- Re: What went wrong with the "Corbyn Project' Archived Message
Posted by Ian M
on January 25, 2021, 3:08 pm, in reply to "Re: What went wrong with the "Corbyn Project'"
|
@marknadim, good question, I don't really know, maybe it'll come out in the wash when Milne & Corbyn publish their memoirs, ie: way too late to be of any use in the fight which they abdicated from, and which is still tearing the left to pieces. I used to read Milne quite regularly when he was one of the token dissident writers in the graun, and was impressed by his ability to tell unpopular truths about geopolitics, even when he had to take flak for it. But it was still 'so far but no further' as the Eds exposed a couple of times, eg: https://www.medialens.org/2012/silence-of-the-lambs/ and it seems clear he was in the 'house radical' role, supported by a pay-cheque to occasionally go out to the limits of permitted dissent and bolster the graun's reputation by doing so, but ultimately compliant and controllable with not enough skin in the game to give a strong basis for a will to fight. Dan could be right about '[valuing] reduced conflict over results' and about the development of masochistic tendencies over time so that figures like Corbyn and Milne are tolerated as weird outliers and get used to taking abuse from all corners, with lying down and accepting the whipping boy role the price of admission to the party/corporation. Personally I tend to run a mile from any hint of conflict, especially face-to-face (easier over the internet or with pre-prepared statements to the HoC or a regular graun column) so I can relate up to a point, but if you're not going to stand up for your convictions when the chips are down, what is the point of having those convictions in the first place? People like Corbyn, Milne & Sanders are always going to cave under pressure, that's why they're allowed a part in the dance, even if it's just to be ritually destroyed if they get to close to a position of actual power. In terms of personality quadrants developed by RA Wilson they're in the submissive hostile/friendly weakness categories, 'I’m not okay; you’re not okay' or 'I’m not okay; you’re okay', in the following scenario they would be primates #2 and #3: 'Thus, if you put these four primates on a desert island, you can predict, with virtually as much certainty as a chemist telling us what will happen if four elements are compounded, that Subject #1 and #4 (Friendly Strength and Hostile Strength) will both try to take over—#1 to help the others, #4 because SHe can't imagine anybody else in control. #1 will submit to #4 because #1 wants things to run smoothly for the good of all, and they never will run smoothly if #4 is not TOP DOG. #2, Friendly Weakness, will not care whether #1 or #4 rules, just so long as somebody else is making the decisions. And #3 will complain (and complain, and complain), no matter who is in charge, while skillfully avoiding any action that would require taking personal responsibility.' (Prometheus Rising, p.78 - https://b-ok.cc/book/5098674/ae7899 ) How to break through these patterns, or harness them to lead to a just, equitable outcome? ... I wish I knew! cheers, I |