Is Jeremy Corbyn a marxist?

A nice interview by Andrew Marr with Jeremy Corbyn yesterday. How good to hear a non-confrontational interview, we get so much more information about what the subject believes than with those awful interrogations which only tell us how well a person reacts to pressure. The key moment came at the end when Marr asked Corbyn whether he was a marxist. The answer was, as you would expect, circumspect. Had he said yes it would have been curtains, but Corbyn did not wish to reject his marxist credentials altogether, thus suggesting a degree of honesty not often seen in modern mainstream politics. It was rather like asking a christian whether they are indeed a ‘christian’. Some will say ‘yes’ and then explain that they believe in the literal story of the resurrection and that Christ did die and rise again so that sinners may be saved if they except Christ as their saviour. That is the equivalent of being a pure marxist – that you believe in his historical analysis and the destiny of capitalism to be destroyed by its own creation, the socialist proletariat and that it has not yet occurred is simply a matter of timescale and converting the analysis to a global context. Corbyn did not say that but instead said that Marx had revealed many truths and that we can still learn a great deal from his teaching. This is the equivalent of a ‘christian’ saying they believe in the existence of Christ, that his teaching should be a guide for life but that the resurrection story is only a metaphor, that Christ rose again in the minds of his followers and that we can all be born again if we seek redemption. So I guess this means that Corbyn is not a marxist in the full sense of the word; rather he has received some of his inspiration from marxist analysis. Sadly for him the media and casual observers will not be capable of understanding this distinction. He does have one advantage over others of the left who have been accused of marxist sympathies, such as Ken Livingstone, Derek Hatton and Michael Foot, which is that he seems remarkably affable and accessible. The right no longer has the monopoly of ‘interesting ‘ characters, with Corbyn, Sturgeon and Mhairi Black now on the left scene. Such characters serve to emphasise how pale and uninspiring the other Labour leadership candidates appear.

Labour-looking for a messiah

There seems to be a rather unreal debate going on within the Labour leadership about the Corbyn ‘threat’. I say unreal because it appears obvious to most of us that, barring some kind of Iraq-like event (not out of the question in view of the government’s apparent desire for mission creep over Syria), Labour cannot win any general election for the foreseeable future. Scotland has gone and there seems no way back and the Conservatives now dominate England outside the North. Furthermore, assuming support for UKIP declines after the referendum vote, the Conservative grip over the South and Midlands will be strengthened. In other words the electoral arithmetic now suggests Labour cannot win. As long as the economy continues to grow and the key indicators (with the notable exception of inequality) stay favourable it looks like an increased Conservative majority next time, possibly for a generation. The idea that Labour can win by being a slightly nicer version of the Conservatives is seriously misplaced, so too is the idea that the electorate simply needs an alternative, even if the alternative is virtually identical, like gas or electricity suppliers, in order to satisfy the needs of democracy. No, until there is an opportunity for significant change, Labour looks likely to wander for many years in the Wilderness, like the Israelites except it is hard to imagine where the promised land lies. There is also no sign of a Moses on the horizon. This will leave many in the UK seriously disenfranchised with nobody to represent them. I refer to the poor, to exploited workers and many of the radical young. Jeremy Corbyn does at least offer some sort of programme for them. He can’t win governmental power, but at least their voice might be heard if he leads Labour. Put another way, if labour is going to lose and go on losing it might as well do so with some of its traditional principles intact. There is just one hope for the centre-left. This is that its currently disparate forces could unite. At the moment it is split five ways (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid, Green). Such a unification will need a messiah but Corbyn does not like one of those.

Future of the BBC - Too important to be left to politicians.

It is right that there should be review at this time of what the BBC’s future should be, both its funding and its programming. It is also almost certainly true that it is over-bloated and could do with some surgery. Most long standing organisations need this from time to time. But it is such a vital part of British culture and our place in the world that it is far too important to be left in the hands of politicians, most of whom will not still be in power by the time any changes are seen through to maturity. This therefore needs to be the subject of a national debate. Just as a taster I remember a time, perhaps up to the 1980s when many of the BBC’s top performers used to make a joke about how poorly they were paid. ‘Well, what do expect?’ they’d say, ‘This is the BBC.’ Yet they still worked for the beeb and wouldn’t think about going commercial. Rather like doctors who will only work for the NHS when they could earn shedloads in private practice, and many teachers who shun the private system, they worked in public service broadcasting as a matter of principle. I suppose this is still the case, though few ever seem to talk about it. This story has two points. One is that it demonstrates how deeply embedded the concept of public service broadcasting is in our culture; the other is that it is a myth to suppose the huge salaries have to be paid to attract and retain top performers. But back to the main theme. This is not a partisan blog, but I do fear that most politicians currently in power have a default position of arguing that market forces will always ensure better quality and value for money than state-sponsored enterprises. We only have to look at so-called competitive industries such as energy, banking and telecommunications to pick out the holes in that argument. Apply it to the BBC and the result would, I strongly maintain, a disaster. Problem is, the BBC seems recently to have applied it to itself. Whatever the outcome of a hopefully non partisan national debate, I suspect there is a strong consensus that the BBC should not longer try to chase ratings and compete with the commercial stations. So here goes. I shall leave out radio which is largely blameless in this regard (we could have a debate about Radios 1 and 2 I suppose, but they are not the core issue). This is TV only. What should the BBC make or show and what should it not? How about this list: Yes to: • News, comment and current affairs. The reputation of the BBC for honesty, truth and unbiased reporting is absolutely crucial to its future. Look at the USA to observe the dangers. • Documentaries and major investigative journalism (see the first point). • Most sport, even darts. • Film • Theatre and opera • The Arts – programmes showing or broadcasting the arts and music , criticism, comment, educational and documentary. • Music – presentation of all forms of music including pop, rock and avant garde, not videos but live and recorded performance • Pastime shows such as gardening, travel, antiques and cookery (the origins of Top Gear would be OK, but not what it became - a caricature of itself). • Satire and decent comedy (see below) • Intelligent quiz shows such as Pointless, Eggheads, University Challenge • Drama, including one off plays and series, but not soaps. • Natural History, Science, History, Geography, Politics etc. No to: • Soap operas. • Cookery competitions • Reality shows. • Shows concerning buying or doing up houses, moving abroad etc. • Daytime quiz shows for big prizes • Comedy shows reeling round the same old stand up performers time after time. • Trivial panel games and game shows • Sofa programmes being used blatantly as a vehicle for people to publicise their new book/film,/play/TV show • Frivolous chat shows • Antiques competitions • Celebrity competitions • X Factor style shows unless they are genuine talent competitions, not the over-scripted corrupted versions now on offer. The ‘No’ list all belong in the commercial sector. This leaves us with Strictly, a programme I do not watch but I know people love. Now look, there are always going to have to be hard choices and Strictly would be one of them because many people see it as the acme of ‘light entertainment’. The answer is, I suppose, that we should lighten up a bit and let the odd frivolous show through, especially when it is a national institution, just like the BBC itself. So why not let the politicians loose on this lot? The answer is simply that it is just too important and there is a danger that too much ideology would be involved. As the great conservative philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, once commented, ‘politics should be a conversation, not an argument.’ Come to think of it, the future of the BBC is not a political issue, it is a cultural one and the future of British culture, much of which is admired throughout the world, is at stake.

Be careful Nicola!

The SNP is playing a dangerous game and it might just backfire on them. Whatever we think about fox hunting, and it seems true that most people want it stopped or curtailed severely, the SNP’s use of the issue to punish the government for not getting serious enough about devolution may, in the long run, come back to haunt them. If the true reason is, as Sturgeon has intimated, to demonstrate to the government the potential power of the SNP parliamentary wedge, it may just scare voters in Scotland off in the future. The thinkers among such voters may heed Cameron’s charge of opportunism, but others may also come to the conclusion that this a bad use of the landslide the Scots delivered last May. We have to assume that half of Scottish voters supported the SNP for a better deal for Scotland rather than for foxes. They may well resent having their votes thus corrupted. If it is a one-off, a shot across the bows, fair enough, but the surprise element cannot, by definition, be used more than once.

Democracy- A curious creature

What curious creature democracy is. It has so many manifestations that, just as we think we have grasped its essence, along come fresh stories that cause us to re-think our perceptions. Three contemporary events illustrate our problem. These are the Heathrow expansion debate, the Lancashire anti-fracking planning decision and then there is the Greek referendum on the immediate horizon. The Heathrow issue looks like a perfect example of a pluralist, representative form of democracy unfolding before our eyes. Various pressure groups are now ranged against each other, some national, others local. Local MPs are busying themselves to protect their constituents’ interests, business groups are flexing their financial and economic muscles, environmentalists are demonstrating their fury and local residents are expressing both anger and despair. In the middle stands government, which will have to make the final decision. In this model of democracy we hope that the final arbiter will be neutral and it is certainly true that the cabinet looks that way at the moment, though that may be more because it finds itself tied up in a Gordian knot and is internally divided as to how it can cut the knot, rather than because it has a genuinely open mind. Leaving that aside, it looks like an encouraging picture. But this does not help us to answer the question : what is the correct answer? When there isn’t one, as seems to be the case here – either answer will have seriously adverse consequences as well as benefits – democracy looks like an exercise in establishing majority opinion. In other words, a utilitarian answer : the greatest good for the greatest number. Fair enough. This is not a ‘tyranny of majority’ problem, as there is no clear majority. So this is going to be a perfect test for the UK’s representative democracy. The question will not be whether the correct answer is reached, but whether the decision can secure the broad consent of the people, those who oppose it included. The Greek vote next Sunday is entirely different, but we still call it democracy, the ‘voice of the people’. It is complicated, of course, by the fact that it is not clear exactly what the Greek people are voting for or against. Probably they are deciding whether to support the radical government’s view that Greece should only remain within the community of European states if it can do so on its own terms, or whether it will be willing to sacrifice much of its autonomy in order to stay in ‘the club,’ or whether it should simply strike out on its own and take its chances. At least the third option will grant them freedom. It is a fantastically fundamental question. Unfortunately it is a question with three possible answers and the referendum only offers two. This is a case for Rousseau’s ‘General Will’, some kind of collective spirit that transcends the additions and subtractions of private interests (which applies in the Heathrow case). There is little doubt that the government claims it does understand and reflect the General Will, but it looks as though the Greek people are going to contradict them. The democratic spirit is running strong in Greece, but it may not provide and answer. Nevertheless let’s be impressed by its collective force and its ability to struggle against seemingly insurmountable odds. It may be that the anti-fracking lobby’s victory in Lancashire will turn out to be little more than a temporary battle victory in a losing war, maybe only a skirmish, but it is a heartwarming example of how democracy can successfully represent ‘minority interests’ against powerful economic battalions, whatever we feel about the fracking issue itself. Perhaps that is the best we can expect from democracy – to ensure that small voices are heard and sometimes – just sometimes - prevail. No great conclusions here, but food for thought. Democracy does not exist and cannot be defined merely as an abstract concept. It exists and operates within a context. Its character is therefore determined by that context. That is why it can appear in so many different guises. Democracy is not a set of institutions, or principles or processes. It is a ‘spirit’ and the best we can hope for is that the spirit appears at times when it is most needed. In these cases we have seen it in the form of representative democracy, of an expression of the General Will and of protector of minority interests against powerful interests. It is a curious multi-faceted creature, to be sure, but we can recognise it when we see it and it will be a bad day for mankind if its spirit is ever extinguished.