That the Alt-Right use such suspiciously similar arguments and
terminology is not surprising, because we know that a large number of
those ideas have been developed, via international co-operation by
such forces over decades. If those who are concerned about the
machinations of the Bilderbergers really want to turn their attention
somewhere, it should be to the relations between various neo-Nazi
groups across Europe, going back to the 1970's, and how today those
links also spread out from the Kremlin to Trump's associates in the
US, to right-wing parties and groups in France, and other parts of Western Europe etc. They should look at how the ideas of National Bolshevism, referred to in Part 1, feed out not just to these overtly
right-wing organisations that claim to also be “Workers Parties”,
but also to those “left wing” parties and organisations that act
as apologists for the Kremlin, and spread similar ideas about
building socialism in one country, or which seek to break apart
existing supra-national structures such as the EU.
In fact, nationalist ideology has never restricted its proponents
from forming international organisations, and undertaking
internationally co-ordinated actions to further their cause. Stalin
co-operated with Hitler, in the 1930's, against Trotskyists, and later
via the Hitler-Stalin Pact; Hitler and Mussolini co-operated with
Franco in the Spanish Civil War; Stalin and Mao co-operated until
their conflicting nationalist interests brought them to blows.
The roots of co-operation can be traced back to the 1930's, when
these ideas about conservative nationalist parties being the true
workers' parties were developed, and as with the Strasserites, the
idea of using the capitalist state as a central element of economic
development and planning was introduced. Such ideas are not only
central to the policies of Putin, but they are now also part of the
programme of Trump, of May, of Le Pen, and others.
These ideas were promoted as part of the ideology of National
Bolshevism, that grew out of the Strasserites, and whose supporters
were also central players in the Israeli political establishment,
where this same hard-right authoritarian conservative regime can be
seen in the form of Netanyahu, and his close ties with Trump.
We are living in dangerous times. When the long wave boom came to an
end in 1974, the social-democratic model, developed after WWII, found
itself in crisis. That model required that workers' living standards
rose each year, at the same time that technological developments led
to rising social productivity, and a rising mass of profit. The
solution, within a social-democratic framework, required a breakdown
of existing national borders – which is what the EU brought about –
and greater regulation, represented by the Bullock Report in Britain,
the EU's Draft Fifth Company Law Directive etc.
But, within the labour movement of Europe, Stalinism still cast a
heavy shadow. Across continental Europe large Eurocommunist parties
were still driven by the national socialist idea of Socialism In One
Country, represented by the various national roads to socialism,
whose British version also formed the backdrop to the AES, pursued by
the Bennite Left.
Instead of pursuing this greater economic planning and regulation, on
a wider EU basis, therefore, the social-democratic forces divided on
what appeared at the time to be left and right, but what actually
turned out to be nationalist and internationalist. Workers ended up
with the worst of both worlds. A divided social-democracy opened the
door to conservative forces. The development of further regulation
and economic management was put on hold at both national and
international level, and conservatives instead framed the wider
markets on free market principles. The nationalist left had been on
the wrong side of history, and the internationalist right of
social-democracy triumphed over it, whilst finding itself having to
adopt the same conservative, free market ideas that now dominated.
Part of the strength of the Alt-Right is the weakness of the left
that has remained attached to its own reactionary nationalist ideas. In the
intervening period, the right has developed its own international
links, many of which flow out of the Kremlin. But, the now more or
less empty shells of Stalinist parties across Europe still linger on
in zombie form, like the Communist Party of Britain, and its paper
The Morning Star, as support acts for Putin, apparently oblivious to
the fact that the USSR itself no longer exists.
So, on the one hand we have, in Britain, some years ago the BNP
followed by UKIP, whilst the CPB established NO2EU, whose
nationalistic, Little Englander programme was barely distinguishable
from the former organisations. In the recent EU referendum the same
forces put forward a programme of Lexit or Left exit, that was
equally nationalistic, and which fortunately, virtually no one ever
heard anything about.
Now, these same political forces appear to be behind the pressure on
Labour to adopt the thoroughly reactionary and tactically stupid
position of supporting Brexit. Similarly, in France, whilst Le Pen
puts forward her nationalistic agenda, and proposals for France to
leave the Euro, which would mean the end of the EU, the Stalinist
Melanchon puts forward his own nationalistic programme for the
presidential elections. By these means, not only is the Kremlin
feeding the forces of the nationalist right, but via these Stalinist
forces, and their periphery, it is also feeding this nationalist
poison directly into the heart of the labour movement itself.
Socialists need to unite within and across borders to fight this
nationalist cancer. In Britain, socialists should come together to
build a Socialist Campaign for Europe. To that end I support the Option Six proposals set out by Paul Mason as the basis of discussion. We need motions submitted to
trades unions and Labour Party organisations opposing the triggering
of Article 50, and preparing the ground for conference resolutions,
in the Autumn, committing the party to opposing Brexit, and for the
building of a Workers Europe.
Isn't the big problem for the Labour party with respect to Brexit the fact that while a majority of Labour voters in 2015 voted Remain, that wasn't enough to win, and an overwhelming majority of working-class people who didn't vote Labour in 2015 (ie the people which Labour needs to attract in order to win) voted Leave?
ReplyDeleteThis pie chart analysing the 2015 General Election and EU referendum results in Sunderland demonstrates the problem.
George,
ReplyDeleteThe 65% of Labour voters who voted Remain, and the 57% of Labour voters even in places like Stoke or Sunderland who voted Remain, are, however you look at it, the starting point for Labour. That is not just the case in terms of practicalities, i.e. that they form the largest voting bloc. It is so because opposing Brexit is the principled position for Labour to take, and focussing on the progressive group supporting that position should form the starting point from which Labour builds a larger base.
But, I'm, not sure even that your proposition holds. In Stoke central for example, in 2015, the problem was also that 50% of the electorate could not be bothered to vote. The real problem for Labour is how to overcome the legacy of the conservative ideas that Labour promoted from the time of Kinnock onwards, and the apathy it engendered amongst large sections of the working-class.
The question is how to provide an alternative to all those old conservative ideas without simply presenting the equally old, bureaucratic, statist, nationalistic ideas as the only available option. In other words, its necessary to reject the ideas of blaming foreigners - whether in the form of the EU, immigrants, or imports - whilst not accepting the notions of the political centre that, therefore, we have to accept the existing EU warts and all, or worse, as the Blairites, and Cameroons would have had it, to accept the EU warts and all, but with reforms to remove or limit those very aspects of it, such as the right to free movement, which are beneficial for workers.
Labour should put forward a radical, internationalist programme, actively drawing in other EU socialists, as part of developing an EU workers charter, similar to the ideas I have set out previously, and that Paul Mason has outlined in his Option 6. We should make it clear that even fairly basic needs can now only be achieved on a European wide basis, and that our perspective for achieving them, is not some kind of passive reliance on the EU bureaucracy and existing regulations, but on building an ever more powerful workers solidarity across the EU, to transform society in a socialist direction.