Lisa, if that is her name, came to my blog because her identity was injured. Her identity as a Corbynite. Which is basically astroturf for Labour, to suppress discussion of welfare cuts. Please note the passive aggression, gaslighting and the way this hinges on the false identity Corbynism has given her. She thinks it is normal behaviour to do this, she thinks it has academic justification. THis is what welfare claimants faced but Lisa’s peers are also willing to back this up with actual physicaly abuse and intimidation. This is why there was no opposition to austerity. Its astonishing to read and the appointment of herself as arbiter of whether my reflections on a personal blog, as I process this, are amazing,. This is because a woman she doesn’t know, one of the people Corbynism roplled over, has a blog to contain personal reflections. We are not even allowed to process what is happenibng to use.
We can lose our kids, starve, freeze, and Lisa’s only goal will be to stop people even speaking about it and to attack their ability to even use written reflection. She has to tell herself this is debate, she cant acknowlede that she is just looking to abuse people who will not respect a fals identity she formed so she can be part of the astroturf Labour used to whitewash welfare reform,. THey dont udnerstand why we think they are scum and will use a range of responses from teh gaslighting and patronising tone here to putting bricks through windows and sending coffins to people. We are living in scary times and fascism changes its form each generation. Its not just that they want to roll the Labour machine over any discussion of austerity, its that they seek out the people they do this to try and prevent them even thinking about it or speaking about it publicly. They cant even allow us the ability to reflect on our lives because it injures them to ear our reality and how they impact it. I dont know how it ends. Lisa probably wouldnt hurt someone, her peers woudl and its very likely she would let them.
Ok, so if I try to disentangle your points, you are saying:
- Rights that have benefited all citizens — e.g benefits, duties to children, social care, health care and so on are enshrined in law, through legislation and policy
- The political consensus since circa 1983 has led to the overturning of those rights, and that the media have facilitated this by avoiding presenting austerity as an attack on our legal rights
- Labour pretended to be anti-autsterity but weren’t really because an anti-cuts movement isn’t an anti austerity movement
- Members of the left have avoided a discussion of rights and their corrosion through policy (including Labour policy) and instead focused on a movement that centres on identity
If I have interpreted your response correctly, then these are fairly uncontroversial points about which most of those interested in progressive social justice would agree. There has been plenty of discussion from the (academic, if not media inflected) left about the ways that neoliberal policy operates to corrode progressive rights. It is pretty clear that there has been a political consensus for 30 years that has, as you put it, ‘formed a seal around neoliberalism’, but I fail to see how Jeremy Corbyn is anything but a result of the consensus rather than the cause of it. In that, the reason he has been popular to the extent that he has been is because he, like Trump, is visibly not part of the political establishment that has maintained consensus and, therefore, he appeals to those who are affected by the corrosion of their rights (even if falling for his appeal is misguided). There aren’t that many options in the current binary democratic system we operate within to break the consensus — the system maintains itself.
You seem very angry in all kinds of directions, which is great in that anger is necessary at these times. But I can’t help feel that it is misguided, if not wilfully misreading their work, to suggest that Owen Jones and Zoe Williams (et al.) of all people haven’t actually been drawing attention to the corrosion of rights rather than whitewashing it. There is a whole chapter in ‘Chavs’ for example that looks at how Karen Matthews was a scapegoat for policy that attacked the rights of working class people. All that the stranglehold of neoliberalism demonstrates is that even mainstream attacks on the system can’t break the system. Which isn’t to say Owen Jones isn’t annoying and virtue signalling and a product of a capitalist media that likes to create ‘stars’ and elevate there voice beyond the point at which it usefully adds to the discussion.
Your argument also presents the rights we have won in terms of equality as ‘enshrined’ in law, as if they absolute and ever were, when the fact is that most, if not all, of these rights down to are fairly recent (Post War if not, in some cases Post-Millenium) acts, amendments and policies that demonstrate the law around equality legislation is a shifting, ever-changing entity which emerges from the discussions and debates that happen in the media and elsewhere, as well as being subject to it. Law is a product of the culture it doesn’t and never has shaped the culture. When laws don’t fit will the political will of the government, they are changed.
I am starting to get that this is maybe just a forum for you to spew anger about your circumstances under the system rather than an attempt to engage a proper discussion, reflect coherently or shed light on your perspective in a way others can understand. I’ll leave you to it