Truth, justice and peace
Recently, Jeremy Corbyn launched a movement entitled, "Project for Peace & Justice" (PPJ), although Corbyn gave an introductory speech outlining the objectives, he remains a member of the Labour party under a new leader who does not share Corbyn's viewpoints. This has created a question as to the role of the PPJ. Some think the PPJ might transition into a new political party and drain a considerable amount of the membership of the Labour party to its ranks.
On the other hand, after over 70 years of confrontation under a cold war and series of destructive economic policies, many people, who have no connection to the Labour party would like to see the subject of peace and justice featuring more prominently in political discourse.
However, this discourse will not be initiated by the two main political parties and so it needs to be initiated by the constituents of this country. The "protection" afforded to those who do not want to see change is a biased media that serves the interests of the same corporations who are benefactors of the main political parties. So by keeping the populous ignorant of the facts is part of their toolkit. The other part of the toolkit is to ensure that economic policies favour the very same interests as the benefactors of the main political parties. This aspect is far more subtle in that the name of the game here is to uphold an image that in our democracy constituents have the opportunity to vote on economic policies. This is a very subtle point. If the constituents can vote out governments who run prejudicial policies we have to pose a question:
However, this issue becomes complicated by the fact that in a society marred by confrontation, stating that someone is misleading others through misrepresentation can result in attacks on those so accused. If we reflect on this as individuals, we will no doubt identify occasions when we have held wrong views which, within the normal balanced relationships say, within a family, would be corrected by parents or an older sibling, and we went on our way, better informed. If no such correction was made, then the incorrect view points would be able to endure some time. If one has fallen into the habit of following a wrong procedure that satisfies one's ends, then it is considered to be good enough. Under such circumstances it becomes more difficult to comprehend messages that advise the procedure is wrong. The reaction might be, "It works for me, so why fix it?" If those managing the procedures benefit directly from the outcomes, it becomes even more difficult for them to understand or admit that the same procedure harms others.
The way to bring about change where no one is harmed and all gain by policies is not an easy endeavour but it is essential for this country to move to a better place. There is therefore a need, first of all, for an emphasis to be placed on the truth in aligning stated intent with the significance of any action on all others in society. The consideration of all is simply the need to provide a perspective on decision analysis that contains the criterion of justice or fair treatment. There is no doubt that policies that ensure a distribution of benefits and fair treatment will reduce confrontation and foment a wider state of peaceful coexistence.
The PPJ provides a forum where such a processes can be explored.
Several groups and web sites have declared their support for the PPJ but it is difficult, just at the moment to be able to grasp where all of this is going as different groups and individuals liaise to sort out their contributions. There will of course be some concern in relation to how his will be managed under Jeremy Cobyn's management style of delegating to trusted individuals in good faith. PPJ runs the normal risk of uneven output directly associated with contributing groups or even errant groups purposely acting counter to the PPJ's evolving objectives (watch this space). As is to be expected, media coverage has been predictably poor and some have written articles that poke fun at the whole initiative.
The contention is that most of these facts relating to constitution, wrong theories and explanations of how policies go wrong are, in reality, easy to understand if they are spelt out in a clear fashion. In these analyses there is no "left" or "right" but simply a clarification of how specific policies are prejudicial so that those members of the public who read Corbynista.org output can begin to understand the degree to which policy makers hold wrong or biased views which harm the wellbeing of the constituents of the United Kingdom. The constitutional gaps identified, and we have been informed there are some significant ones, would require reforms. Corbynista.org maintains a right to reply policy to enable comments and alternative points of view to be expressed. If any of those who have been so keen to confront and intimidate others do make contributions it will be possible to decide which of these hold honestly held wrong views. On the other hand this will help identify those who are indelibly committed to the nihilistic point of view that there is no such thing as society and that democracy in the United Kingdom is a device to advance tyranny.