Comments on: The widest possible movements and hegemonic strategy

By: The fifth tradition (part 3 of 6): ‘Bevanite Ellie’ and what our Keynesian past tells us about a socialist future « Though Cowards Flinch

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:49:09 +0000

[...] done. On which argument see these debates between Compass members Tom Miller and Sunny Hundal, and Dave. The Labour party’s tried that. We got New Labour (see part 4 for more [...]

By: Cruddas offers no way out « Though Cowards Flinch

Cruddas offers no way out « Though Cowards Flinch — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:31:10 +0000

[...] “The widest possible movements and hegemonic strategy” – a discussion, with the aid of Raymond Williams, about Gramsci’s hegemony (which Cruddas is often talking about) and how Compass reduces such a revolutionary concept to electoral strategy. [...]

By: Charlie Marks

Charlie Marks — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:03:59 +0000

I’ve read Lawson and Gannon’s book on co-production – not much market rhetoric there, arguing for democratic participation by workers and consumers in public services rather than marketisation and privatisation; Cruddas has used the “s” word in writing about an alternative economy, following on from McDonnell’s book on 21st century socialism…

By: Why we need a politics of coalitions | Free Political Forum

Why we need a politics of coalitions | Free Political Forum — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:13:42 +0000

[...] In this blog post, David states: The concept of hegemony becomes reduced to electoral strategy. Where we should be thinking about how to overturn the institutions, practices and ideas which sustain these ’subject positions’, too many socialists of the ’soft Left’ (as it has traditionally been known) want to think instead how we can ameliorate our own programme to better subsume these subject positions on their own terms. It is from this perspective that I’ve always viewed Compass, and its repudiation of the notion of the working class. [...]

By: Pickled Politics » Why we need a politics of coalitions

Pickled Politics » Why we need a politics of coalitions — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:21:13 +0000

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:35:44 +0000

Much of this is well said. I will put my main comments in the form of a few thousand worder I’m putting together on the recent Compass essay, on which Don Paskini has also commented. Some of that will be around the desired outcome vs. process/social movement issues that I set out quite badly and hurriedly the other day in a comment, of which you were rightly critical, but which I think deserve another airing because in the end they feed back into the overall question of hegemony (and how the right knows all about it, but the Left is so far up its own arse its lost the plot).

By: David Semple

David Semple — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:23:41 +0000

Wishing doesn’t make it so Charlie; if you’re going to say that, at least explain what you’re basing the idea on.

And also, just to clarify, “towards an anti-capitalist position”…how does Lawson’s market rhetoric fit into this? And equally for Cruddas, search my article on him regarding a speech I recently listened to and answer me the same question.

By: Charlie Marks

Charlie Marks — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 03:04:32 +0000

Comrade, Cruddas has now said the “s” word…

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=4072

Progress? I think so. Because I reckon that the movement of travel by folks like Lawson and Cruddas is actually towards an anti-capitalist position.

By: Renegade Eye

Renegade Eye — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:02:28 +0000

I told you I was going to link to your blog, when Blogrolling was fixed. It became a pay site, with popups. I switched formats and will link to this blog.

I believe in self determination, but it’s not possible with capitalism. Socialism first, national question second.