I cannot see a way out of this for Starmer. Extremely poor judgement or a willingness to turn a blind eye. Either way it’s bad.
I cannot see a way out of this for Starmer. Extremely poor judgement or a willingness to turn a blind eye. Either way it’s bad.
Leftism is for liberation. That’s what it always was about. A lot of dishonest, self-interested people have tried to convince us it’s about something else but that’s because they’re afraid of losing their political or economic status if we actually understood and united in our common interests.
Yes, the left is anti-capitalist but historically it’s also always been anti-authoritarian–with the notable exception of the Bolsheviks and those who followed their example. Once you realize that despite their power and prominence, they fundamentally don’t fit with other left movements, the left as a cohesive ideology makes a lot more sense.
The political compass is a useful way to navigate the contested narratives around left and right but ultimately it is an illusion. Auth-left is just a different flavor of right-wing movement where they prefer the state’s boot to a capitalist’s. It’s not leftist anymore than it would be to fire all of the CEOs and rehire people of color to fill their roles.
Starmer is not as pro-state domination as those people but he’s also not as anti-capitalist. So ultimately he’s one more in a long line of leaders who uses leftist energy and organizing to get into power and then betrays their interests for his own ends.
OK. And out of the historical parties in power in the UK for the past hundred years, where does the Labour party lie?
I’m not the most well-versed in UK history but I do believe at one time the labor party was more of a left party. And they certainly do have more left members. I just don’t accept that label for Starmer after the way he has governed.