Some thoughts

Well, Labour deployed a rhetoric of class solidarity; it would talk about the interests of working class people not as individuals but in terms of their collective interests as a class; whereas Thatcher appealed to the interest of "hard-working, law-abiding" people who were supposedly hampered by the state and by collectivist institutions from making money for themselves and getting on in life. In other words, Thatcher appealed to self-interest; though many of the skilled workers who bought their homes at a discount found by the end of the 1980s that whilst they still paid mortgages it was the banks who ultimately owned their homes rather than themselves. I don't think that Labour were wrong to appeal to solidarity, because a good society must be built on the basis of consideration for others rather than self-interest; it must have that basic moral core. The question is how Thatcher's rhetoric managed to cut through with so many who in fact would ultimately not benefit overall from her policies. That I don't know the answer to. Anyway, I'll just comment on a couple of other things you mention in your post. As you know, my thoughts about karma and rebirth are that the ideas represent real and ethically significant truths about the world in the form of myth and symbolism; within this scientific reframing I am willing to talk of the rebirth of ourselves in the sense of future iterations of our neural patterns, who will inherit the karmic legacy of the actions of people long dead. Such a reinterpretation of dharmic concepts I have called dharmic materialism; but I have already written about this subject at some length on OC. Within a materialist framework there can indeed be no possibility of insight being passed to future generations except through direct transmission from older to younger, so we appear to be in agreement on this point, though of course this is not to say that you would agree with my materialist framework. Whether these ideas are capable of providing us with any consolation for our mortality will no doubt vary from person to person. In any case, death becomes reconceptualised as a sort of radical amnesia, a reset of the personality back to zero; still an appalling loss, but maybe not as overwhelming as the total destruction of everything I value about my personality. Turning to a different subject, just on the one question of whether Corbyn or Polanski would be any different to Burnham, personally I think that they would, because they both have an ideological grounding which Burnham always lacked. This lack made Burnham flexible, but it also made him prone to persuasion by those by whom he chose to surround himself. In my view, the correct method in electoral politics is not to obsess about building up seats (though a presence at all political levels is necessary to be taken seriously) but to change the political conversation in a way that can drag other nominally left wing parties further in one's direction. It is a strategy that has been pursued by Mélenchon, and also by Polanski. Two years ago, no one was talking about a wealth tax. Because Polanski kept pressing on this issue, now everyone's talking about it, and there is some pressure on Burnham to introduce at least some taxes that could be sold as wealth taxes. Likewise, nationalising water is once again firmly on the agenda because of Zack. And ultimately, I think this will have an effect. The Greens are at a low in the polls right now due to Burnham stealing their rhetoric, but the gap between rhetoric and reality is a weakness the Greens can exploit. How long can Burnham get by on good vibes alone when people see little substantive improvement in their material conditions, and when he delays the implementation of truly transformative policies into the indefinite future? As a matter of interest, if electoral politics is ruled out, then what remains? What is the strategy? When I see the gathering movement of the young against neoliberalism and colonialism it makes me sometimes believe that ultimately it is unstoppable. And the banner above this movement bears two words: FREE PALESTINE; because Palestine is the moral issue of our time, the point at which the contradiction between the empire of capitalist greed and the possibility of life's survival on the planet is at its sharpest. If Palestine is free from the river to the sea, then all else must go right as well. If Palestine remains occupied forever, then things look grim indeed. In a world which has left capitalism behind, where the generations mix in an easy sociality, where children are fully integrated in society rather than being segregated from adults, where the desires and thoughts of the young are respected rather than dismissed, it would hardly be possible to maintain the panic about juvenile sexuality or man-boy relationships that characterises our epoch. Our time will come, but only if the world chooses ecosocialism over barbarism. It is merely our misfortune to be born in the era of neoliberalism in which our sexuality is repressed. By the way, you explain aspects of Laclau much better than he explains himself, so instead of quoting him maybe it would be best to put him in your own words.