In capitalism, a 'Labour Party' can easily become just another part of the ruling apparatus. In its more radical moments, such a Party will itself acknowledge that it inhabits hostile terrain. Hence, all it ultimately does is take the 'keys' to Labour and hand them to capital, give capital a chance to represent Labour and speak for it. Hence, it is essentially a managerial organ in places like the UK, although leaders like Corbyn have attempted to undo the grossest abuses of this status. This means that it is potentially more dangerous than the rather bemused-sounding UK 'Conservatives,' who at least acknowledge that in maintaining capital a ruling Party does not represent 'Labour' but merely weasels its way into it like a dangerous spy.
Capitalist Parties are eventually based on categories and issues which distract from the real ones, they are hence built on constructing false senses of community and coherence between opposed elements. They blur the lines between actual political views. Hence, the US system, where the Parties elect new candidates for the election cycle, is more effective: it does not attempt to treat Parties as coherent entities with an identity across long periods of time. Parties there can be experienced like a 'gun,' which shoots out bullets, etc., every electoral cycle and demands a response, while British Parties are usually mere drama and fake struggles but now dragged out until the fanfare disappears. Hence, it selects for leaders like Corbyn, and things like the anti-EU movement, more easily: Corbyn is constantly discussed and pulls up trees, while the EU is generally a force which dampens or mediates a nation's political system, and hence both of them stand a chance of sticking around in the UK. Corbyn is a clearly divergent political strand, and hence despite being 'opposed' has managed to rein in the negative tendencies in the Labour Party and display clear and powerful opposition to the 'New Labour' movement when any hope of this seemed evapourated away.
Appeals to a 'Labour Party' and what it should do with Corbyn are illusory in angle. The 'Labour Party' has changed recently, and made several dramatic changes in its stated political views. Hence, the only 'politics' of Labour are those which are held right now, primarily in the form of its leader and authority figure Corbyn. Legitimately, they should continue to stand by this politics each cycle, as that is the only concrete stance the Labour Party now has. This Labour Party does at least attempt to avoid speaking against the interests of labour for cheap support and bourgeois sanction. Nonetheless, this lack of a coherent politics is inherent in capitalistic Parties, who are led by the economy and not by politics, and hence the general appeal to a 'Labour Party' (and its 'politics') apart from that which exists is illusory. The attempt to get the 'Labour Party' to espouse comfortable capitalistic policies is not merely a struggle against Corbyn, it is an attack on the labour movement and attempt to paint a new picture of 'labour' which is safely accommodated within the system. It has nothing to do with concern for the 'Labour Party,' whose current politics this opposition within Labour would have the Party speak against and attack. That Blair is shocked about Corbyn disrupting Britain's politics, while they themselves had few qualms about killing Iraqis and invading their country, does not seem like a considered position. It goes without saying that Corbyn would rather the 'Labour Party' not pull the trigger on such countries, however members of other Parties might respond.
Although a 'Labour Party' is a useful form for capital, it is ultimately too caught up in smoke and mirrors for a more fast-paced political system like the USA. Managing Labour is more important in places like the UK, where it also has to be subordinate to US politics and so on. The USA can claim slightly more independence from such things. Nonetheless, by making its politicians and bourgeois spokesmen the representatives of various minorities, while espousing average pseudo-liberal politics, it has also attempted to manage minorities via the Democrats. However, the Democrats also took on a pseudo-Labour role (though not explicitly claiming the same place), which for instance promoted Obama's drawing on 'hope' for 'change' while UK's 'Labour' Party was trying to live down its advocacy of the Iraq War and alliance with Bush. Given the official criticism of the Iraq War in Britain, we can assume that any attempt to return to that form of 'New Labour' would just be a parody abstracting from such central issues in favour of marginal haggling. The 'Labour Party' should forget about elections, and focus on penitence - for, as Jesus reminds us, the lily like the Labour Party does not represent labour but through divine grace can be more splendidly arrayed.
The Democrats opted to hold in the political resistance to Bush and so on by promoting identity politics instead. By the Clinton bid, even the attempt at presenting a radical hope under Obama had been abandoned in favour of dynasties and political mildness. Even liberalism seems to have given up this strategy, with the near-Democratic Trump running against them. Identity politics could hardly offer much resistance to a quasi-celebrity running, as it merely turned more attention to these things. In general, the opposition of these political Parties is generally meaningless except in times of mutual opposition - when both sides will become radicalised. Capital will generally get its way, nonetheless, in these times of polarity. This is to be expected, but not applauded or hurried.
Hence, the capitalist political apparatus can be double-edged for the orthodox 'Labour Party,' which can eventually become the more dangerously capitalistic part of the apparatus. In the US, most socialist Parties have either been obscured, or turned to liberal or Stalinist organisations across the 20th Century. The Cold War also required most 'Labour Parties' in the West to officially come out as less radical than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as in brief liberals deceiving their nation. German Social Democracy's 'socialism' died off like a glass dodo dropped from Trump Tower. It was never meant to be. While less formal organisations of socialists were a trend propped up by the Soviet Union which would occasionally take them as allies, they are also less notable now. What must be looked for is not such organisations, crippled by a thousand forces and usually distorted, but forces which express actual opposition to the tendencies of a world capitalist system. While socialist Parties that remain clearly so can easily be impressive, they are often obscure - nonetheless, they can express in a significant way the unity of these various movements against capital. It is a better fate than to attack and seek to undermine anything which the Party advocated previously.
Capitalistic Parties are often not based on coherent political categories but rather on capitalistic 'appearances,' and hence are ruled by the economy. Usually, you might expect that a political 'Party' surrounding itself with things like Katy Perry is likely to fall prey to other uses of the word. However, the Democratic Party usually has insubstantial politics, so in which sense it is a 'party' is strictly optional. Major label pop musicians and so on also tend to draw on these illusory 'appearances' for their appeal, or just attempt to make things look better. They are tasked with serving capital, and so unless they are deaf, dumb and blind by that point that is what they do. Hence, they tend to be more harmonious with the official Democrats and liberals, who try to put a smiling face on a corrupt system, than with the more straightforward Republicans. When people like Corbyn disrupt the capitalist festivities, even slightly, they are anathematised. Of course, the Party is still in many ways unclear, as in local elections people are often not voting for someone like Corbyn but instead a maudlin imperialist like Jo Cox. It's strange to hold to the class-collaborationist dogma of the British people having little that differentiates them when someone walks up to the advocate and stabs them to death. Capitalist politics can be slightly slow in catching on to such things, however, and will eventually realise that their continual promotion of Jo Cox's statements is really just a more morbid form of the 'Rick Roll.' At the least on pressing domestic issues, Corbyn's almost 'scorched Earth' policy of eliminating dissenters or pushing on through resignations means that attempts to change his Labour Party will lack a pre-existent political apparatus to do so. The longer he can keep his authority in the Party and hence shut these elements out, the more he is frustrating and clawing at their political organisation. Along with Corbyn's supporters, who are disliked for their 'stubbornness,' this forms a fairly impressive political move despite taking a stance which is clearly against the grain of a primitive nation which has not even abolished the Windsor monarchy.
