Whatever you think of the man or his politics, it’s hard to deny that Jeremy Corbyn has had a spectacular and quite unexpected impact on British political life. His election as Labour leader last September was a watershed moment for both the Labour party and the wider British left. To the surprise of the entire political and media establishment, a long serving socialist Labour backbencher became the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. The unexpected nature of his victory and the hostile way in which the Parliamentary Labour Party has reacted to it has meant that much of the journalistic analysis of Corbyn has focused on the daily drama at Westminster.

Consequently, the underlying ideology that Corbyn stands for has been under-emphasised and seen as a sort of incidental non-entity, dismissed either as naïve idealism or an absurd relic of the past. As a result, those opposed to Corbyn have struggled to connect with a party membership which seems to be fully on board with Corbynism and doesn’t respond well to repeated attacks on their chosen leader’s character.

To the so called political ‘mainstream’, (which to a large extent is constrained within what Antonio Gramsci called the cultural hegemony) Corbynism appears to be a kind of colossal mass delusion. The idea of being morally opposed to the political programme of austerity and neoliberalism is seen by some as beyond the reaches of human rationality. Furthermore, Corbyn’s opposition to injustices by Western powers, particularly in Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and South America is considered to be an incredibly niche and intrinsically alienating pursuit. The general idea is that if you care about the fact that Western foreign policy is often morally unjust and directly contributes to global instability, you are the political equivalent of an unremittingly pretentious hipster whose brain delivers a shot of sweet, sweet dopamine every time they get to boast about knowing a band before anyone else.

Some of Corbyn’s more charitable critics simply say his ideas and style of leadership are ‘unelectable’, as if they are in possession of an electoral crystal ball which they can use to invalidate any idea they disagree with. In fact, by drawing the argument down to a numbers game about general elections, the anti-Corbyn crowd manage to avoid discussing the essence of what he stands for. Fundamentally, what Corbyn represents is the idea that the Labour party should be an unashamedly socialist, anti-austerity, anti-imperialist party which does not simply aspire to win power in order to tinker round the edges of capitalism. Instead, we want to be in government in order to oversee the construction of an economic system where the economy serves the interest of humanity, not the other way round.

In response to claims of ‘there is no alternative’ we say ‘another world is possible’. The world of which we speak is is a world free from extreme inequality, environmental destruction and the general sense of alienation which modern capitalism produces. Contained within this vision of the future is an understanding of the past. Firstly, there is a recognition that working people, whom Labour are meant to represent, have been systematically let down by decades of radical free market neoliberal policy. Secondly, there is a realisation that when Labour made great strides in the past, particularly in the creation of the NHS and the welfare state in the years after the Second World War, it did so with an optimistic and solidarity based message of radical hope.

At the moment, Corbyn appears to be the only person offering a vision along these lines. New Labour-esque ideas are rejected not because they are ideologically impure but because they are uninspiring. Policy is important but so too is having a comprehensive, postive worldview. The likes of Alastair Campbell have triangulated New Labour ideology to the point of extinction. All that remains is a cold and unapproachable list of technocratic proposals. Owen Smith must realise this, hence his attempt at making himself out as the non-Corbyn Corbynite. I seriously doubt this will work. Smith is the definition of bland and members will see him first and foremost as a challenger to Corbyn’s leadership and by extension will regard him (perhaps unfairly) as inherently critical of Corbynite ideals. In order to be successful Smith would need to go beyond simple lip-service to anti-austerity principles and instead show a genuine interest and understanding of the emotions and though processes that underline support for Corbyn.

Whether or not a Corbyn led Labour party could ever win a majority in the House of Commons is an important question, and one I don’t have the answer to. What I do know is that if those opposed to Corbyn want to convince the membership that Corbyn is not the right answer, they need to at least understand the question members are asking. That question is a variation of a line by Bo Burnham:

“Maybe life on Earth could be Heaven, doesn’t just the thought of it make it worth a try?”

AK