see if we can identify the sound of Tory Britain. We've spent most of our music careers toiling under the long shadow of George Osborne's turbo-cuts to public spending – not to mention Brexit batshittery, the crazy days of Corbynism, the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster and Black Lives Matter, and of course the lockdown years and attendant Covid conspiracies. But the politics of austerity Britain also changed the nation's musical culture, and in this episode we talk about the dominance of festivals at the expense of clubbing, the sound of the student protest movement, the emergence of drill in the hollowed out communities of South London, and the political backlash to the five-headed monster of Cameron, May, Boris, Truss (lol) and Sunak. We also have a think about why Keir Starmer seems to have forgotten his musical roots, and what we might expect from a Labour government that's appointed Lisa “Towns” Nandy as culture minister.Remember that this Saturday 20th July we'll be in Glasgow for a live No Tags experience, hosted by Feena and Wheelman at Glasgow University Chapel! Tickets are available on the door, or you can sign up for membership of the Events Research Programme for just £3.50. If you like what we're doing on No Tags then please like, rate, review or subscribe on your podcast app of choice, and if you really like what we're doing, consider supporting us via our paid tier. Get full access to No Tags at notagspodcast.substack.com/subscribe
Hello friends! Welcome to another episode of Fully Automated! Our guest for this episode is none other than James A. Smith, co-host with David Slavick of The Popular Show. Smith is also the author of Other People's Politics: Populism to Corbynism (Zer0 Books, 2019) and coauthor with Mareile Pfannebecker of Work Want Work: Labour and Desire at the end of Capitalism (Bloomsbury, 2020). Smith is a defender of the idea that the 2016-2020 “Bernie moment” was a real opportunity to advance the cause of socialism. While it can be tempting today to look back and think that it was doomed from the start, Smith argues that the failure was largely self-inflicted. This means there are lessons that can be learned from the failure. However, he notes, the left today “seems worryingly uncurious about the regressive influence earlier defeated lefts have sometimes inadvertently had.” Smith believes that the left needs to rethink its approach to political freedom. Following up on our recent episode with Efraim Carlebach on the 10-year anniversary of Mark Fisher's famous essay, “Exiting the Vampire Castle,” we chat with Smith about his recent Sublation essay, “Capitalist Realism All Over Again” (3.17.2023). As he puts it, the left has “struggled to apply the book's insights,” all too often succumbing to political correctness and “anti-political moralism.” Meanwhile, as evidenced in the government response to the coronavirus pandemic, capitalist elites are claiming that crises that are “too important to be hazarded to democratic oversight or protest.” When the left abandons this fight, the right will try to fill in the gap, claiming that only it can stop the power grab. We also ask Smith about some of his recent episodes, including his interview with Matt Taibbi, one of the main journalists behind The Twitter Files. Like Taibbi, Smith believes that capitalist elites today are leveraging state powers to censor social media activity, essentially constituting a strategy of “revenge against both left and right populism.” We also discuss a number of foreign policy matters, from the west's war for NATO expansion in Ukraine to the iconoclastic left's bankrupt analysis of Israel's war in Gaza. Concerning the latter, many otherwise insightful critics have suggested that Hamas is essentially a bonapartist organization, seeking to create an islamic state. How does Smith respond to these critics? Moreover, given the difficulty of imagining the construction of a working class party in Gaza today, what should be the left position on this terrible war? Smith can be followed on Twitter/X @thepopularpod. Curious listeners can also follow up on Smith's work on Jacobin, where he has published numerous articles on the state of the British left: “The Labour Party Is Ignoring Britain's Muslims. A Judge-Led Inquiry Won't Change That” (12.12.2023) “Labour's Left Needs to Regain the Insurgent Spirit That Made Jeremy Corbyn Leader” (07.31.2023) “The Labour Left's Fatal Contradictions Are Still Unresolved” (11.04.2021) NOTE: This is a re-post of Episode 13 of Class Transmissions, which was posted on Feb 4, 2024. I want to thank Class Unity for letting me share this work with listeners of Fully Automated. Please check out Class Unity's website: here Class Unity can be followed on Twitter/X here: @Class_Unity
Hillel C. Neuer is an International lawyer, diplomat, writer and activist. He is the Executive Director of UN Watch, a human rights NGO in Geneva, Switzerland. ► SUPPORT HENRIK BECKHEIM PODCAST If you wish to support the work of this podcast, please feel free to donate an amount of your choosing: ➡ PayPal ➡ Vipps (Norway only) donér til: Vippsnummer: #823278 ► Review/rating: Please feel free to leave a review on Spotify & Apple Podcasts. ► Facebook-group: Facebook-group ► Links: Youtube | Google | Nettside | TikTok | Instagram | Podimo | Facebook | Apple Chapters: 00:00 The October 7th attacks, and the time since. 04:43 Antisemitism around the world, following the attack 07:21 You'd think people would support jews after October 7th 09:49 Hamas is worse than the nazis. Hamas is proud. 11:43 Anti-zionism vs. anti-semitism. A distinction without a difference. 14:42 Which countries are standing with Israel? 18:00 António Guterres. The UN did not condemn the Hamas attacks. 25:30 Why are there almost no jews in other middle eastern countries? 33:35 Hillel's speech in 2007 was deemed inadmissible by the UN 41:30 Corbynism – a pathological western ideology. 43:15 Amnesty international is playing defense for Hamas. 47:58 Oppressed vs. opressor narrative. 50:39 Iron Dome 51:49 The revenge narrative 57:16 The jihadi terrorism against jews is not new. We've seen it for a 100 years. 58:57 When people say «this didn't happen in a vacuum» Nothing can justify Hamas' atrocities. 01:01:22 How much of this is actually Iran? 01:03:53 Do you fear Hizbollah entering the war at full scale?
PART 1! of our monster breakdown of the latest release from Bob Dylan: ‘The Complete Budokan, 1978'. Jack Frayne-Reid joins us from the Reel Politik podcast to… decline to discuss the afterlife of populism and the ordeal of Corbynism, but instead to analyse some great music. PART 2 is exclusive to our Patreon subscribers. Help us develop The Popular Show and get the full video version of this show, THE EXCLUSIVE PART 2 CONTINUATION, PLUS many extra exclusive shows at https://www.patreon.com/thepopularpod More ways to help us continue: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/thepopularshow https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thepopularshow https://cash.app/£ThePopularShow
Joe Guinan returns! From Cleveland to Preston, Joe is one of the most rigorous theorists and practitioners of 21st century socialism as ‘community wealth building', and the pro-Brexit wonk who shaped Corbynism's best policies. Our Thanksgiving Special rattles through the #UKFiles revelations on the relation between the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, Labour Together, and the dark money that bought Keir Starmer the Labour leadership; what Bidenomics is getting wrong, crybully centrism's ‘delusional moment', and the liberatory meaning of Norman Finkelstein's appearance on Piers Morgan. Help us develop The Popular Show and get the full video version of this show PLUS many extra exclusive shows at https://www.patreon.com/thepopularpod More ways to help us continue: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/thepopularshow https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thepopularshow https://cash.app/£ThePopularShow
In this episode, Mike Cow speaks with Andrew Feinstein, a former ANC MP who worked with Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu in South Africa, and a co-founder of the For the Many network, a new grassroots alliance that aims to unite the left around socialist principles. They discuss how the For the Many network is keeping alive the spirit of the 2017-19 Labour Party manifestos, how it is supporting the Palestinian cause and drawing lessons from the South African struggle for democracy, and how it is challenging the right-wing agenda in the UK. To join the network: Please email directly to add your name to to the For the Many membership list. Sign up to connect with other members in your area: Contact: forthemanynetwork@gmail.com Facebook: forthemanynetwork Twitter: @forthemany_net #Buildingafutureforall If you want to know more: You can follow Andrew Feinstein on Twitter @andrewfeinstein or visit his website www.andrewfeinstein.com where you can find his books, articles, and videos. If you would like to support our work by becoming a Patron via: www.patreon.com/cowdaily Make a one off contribution to our work: https://tinyurl.com/y5ctx4ja You can tune into the Cow Daily livestream everyday via Youtube by subscribing here
How has the Labour Party changed under Keir Starmer? Policy Fellows Lucy, David and Alex discuss how Kier Starmer has transformed the Labour Party, moving away from Corbynism and distancing himself from the far left of the party. They further discuss whether Labour still represents the values of the working class and whether "Starmerism" can be considered an extension of Blairism. Finally, they compare and contrast the Labour and Conservative campaign promises.
The high point of Left electoral success represented by Corbynism, the Sanders campaign, Mélenchon and others seems to have passed. Meanwhile, the climate and broader ecological crises intensify and much of the mobilisation around these issues – from XR to the school climate strikes to Just Stop Oil – originates outside of the conventional Left. […]
The high point of Left electoral success represented by Corbynism, the Sanders campaign, Mélenchon and others seems to have passed. Meanwhile, the climate and broader ecological crises intensify and much of the mobilisation around these issues – from XR to the school climate strikes to Just Stop Oil – originates outside of the conventional Left. […]
Rendering Unconscious episode 220. Dr. James A. Smith is a literary scholar and political commentator. His literary scholarship focuses on mid eighteenth-century literature, especially the work of Samuel Richardson and the reception of Shakespeare. He also writes about the history of literary criticism and critical theory: in particular the approaches of F.R. Leavis, Walter Benjamin, the British New Left, and the psychoanalysis of Jacques Lacan. Dr. Smith is Senior Lecturer in Literature and Theory, Department of English at Royal Holloway, University of London. https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/en/persons/james-smith His first book is Samuel Richardson and the Theory of Tragedy (Manchester University Press). Other People's Politics: Populism to Corbynism was published by Zer0 Books in 2019. Work Want Work: Labour and Desire at the End of Capitalism (co-written with Mareile Pfannebecker) appeared with Zed Books in 2020. James A. Smith is co-host of The Popular Show podcast. Follow at Twitter: https://twitter.com/thepopularpod YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/popularitymedia Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thepopularpod You can support the podcast at our Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/vanessa23carl Your support is greatly appreciated! This episode available to view at YouTube: https://youtu.be/GWz937ZbXpg Rendering Unconscious Podcast is hosted by Dr. Vanessa Sinclair, a psychoanalyst who lives in Sweden and works internationally: www.drvanessasinclair.net Follow Dr. Vanessa Sinclair on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/rawsin_ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rawsin_/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drvanessasinclair23 Visit the main website for more information and links to everything: www.renderingunconscious.org The song at the end of the episode is "Lunacy" by Vanessa Sinclair and Carl Abrahamsson from the album of the same name available from Trapart Films / Highbrow Lowlife: https://vanessasinclaircarlabrahamsson.bandcamp.com/album/lunacy-ost Many thanks to Carl Abrahamsson, who created the intro and outro music for Rendering Unconscious podcast. https://www.carlabrahamsson.com Image: The Popular Show podcast
In a very funny slapdown of the Prime Minister and his incessant attacks on the former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn declared he lives 'rent free' in Rishi Sunak's head. But the Tory attempts to link Keir Starmer to Corbynism belie a basic fact: progressive policies - like taxing the rich and public ownership - are not just hugely popular, but more relevant than ever. Here's why these attacks can't be allowed to bury a basic truth.Please subscribe - and help us take on the right-wing media here: https://patreon.com/owenjones84Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/the-owen-jones-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Solidarity 650, 26 October 2022. Articles include: Tory fiasco raises the stakes Local strikes spread as national disputes expand and accelerate Strikes and strike ballots Lessons in democracy... from Xi Jinping! Montenegro Pride: no more buts, no more excuses Iranian protests spark wider fightbacks Iran: what revolution? Tories say they'll review school trans guidelines Thousands march to rejoin the EU Pages from a militant life: The suburbs from the 1980s to now Midterm malaise in the USA Zelenskyy: A government of millionaires against billionaires Action on Covid-19 BJP out of the Labour Party! The left and lessons from Corbynism The Liberals and Ulster Organising to fight for the NHS Sheffield students occupy against arms trade Student conference on cost-of-living crisis NHS: make links across unions BT workers moot four-day strike As TOCs strike again, keep the fight together! Diary of a rail worker: Base roster not fit for service Liverpool battle will reverberate Kino Eye: A film for Tube workers PCS ballot ends 7 November (John Moloney's column) TUC: despite the strikes, a flat Congress UCU wins strike mandates Putin declares martial law Post workers ramp up strikes Kick the Tories out: general election now! More online: https://workersliberty.org/publications/solidarity/solidarity-650-26-october-2022
Hosts Zoe Williams and Luke Cooper talk to Another Europe Is Possible old-hand, Michael Chessum, about his new book, This is only the beginning (Bloomsbury, 2022). They reflect on a decade or two of tumultuous change and what it all means for the future of radical politics. Navigating hope, vision and realism, they ask whether the left's best days are still to come amid the fragmentation that Corbynism and Brexit have left behind. It's a not-quite-nostalgia-free discussion of the way ahead. There is no extra time on this podcast. So, the whole episode can be heard on the podcast platforms.
We take a look at what the Aljazeera Labour Files leaks show us about the true nature of the Labour Party in the UK. Keir Starmer, Labour party, UK politics, Aljazeera, Labour Leak Files, Palestine, Israel, Jeremy Corbyn, Corbynistas, Corbynism, JC, sham democracy, bourgeois parliament.
Rejecting both New Labour's embrace of free markets and the statism of Corbynism, Blue Labour thinking sought to reconnect Labour with its working-class base, and to bring assets, power and dignity back to local communities. As workers' rights and futures - and the future of the places they live - take centre-stage in politics once more, Blue Labour's founder, political scientist Maurice Glasman, is joined by Shadow Levelling-Up Secretary Lisa Nandy MP to explore what left-conservatism has to offer the Labour Party, and the country, in the post-Brexit, post-Covid era.#RSAcommongoodBecome an RSA Events sponsor: https://utm.guru/udI9xDonate to The RSA: https://utm.guru/udNNBFollow RSA Events on Instagram: https://instagram.com/rsa_events/Follow the RSA on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RSAEventsLike RSA Events on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rsaeventsofficialListen to RSA Events podcasts: https://bit.ly/35EyQYU
Two years after resigning as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn catches up with Aaron Bastani to dissect Corbynism and its aftermath. On the table: the Islington North MP’s suspension from the party, the fallout from the anti-semitism crisis, his previous interactions with new Tory leader Liz Truss, and what he thinks of the royal family.
A weak Tory prime minister, a dire economic crisis, a government seemingly set on making the rich richer while an election looms - an open goal for Labour surely? What could possibly go wrong? But the mood among the party faithful as they meet in conference in Liverpool is anything but confident. Corbynism may be buried, but Keir Starmer lacks charisma, his team are not exactly household names, and can YOU name a single Labour policy? Phil and Roger talk to David Kogan, Labour historian and adviser, about whether, after 12 years in opposition, the party can revive and be fit enough to aim once again for government. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister and leader of the SNP, has announced that she wants to hold a second independence referendum on 19 October 2023. The constitutional debate was widely seen to be at a political deadlock, but now it enters a new phase.Anoosh Chakelian is joined by Chris Deerin, the New Statesman Scotland editor, to discuss the motivations behind this latest bid for independence and the means of securing it. They also touch on how Scots have said they would vote in recent polls, and whether plans to fight the next general election on this single issue could backfire, presenting an opportunity for Scottish Labour. Then in You Ask Us, Anoosh is joined by the New Statesman's political reporter Freddie Hayward to answer a listener's question on whether, by rejecting Corbynism, Keir Starmer has dropped the party's most appealing policies.If you have a question for You Ask Us, email podcasts@newstatesman.co.ukPodcast listeners can subscribe to the New Statesman for just £1 a week for 12 weeks using our special offer. Just visit newstatesman.com/podcastoffer. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Mike Isaacson: If your free speech requires an audience, might I suggest a therapist? [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome once again to The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by two historians today. With us is Evan Smith, lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, and David Renton, who taught at a number of universities in the UK and South Africa before leaving the academy to practice law, though he still finds time to research and write. Each of them has a book about today's topic: the free speech crisis. Dr. Smith's book, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, chronicles the No Platform policy of the National Union of Students in the UK from its foundation in 1974 to the present day. Dr. Renton's book, No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ‘No Platform' in History, Law and Politics, tells a much longer story of the interplay of radical leftist groups, organized fascists, and the state in shaping the UK's speech landscape and their significance in politics and law. Both are out from Routledge. I have absolutely no idea how we've managed to make the time zones work between the three of us, but welcome both of you to the podcast. Evan Smith: Thank you. David Renton: Thanks, Mike. Mike: So David, I want to start with you because your book goes all the way back to the 1640s to tell its history. So what made you start your story in the 1640s, and what did contention over speech look like before Fascism? David: Well, I wanted to start all that time back more than 300 years ago, because this is the moment when you first start to see something like the modern left and right emerge. You have in Britain, a party of order that supports the state and the king, but you also have a party which stands for more democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth. And essentially, from this point onwards in British, European, American politics, you see those same sites recreating themselves. And what happens again, and again, and again from that point onwards for hundreds of years until certainly say 50 years ago, you have essentially the people who are calling for free speech, whether that's the levellers in 1640s, Tom Paine 100 years later, J.S. Mill in the 19th Century. The left is always the people in favor of free speech. In terms of the right, if you want a kind of the first philosopher of conservatism, someone like Edmund Burke, he's not involved in the 1640s. He's a bit later, about a century and a half later. But you know, he supports conservatism. So what's his attitude towards free speech? It's really simple. He says, people who disagree with him should be jailed. There should be laws made to make it harder for them to have defenses. And more and more of them should be put in jail without even having a trial. That's the conservative position on free speech for centuries. And then what we get starting to happen in the late 20th century, something completely different which is a kind of overturning of what's been this huge, long history where it's always the left that's in favor of free speech, and it's always the right that's against it. Mike: Okay. Now, your contention is that before the appearance of Fascism, socialist radicals were solidly in favor of free speech for all. Fascism changed that, and Evan, maybe you can jump in here since this is where your book starts. What was new about Fascism that made socialists rethink their position on speech? Evan: So fascism was essentially anti-democratic and it was believed that nothing could be reasoned with because it was beyond the realms of reasonable, democratic politics. It was a violence, and the subjugation of its opponents was at the very core of fascism. And that the socialist left thought that fascism was a deeply violent movement that moved beyond the traditional realm of political discourse. So, there was no reasoning with fascists, you could only defeat them. Mike: So, let's start with David first, but I want to get both of you on this. What was the response to Fascism like before the end of World War II? David: Well, what you do is you get the left speaking out against fascism, hold demonstrations against fascism, and having to articulate a rationale of why they're against fascism. One of the things I quote in my book is a kind of famous exchange that takes place in 1937 when a poet named Nancy Cunard collected together the writers, intellectuals, and philosophers who she saw as the great inspiration to– the most important writers and so on that day. And she asked them what side they were taking on fascism. What's really interesting if you read their accounts, whether it's people like the poet W.H. Auden, novelist Gerald Bullitt, the philosopher C.E.M Joad, they all say they're against fascism, but they all put their arguments against fascism in terms of increased speech. So C.E.M Joad writes, "Fascism suppresses truth. That's why we're against fascism." Or the novelist Owen Jameson talks about fascism as a doctrine which exalts violence and uses incendiary bombs to fight ideas. So you get this thing within the left where people grasp that in order to fight off this violence and vicious enemy, they have to be opposed to it. And that means, for example, even to some extent making an exception to what's been for centuries this uniform left-wing notion: you have to protect everyone's free speech. Well people start grasping, we can't protect the fascist free speech, they're gonna use it to suppress us. So the Left makes an exception to what's been its absolute defense of free speech, but it makes this exception for the sake of protecting speech for everybody. Mike: Okay. Evan, do you want to add anything to the history of socialists and fascists before the end of World War Two? Evan: Yeah. So just kind of setting up a few things which will become important later on, and particularly because David and I are both historians of antifascism in Britain, is that there's several different ways in which antifascism emerges in the interwar period and several different tactics. One tactic is preventing fascists from marching from having a presence in public. So things like the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 is a very famous incident where the socialists and other protesters stopped the fascists from marching. There's also heckling and disrupting of fascist meetings. So this was big meetings like Olympia in June 1934, but then also smaller ones like individual fascist meetings around the country were disrupted by antifascists. There was also some that are on the left who also called for greater state intervention, usually in the form of labor councils not allowing fascists to congregate in public halls and stuff like that. So these kinds of arguments that fascism needs to be confronted, disrupted, obfuscated, starts to be developed in the 1930s. And it's where those kinds of free speech arguments emerge in the later period. Mike: Now immediately after the Second World War, fascist movements were shells of their former selves. They had almost no street presence and their organizations usually couldn't pull very many members. Still, the response to fascism when it did pop up was equally as vehement as when they organized into paramilitary formations with membership in the thousands. Something had qualitatively changed in the mind of the public regarding fascism. What did the immediate postwar response to public fascist speech look like, and what was the justification? Evan, let's start with you and then David you can add anything he misses. Evan: David probably could tell the story in a lot more detail. In the immediate post-war period in Britain, Oswald Mosley tries to revive the fascist movement under the title The Union Movement, but before that there's several kind of pro-fascist reading groups that emerge. And in response to this is kind of a disgust that fascists who had recently been imprisoned in Britain and their fellow travellers in the Nazis and the Italian Fascists and the continental fascists had been, you know, it ended in the Holocaust. There was this disgust that fascists could be organizing again in public in Britain, and that's where it mobilizes a new kind of generation of antifascists who are inspired by the 1930s to say "Never again, this won't happen on our streets." And the most important group and this is The 43 Group, which was a mixture of Jewish and communist radicals, which probably David can tell you a little bit about. David: I'd be happy to but I think before we get to 43 Group, it's kind of worth just pausing because the point Mike's left is kind of around the end of the Second World War. One thing which happens during the Second World War is of course Britain's at war with Germany. So what you start to get is Evan talked about how in the 1930s, you already have this argument like, “Should stopping fascism be something that's done by mass movements, or should it be done by the state?” In the Second World War the state has to confront that question, too, because it's got in fascism a homegrown enemy, and the British state looks at how all over Europe these states were toppled really quickly following fascist advance, and very often a pro-fascist powerful section of the ruling class had been the means by which an invading fascism then found some local ally that's enabled it to take over the state and hold the state. So the British state in 1940 actually takes a decision to intern Oswald Mosley and 800 or so of Britain's leading fascists who get jailed initially in prisons in London, then ultimately on the Isle of Man. Now, the reason why I'm going into this is because the first test of what the ordinary people in Britain think about the potential re-emergence of fascism comes even before the Second World War's ended. When Oswald Mosley is released from internment, he says he has conditioned phlebitis, he's very incapacitated, and is never going to be politically active again. And the British state buys this. And this creates–and an actual fact–the biggest single protest movement in Britain in the entire Second World War, where you get hundreds of people in certain factories going on strike against Oswald Mosley's release, and high hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding that he's reinterned, and you start to get people having demonstrations saying Mosley ought to go back to jail. That kind of sets the whole context of what's going to happen after the end of the Second World War. Mosley comes out and he's terrified of public opinion; he's terrified about being seen in public. He's convinced that if you hold meetings you're going to see that cycle going on again. So for several years, the fascists barely dare hold public meetings, and they certainly don't dare hold meetings with Mosley speaking. They test the water a bit, and they have some things work for them. Evan's mentioned the 43 Group so I'll just say a couple sentences about them. The 43 Group are important in terms of what becomes later. They're not a vast number of people, but they have an absolute focus on closing down any fascist meeting. We're gonna hear later in this discussion about the phrase "No Platform" and where it comes from, but you know, in the 1940s when fascist wanted to hold meetings, the platform means literally getting together a paste table and standing on it, or standing on a tiny little ladder just to take you a couple of foot above the rest of your audience. The 43 Group specialize in a tactic which is literally knocking over those platforms. And because British fascism remained so isolated and unpopular in the aftermath of the Second World War, you know, there are 43 Group activists and organizers who look at London and say, "All right, if there going to be 12 or 13 public meetings in London this weekend, we know where they're going to be. If we can knock over every single one of those other platforms, then literally there'll be no fascists to have any chance to find an audience or put a public message in Britain." That's kind of before you get the term 'No Platform' but it's almost in essence the purest form of No Platforming. It's people being able to say, "If we get organized as a movement outside the state relying on ordinary people's opposition to fascism, we can close down every single example of fascist expression in the city and in this country." Mike: Okay. So through the 50's and 60's, there were two things happening simultaneously. On the one hand, there was the largely left wing student-led free speech movement. And on the other hand, there was a new generation of fascists who were rebuilding the fascist movement in a variety of ways. So let's start with the free speech movement. David, you deal with this more in your book. What spurred the free speech movement to happen? David: Yeah. Look in the 50s and 60s, the free speech movement is coming from the left. That's going to change, we know it's going to change like 20 or 30 years later, but up to this point we're still essentially in the same dance of forces that I outlined right at the start. That the left's in favor of free speech, the right is against it. And the right's closing down unwanted ideas and opinion. In the 50s and 60s, and I'm just going to focus on Britain and America, very often this took the form of either radicals doing some sort of peace organising–and obviously that cut against the whole basic structure of the Cold War–or it took the form of people who maybe not even necessarily radicals at all, just trying to raise understanding and consciousness about people's bodies and about sex. So for the Right, their counterattack was to label movements like for example in the early 60s on the campus of Berkeley, and then there's originally a kind of anti-war movement that very quickly just in order to have the right to organize, becomes free speech movements. And the Right then counter attacks against it saying, "Essentially, this is just a bunch of beats or kind of proto-hippies. And what they want to do is I want to get everyone interested in drugs, and they want to get everyone interested in sexuality, and they want everyone interested in all these sorts of things." So their counterattack, Reagan terms this, The Filthy Speech Movement. In the late 60s obviously in states, we have the trial of the Chicago 7, and here you have the Oz trial, which is when a group of radicals here, again that their point of view is very similar, kind of hippie-ish, anti-war milieu. But one thing is about their magazines, which again it seems very hard to imagine today but this is true, that part of the way that their their magazine sells is through essentially soft pornographic images. And there's this weird combination of soft porn together with far left politics. They'll get put on trial in the Oz trial and that's very plainly an attempt– our equivalent of the Chicago 7 to kind of close down radical speech and to get into the public mind this idea that the radicals are in favor of free speech, they're in favor of extreme left-wing politics, and they're in favor of obscenity, and all these things are somehow kind of the same thing. Now, the point I just wanted to end on is that all these big set piece trials–another one to use beforehand is the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial, the Oz trial, the Chicago 7 trial, all of these essentially end with the right losing the battle of ideas, not so much the far right but center right. And people just saying, "We pitched ourselves on the side of being against free speech, and this isn't working. If we're going to reinvent right-wing thought, make some center right-wing ideas desirable and acceptable in this new generation of people, whatever they are, then we can't keep on being the ones who are taking away people's funds, closing down ideas. We've got to let these radicals talk themselves out, and we've got to reposition ourselves as being, maybe reluctantly, but the right takes the decision off of this. The right has to be in favor of free speech too. Mike: All right. And also at this time, the far right was rebuilding. In the UK, they shifted their focus from overt antisemitism and fascism to nebulously populist anti-Black racism. The problem for them, of course, was that practically no one was fooled by this shift because it was all the same people. So, what was going on with the far right leading into the 70s? Evan, do you want to start? Evan: Yeah. So after Mosley is defeated in Britain by the 43 Group and the kind of antifascism after the war, he moves shortly to Ireland and then comes back to the UK. Interestingly, he uses universities and particularly debates with the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, and other kind of university societies, to find a new audience because they can't organize on the streets. So he uses–throughout the '50s and the '60s–these kind of university platforms to try and build a fascist movement. At the same time, there are people who were kind of also around in the '30s and the '40s who are moving to build a new fascist movement. It doesn't really get going into '67 when the National Front is formed from several different groups that come together, and they're really pushed into the popular consciousness because of Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood Speech. Enoch Powell was a Tory politician. He had been the Minister for Health in the Conservative government, and then in '68 he launches this Rivers of Blood Speech which is very much anti-immigration. This legitimizes a lot of anti-immigrationist attitudes, and part of that is that the National Front rides his coattails appealing to people who are conservatives but disaffected with the mainstream conservatism and what they saw as not being hard enough in immigration, and that they try to build off the support of the disaffected right; so, people who were supporting Enoch Powell, supporting the Monday Club which is another hard right faction in the conservatives. And in that period up until about the mid 1970s, that's the National Front's raison d'etre; it's about attracting anti-immigrationists, conservatives to build up the movement as an electoral force rather than a street force which comes later in the '70s. Mike: There was also the Apartheid movement, or the pro-Apartheid movement, that they were building on at this time as well, right? Evan: Yeah. So at this time there's apartheid in South Africa. In 1965, the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia has a unilateral declaration of independence from Britain to maintain White minority rule. And a lot of these people who are around Powell, the Monday Club, the National Front, against decolonization more broadly, and also then support White minority rule in southern Africa. So a lot of these people end up vocalizing support for South Africa, vocalizing support for Rhodesia, and that kind of thing. And it's a mixture of anti-communism and opposition to multiracial democracy. That's another thing which they try to take on to campus in later years. Mike: So finally we get to No Platform. Now, Evan, you contend that No Platform was less than a new direction in antifascist politics than a formalization of tactics that had developed organically on the left. Can you talk a bit about that? Evan: Yeah, I'll give a quick, very brief, lead up to No Platform and to what's been happening in the late '60s. So Enoch Powell who we mentioned, he comes to try and speak on campus several times throughout the late 60s and early 70s. These are often disrupted by students that there's an argument that, "Why should Enoch Powell be allowed to come onto campus? We don't need people like that to be speaking." This happens in the late 60s. Then in '73, Hans Eysenck, who was a psychologist who was very vocal about the connection between race and IQ, he attempts to speak at the London School of Economics and his speech is disrupted by a small group of Maoists. And then also– Mike: And they physically disrupted that speech, right? That wasn't just– Evan: Yeah, they punched him and pushed him off stage and stuff like that. And a month later, Samuel Huntington who is well known now for being the Clash of Civilizations guy, he went to speak at Sussex University, and students occupied a lecture theater so he couldn't talk because they opposed his previous work with the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. This led to a moral panic beginning about the end of free speech on campus, that it's either kind of through sit-ins or through direct violence, but in the end students are intolerant. And that's happening in that five years before we get to No Platform. Mike: One thing I didn't get a good sense of from your books was what these socialist groups that were No Platforming fascists prior to the NUS policy stood for otherwise. Can we talk about the factionalization of the left in the UK in the 60s and 70s? David, maybe you can help us out on this one. David: Yeah, sure. The point to grasp, which is that the whole center of British discourse in the ‘70s was way to the left of where it is in Britain today, let alone anywhere else in the world. That from, say, ‘64 to ‘70, we had a Labour government, and around the Labour Party. We had really, really strong social movements. You know, we had something like roughly 50% of British workers were members of trade unions. We'll get on later to the Students Union, that again was a movement in which hundreds of thousands of people participated. Two particular groups that are going to be important for our discussion are the International Socialists and International Marxist Group, but maybe if I kind of go through the British left sort of by size starting from largest till we get down to them. So the largest wing we've got on the British left is Labour Party. This is a party with maybe about half a million members, but kind of 20 million affiliated members through trade unions, and it's gonna be in and out of government. Then you've got the Communist Party which is getting quite old as an organization and is obviously tied through Cold War politics to the Soviet Union. And then you get these smaller groups like the IS, the IMG. And they're Trotskyist groups so they're in the far left of labor politics as revolutionaries, but they have quite a significant social heft, much more so than the far left in Britain today because, for example, their members are involved in editing magazines like Oz. There is a moment where there's a relatively easy means for ideas to merge in the far left and then get transmitted to the Labour Party and potentially even to Labour ministers and into government. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the International Marxist Group and the International Socialists? Evan: Do you want me to do that or David? Mike: Yes, that'd be great. Evan: Okay. So as David mentioned, there's the Communist Party and then there's the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group. The International Marxist Group are kind of heavily based in the student movement. They're like the traditional student radicals. Tariq Ali is probably the most famous member at this stage. And they have this counter cultural attitude in a way. International Socialists are a different form of Trotskyism, and they're much more about, not so much interested in the student movement, but kind of like a rank and file trade unionism that kind of stuff, opposition to both capitalism and Soviet communism. And the IS, the IMG, and sections of the Communist Party all coalesce in the student movement, which forms the basis for pushing through a No Platform policy in the Nationalist Union of Students in 1974. Mike: Okay. So in 1974, the National Union of Students passes their No Platform policy. Now before we get into that, what is the National Union of Students? Because we don't have an analogue to that in the US. Evan, you want to tackle this one? Evan: Yeah. Basically, every university has a student union or a form of student union–some kind of student body–and the National Union of Students is the national organization, the peak body which organizes the student unions on all the various campuses around the country. Most of the student unions are affiliated to the NUS but some aren't. The NUS is a kind of democratic body and oversees student policy, but individual student unions can opt in or opt out of whether they follow NUS guidelines. And I think what needs to be understood is that the NUS was a massive organization back in those days. You know, hundreds of thousands of people via the student unions become members of the NUS. And as David was saying, the political discourse is much bigger in the '60s and '70s through bodies like this as well as things like the trade union movement. The student movement has engaged hundreds of thousands of students across Britain about these policies much more than we see anything post the 1970s. David: If I could just add a sentence or two there, that's all right. I mean, really to get a good sense of scale of this, if you look at, obviously you have the big set piece annual conventions or conferences of the National Union of Students. Actually, it doesn't even just have one a year, it has two a year. Of these two conferences, if you just think about when the delegates are being elected to them how much discussion is taking place in local universities. If you go back to some local university meetings, it's sometimes very common that you see votes of 300 students going one way, 400 another, 700 going one way in some of the larger universities. So there's an absolute ferment of discussion around these ideas. Which means that when there are set piece motions to pass, they have a democratic credibility. And they've had thousands of people debating and discussing them. It's not just like someone going on to one conference or getting something through narrowly on a show of hands. There's a feeling that these debates are the culmination of what's been a series of debates in each local university. And we've got over 100 of them in Britain. Mike: Okay, how much is the student union's presence felt on campus by the average student? Evan: That'd be massive. David: Should I do this? Because I'm a bit older than Evan and I went to university in the UK. And it's a system which is slowly being dismantled but when I was student, which is like 30 years ago, this was still largely in place. In almost every university, the exceptions are Oxford and Cambridge, but in every other university in Britain, almost all social activity takes place on a single site on campus. And that single site invariably is owned by the student's union. So your students union has a bar, has halls, it's where– They're the plumb venues on campus if you want to have speakers or if you want to have– Again, say when punk happened a couple of years later, loads and loads of the famous punk performances were taking place in the student union hall in different universities. One of the things we're going to get onto quite soon is the whole question of No Platform and what it meant to students. What I want to convey is that for loads of students having this discussion, when they're saying who should be allowed on campus or who shouldn't be allowed on campus, what's the limits? They feel they've got a say because there are a relatively small number of places where people will speak. Those places are controlled by the students' union. They're owned and run by the students' union. It's literally their buildings, their halls, they feel they've got a right to set who is allowed, who's actually chosen, and who also shouldn't be invited. Mike: Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's a lot more than I knew about student unions. Okay. Evan, this is the bread and butter of your book. How did No Platform come about in the NUS? Evan: So, what part of the fascist movement is doing, the far-right movement, is that it is starting to stray on campus. I talked about the major focus of the National Front is about appealing to disaffected Tories in this stage, but they are interfering in student affairs; they're disrupting student protests; they're trying to intimidate student politics. And in 1973, the National Front tried to set up students' association on several campuses in Britain And there's a concern about the fascist presence on campus. So those three left-wing groups– the IMG, the IS and the Communist Party–agree at the student union level that student unions should not allow fascists and racists to use student buildings, student services, clubs that are affiliated to the student union. They shouldn't be allowed to access these. And that's where they say about No Platform is that the student union should deny a platform to fascists and racists. And in 1974 when they put this policy to a vote and it's successful, they add, "We're going to fight them by any means necessary," because they've taken that inspiration from the antifascism of the '30s and '40s. Mike: Okay. Now opinion was clearly divided within the NUS. No Platform did not pass unanimously. So Evan, what was opinion like within the NUS regarding No Platform? Evan: Well, it passed, but there was opposition. There was opposition from the Federation of Conservative Students, but there was also opposition from other student unions who felt that No Platform was anti-free speech, so much so that in April 1974 it becomes policy, but in June 1974, they have to have another debate about whether this policy should go ahead. It wins again, but this is the same time as it happens on the same day that the police crackdown on anti-fascist demonstration in Red Lion Square in London. There's an argument that fascism is being propped up by the police and is a very real threat, so that we can't give any quarter to fascism. We need to build this No Platform policy because it is what's standing in between society and the violence of fascism. Mike: Okay. I do want to get into this issue of free speech because the US has a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but that doesn't exist in Britain. So what basis is there for free speech in the law? I think, David, you could probably answer this best because you're a lawyer. David: [laughs] Thank you. In short, none. The basic difference between the UK and the US– Legally, we're both common law countries. But the thing that really changes in the US is this is then overlaid with the Constitution, which takes priority. So once something has been in the Constitution, that's it. It's part of your fundamental law, and the limits to it are going to be narrow. Obviously, there's a process. It's one of the things I do try and talk about in my book that the Supreme Court has to discover, has to find free speech in the American Constitution. Because again, up until the Second World War, essentially America has this in the Constitution, but it's not particularly seen as something that's important or significant or a key part of the Constitution. The whole awe and mysticism of the First Amendment as a First Amendment is definitely something that's happened really in the last 40-50 years. Again, I don't want to go into this because it's not quite what you're getting at. But certainly, in the '20s for example, you get many of the big American decisions on free speech which shaped American law today. What everyone forgets is in every single one of them, the Supreme Court goes on to find some reason why free speech doesn't apply. So then it becomes this doctrine which is tremendously important to be ushered out and for lip service be given to, just vast chunks of people, communists, people who are in favor of encouraging abortion, contraception, whatever, they're obviously outside free speech, and you have to come up with some sophisticated justifications for that. In Britain, we don't have a constitution. We don't have laws with that primary significance. We do kind of have a weak free speech tradition, and that's kind of important for some things like there's a European Convention on Human Rights that's largely drafted by British lawyers and that tries to create in Articles 10 and 11 a general support on free speech. So they think there are things in English legal tradition, in our common law tradition, which encourage free speech. But if we've got it as a core principle of the UK law today, we've got it because of things like that like the European Convention on Human Rights. We haven't got it because at any point in the last 30, or 50, or 70 or 100 years, British judges or politicians thought this was a really essential principle of law. We're getting it these days but largely by importing it from the United States, and that means we're importing the worst ideological version of free speech rather than what free speech ought to be, which is actually protecting the rights of most people to speak. And if you've got some exceptions, some really worked out well thought exceptions for coherent and rational reasons. That's not what we've got now in Britain, and it's not what we've really ever had. Mike: Evan, you do a good job of documenting how No Platform was applied. The experience appears to be far from uniform. Let's talk about that a little bit. Evan: Yeah, so there's like a debate happening about who No Platform should be applied to because it states– The official policy is that No Platform for racists and fascists, and there's a debate of who is a racist enough to be denied a platform. There's agreement so a group like the National Front is definitely to be No Platform. Then there's a gray area about the Monday Club. The Monday Club is a hard right faction within the conservatives. But there's a transmission of people and ideas between National Front and the Monday Club. Then there's government ministers because the British immigration system is a racist system. The Home Office is seen as a racist institution. So there's a debate of whether government politicians should be allowed to have a platform because they uphold institutional racism. We see this at different stages is that a person from the Monday Club tries to speak at Oxford and is chased out of the building. Keith Joseph, who's one of the proto-Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, comes to speak at LSE in the 1977-78 and that there is a push to say that he can't be allowed to speak because of the Conservative Party's immigration policies and so forth like that. So throughout the '70s, there is a debate of the minimalist approach with a group like the International Socialists saying that no, outright fascists are the only ones to be No Platformed. Then IMG and other groups are saying, "Actually, what about the Monday Club? What about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children? What about Conservative Ministers? Are these people, aren't they also sharing that kind of discriminatory agenda that shouldn't be allowed a platform?" Mike: Okay, and there were some objections within the National Union of Students to some applications of No Platform, right? Evan: Yeah, well, not so much in the '70s. But once you get into the '80s, there's a big push for it. But probably the biggest issue in the '70s is that the application of No Platform to pro-Israel groups and Jewish student groups. In 1975, there's a UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, and that several student groups say, "Well, pro-Israel groups are Zionists. If Zionism is a form of racism and No Platform should be applied to racists or fascists, shouldn't they the pro-Israel groups then be denied a platform? Should pro-Israel groups be disaffiliated from student unions, etc.?" Several student unions do this at the local level, but there's a backlash from the NUS at the national level so much so the NUS actually suspends No Platform for about six months. It is reintroduced with an explicit piece of it saying that if No Platform is reinstituted, it can't be applied to Zionists groups, to pro-Israel groups, to Jewish societies. But a reason that they can't, the NUS can't withhold No Platform as a policy in the late 1970s is because they've been playing catch up because by this time, the Anti-Nazi League, Rock Against Racism are major mass movements of people because the National Front is seen as a major problem, and the NUS has to have some kind of anti-Fascist, anti-racist response. They can't sit on their hands because they're going dragged along by the Anti-Nazi League. Mike: One thing that you talked about in your book, David, is that simultaneous to No Platform was this movement for hate speech prohibitions. Talk about how these movements differed. David: Well, I think the best way to convey it is if we go back to the motion that was actually passed at the National Union of Students spring conference in May '74. If you don't mind, I'll just begin by reading it out. Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance, financial or otherwise, to openly racist or fascist organizations or societies (e.g., Monday Club, National Front, Action Party, Union Movement, National Democratic Party) and to deny them a platform. What I want to try and convey is that when you think about how you got this coalition within the National Union of Students in support of that motion, there were like two or three different ideas being signaled in that one motion. And if you then apply them, particularly what's happening as we're talking 50 years later now, if you apply them through the subsequent 50 years of activism, they do point in quite different directions. To just start up, “conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance” dadadada. What's really been good at here, I'm sure some of the people who passed No Platform promotion just had this idea, right? What we are, we're a movement of students' unions. We're a movement of buildings which are run by students and are for students. People have said to themselves, all this motion is really committing us to do is to say that we won't give any assistance to racist or fascist organizations. So what that means in practice is in our buildings, in our halls, we won't invite them in. Now, it may be that, say, the university will invite a conservative minister or the university will allow some far-right person to have a platform in election time. But the key idea, one key idea that's going on with this, just those things won't happen in our students' unions. They're our buildings; they're our halls. To use a term that hasn't really been coined yet, but this is in people's heads, is the idea of a safe space. It's just, student unions are our safe space. We don't need to worry about who exactly these terrible people are. Whoever and whatever they are, we don't want them on our patch. That's idea number one. Idea number two is that this is really about stopping fascists. It's not about any other form of discrimination. I'll come on to idea three in a moment. With idea three, this is about fascist organizations. You can see in a sense the motion is talking to people, people coming on and saying like I might not even be particularly left wing, but I don't like fascists. Evan talked about say for example, Zionist organizations. Could a Zionist organization, which is militantly antifascist, could they vote this motion? Yes. And how they'd sell it to themselves is this is only about fascism. So you can see this in the phrase, this is about refusing systems to “openly racist or fascist organizations,” and then look at the organizations which are listed: the National Front, well yeah, they're fascists; the Union Movement, yeah, they're fascists; the National Democratic Party, they're another little fascist splinter group.And then the only one there that isn't necessarily exactly fascist is the Monday Club who are a bunch of Tories who've been in the press constantly in the last two years when this motion is written for their alliance with National Front holding demonstrations and meetings together. So some people, this is just about protecting their space. Some people, this is about excluding fascists and no one else. But then look again at the motion, you'll see another word in there. “Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance to openly racist or fascist organizations.” So right from the start, there's a debate, what does this word racist mean in the motion? Now, one way you could read the motion is like this. From today, we can all see that groups like the National Front are fascists. Their leaders can spend most of the rest of the decade appearing constantly in literature produced by anti-fascist groups, identifying them as fascist, naming them as fascist, then we have to have a mass movement against fascism and nazism. But the point is in 1974, that hadn't happened yet. In most people's heads, groups like the National Front was still, the best way to describe them that no one could disagree to at least say they were openly racist. That was how they described themselves. So you could ban the National Front without needing to have a theological discussion about whether they fitted exactly within your definition of fascism. But the point I really want to convey is that the motion succeeds because it blurs the difference between saying anything can be banned because it's fascist specifically or anything can be banned because it's racist or fascist. This isn't immediately apparent in 1974, but what becomes pretty apparent over time is for example as Evan's documented already, even before 1974, there have been non-fascists, there have been conservatives going around student unions speaking in pretty racist terms. All right, so can they be banned? If the answer is this goes to racists or fascists, then definitely they can be banned. But now wait a second. Is there anyone else in British politics who's racist? Well, at this point, both main political parties are standing for election on platforms of excluding people from Britain effectively on the basis of the color of their skin. All right, so you can ban all the main political parties in Britain. All right, well, how about the newspapers? Well, every single newspaper in Britain, even the pro-Labour ones, is running front page articles supporting the British government. All right, so you could ban all newspapers in Britain. Well, how about the television channel? Well, we've only got three, but the best-selling comedies on all of them are comedies which make fun of people because they're foreigners and because they're Black. You can list them all. There's dozens of these horrible programs, which for most people in Britain now are unwatchable. But they're all of national culture in Britain in the early '70s. Alright, so you say, all right, so students we could ban every television channel in Britain, every newspaper in Britain, and every political party in Britain, except maybe one or two on the far left. It's like, wait a second people, I've only been doing racism. Well, let's take seriously the notion, if we're against all forms of racism, how can we be against racism without also being against sexism? Without being against homophobia? So the thing about No Platform is there's really only two ways you can read it in the end, and certainly once you apply it outside the 1970s today. Number one, you can say this is a relatively tightly drawn motion, which is trying to pin the blame on fascists as something which is growing tremendously fast in early 1970s and trying to keep them out. Maybe it'd be good to keep other people out too, but it's not trying to keep everyone out. Or you've got, what we're confronting today which is essentially this is an attempt to prevent students from suffering the misery, the hatred, the fury of hate speech. This is an attempt to keep all hate speech off campus, but with no definition or limit on hate speech. Acceptance of hate speech 50 years later might be much more widely understood than it is in early '70s. So you've got warring in this one motion two completely different notions of who it's right politically to refuse platforms to. That's going to get tested out in real life, but it's not been resolved by the 1974 motion, which in a sense looks both ways. Either the people want to keep the ban narrow or the people want to keep it broad, either of them can look at that motion and say yeah, this is the motion which gives the basis to what we're trying to do. Mike: Okay. I do want to get back to the notion of the maximalist versus the precisionist view of No Platform. But first before that, I want to talk about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism to just get more of a broader context than just the students in Britain in terms of antifascism. David, do you want to talk about that? David: Okay. Well, I guess because another of my books is about Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, so I'll try and do this really short. I'll make two points. First is that these movements which currently ended in the 1970s are really very large. They're probably one of the two largest street movements in post-war British history. The only other one that's candidate for that is the anti-war movement, whether that's in the '80s or the early 2000s. But they're on that same scale as amongst the largest mass movements in British history. In terms of Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League, the total number of people involved in them is massive; it's around half a million to a million people. They're single most famous events, two huge three carnivals in London in 1977, which each have hundreds of thousands of people attending them and bring together the most exciting bands. They are the likes of The Clash, etc, etc. It's a movement which involves people graffitiing against Nazis, painting out far-right graffiti. It's a movement which is expressed in streets in terms of set piece confrontations, clashes with far-right, Lewisham in ‘76, Southall in ‘79. These are just huge movements which involve a whole generation of people very much associated with the emergence of punk music and when for a period in time in Britain are against that kind of visceral street racism, which National Front represents. I should say that they have slightly different attitudes, each of them towards the issue of free speech, but there's a massive interchange of personnel. They're very large. The same organizations involved in each, and they include an older version of the same activist who you've seen in student union politics in '74 as were they you could say they graduate into involvement in the mass movements like Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Now, I want to say specifically about the Anti-Nazi League and free speech. The Anti-Nazi League takes from student politics this idea of No Platform and tries to base a whole mass movement around it. The idea is very simply, the National Front should not be allowed a platform to speak, to organize, to win converts anywhere. Probably with the Anti-Nazi League, the most important expressions of this is two things. Firstly, when the National Front tries to hold election meetings, which they do particularly in the run up to '79 election, and those are picketed, people demonstrated outside of them A lot of them are the weekend in schools. One at Southall is in a town hall. These just lead to repeated clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front. The other thing which the Anti-Nazi League takes seriously is trying to organize workers into closing off opportunities for the National Front spread their propaganda. For example, their attempts to get postal workers to refuse to deliver election materials to the National Front. Or again, there's something which it's only possible to imagine in the '70s; you couldn't imagine it today. The National Front is entitled to election broadcasts because it's standing parliament. Then the technical workers at the main TV stations go on strike and refuse to let these broadcasts go out. So in all these ways, there's this idea around the Anti-Nazi League of No Platform. But No Platform is No Platform for fascists. It's the National Front should not get a chance to spread its election message. It's not yet that kind of broader notion of, in essence, anything which is hate speech is unacceptable. In a sense, it can't be. Because when you're talking about students' unions and their original No Platform motion and so forth, at the core of it is they're trying to control their own campuses. There's a notion of students' power. The Anti-Nazi League, it may be huge mass movement and may have hundreds of thousands people involved in it, but no one in Anti-Nazi League thinks that this organization represents such a large majority that they could literally control the content of every single TV station, the content of every single newspaper. You can try and drive the National Front out, but if people in that movement had said right, we actually want to literally carve out every expression of racism and every expression of sexism from society, that would have been a yet bigger task by another enormous degrees of scale. Mike: Okay, I do want to talk a little bit more about Rock Against Racism just particularly how it was founded, what led to its founding. I think it gives a good sense of where Britain was at, politically. David: Right. Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976. The two main events which are going on in the heads of the organizers when they launched it, number one, David Bowie's weird fascist turn, his interview with Playboy magazine in which he talks about Hitler being the first rock and roll superstar, the moment where he was photographed returning from tours in America and comes to Victoria Station and appears to give a Nazi salute. The reason why with Bowie it matters is because he's a hero. Bowie seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of masculinity, new kind of attitude with sexuality. If someone like that is so damaged that he's going around saying Hitler is the greatest, that's really terrifying to Bowie fans and for a wider set of people. The other person who leads directly to the launch of Rock Against Racism is Eric Clapton. He interrupts a gig in Birmingham in summer '76 to just start giving this big drunken rant about how some foreigner pinched his missus' bum and how Enoch Powell is the greatest ever. The reason why people find Eric Clapton so contemptible and why this leads to such a mass movement is weirdly it's the opposite of Bowie that no one amongst the young cool kids regards Clapton as a hero. But being this number one star and he's clearly spent his career stealing off Black music and now he's going to support that horror of Enoch Powell as well, it just all seems so absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that people launch an open letter to the press and that gets thousands of people involved. But since you've asked me about Rock Against Racism, I do want to say Rock Against Racism does have a weirdly and certainly different attitude towards free speech to the Anti-Nazi League. And this isn't necessarily something that was apparent at the time. It's only kind of apparent now when you look back at it. But one of the really interesting things about Rock Against Racism is that because it was a movement of young people who were trying to reclaim music and make cultural form that could overturn British politics and change the world, is that they didn't turn around and say, "We just want to cut off all the racists and treat them as bad and shoot them out into space," kind of as what the Anti-Nazi League's trying to do to fascists. Rock Against Racism grasped that if you're going to try and change this cultural milieu which is music, you actually had to have a bit of a discussion and debate and an argument with the racists, but they tried to have it on their own terms. So concretely, what people would do is Rock Against Racism courted one particular band called Sham 69, who were one of the most popular young skinhead bands, but also had a bunch of neo-nazis amongst their roadies and things like that. They actually put on gigs Sham 69, put them on student union halls, surrounded them with Black acts. Knew that these people were going to bring skinheads into the things, had them performing under Rock Against Racism banner, and almost forced the band to get into the state of practical warfare with their own fans to try and say to them, "We don't want you to be nazis anymore. We want you to stop this." That dynamic, it was incredibly brave, was incredibly bold. It was really destructive for some of the individuals involved like Jimmy Pursey, the lead singer of Sham 69. Effectively saying to them, "Right, we want you to put on a gig every week where you're going to get bottled by your own fans, and you're going to end up like punching them, just to get them to stop being racist." But we can't see any other way of shifting this milieu of young people who we see as our potential allies. There were lots of sort of local things like that with Rock Against Racism. It wasn't about creating a safe space in which bad ideas couldn't come in; it was about going onto the enemy's ideological trend and going, "Right, on this trend, we can have an argument. We can win this argument." So it is really quite an interesting cultural attempt to change the politics of the street. Mike: Okay, now you two have very different ideas of what No Platform is in its essence. Evan, you believe that No Platform was shifting in scope from its inception and it is properly directed at any institutional platform afforded to vociferous bigots. While David you believe that No Platform is only properly applied against fascists, and going beyond that is a dangerous form of mission creep. Now, I absolutely hate debates. [laughter] I think the format does more to close off discussion than to draw out information on the topic at hand. So, what I don't want to happen is have you two arguing with each other about your positions on No Platform (and maybe me, because I have yet a third position). David: Okay Mike, honestly, we've known each other for years. We've always been– Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah. David: –your listeners will pick up, there's loads we agree on, too. So I'm sure we can deal without that rubbish debate. [Evan laughs] Mike: All right. So what I'd like to do is ground this discussion as much as possible in history rather than abstract moral principles. So in that interest, can each of you talk a bit about the individuals and groups that have taken the position on No Platform that you have, and how they've defended their positions? David let's start with you. What groups were there insisting that No Platform was necessary but its necessity was limited to overt fascists? David: Well, I think in practice, that was the approach of Rock Against Racism. They took a very different attitude towards people who were tough ideological fascists, to the people who were around them who were definitely racist, but who were capable of being argued out of that. I mean, I've given the example of the policy of trying to have a debate with Sham 69 or use them as a mechanism to change their audience. What I want to convey is in every Rock Against Racism group around the country, they were often attempts to something very similar. People talk about Birmingham and Leeds, whether it be sort of local Rock Against Racism groups, they might put on– might get a big band from some other city once a month, but three weeks out of four, all they're doing is they're putting on a local some kind of music night, and they might get a hundred people there. But they'd go out of the way to invite people who they saw as wavering supporters of The National Front. But the point is this wasn't like– We all know how bad faith debates work. It's something like it's two big ego speakers who disagree with each other, giving them half an hour each to debate and know their audience is already persuaded that one of them's an asshole, one of them's great. This isn't what they were trying to do. They were trying to win over one by one wavering racists by putting them in an environment where they were surrounded by anti-racists. So it was about trying to create a climate where you could shift some people who had hateful ideas in their head, but were also capable of being pulled away from them. They didn't do set piece debates with fascists because they knew that the set piece debates with fascists, the fascists weren't going to listen to what they were going to say anyway. But what they did do is they did try to shift people in their local area to try and create a different atmosphere in their local area. And they had that attitude towards individual wavering racists, but they never had that attitude towards the fascist leaders. The fascist leaders as far as they're concerned, very, very simple, we got to close up the platform to them. We got to deprive them of a chance. Another example, Rock Against Racism, how it kind of made those sorts of distinctions. I always think with Rock Against Racism you know, they had a go at Clapton. They weren't at all surprised when he refused to apologize. But with Bowie, there was always a sense, "We want to create space for Bowie. We want to get Bowie back because Bowie's winnable." That's one of the things about that movement, is that the absolute uncrossable line was fascism. But if people could be pulled back away from that and away from the ideas associated with that, then they wanted to create the space to make that happen. Mike: Okay, and Evan, what groups took the Maximalist approach to No Platform and what was their reasoning? Evan: Yeah. So I think the discussion happens once the National Front goes away as the kind of the major threat. So the 1979 election, the National Front does dismally, and we can partially attribute that to the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, kind of this popular antifascist movement. But there's also that Margaret Thatcher comes to power, and there's an argument that's made by historians is that she has pulled away the racist vote away from the National Front back to the conservatives. It's really kind of a realignment of leftwing politics under Thatcher because it's a much more confrontational conservative government, but there's also kind of these other issues which are kind of the new social movements and what we would now term as identity politics, they're forming in the sixties and seventies and are really big issues in the 1980s. So kind of like feminism, gay rights, andthat, there's an argument among some of the students that if we have a No Platform for racism and fascism, why don't we have a No Platform for sexism? Why don't we have a No Platform for homophobia? And there are certain student unions who try to do this. So LSE in 1981, they endorse a No Platform for sexist as part of a wider fight against sexism, sexual harassment, sexual violence on campus is that misogynist speakers shouldn't be allowed to have a presence on campus. Several student unions kind of have this also for against homophobia, and as a part of this really divisive issue in the mid 1980s, the conservative government is quite homophobic. Section 28 clause 28 is coming in in the late eighties. It's a whole kind of homophobia of AIDS. There's instances where students object to local Tory politicians who were kind of outwardly, explicitly homophobic, that they should be not allowed to speak on stage. Then also bubbling along in the background is kind of the supporters of apartheid, so South African diplomats or kind of other people who support the South African regime including Conservative politicians, is that several times throughout the 1980s, they are invited to speak on campus, and there's kind of a massive backlash against this. Sometimes the No Platform policy is invoked. Sometimes it's just simple disruption or kind of pickets or vigils against them. But once fascism is kind of not the main issue, and all these different kind of politics is going on in the eighties, is that there's argument that No Platform for fascism and racism was important, but fascism and racism is only one form of hate speech; it's only one form of discrimination; it's only one form of kind of bodily violence; and we should take them all into consideration. Mike: Okay. Now there's been a fair bit of backlash against No Platform in kind of any of its forms from various sectors, so let's talk a bit about that. Let's start with the fascist themselves. So their response kind of changed somewhat over time in response to No Platform. David, you talk about this. David: Yeah. In the early ‘70s in Britain or I suppose in the late ‘70s too, what's extraordinary is how little use fascist make out of saying, "We are being attacked, free speech applies. We've got to have the right to be heard." I made the point earlier that Britain doesn't have a strong legal culture of free speech. We do have some culture of free speech. And again, it's not that the fascists never use these terms at all, they use them, but they use them very half-heartedly. Their dominant approach is to say, "We are being attacked by the left. The left don't understand we have better fighters than them. If they attack us on the streets, we'll fight back. In the end, we'll be the ones who win in a kind of battle of machismo, street fighting power." Now A, that doesn't happen because actually they lose some set piece confrontations, mostly at Lewisham in 1977. But it's interesting that they don't do the kind of thing which you'd expect the far right to do today, which is to say, like the British far right does today, they constantly say, "We're under attack. Free speech demands that we be heard. We're the only people who take free speech seriously." There's a continuous process in the British far right these days of endlessly going on social media every time anyone even disagrees with them a little bit, they immediately have their faces taped up and present themselves as the victim of this terrible conspiracy when in the mid-'70s when there really were people trying to put the far right out of business, that isn't what the far right did. I think, in essence, a whole bunch of things have to change. You have to get kind of a hardening of the free speech discourse in the United States; you have to have things like the attack on political correctness; the move by the American center-right from being kind of equivocal on free speech to being extremely pro-free speech; and you need to get the importation into Britain of essentially the same kind of free speech discourse as you have in States. Once we get all of that, the British far right eventually twigs that it's a far more effective way of presenting themselves and winning supporters by posing as the world's biggest defenders of free speech. But in the ‘70s, they haven't learned that lesson yet, and their response is much more leaden and ineffective. In essence, they say, "No Platform's terrible because it's bullying us." But what they never have the gumption to say is, "Actually, we are the far right. We are a bunch of people putting bold and dangerous and exciting ideas, and if we are silenced, then all bold and dangerous and difficult ideas will be silenced too." That's something which a different generation of writers will get to and will give them all sorts of successes. But in the ‘70s, they haven't found it yet. Mike: Okay. Now fascists also had some uneasy allies as far as No Platform is concerned among Tories and libertarians. So let's talk about the Tories first, what was their opposition to No Platform about? Evan, you talk about this quite a bit in your book. Evan: Yeah. So the conservative opposition to No Platform is essentially saying that it's a stock standard thing that the left call everyone fascist. So they apply it to broadly and is that in the ‘80s, there's a bunch of conservative politicians to try to go onto campus, try to speak, and there's massive protests. They say that, "Look, this is part of an intolerant left, that they can't see the distinction between fascism and a Conservative MP. They don't want to allow anyone to have free speech beyond that kind of small narrow left wing bubble." In 1986, there is an attempt, after a kind of a wave of protest in '85, '86, there is an attempt by the government to implement some kind of protection for free speech on campus. This becomes part of the Education Act of 1986, that the university has certain obligations to ensure, where practical, free speech applies and no speech is denied. But then it's got all kind of it can't violate the Racial Discrimination Act, the Public Order Act, all those kind of things. Also, quite crucially for today, that 1986 act didn't explicitly apply to student unions. So student unions argued for the last 30 years that they are exempt from any legislation and that they were legally allowed to pursue their No Platform policy.
On this edition of Parallax Views, economist Michael Hudson joins the show to discuss his seminal 1972 book Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire, now available in an updated and expanded third edition. We begin the conversation by discussing how the futurist Herman Khan of the hawkish, conservative Hudson Institute surprisingly showed an interest in the book (which Hudson thought would be more well-received by the political Left). Khan commented on the book by saying: You've shown how the United States has run rings around Britain and every other empire-building nation in history. We've pulled off the greatest rip-off ever achieved. Michael goes on to explain how the book was of interest not only to Khan, but also people within the CIA and State Department. He then explains the thesis of the book which deals with the major shift in how the international economic system worked after the U.S. got off the gold standard. Hudson speaks to U.S. military spending and investment in foreign countries vis-a-vis organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank became a strategy for American hegemonic dominance through the dollar. In the course of our conversation, we also discuss such issues as immigration, the World Economic Forum and Davos, an alternative system arising with China and Russia that could challenge the U.S. hegemon, the multipolar world, sanctions, Germany, and much, much more. Then, in our second segment, James A. Smith joins us to discuss the article he co-wrote with David Slavick for the left-wing magazine Jacobin entitled "The Labour Left's Fatal Contradictions Are Still Unresolved". James offers a critique of the Left's relationship with populism wherein populism is alternately cheered on and reviled. More controversy, James takes issue with the Left's embrace of lockdown measures during the pandemic. We discuss this as well as issues like de-platforming, big tech, the fall of Jeremy Corbyn and Corbynism, Left vs. Right Populism, and much, much more.
If you thought the Culture War was a recent invention, you'd be wrong. Investigative mischief-maker JON RONSON joins us to explain how its roots run a lot deeper than you might think – as he learned from making his new podcast series Things Fell Apart. Plus, are progressive politics finally turning the corner? The Guardian's RAFAEL BEHR on the difference between where Starmer is and where he needs to be. And what will the NEXT Culture War be about? • “If you fill your head with ideology then there is no room for curiosity.” – JON RONSON • “The Government only has two approaches: total lockdown or Plague Party.” – NAOMI SMITH • “There is no Blairism left in the Labour Party. But there is anti-Corbynism.” – RAF BEHR • “Every generation wants to solve the problems of the previous one.” – JON RONSON • “Brexit was sold on controlling the borders – but you can't do that if you only control one side of the border.” – RAF BEHR Listen to Jon Ronson's Things Fell Apart: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m0011cpr Back us at www.patreon.com/ohgodwhatnow Presented by Ros Taylor with Naomi Smith. Assistant producers: Jacob Archbold and Jelena Sofronijevic. Audio production by Alex Rees. Theme music by Cornershop. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Solidarity 614, 17 November 2021, part 2 of 4, pages 7 to 11. Articles may include: Minneapolis votes down police changes 26 November mobilisation in India Academic freedom: we must fight for it CWU calls for demonstration for New Deal for Workers Corbynism's fundamental failure was on campaigning Corbynism's flaw was unity with the right, not Stalinism The hinge of Corbynism's downfall More online: https://workersliberty.org/publications/solidarity/solidarity-614-17-november-2021
Corbynism: What Went Wrong? Part 1 of 5, chapters 1-7, pages 1-14. In summer 2015 things suddenly “went right” for the left in an unexpected way, with Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader. By December 2019, they had evidently “gone wrong” again. That can't be explained just by ill-will from the media and the Labour right: those were always there. This booklet offers an attempt to analyse the setbacks, learn lessons, and sketch a way to renewed efforts. More online, or buy paper copies: https://workersliberty.org/corbynism Chapters: 1. Introduction 2. The real lost promise 3. How Corbyn won in 2015 4. How Corbyn held on in 2015-16 5. The June 2017 general election 6. The Leader's Office 7. The unions in the Corbyn period Listen to the other parts: https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbyn-1-intro https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-2-ch8-p15 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-3-ch13-p25 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-4-ch16-p34 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-5-ch20-p45
Corbynism: What Went Wrong? Part 5 of 5, chapters 20-23, pages 45-60. In summer 2015 things suddenly “went right” for the left in an unexpected way, with Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader. By December 2019, they had evidently “gone wrong” again. That can't be explained just by ill-will from the media and the Labour right: those were always there. This booklet offers an attempt to analyse the setbacks, learn lessons, and sketch a way to renewed efforts. More online, or buy paper copies: https://workersliberty.org/corbynism Chapters: 20. Corbyning Alone? 21. Protesting too much? 22. Manifestos, policies, and “real change” 23. Globalisation Listen to the other parts: https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbyn-1-intro https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-2-ch8-p15 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-3-ch13-p25 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-4-ch16-p34 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-5-ch20-p45
Corbynism: What Went Wrong? Part 4 of 5, chapters 16-19, pages 34-44. In summer 2015 things suddenly “went right” for the left in an unexpected way, with Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader. By December 2019, they had evidently “gone wrong” again. That can't be explained just by ill-will from the media and the Labour right: those were always there. This booklet offers an attempt to analyse the setbacks, learn lessons, and sketch a way to renewed efforts. More online, or buy paper copies: https://workersliberty.org/corbynism Chapters: 16. Brexit 17. Antisemitism 18. April 2016 and Ken Livingstone 19. Curbs on debate, curbs on development Listen to the other parts: https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbyn-1-intro https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-2-ch8-p15 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-3-ch13-p25 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-4-ch16-p34 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-5-ch20-p45
Corbynism: What Went Wrong? Part 2 of 5, chapters 8-12, pages 15-24. In summer 2015 things suddenly “went right” for the left in an unexpected way, with Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader. By December 2019, they had evidently “gone wrong” again. That can't be explained just by ill-will from the media and the Labour right: those were always there. This booklet offers an attempt to analyse the setbacks, learn lessons, and sketch a way to renewed efforts. More online, or buy paper copies: https://workersliberty.org/corbynism Chapters: 8. Corbynism on the streets. Or not? 9. Labour and young people in the Corbyn period 10. The Corbyn leadership, Momentum, youth, and activism 11. Corbyn and socialism 12. “False brothers” Listen to the other parts: https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbyn-1-intro https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-2-ch8-p15 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-3-ch13-p25 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-4-ch16-p34 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-5-ch20-p45
Corbynism: What Went Wrong? Part 3 of 5, chapters 13-15, pages 15-34. In summer 2015 things suddenly “went right” for the left in an unexpected way, with Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader. By December 2019, they had evidently “gone wrong” again. That can't be explained just by ill-will from the media and the Labour right: those were always there. This booklet offers an attempt to analyse the setbacks, learn lessons, and sketch a way to renewed efforts. More online, or buy paper copies: https://workersliberty.org/corbynism Chapters: 13. Momentum 14. The Momentum coup of January 2017 15. The pre-2015 Labour left Listen to the other parts: https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbyn-1-intro https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-2-ch8-p15 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-3-ch13-p25 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-4-ch16-p34 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/corbynism-5-ch20-p45
Solidarity 611, 27 October 2021, part 2 of 3, pages 7 to 11. For article list, and more online, see: https://workersliberty.org/publications/solidarity/solidarity-611-27-october-2021
This is PART 1 of a two-part episode. PART 2, 'Too Laura to Laura', continues the discussion with Laura Smith, and is available exclusively to subscribers at Patreon.com/ThePopularPod. The rise and fall of Corbynism is marked by the 2017 victories and 2019 defeats of Laura Pidcock and Laura Smith as radical left Members of Parliament for North West Durham and Crewe and Nantwich. In this unique discussion, the Lauras talk Laura to Laura about the subsequent direction of the Labour Party, the problem with the Labour Right, the Keir Starmer they knew, building left power outside parliament, and what the hell went on in there.
This is one of our most nakedly political conversations - because politics is the language of power and those who rule over us do so with at least the vestige of a democratic mandate. To understand how to affect change, we need to understand how to shift the levers of power on a worldwide scale. But change always begins at home, so in this week's episode, we're talking about political activism in the UK and where it might go in the near term. Our guest is someone really well placed to discuss this: Jeremy Gilbert is Professor of Cultural and Political Theory at the University of East London. His most recent publications include Twenty-First-Century Socialism (Polity 2020) the translation of Maurizio Lazzarato's Experimental Politics and the book Common Ground: Democracy and Collectivity in an Age of Individualism. His next book, Hegemony Now : How Big Tech and Wall Street Won the World , co-authored with Alex Williams, will be published in 2022. He writes regularly for the British press (including the Guardian, the New Statesman, open Democracy and Red Pepper) and for think tanks such as IPPR and Compass, is routinely engaged in debates and discussion on Labour Party policy and strategy, and has appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party.He has been involved with both mainstream party politics and extra-parliamentary activism throughout his adult life, having been an active participant in the social forum movement of the early 2000s, a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour), and being a former elected member management committee of Compass, a pluralist left-wing think tank and lobby group.Jeremy is an an advisor to and participant in a range of ongoing projects such as The World Transformed and the New Economy Organisers Network. He has also participated in many cultural projects, particularly connected with music and sonic culture, and is a founder member of Lucky Cloud Sound System and Beauty and the Beat, two successful and respected collectives that have been organising regular dance parties in East London since the early 2000s, at many of which he still regularly DJs.Jeremy also maintains a lifelong commitment to public education outside the academy, currently hosting Culture, Power, Politics, a regular series of free open seminars and lectures.Links: Jeremy's website: https://www.jeremygilbert.orgJeremy's blog: https://jeremygilbertwriting.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/2020-analysis/Jeremy's papers on Open Democracy: https://jeremygilbertwriting.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/2020-analysis/Guardian review of Jeremy's book 'Twenty First Century Socialism': https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/feb/06/twenty-first-century-socialism-by-jeremy-gilbert-reviewJeremy at Novara Media: https://novaramedia.com/tag/jeremy-gilbert/Compass: https://www.compassonline.org.uk/The World Transformed: https://www.theworldtransformed.org/Momentum: https://www.theworldtransformed.org/
So, how did that Labour conference go? Did Keir Starmer snatch victory from the jaws of fratricidal defeat with that closing speech? Special guest Clive Lewis MP joins us to work out whether Labour is back on the road to recovery – and what was missing from the Conference. Plus, the German elections a row of light for the centre-left? And is it really so terrible if politicians call other politicians “scum”?“If you were casting hecklers to look mad and unsympathetic, you couldn't have done a better job.” – Alex Andreou“Starmer won on a platform of sensible Corbynism. Now he's changed into a New Labour tribute band.” – Clive Lewis“Labour's choice is they can be the biggest coalition party under PR – or be in opposition forever under FPTP.” - Naomi Smith“The Conservative Party is the most successful party in the world – which by default makes Labour the most unsuccessful.” – Clive Lewiswww.patreon.com/ohgodwhatnowPresented by Dorian Lynskey with Naomi Smith and Alex Andreou. Produced by Andrew Harrison. Assistant producers: Jacob Archbold and Jelena Sofronijevic. Audio production by Alex Rees. OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Solidarity 606, 15 September 2021, part 2 of 3, pages 7 to 11. Articles include: Why the Greens are drifting right Morrisons cuts sick pay Facebook victimises workers' rep The Palestinians in the world today DSA tries to adjust to the Biden era A balance sheet of "Corbynism" More online: https://workersliberty.org/publications/solidarity/solidarity-606-15-september-2021
Solidarity 605, 8 September 2021, part 2 of 3, pages 7 to 11. Articles may include: Beyond refugees: the left and Afghanistan After XR actions, what next? Workers' Liberty summer camp report How the heroines and heroes of Grunwick lost The Palestinians in the world today Malaria kills more than Covid in Africa The failings of Corbynism were more than the failings of Corbyn More online: https://workersliberty.org/publications/solidarity/solidarity-605-8-september-2021
Peter Kyle has led an extraordinary life. His misdiagnosed dyslexia meant he had to sit his A Levels again at 25, going back to his old school. He'd been inspired to get his A levels in order to go to university by Anita Roddick, who he worked for at The Body Shop. It's just one of many incredible moments that contribute to his unique drive. As well as the personal there's also the political and Peter reflects on the impact of Corbynism on his local party. Peter's story is exceptional and it's a long way from finished. Get tickets to The Political Party in the West End: https://www.nimaxtheatres.com/shows/the-political-party-with-matt-forde/Follow Peter on Twitter: @peterkyleEmail the show: politicalpartypodcast@gmail.comFollow Matt on Twitter: @mattfordeFollow Matt on WTSocial: https://wt.social/u/matt-fordeFor the latest UK Government advice on coronavirus go to: https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This week, we are joined by Rob from Podcasting is Praxis to do a post-mortem of the past five years since the EU Referendum in 2016. We take a trip down memory lane, reliving the strange and barely believable events leading up to and following the referendum and the broad political and cultural legacy of Brexit. We talk about everything from the emergence of the culture wars as the de facto mode of British politics, the rise of pro-EU grifters steeped in anti-leftism and dodgy funding, the way in which Brexit ended up spelling doom for Corbynism, and much more. /// SHOW NOTES /// /// CREDITS /// Hosts: Aarjan /// Nikita Guests: CountRthe Production: Sarah Sahim Music: Cardio /// TPRMX - Beethoven - Ode to Joy Remix
4th November 2020 Many people, thirsty for social change, have been lured to the Labour Party during the recent wave of Corbynism. Some of those are now reconsidering their membership of a Party led by Sir Keir Starmer and are looking for alternatives. We in the Anarchist Communist Group argue that the Labour Party has always been a will o' the wisp,* something that diverts away from real social change. It has never been a socialist party and has always taken the side of capitalism and imperialism, as we explain in our talk. Whether controlled by the right, the centre, or the left, the Labour Party has always been an unsuitable vehicle for real radical change. Neither will the founding of a Labour Party, Mark Two, controlled by socialists, offer a credible alternative. The transformation of this unfair unequal society to one which is just and equal can never come through Parliament. Only broad movements organising in both the workplaces and the neighbourhoods can bring this about. In this talk we look at the record of the Labour Party and explain why it is can never be our ally in the fight for social justice and equality. *The will-o'-the-wisp is a flame-like phosphorescence caused by gases from decaying plants in marshy areas. In olden days, it was personified as “Will with the wisp,” a sprite who carried a fleeting “wisp” of light. Foolish travellers were said to try to follow the light and were then led astray into the marsh. Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Nadia Idle, Keir Milburn and Jeremy Gilbert explore the political power of desire from the storming of the Capitol to the millenarian strands of Corbynism, with music from Portishead and the Au Pairs. Music: Portishead – Glory Box / Tricky – Makes Me Wanna Die / Alton McClain & Destiny – Crazy Love / Alternative […]
Nadia Idle, Keir Milburn and Jeremy Gilbert explore the political power of desire from the storming of the Capitol to the millenarian strands of Corbynism, with music from Portishead and the Au Pairs. Music: Portishead – Glory Box / Tricky – Makes Me Wanna Die / Alton McClain & Destiny – Crazy Love / Alternative […]
This is the audio of a recent stream on our friend Sinan Kose's (@TheSinanKose on Twitter) Twitch channel - https://www.twitch.tv/skthecrusader. Jack & Sinan Kose review the recent book by Chris Clarke, the son of former New Labour minister Charles Clarke (the one with the ears), 'The Dark Knight and the Puppet Master'. Bitterly wounded by a lifetime of hard left trolls pointing out that his dad voted for the Iraq War and various anti-civil liberties legislation, Chris identifies closely on a personal level with what might be termed "the establishment", and so feels a visceral aversion to any politics that seeks to challenge what he views as an ultimately benevolent status quo. Drawing a distinction between those who agree with his right-wing views (the "pluralist left"), and the Milneite scum of Corbynism (the "populist left"), Clarke's dull reactionary tract seeks to lay the blame for most of society's problems squarely at the feet of those who don't conform to his platonic ideal of Sensible Politics: needless to say, the boys are delighted to sink their vampiric leftist fangs into such an irredeemable piece of crap.
Owen Jones, Guardian columnist and Labour party activist chats to Nihal about the tumultuous rise and fall of Corbynism via his new book ‘This Land’. Owen explains why he doesn’t like writing and brings objects that help him get past that, including music from The Boxer Rebellion and his cats Kier and Rickman. #PenguinPodcast‘This Land: The Story of a Movement’ is available to buy as an audiobook now - https://apple.co/38pSVSy See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
We look past Covid and Brexit to ask where the long-term opposition to Johnson's government is going to come from. Can Corbynism remain a force in British politics, even without Corbyn? Is there room for a challenge to the Conservatives from the right? Will climate politics drive street protest politics or can it help the Greens? Plus we consider whether Nicola Sturgeon is really the leader of the opposition. With Helen Thompson and Chris Brooke.Talking Points:Corbynist energy levels are low these days.There is a strong Corbynist presence on Twitter and in certain media institutions, but it’s not clear that it extends far beyond those bubbles.Much of the radical left politics in the near future will be defensive.When Starmer ran for leader, he essentially offered Corbynism without Corbyn.The manifestos of 2017 and 2019 were popular inside the Labour Party and reasonably popular with the public. Corbyn did move the party out of New Labour’s shadow. Starmer has inherited a party that is firmly outside the New Labour mainstream.Although some Corbynists fear a return to New Labour-esque politics, Labour now seems to be a social democratic party in the European mold. Will the Green Party benefit from these developments?Helen thinks that we are more likely to see increased green activism than a resurgence in Green Party politics.Many on the left are disenchanted with parliamentary politics.And over the last couple of years, the major parties have shifted on climate. If Johnson is really committed to greener politics, does that open space on the right?Farage is positioning himself in this gap.This could intersect with a rebellion against lockdown.What should Starmer do about Scotland?Could Starmer make a case that the democratic voice of the people of Scotland must be heard, and then make a social democratic case for the Union?A more federal union is going to require stronger institutions in England, which is probably to Labour’s disadvantage. Time for the SNP to weaken is probably the best way forward for both unionist parties.Mentioned in this Episode:This Land by Owen JonesFurther Learning: James Butler on the Corbyn project for the LRBMore on Macron, the constitution, and climate politicsFrom our archives… Labour’s Fault LinesA profile of Andy Burnham from The GuardianAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This week, Grace Blakeley speaks to Labour MP for Coventry South Zarah Sultana. Since her election in December, Zarah has been one of the most prominent figures on the party’s Left – most recently speaking out against the Spy Cops Bill in parliament. She discusses the Tories’ attempts to impose the costs of the pandemic on those least able to bear it, the lessons the Left can learn from Corbynism, and why we need to fight for a global Green New Deal in the wake of this crisis. A reminder that you can support our work on the show by becoming a Patron. Thanks to our producer, Conor Gillies, and Tribune’s designer Kevin Zweerink for their work on this episode. This podcast is supported by the Lipman-Miliband Trust.
A World to Win is a new podcast from Grace Blakeley and Tribune bringing you a weekly dose of socialist news, theory and action with guests from around the world. This week, Grace Blakeley speaks to Labour MP for Coventry South, Zarah Sultana. Since her election in December, Zarah has been one of the most prominent figures on the party’s Left – most recently speaking out against the Spy Cops Bill in parliament. She discusses the Tories’ attempts to impose the costs of the pandemic on those least able to bear it, the lessons the Left can learn from Corbynism, and why we need to fight for a global Green New Deal in the wake of this crisis. A reminder that you can support our work on the show by becoming a Patron. Thanks to our producer, Conor Gillies, and Tribune’s designer Kevin Zweerink for their work on this episode. This podcast is supported by the Lipman-Miliband Trust.
This week, Grace talks to newly elected Labour MP for Coventry South, and member of the Socialist Campaign Group, Zarah Sultana about the the Tories' attempts to impose the costs of the pandemic on those least able to bear it, the lessons the left can learn from Corbynism, and why we need to fight for a transformative global Green New Deal in the wake of this crisis. Support us on Patreon so we can continue to bring you the podcast: https://patreon.com/aworldtowinpod
The first part of the official RP review of Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund's Left Out, the two Times journalists' recent book on the decline and fall of Corbynism.
After nearly five years of political upset, parliamentary dysfunction and media blitzkrieg, the Corbyn project met it’s end with defeat at the ballot box and the rise of Keir Starmer. But was Corbynism always doomed to meet this sticky end? That’s the question posed by Owen Jones in his new book This Land. Ash Sarkar […]
It's safe to say that Corbyn's leadership divided opinion within the Labour Party, and the aftershocks of those divisions are still keenly felt today.It's also clear that Labour has much to learn from the experience of Corbynism – both good and bad – and attempts to scrap everything and move on could end up fracturing the party even more.This week we spoke to Laura Parker (former Momentum national co-ordinator), Jeremy Gilbert (writer and researcher), and Bea Campbell (Green writer and activist) about lessons from the Corbyn era that Labour needs to learn."It's Bloody Complicated" is recorded every Tuesday at 6pm BST. Become a Compass Member to join our live recordings and bring your questions to our guests: https://action.compassonline.org.uk/podcastSupport the show (https://www.compassonline.org.uk/podcast/)
Welcome to the first episode of A World to Win with Grace Blakeley! Today, Grace is joined by Jeremy Corbyn to discuss to the UK government's disastrous handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the rise and fall of Corbynism, and the future of socialism within the Labour Party. For the first time ever, hear Jeremy on the "absurd" discussions he had with the government about its herd immunity strategy and why the furlough scheme was unlikely to have been implemented without significant pressure from key figures in the Opposition.
Welcome to the first episode of A World to Win with Grace Blakeley, a new podcast from Tribune. Today, Grace is joined by Jeremy Corbyn to discuss to the UK government’s disastrous handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the rise and fall of Corbynism, and the future of socialism within the Labour Party. For the first time ever, hear Jeremy on the "absurd" discussions he had with the government about its herd immunity strategy and why the furlough scheme was unlikely to have been implemented without significant pressure from key figures in the Opposition.
Welcome to the first episode of A World to Win with Grace Blakeley! A World to Win is a new podcast from Tribune bringing you a weekly dose of socialist news, theory, and action with guests from around the world. --- “Who do we remember? Do we remember the Home Secretaries that imprisoned the Chartists? Or do we remember the Chartists for what they stood for, albeit unsuccessful in the immediate time?” –Jeremy Corbyn Today, Grace is joined by Jeremy Corbyn to discuss to the UK government’s disastrous handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the rise and fall of Corbynism, and the future of socialism within the Labour Party. For the first time ever, hear Jeremy on the “absurd” discussions he had with the government about its herd immunity strategy and why the furlough scheme was unlikely to have been implemented without significant pressure from key figures in the Opposition. Thanks to our producer, Conor Gillies, and our graphic designer, Kevin Zweerink, for their hard work on this episode. Remember, you can support the show by signing up as a patron.
Jack and Geraint are joined by longtime friend of the show Matt Zarb-Cousin; former spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn - and, subsequently, one of the few reliably left-wing pundits to get a hearing in the media - current spokesman for the Clean Up Gambling campaign, aide to Rebecca Long-Bailey on her sadly unsuccessful leadership campaign, and, most importantly, repeat RP guest. In his first appearance since 2017, he talks us through his issues with the milquetoast strategy currently being pursued by Keir Starmer; one that he claims strongly resembles that of David Cameron. We look back on some of the successes and failures of Corbynism, and hopefully touch on a myriad other subjects that should *ahem* boil some centrist piss. Go to https://cleanupgambling.com to check out Matt's current campaign.
From Bermondsey to Zimbabwe to Moscow and beyond, PETER TATCHELL has been fighting for human rights for over 50 years… and the LGBT rights that got him pilloried by the tabloids in 1983 are now the stuff of the mainstream. As we enter the most dangerous moment for democracies since the end of WWII, what should we be fighting for – and how? Peter talks to Andrew Harrison about populism's crisis moment, the failure of Corbynism, and how we can still follow the COVID crisis with a once-in-a-century renewal. Produced and presented by Andrew Harrison. Assistant producer Jacob Archbold. Music by Kenny Dickinson. Audio production by Alex Rees. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In this episode of the podcast Will speaks to Dimitri Batrouni, a lecturer at the University of Bristol, Labour councillor for St Christopher's Ward and author of The Battle of Ideas in the Labour Party - From Attlee to Corbyn and Brexit, about the book, the significance of ideas in the Labour Party, whether Ed Miliband had too many contrasting ideas, the ideas behind Corbynism and whether the Labour Party's relationship to ideas has changed since 1945.
1. Coronavirus – accelerating the downturn 2. (10.35) Syria – chaos rules 3. (16.50) Saudi Arabia – trying to secure the royal future 4. (20.20) Unite the Union – promoting a rightwing alternative 5. (24.00) US Democrats – the left learning the lessons 6. (35.00) International Women’s Day – what about the ‘working’? 7. (47.10) Labour – end of Corbynism? 8. (50.50) Monarchy stupidity 9. (52.05) CPGB – differences of shade
What exactly is Corbynism? That is the question we set out to answer on Episode 7 of Corbynism: The Post-Mortem, with our special panel of guests featuring the left wing academics behind the book Corbynism: A Critical Approach, Frederick Harry Pitts and Matt Bolton, and music journalist Taylor Parkes, author of one of the most prescient and damning articles ever written on Corbynism. Corbynism: A Critical Approach can be found here (https://books.emeraldinsight.com/page/detail/Corbynism/?k=9781787543720&pl=1&loc=uk) . Taylor Parkes on the Corbyn campaign trail can be found here (https://thequietus.com/articles/18714-jeremy-corbyn-labour-election-rally-policies) . A full transcription of the episode can be found on our website (https://corbynismpostmortem.wordpress.com/2020/02/28/episode-7-transcription/) . If you would like to support the show, please consider subscribing to our Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/OzKaterji) .
This week we continue our reading of boss level Chapter 9: ’Republican Democracy’ and I lose the plot when it comes to Proportional Representation. This was, of course, recorded before the UK election, where Corbynism got hung drawn and quartered. Panelists: Lexi Dog Robot - Swampside Chats Sophie - Trans Trans Revolution
Long time Labour member Martin goes into depth on the sate of the party, the legacy of Corbynism and what the future prospects are for Labour. He’s joined by Akash and Steve to discuss.
Peter Mandelson and Steve Howell represent the two opposite poles of the Labour party: one was a key architect of Blairism, the other of Corbynism. But they started out as inseparable friends at the same school in north London. Now their focus is on what comes next for the party. Plus: Matthew Taylor on the growing prevalence of climate anxiety. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/infocus
A new decade has dawned. But following their most devastating election defeat in 80 years, what new dawn awaits the British Labour party? If there’s one thing the Corbyn years will be remembered for it’s the rampant ideological in-fighting between the left and the right of the party, Momentum versus the Blairites, leavers and remainers. But now with the leadership contest in full swing, and a new successor to be named on the 4th of April, will the party seize the opportunity to elect a leader who can heal the deep divides within the party and end the civil war - and maybe one day win them an election too?Matthew Taylor and Ian Leslie are joined by journalist Ayesha Hazarika and former Labour insider Chris Clarke who has just published Warring Fictions, a critique of Corbynism and left populism. Produced by Craig Templeton Smith.
A new Podcast series investigating Corbynism & the impact Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as Labour leader had on British politics hosted by Oz Katerji. If you would like to support the show, please consider subscribing to our Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/OzKaterji) .
In this interview conducted in a bustling hallway off Central Lobby I revisited a political opponent from 15 years ago. Then he was John Mann MP. Now he is Government Adviser on antisemitism Lord Mann of Holbeck Moor. John was his usual forthright self, being hugely criticism of the cult of Corbynism at the heart of the Labour party and what that meant for the rise of antisemitism in the country. He gives his analysis of how Labour's stance on Brexit led to the party being punished in their former heartlands, and gives his opinions on some of the current leadership contenders. We discuss the increase in a lack of tolerance in politics and political debate, and how we should all be able to engage in strong and robust debate without resorting to personal attacks - which in recent years have led to physical threats to MPs, their families and their staff. In a message to Boris and Dominic Cummings, John tells them, to hold onto their newly won seats, it's all about football, not potholes, and building kiddies playgrounds. Intrigued? Listen to what Lord Mann has to say. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/toryradio/message
(Faiza answers your questions on Patreon-only here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/32985153) I talk to Faiza Shaheen about running as a labour candidate, what she learned from the British elections, what the Left can learn from them, what's next for her and what Hugh Grant (who stumped for her, along with Eddie Izzard) is like in real life.
Alan Woods - editor of In Defence of Marxism - analyses last week's UK election results, explaining the real reasons behind Labour's dramatic defeat. In doing so, Alan answers the lies of the establishment media and the Blairites, who have falsely attempted to place all the blame for Labour's election loss on Jeremy Corbyn. In reality, however, it is not Corbynism that has failed, but Blairism, liberalism, and the centre ground. The areas that have abandoned Labour are those that have been left behind by capitalism; those that voted Leave as a rejected of the broken status quo. It is vital to learn the lessons of this election defeat. But Labour activists must now regroup to kick the right-wingers and careerists out of the PLP, to fight Boris Johnson and the Tories, and to continue the struggle for socialism.
Coming live from the Guardian Towers! We talk to 'Senior' Economics Editor Aditya Chakrabortty about Corbynism as a political vehicle, what will happen if he loses the election and touch a bit of Brexit too. Enjoy with some spaghetti!
David Aaronovitch is a columnist and presenter. Starting his career in the 1980s as a researcher, he moved from television to print journalism in 1995 as chief leader writer for the Independent. He has written for many newspapers in the UK and has won numerous accolades, including the Orwell Prize for Political Journalism, and his television work includes the BBC1 documentary series ‘The Blair Years’. He has also written three books, including ‘Voodoo Histories’, which debunks modern-day conspiracy theories. In this in-depth interview, he discusses being a “radical moderate” in an era of increased polarization, argues that the thinking around urban myths such as the “fake” moon landings has led to the rise of Trump and Corbynism, and after nearly two decades of writing columns, takes us behind the creative process.
In the midst of a historic crisis, the state is preparing the ground to sabotage a potential left government. The Supreme Court has delivered a blow to Johnson. But were the Labour leaders right to praise the judiciary as an impartial upholder of democracy?
With Brexit-day looming, and a snap election on the cards, the coming months could determine the fate of Corbynism. Moreover, upcoming trigger ballots mean we can expect further battles over who holds power in the party. Is Labour fighting fit to win a majority in Westminster? And is our movement ready to push for […]
With Brexit-day looming, and a snap election on the cards, the coming months could determine the fate of Corbynism. Moreover, upcoming trigger ballots mean we can expect further battles over who holds power in the party. Is Labour fighting fit to win a majority in Westminster? And is our movement ready to push for […]
Max Shanly and Matt Zarb-Cousin consider the new Johnson cabinet, the changing fortunes of the Labour right, and the future of Corbynism. http://novaramedia.com/?p=14112
a doctored image, not fake The song Mr Dante Fontanna, comes from the 1966 film Fumo Di Londra a vehicle for Alberto Sordi and was composed by Piero Piccioni who was in turn pianist, organist, conductor, composer, and architect, he was also the prolific author of more than 300 film soundtracks. He played for the first time on radio in 1938 with his “013” Big Band, to return on air only after the liberation of Italy in 1944. “013” was the first Italian jazz band to be broadcast in Italy after the fall of Fascism. A facism which is unbelievably on the rise pretty much across the word, a phenomena not loosely connected with the climate emergency that is slowly enveloping us as millions flee wars and starvation at least partially caused by the climate disruption we are all ready seeing… I have often mentioned a proposed study into right Wing thought a disability, a deficiency in basic humanity and I guess in that case fascism would be it’s cancerous analogue…. The music of Piero Piccioni to me represents that almost utopian period of optimism that sprang from the socialist post war settlement, the defeat of fascicm and the progressive redistribution of wealth creating a socially mobile and aspirational society that is in complete contrast to the , paraphrasing the UN Special rapporteur on extreme poverty in the uk he was describing an immiseration of millions of our people, and how the UK’s poorest people face lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. The description contains what has been called one of the best-known passages in English philosophy, which describes the natural state humankind would be in, were it not for political community:[22] In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.[23] Yet Reading Corbyn’s words yesterday had my head spinning, as our dreams of a socialist revolution coming to save the many from the few met Jeremy Corbyn's absurd statement on his plans for an imaginary soft brexit. This being both as absurd as Theresa May's "brexit means brexit”, and at the same time even more morally reprehensible, as his stance as leader of the greatest grass roots progressive movement in recent times, proves to be yet another tone deaf and deluded Blaire like dictator, feebly enabling and ‘respecting’ the most reprehensible political car crash and malign right wing coup in our political history. Just imagine…… An internationalist ’Corbynism’, defeating the hateful, abusive, and isolationist Brexit, could have been the shining light banishing the rising reactionary and xenophobic tide across Europe and the world, as we linked arms with our fellow Europeans to fight the truly vital issues of capitalist climate and ecological catastrophe, and together sheltering the many resultant refugees from a dying planet we have played such a large part in setting on fire. Anthony Braxton (born June 4, 1945) is an American composer and multi-instrumentalist who is known in the genre of free jazz.[1] Since the 1960s, he has released more than 100 albums. , in addition to flute, alto flute, and piano. Braxton studied philosophy at Roosevelt University. He taught at Mills College in the 1980s, and was Professor of Music at Wesleyan University from the 1990s until his retirement at the end of 2013. He taught music composition and music history, with a concentration on the avant-garde, In 1994, he was given a genius grant by the MacArthur Foundation. In 2013, he was named a 2014 National Endowment for the Arts Jazz Master...
Paul Mason speaks about his new book 'Clear Bright Future' on artificial intelligence and the future of humanity. Paul also discussed the rise of the new right, philosophy, globalisation and Corbynism.
The Independent party are a core group of 11 MPs from both Labour and Conservatives who believe that a choice between Europhobia and Corbynism at a general election is unacceptable. One of its members, Chukka Ummuna, was joined on the Advertising Week Stage by Ian King.
The Independent party are a core group of 11 MPs from both Labour and Conservatives who believe that a choice between Europhobia and Corbynism at a general election is unacceptable. One of its members, Chukka Ummuna, was joined on the Advertising Week Stage by Ian King.
Richard Seymour joins Michael Walker to discuss Tom Watson’s ploy to kick out Corbyn; plus crunch votes in the Commons, and Corbynism after Brexit. A Failed Coup? With Richard Seymour
Richard Seymour joins Michael Walker to discuss Tom Watson’s ploy to kick out Corbyn; plus crunch votes in the Commons, and Corbynism after Brexit. A Failed Coup? With Richard Seymour
James Butler is joined by James Meadway, former advisor to John McDonnell, to discuss the economics of Corbynism: the roots and aftermath of the 2008 crash, the new policy horizons of the Labour left, and a socialist economics for the 21st century. http://novaramedia.com/?p=12543
Beyond the Noise with David Jamieson is a weekly podcast with CommonSpace journalist David Jamieson, where he gets behind the 24/7 news cycle and gets to heart of issues, trying to find the substance behind the headlines. THIS week, Jamieson is joined by Aaron Bastani, co-founder of Novara Media and author of the forthcoming 'Fully Automated Luxury Communism', about Corbynism and its relationship to the crisis of the British state, Scottish independence and Brexit. - 1:18 How does Aaron understand the phenomenon of Corbynism and why does he place faith in the project? - 8:24 Is Corbynism an advance on the Scottish independence movement in terms of ideological radicalisation? - 19:50 Is leaving the European Union an important part of the project of diminishing the UK as a power? -32:31 Has the left been disorientated by the Brexit crisis and does this threaten the Corbyn project.
Brexit dominates political discussion, and with good reason. But sometimes it seems like it sucks all the political oxygen out of the room. James Butler is joined by Michael Walker and Ash Sarkar to discuss where Corbynism came from and the promise it still might hold. http://novaramedia.com/?p=12320
This September, Pluto relaunched the Left Book Club, a project originally founded by Victor Gollancz in 1936. The aim of the Left Book Club was simple, to popularise ideas of the left and combat the rise of fascism. By the eve of the Second World War, the LBC had reached a membership of nearly 60,000 - with 1,200 reading groups scattered around the country. What made the LBC so necessary in the 1930's are the same things that make its relaunch so important today. In a context of rising ethno-nationalism and an economic system that fuels inequality, we need a space outside the mainstream media that doesn’t simply reinforce the values of the ruling elite and the status quo. Mirroring the story of the LBC, and returning to the fray this Autumn is another revitalised, octogenarian institution of left media: Tribune - Britain’s oldest, democratic socialist publication. This month, we are joined by three members of Tribune's new editorial team: Kheya Bag (Associate Publisher), Owen Hatherley (Culture Editor) and Ronan Burtenshaw (Editor), in a discussion about left media; the value of tradition; Corbynism; Jacobin and graphic design; and the foregrounding of culture in our political movements. Tribune: tribunemag.co.uk Left Book Club: leftbookclub.com
Beyond the Noise with David Jamieson is a weekly podcast with CommonSpace journalist David Jamieson, where he gets behind the 24/7 outrage-driven social media news circus and gets to heart of issues, trying to finding the substance behind the headlines. IN THIS episode, Jamieson and Jonathon Shafi, a Scottish socialist activists who attended the Liverpool Labour conference, discuss the struggle between different party factions and Scottish Labour's mounting difficulties after its calamitous performance. They discuss: - 4:55 Why the failure to seriously upgrade Labour party democracy could hurt Corbyn. - 8:09 What are the dynamics behind the calls for a second vote on the EU from some elements of the party? - 14:49 What was Scottish Labour trying to achieve at this conference, how did they end up at loggerheads with Corbyn, and why their reorientation is likely to further damage the party north of the Border. - 23:23 The differences between Leonard's politics and Corbynism in the UK party.
When Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership he was shrugged off as an unelectable oddball in a scruffy suit who would doom Labour to certain defeat. But last year’s shock election result forces us all to consider the real possibility of a Corbyn-led government – a prospect which has some jumping for joy and others quaking in their boots. Intelligence Squared is bringing together some of Britain’s top political minds to debate whether Corbyn is potentially the saviour of Britain’s downtrodden or a fringe fanatic who is morally unfit to be Prime Minister.According to his critics, Corbyn leads a dangerous gang of hard-left zealots who cosy up to enemies of the West and are hell-bent on rehashing the disastrous politics of the 1970s. He has turned a blind eye to the antisemitism festering away within the Labour Party and has crafted a foreign policy which would make Putin proud. And when it comes to the economy, his old-school socialist programme of borrowing, tax hikes and renationalisation could be catastrophic. By pulling Labour away from the centre ground, Corbyn has gravely damaged one of Britain’s great political parties. He is a danger to this country, and is not fit to lead it.That’s the contention of the Corbyn-bashers. But what answers do they have to the crises that have plagued Britain since the 2008 financial crash? Inequality is rampant and wages have been squeezed for a decade, while many millennials struggle to get a foot on the property ladder. Homelessness and food bank usage have hit record highs across Britain, and each winter brings a new NHS crisis. Our current economic model has clearly failed, say the Corbynistas, so why not try something different? Corbynism isn’t the socialism of the 1970s – it’s a whole new set of radical, transformative policies and a vision for social justice that has enthused an entire generation of young people. Give Corbyn a chance, and he’ll build a Britain for the many, not the few.Arguing for the motion were novelist and journalist Howard Jacobson and Conservative MP Anna Soubry.Arguing against the motion were Senior Editor at Novara Media Ash Sarkar and Labour MP Chris Williamson.The debate was chaired by Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham Sir Anthony Seldon. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Heather Stewart is joined by Laura Parker, Dan Sabbagh and Matt Zarb-Cousin to discuss how Corbynism can maintain the energy among its supporters displayed during the last election. Plus: is there a better way to organise the welfare state? Hilary Cottam discusses her book Radical Help. Please support our work and help us keep the world informed. To fund us, go to https://www.theguardian.com/give/podcast
Jon Lansman is the founder and creator of Momentum - the grassroots movement which helped propel Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour leadership and has transformed the Labour Party. Jon has been involved in left-wing activism his whole life and speaks movingly about his education, his relationship with Tony Benn and the reason his beard changed. It's an insight into the history of Corbynism and its roots in radical left-wing politics. You can follow Jon on Twitter @jonlansman You can follow Matt on Twitter @mattforde See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Den brittiska organisationen Momentum och Labours partiledare Jeremy Corbyn verkar allt oftare vara en källa till inspiration hos delar av svensk vänster. Det finns rent av de som vill kopiera projektet till Sverige. Mathias och Erik diskuterar Corbyns väg till partiledarposten och Momentums ursprung i kris- och studentprotester i den globala ekonomiska krisens kölvatten. LÄS MER: Novara Media om Momentum: http://novaramedia.com/tag/momentum/ Plan C (UK) om Momentum och Corbyn: https://www.weareplanc.org/blog/category/labour-party/ Acid Corbynism: https://www.redpepper.org.uk/what-is-acid-corbynism/ PODDEN: RSS: http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:449604585/sounds.rss Acast: https://www.acast.com/apansanatomi Itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/se/podcast/apans-anatomi/id1388836855?mt=2
Nimco Ali is co-founder of Daughters of Eve, a charity dedicated to fighting female genital mutilation, a form of violence directed against women found in many cultures. She spoke to Alastair Benn about her own experience of FGM, her fight for gender equality and the bigotry of the New Left. Recorded at the Reaction offices.
Jack, Laura and Tom are joined by Alex Nunns (@alexnunns on Twitter), author of The Candidate: Jeremy Corbyn's Improbable Path to Power (OR Books), now out in its second edition, updated to cover the 2017 General Election that solidified Jeremy Corbyn's mandate to take the Labour Party in the leftward direction of his choosing. We talk about the pivotal moments in Corbyn's leadership, from the campaign that rocketed him to the head of his party on a tide of anti-austerity anger and socialist hope back in 2015, to his miraculous rescue of a political project that only a year ago seemed helplessly on the brink of ruin. Alex is an authority on Corbynism, and his book is excellent, deeply insightful and thoroughly researched in a way that puts most lobby journalists to shame. It was a pleasure to talk to him.
Lara Prendergast, Assistant Editor of the Spectator, joins Alastair Benn to discuss how the Tories have so far failed to engage with millennials. Lara gives her perspective on the Rees-Mogg phenomenon, Corbynism and the impact of social media on the political landscape. Recorded at The Spectator's offices in Westminster.
Stig Abell and Thea Lenarduzzi are joined in the studio by political commentator Zoe Williams to discuss the future of Corbynism, Brexit, Lexit, and British politics more broadly; and, to mark the 100th anniversary of British women’s suffrage, Emelyne Godfrey sheds light on the mosaic of approaches that led, eventually, to something worth celebrating in all its complexity See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
We discuss new forms of union organisation undertaken by workers today – and how new types of employment, from zero-hours contracts to the gig economy can actually pave the way for creative, successful forms of organisation. We also discuss the Picturehouse and Deliveroo strikes, (anti-)trade union law, Corbynism and renters’ unions. With special guests Callum Cant, a former Deliveroo rider and organiser from the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB); Kelly Rogers, one of the key organisers in the ongoing Picturehouse strike; and Jamie Woodcock, author of Working the Phones: Control and Resistance in Call Centres. For more information about the Picturehouse strike, go to: picturehouselivingwage.com
Yes, it’s another Budget. On Wednesday, November 22, Philip Hammond will stand up and deliver his second Budget of the year and this is his chance to ride to the Conservatives’ rescue. After the last Budget mess, the snap election that went wrong, the unexpected rise of Corbynism, and the Brexit arguments that just won’t go away, the Chancellor will be hoping that he’s the one to get everything back on track. So what could he deliver – and what should he? From help for younger people, to stamp duty cuts, pension tinkering, building more homes and just fixing the roads, Simon Lambert, Rachel Rickard Straus and Georgie Frost take a run through what might come up and what it would mean for you. And they outline what they would like to see. The problem for the Chancellor, as he shifts the Budget to the autumn for the first time, is that there is a tension between his desire to do something and his lack of wriggle room due to Britain’s finances. How will he solve that problem? Listen to the podcast to see what we think – and tell us your thoughts in the comments. Enjoy.
At their party conference last week the Tories were united on one thing – a Corbyn government would lead to Venezuelan style socialism. Free market thinking is the right and proper way to prosper. In this edition of the Debunking Economics podcast we look at how socialism has become a swear word and there's no acknowledgement of the middle ground from either side of politics. As Phil Dobbie discusses with Professor Steve Keen, both extremes fail. But where is the middle ground of politics? Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.
Labour conference, Tory conference, Catalunya and Star Trek is back baby! https://twitter.com/WDTATW_Podcast
Journalist Abi Wilkinson joins the podcast to talk about the possible utopian dimensions of Corbynism and whether Jeremy Corbyn's rise represents a utopian intervention in UK politics. Utopian Horizons is a podcast about utopias, real and imaginary. Each episode covers a different utopia, dystopia, utopian thinker, or utopian movement, asking what they can tell us about ourselves, our society, and our future. Music: The Fiction of Utopian Studies/The Road To Oceania by The Fucked Up Beat.
Helen and Stephen are joined by satirist and Private Eye writer Craig Brown to discuss the royal family and his new book about Princess Margaret. Then they analyse the way that Boris Johnson's Brexit intervention was amplified by the right-wing media. Finally, they answer a vital question: will Corbynism dominate the Labour party forever?Send us your questions and thoughts for future episodes on Twitter via @ns_podcasts, @helenlewis or @stephenkb.Listen to the New Statesman's new culture podcast, The Back Half, here.Further reading:Helen's column about Universal Credit.Craig Brown's book: Ma'am Darling: 99 Glimpses of Princess Margaret. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
What does Jeremy Corbyn really think of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union? While the Labour leader’s political stock has risen to such extent he could become the next prime minster, his view on Brexit still confuses much of the electorate. Paul Goldsmith, author of the recently published How to Lose a Referendum: The Definitive Story of Why the UK voted for Brexit, joins Tim to examine the issue, explaining why the Labour party has long-since been divided over Europe, how so much European legislation is at odds with true ‘Corbynism’ and how the man at the helm can really influence thousands of people to chant his name at festivals while being ambivalent to the remainers cause. Paul also covers the issue in his blog post here at https://pjgoldsmith.com where you can also find links to buy his excellent book. #JeremyCorbyn #Labour #Podcast #Brexit #BrexitPodcast #Referendum #EuropeanUnion #EUReferendum #VoteLeave #VoteRemain #VoteIn #EU #UK #TimHeming #JenniferHahn #PaulGoldsmith #News #Politics #Thatcher #David Cameron #HowToLoseAReferendum #government #parliament #rights #citizens #freemovement
Ian and Stewart are shocked and cheered by last week’s surprise election result. With the help of Matt Zarb-Cousin, the former spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn, they set out to explore the Corbynist philosophy. How did Labour pull off their glorious defeat? And is the Twitter left at risk of descending into civil war? Plus: Stewart rants about blaming the media, and Ian raves about the response to the terror attacks. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In this wild, shrieking post-election victory parade, Jack and Kieran toast the irrepressible march of Corbynism through the heart of British politics. We take aim at the DUP, the commentariat, the PLP, and every individual who needs their face rubbing in it. Somewhere amongst the screaming there's an earnest chat about what happens next, but we can't remember where it is so tell us when you can. These are the glory days, so revel in them.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
