Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, March 26, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document Christian Socialists head for more radical Labour territory

by Staff Writers

Reposted from:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/4880

Thanks to Antony for sending this in.

Members of the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM) have voted for a substantial change of direction for the Movement - one which they say will involve arguing for more radical policies in the Labour Party, a substantial challenge to the religious right, and greater efforts to explain to other Christians what they stand for.

CSM director Dr Andrew Bradstock, a theologian and a parliamentary candidate at the last general election, told Ekklesia this morning that he saw the move as an "interesting and very positive" development.

The Christian Socialist Movement has been in existence since 1960, created out of two other Christian socialist bodies. It affiliated to the Labour Party in 1986, since when critics say that it has increasingly accommodated to the Labour establishment - a charge denied by others. It abandoned an explicit commitment to common ownership, along with the Labour Party, in 1995. The Christian Socialist magazine was also eventually renamed The Common Good.

In a keenly-fought ballot at CSM's annual meeting, members voted overwhelmingly in favour of candidates seeking 'Renewal and Change' within the Movement. A majority of votes were cast decisively in favour of a new team of largely younger members and for Cardiff MP and former Cabinet minister Alun Michael as the new chair.

Identifying a "need for a fresh vision" within CSM, 'Renewal and Change' candidates called for the Movement to be "the prophetic conscience of the Labour Party and a prophetic voice to the churches". They pledged to make CSM 'fit for purpose' and a "more democratic, accountable and Christian organisation".

"We must repent for not living up to our calling", executive member Jonathan Cox declared. "CSM has not been a radical and prophetic witness to the Labour government, and even when its own values speak volumes, it has been silent."

An architect of the 'Renewal and Change' agenda, Cox believes CSM's inertia has worked to the benefit of the Christian right. "There has never been a greater need for a strong Christian voice on the left", he said. "We need to make a bold stand against the religious right and emphasise poverty, social justice and the environment as mainstream Christian issues."

Some non-aligned Christian socialists, like former social work professor and community activist Bob Holman, have accused Labour of abandoning its social justice tradition. Indeed he has proclaimed himself i some ways more impressed with the commitment of ex-Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, who was invited to a debate at a CSM fringe meeting at the last Labour Conference. This illustrates the ground that has to be recaptured, say critical voices.

In his first speech as CSM chair, Alun Michael told CSM members that he endorsed the call for a 'Year of Renewal'. "We must not forget that renewal is a constant process," he told the Movement's AGM in London on Saturday. "We shall need constantly to refresh our vision as we face the challenges ahead." Michael called for CSM to be inclusive in all that it does, and pledged to help it raise its profile among MPs and peers.

Alun Michael added: "The whole Labour Movement is now in the early stages of a process of renewal — that's something that is easy in opposition but is extremely challenging in Government. A new Prime Minister will provide an immediate sense of direction and a fresh profile to the media, but our success and his success depends on us being a Labour Movement of people driven by ideas and principles."

He continued: "Our role in the Christian Socialist Movement is to be deeply engaged in the wider debate, applying our values and beliefs for a new era and sharing our vision with the wider Labour Movement and explaining to fellow Christians why our faith leads us to champion progressive politics and social justice."

CSM director Andrew Bradstock told the AGM that he detected "the beginning of a new era for the Movement," and urged all who believed in Christianity, progressive politics and social justice to get involved in the 'Year of Renewal'.

The shift within CSM will be seen as part of a series of hotly debated realignments going on within Labour ranks, as the party prepares for an end to the Tony Blair premiership. It is still widely thought that Chancellor Gordon Brown - from a strong Scottish Presbyterian background - will succeed Blair. But nothing is certain in politics.

Some, including a number of CSM members, clearly wish New Labour to recover some of its radical and grassroots tradition. But self-proclaimed 'modernisers' are likely to fight such moves rigorously. Groups like Compass wish to move in a more progressive direction, but the party's 'hard left' remains very marginalised and no-one imagines a return to the years of the leftwing 1983 manifesto - described by the media as "the longest suicide note in history", though defended by former leader Michael Foot in a BBC interview this morning.

There are also official Christian organisations in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. They network together through 'Christans in Politics'.

See also: 'Where two or three are gathered together': a Christian socialist family tree, by Michael Johnston (anglocatholicsocialism.org).

Comments 1 - 13 of 13 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #27739 by Cholmonedeley on March 26, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Soo...on their pamphlets, Jesus has a big Marx beard?

Other Comments by Cholmonedeley

2. Comment #27746 by scottishgeologist on March 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm

 avatarActually, Cholmondeley, I prefer this image here:

http://www.rejesus.co.uk/expressions/faces_jesus/facesj_media/b_che.gif

That advertising campaign must have really hacked off the fundies big time...

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

3. Comment #27747 by epeeist on March 26, 2007 at 1:46 pm

 avatarComment #27739 by Cholmonedeley

Soo...on their pamphlets, Jesus has a big Marx beard?

One of the roots (amongst others) of the Labour party was the 19th century methodist movement.

And the Labour party was (and no longer is) socialist and not Marxist. Contrary to what most Americans think, there is a difference. Have a look at the Fabian society web site http://www.fabian-society.org.uk to see some of the current thinking.

Other Comments by epeeist

4. Comment #27748 by scottishgeologist on March 26, 2007 at 1:50 pm

 avatarOh yes, just noticed. On that web site there is a "Faces of Jesus " section:

http://www.rejesus.co.uk/community/voting/votes/faces_jesus.html

So theres a few more to choose from.

(Kinda like the Rasta Jesus myself - all he needs is a huge spliff and a decent reggae sound track and hey... the coolest Jesus ever )

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

5. Comment #27777 by NMcC on March 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Comment by 'epeeist'

'And the Labour party was (and no longer is) socialist and not Marxist. Contrary to what most Americans think, there is a difference.'

The British Labour Party 'was' socialist but no longer is? There is a difference between socialism and the views and ideas of Karl Marx.
Really, genius? Why don't you explain to us what, exactly, those two statements mean?

Other Comments by NMcC

6. Comment #27815 by epeeist on March 26, 2007 at 11:15 pm

 avatarComment #27777 by NMcC

The British Labour Party 'was' socialist but no longer is? There is a difference between socialism and the views and ideas of Karl Marx.

Really, genius? Why don't you explain to us what, exactly, those two statements mean?

Why so aggressive? All I was pointing out was that Americans don't seem to see a difference between democratic socialism and Marxism.

And the difference is in the single word "democratic".

Other Comments by epeeist

7. Comment #27848 by NMcC on March 27, 2007 at 3:42 am

Post by 'epeeist'

Why so aggressive? Because you would deign to inform Americans about a subject that you're clearly ignorant of yourself and because I'm fed up reading posts on this site from people who don't know what they are talking about in regard to socialism and the views of Karl Marx.

Why don't you answer the questions I posed?

When was the British Labour Party a socialist party as opposed to a party which gave support now and then to certain small sections of British capitalism being run by the state i.e. state capitalism?

And, where in all the 52 volumes of the collected works of Marx and his co-worker and collaborator Engels does it state that these two early socialists were opposed to democratic politics?

As a matter of fact, the British Labour Party has never been a socialist organisation and Karl Marx was a supporter of the interests of the majority which is why, even in his early days as a socialist, he wrote in the Communist Manifesto that the task of the working class was to 'win the battle of democracy'. This as early as 1847-48 into the bargain.

Other Comments by NMcC

8. Comment #28180 by epeeist on March 28, 2007 at 8:51 am

 avatarThe original ILP was socialist, and you could argue the labour party was until it got rid of Clause 4 (the Gaitskell push for the amendment of the clause was what got my father expelled from the party. I was expelled for selling proscribed newspapers).

Both Bakunin and Kropotkin noted the possibility that Marxism could be subverted by authoritarianism.

Other Comments by epeeist

9. Comment #28366 by NMcC on March 29, 2007 at 1:31 am

To 'epeeist'

Neither the ILP nor the British Labour Party have ever stood for the abolition of capitalism. They've stood for tinkering with capitalism whilst pretending that nationalisation of some industries (a policy the Tories have carried out as well, incidentally!) was 'socialism'. Nationalisation is not socialism it is capitalism run by the state.

Bakunin was a lunatic and his views can be safely ignored. Like Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin was an anarchist and was opposed to any authority - even that of majorities.

Other Comments by NMcC

10. Comment #28388 by epeeist on March 29, 2007 at 3:59 am

 avatarComment #28366 by NMcC
Bakunin was a lunatic and his views can be safely ignored.

But Hegel was a buffoon, can we ignore his philosophy? And if we do what are the implications for Marxism?

Other Comments by epeeist

11. Comment #28649 by NMcC on March 30, 2007 at 8:42 am

To 'epeeist'

Don't agree about Hegel. I think you're simply being pretentious and since you've blatantly refused to answer my questions and I don't see any point to your question, I'll move on.

Other Comments by NMcC

12. Comment #29438 by Big T on April 3, 2007 at 12:02 am

Dear NMcC and epeeist: Sorry to break it to both of you, but most of us are interested in reading arguments about atheism, not arguments about Marxism. "Under Communism, both religion and pseudoscience were systematically suppressed--except for the superstition of the state ideological religion. It was advertised as scientific, but fell as far short of this ideal as the most unselfcritical mystery cult." (The late great Carl Sagan in "The Demon-Haunted World - Science As A Candle In The Dark." The 2 great fallacies of the 19th century are Freudian psychology (Oedipus complex? BULLSHIT!) and Marxism. Sorry to break the news to you, but Marx had his head so far up his ass you couldn't drag it out with a tractor. Have a nice day, both of you.

Other Comments by Big T

13. Comment #151900 by Nova on March 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm

epeeist: And the Labour party was (and no longer is) socialist


Their website still describes them as a party of democratic socialism.

Other Comments by Nova
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: