Mark
Reckless MP, has abandoned an increasingly unseaworthy Tory ship.
His journey towards UKIP shows the dangers of a reckless
accommodation to nationalism. Its a lesson politicians should have
learned many times by now.
In the
1930's, as the Nazis pushed their nationalistic agenda, based on the
extent to which the German nation was suffering from the imposition
of the Versailles Treaty, the German Stalinists responded by trying
to be better nationalists than the Nazis. It was a strategy that was
bound to fail, and only acted to strengthen the Nazis.
In the
1950's,60's, and 70's, not only were the social democrats of the
Labour Party in government for more than ten years, but the
social-democratic wing of the Tory Party was dominant, and in
government for the rest of the time. Under Ted Heath it pursued a
social-democratic agenda that turned outwards towards Europe.
As the
post-war long wave boom started to falter in the late 1960's, and was
felt first by the less profitable smaller capitals, the effect of
that was apparent within the Tory Party, which moved to reflect the
interests of the party base of small capitalists, putting the
social-democratic wing of the party on the defensive. Not only was
that reflected in the role of Enoch Powell, but it was also reflected
in the ditching of Heath, and the rise of Thatcher, though this
palace coup was for many years until around 1982, not consolidated.
The fact
that Powell had been able to garner considerable support for his
nationalistic, racist rhetoric not only encouraged those of like mind
within the Tory Party. It also stimulated a growth of those
political forces outside the Tory Party, that for forty years had
been nothing more than a political freak show. All those cranks
whose political activity for years had been more or less restricted
to dressing up at weekends in Nazi regalia, and goose stepping around
country mansions, like an episode of Jeeves and Wooster, now crawled
out into the sunlight, reflected in the growth of the National Front, in the 1970's.
As had been
the case in the 1930's, the response of the political establishment
was first to ignore the fascists, in the hope they would just go
away, and then when they didn't, to accommodate to their politics, in
order to try to undermine their vote. One of the first aspects of
Thatcherism, therefore, was not the adoption of the policies of
privatisation etc., which only appeared in the mid 1980's, but an
accommodation to that nationalism.
The Tories
were quite clear that they had undermined the NF, by stealing many of
their clothes on immigration policy etc. Its true, that the NF vote
did decline, but only because the NF had themselves succeeded in
pushing the Tories on to their ground, and opening up the Tory Party
to an entrist tactic from the right. Large numbers of fascists
simply transferred their activities into the Tory Party at a grass
roots level, lots of them turning up as Tory Party councillors, for
example. In a mirror image of the Militant within the LP, the Tories
were even led to close down the Federation of Conservative Students
organisation, after it was taken over. Many of the leaders of the
BNP today, and members of UKIP grew up within these fascist groups,
both outside and inside the Tory Party.
The steady
move to the right of the Tory Party during the period has to be seen
in that context, that its economic policies were designed to appeal
to that base of small capitalists, and its adoption of increasingly
inward looking nationalism, had the same roots. Thatcher demarcated
herself in relation to Heath by an increasing rejection of Heath's
embrace of the EEC, but that trajectory down the nationalist road,
also led to further attempts to gather in populist right-wing
electoral support, by wrapping herself in the flag, such as the
adventure of the Falklands War. Prior to that reckless adventure,
not only were the Tories looking set for a big electoral defeat ,
with Michael Foot's Labour Party scoring more than 50% support in
opinion polls, prior to the sabotage of the SDP, and tens of
thousands marching behind him in London, Liverpool, Birmingham and
other cities to oppose rising unemployment. That fact, is one that
the media and political historians conveniently have forgotten.
That period,
determined political trajectories in many ways. It set up the
division within the Tory Party between its increasingly diminished
social-democratic wing that looked to big industrial capital, and its
interests, and the conservative wing that looked to the Tory Party
base of small capitalists, and those of like mind, and the reflection
of that division in the repeated feuds over Europe. Each time Tory
Party leaders have responded to flagging popularity by appealing to
that same nationalism, as Cameron has done in recent years, the
consequence has always been the same; it is to strengthen the
right-wing elements even further, and to encourage a widening of
those divisions.
But, the
Tories are not the only ones to have made the mistake of this
accommodation to Nationalism. Labour too sought to win votes by
appealing to Scottish nationalism in particular, with the offer of
devolution. And, having offered it to Scotland, was thereby obliged
to make a similar offer to Welsh nationalists, though in a much
watered down form, given the smaller political gains to be made there
from such pandering. Once again, rather than slaying the nationalist
dragon, as on every other occasion in history, it only acted to feed
it, to make it stronger, and encourage it to make further attacks.
Labour's
pandering to that same kind of nationalistic populism was also
reflected in its adoption of ever tighter immigration rules, and
measures against asylum seekers, which made it then impossible to
deal with the arguments of bigots when large numbers of Eastern
Europeans entered the country on their accession to the EU. As with
social democracy, in general, across Europe, rather than framing the
argument in terms of the fact that the interests of European workers
as a whole can only be furthered by their united action across the
continent in solidarity with each other, pushing forward to a United
States of Europe, with common rules throughout, the argument has
continually be framed in terms of what would be good for British
workers, French workers, German workers etc. It reflects a failure
of the two elements of social democracy – big capital, and the
organised working class – to take on the ideology of conservatism,
and its nationalistic reflection.
That is what
prevents the necessary political solution for the Eurozone Debt
Crisis. The US has just seen its economy grow by 4.6% in the last
quarter, and the growth appears to be gathering pace. The reason for
US growth, compared to the lack of it in Europe, has nothing to do
with QE. Monetarist policies to expand the money supply, like QE,
have repeatedly shown that under current conditions, they can do no
such thing. Loose money will not cause businesses or consumers to
spend, if they think the economy is going to contract due to measures
of austerity. By contrast, the US has been growing because it has
adopted policies of Keynesian fiscal expansion.
The same
policies could have prevented the lacklustre recovery in Europe, and
avoided the collapse of the economies of peripheral Europe. But, the
continuation of conservative politics, that put the interests of
individual states ahead of the whole prevented that. A United States
of Europe, would have introduced a similar policy of fiscal expansion
to that used in the US. It would have focussed on a policy of large
scale investment in the peripheral economies to modernise them, and
facilitate the development of globally competitive industries, so
that these economies could pay their way. It would have financed
this expansion by selling Eurobonds, backed by the whole of the EU,
i.e. by its most powerful and wealthy states, such as Germany, France
and Britain, and would thereby have borrowed cheaply.
On the back
of a rapid economic recovery the current growth of support for
conservative, nationalist forces such as UKIP, the FN in France, Five
Star in Italy, and so on would have been undermined.
The lesson
of history is that nationalism is never defeated by pandering to it.
It is only defeated by vigorously countering its reactionary,
divisive ideology, and providing a modernist, internationalist vision
of the future in its place, based upon solidarity. The reason that a
Conservative Party can never do that is clear. Its base is rooted in
those backward looking elements of society that make up its
grassroots membership, and its electoral support. That is why the
future looks bleak for Cameron's Tories, as they face continued
fragmentation. Only Labour and the Labour Movement can provide a
progressive vision of a future based on solidarity with our fellow
workers across Europe. The time has come to present it.
No comments:
Post a Comment