Brexit and The Tories Are Dead. We Need A General Election To Bury Them

Last week showed that both Brexit and the Tories are dead. They both have the appearance of zombies – dead bodies that are still walking the Earth, not realising they have died. We need a General Election, to put them both out of their misery, and bury them for good. 

The EU referendum was called by David Cameron to try to manage the irreconcilable differences inside the Tory Party. Those irreconcilable differences, over the last 30 years, have taken the form of the divisions over Europe, just as, at a different time, the differences between sections of the English ruling classes took the form of a religious dispute in the Civil War. But, those superficial differences, in both cases, are only a manifestation of the real, underlying differences of class interest. In the Civil War, it was differences between the interests of the rising bourgeoisie represented by the towns, and a growing body of capitalist farmers, as against the interests of the old landed aristocracy, and the Crown, which sought to appropriate rents and taxes, out of the bourgeoisie's profits. 

In the case of the Tories, it is the fact that developed capitalist economies are social democracies, where the dominant form of capital is socialised capital. Governing parties in such economies have to recognise that reality, and ultimately bow to the needs of that large scale, socialised capital. Yet, the Tory Party has also historically been the party of that old landed and financial aristocracy, whilst its core membership, and electoral base is made up of the remnants of the old private capital, the 5 million or so, small businesses, sole traders and so on, and their attendant social layers, who have always looked to the erection of various forms of state protection to shield them from the ravages of competition from the larger, more efficient capitalists, and from the organised labour movement, able, on the basis of the higher wages and better conditions, provided by the larger capitals, to demand that the smaller capitals also pay up. It was these same reactionary elements that provided the foot soldiers of fascist parties in the 1930's. The Tories have to reconcile within themselves these two contradictory forces. On the one hand, the conservative social democratic wing that recognises the reality of modern social-democratic capitalism, and the need to accommodate its requirements, whilst resisting any further development of social-democracy, and its reactionary wing, which seeks, naively, to turn the clock back to the era of unabated free competition, by a myriad of small private capitals. Its no wonder the Brextremists are epitomised by the MP for the 18th Century, Jacob Rees-Mogg. 

For thirty years, after WWII, the Tory party itself had to bow to the reality. It found that it had to accept the need for a large welfare state, that regulated the economy, and its most important aspect for capital, the supply of labour-power; it had to accept the need for macro-economic planning and regulation, by the use of Keynesian demand management, and monetary policy; it had to recognise that capital, as large scale socialised capital, had burst through the fetters imposed by the nation state and had become multinational, and that, in order to extend all of those elements of a social-democratic polity, required by this large-scale, multinational, socialised capital, that was more powerful than individual nation states, and could freely locate anywhere in the world, it was necessary to construct new transnational para-state bodies, and larger multinational states – just as nation states had been developed in the 19th century to meet the needs of the development of industrial capitalism, and the US had been led into a Civil War, to establish a centralised Federal State. 

This process had led to repeated European wars, essentially for that purpose too, as first France, then Germany sought to construct a European state under the domination of one or the other, whilst Britain sought to prevent either, which would have been a challenge to its own supremacy of the time, culminating in the wars of 1914-18, and its continuation in 1939-45. It was, in a vague sense, grasped by the political leaders. They set about peacefully constructing a European Union, in the post-war period, to avoid such future wars, and put that centre stage, as the motivation and goal of creating the EU. It is also why the Tories today fail to understand the underlying strength of the political conviction of Europeans to preserve the single market, the customs union, and the political institutions, vital to that project, and their willingness to endure short term, economic pain, in order to preserve that polity, which is the basis of their longer-term, economic supremacy and development. 

Lenin in Imperialism, in setting out the reactionary nature of those who sought to oppose the logical development of capitalism, in the form of monopolies that arise out of the concentration and centralisation of capital, caused by the competition between capitals, wrote approvingly of Hilferding's comments, 

““It is not the business of the proletariat,” writes Hilferding “to contrast the more progressive capitalist policy with that of the now bygone era of free trade and of hostility towards the state. 

The reply of the proletariat to the economic policy of finance capital, to imperialism, cannot be free trade, but socialism. The aim of proletarian policy cannot today be the ideal of restoring free competition—which has now become a reactionary ideal—but the complete elimination of competition by the abolition of capitalism.” 

He continues, 

“Let us assume that free competition, without any sort of monopoly, would have developed capitalism and trade more rapidly. But the more rapidly trade and capitalism develop, the greater is the concentration of production and capital which gives rise to monopoly. 

And monopolies have already arisen—precisely out of free competition! Even if monopolies have now begun to retard progress, it is not an argument in favour of free competition, which has become impossible after it has given rise to monopoly. 

Whichever way one turns Kautsky’s argument, one will find nothing in it except reaction and bourgeois reformism.” 

And, the same applies to those reactionaries who would try to turn back the clock on the creation of the EU, as a natural development of the process of capitalist development. But, those who portray the free trade inside the EU, as the main element to defend, do not promote the interests of the working-class, any more than to argue that it is free trade between different towns, cities and regions of the nation state, that was the main thing about the capitalist nation state that socialists sought to promote as a progressive development. What socialists promoted as progressive, about the nation state, in the 19th century, was that it was the rational development of the necessary political form of industrial capitalism that enabled its further development and accumulation, thereby creating the basis for the development of the working-class, and the conditions of its own liberation. The progressive aspect of the EU, and similar economic blocs, is that they create the same conditions, and reflect the rational development of large-scale, multinational, socialised capital, in the conditions of the 21st century, and thereby the conditions for workers, within such structures, to bring about their own liberation, and the development of socialism. 

Similarly, the argument, by some that the EU is reactionary, because it imposes tariffs and trade restrictions on countries, including developing economies, outside its borders, is not an argument that socialists should support, any more than, as Lenin describes, we should promote opposition to monopolies, and support for free trade, by the nation state. Our goal is not to promote free trade by the EU with third countries, but to move forward inside the EU, to a workers Europe, and the creation of a United Socialist States of Europe, and from there to establishing fraternal relations with the workers movement across the globe. 

In the 1960's, the Tories themselves were led to follow the logic of social-democracy, and the needs of large-scale socialised capital, by proposing membership of the EEC. Under pressure from the US, which sought to break up all the old colonial empires, and the monopolistic trade relations they had maintained, so as to open up the world economy, to US multinational capital, Britain's ability to hide its rapidly declining economic and political status within the world order, by relying on those old imperial monopolies, and the rents and interest it brought back from the colonies, came to an end. In the 1960's, as the long wave post-war boom had created an overproduction of capital, resulting in unemployment falling to between 1% - 2%, and a consequent rise in wages, that began to squeeze profits, the decayed nature of British capitalism became increasingly exposed. Britain had the choice of either applying to become the 51st state of the US, or else of joining the EEC, on the road to forming the EU. The existing trade relations between the UK and Europe, and the intertwining of capitals in the UK and Europe, made the latter the only rational solution, whilst its global strategic ties to the US, to which it had played second fiddle since WWII, led it to continue to also act as a conduit for US interests within the European project – one reason that De Gaulle had opposed UK membership. 

The attempts of nationalists to turn back the clock, of taking Britain out of the EU, and of attempting to recreate a world of free-wheeling, free market, competition, based upon a plethora of small private capitals, is a thoroughly reactionary endeavour, which furthermore is doomed to failure. It would essentially require a political counter-revolution to achieve. The support for Brexit amongst the Lexiteers is even more reactionary, and naïve, because they combine the reactionary ambitions of the Brextremists for a return to nationalistic solutions, with a utopian vision of being able to create some kind of autarkic, dirigiste, economy within national borders, that would be even more bound to fail, and end in catastrophe. 

Brexit represents this battle-ground on which the fight between modernism and reaction is being fought out. That it should assume its most acute form within the Tory Party is no coincidence, because it is constructed upon that basic contradiction. With the demise of the old Liberal Party, the Tory party was left trying to ride two horses. On the one hand, it continued as the party of the old landed and financial oligarchy, on the other it was the party of the small private capitalists. But, the interests of the financial oligarchy, of the small, but powerful class fraction of money lending shareholders, who derive their interest/dividends from the large profits of the big socialised capitals, is antagonistic to the interests of the small private capitalists. The profits of the former are dependent upon social-democracy, of an extension of planning and regulation on an increasingly extensive, and so international scale. 

The Tory party is, therefore, riven by meeting the needs of the most powerful, but numerically small fraction of the capitalist class on the one hand, and the demands of the more numerous, but contradictory interests of its core membership and electorate. The talk has been of a split in the Labour Party, but the real basis of a split resides in the Tory Party, which needs to reconcile these two contradictory objectives that exist within the capitalist class itself, reflecting the contradictory interests of opposing class fractions. 

That is why the Tory Party has never been able to resolve this issue over the EU, and why it has continually risen up to divide them. It is why Theresa May has been unable to resolve the issue of Brexit, and why no other Tory leader would be able to resolve it either. May has tried to ride the contradiction within the Tory Party. She has continually fudged deals with the EU, in order simply to get through another day, another stage in the negotiations, only then to have to interpret those fudges in the most ridiculous manner, so as to assuage the outrage of her Brextremist wing. The EU negotiators, aware that May's position as Tory leader was itself unsustainable, have tried to provide her with every support, against those Brextremists. But May cannot accept that support, because it only enrages her Brextremists even further. 

Without the Brextremists, May could do a deal with the EU, based upon membership of the Customs Union, and Single Market. It would logically lead back into the EU itself, because there is no rational basis for remaining in those institutions without having a say in the formulation of their rules and regulations. But, May cannot force through such a deal, because she does not have sufficient votes in parliament to achieve it. Her Brextremist wing would oppose it as a sell-out, so would the DUP, whilst Labour would oppose it, because it does not meet their six tests. It is not just the Irish border issue where this contradiction resides, but the Irish border is its most acute manifestation. 

There would be no need for an Irish backstop, if Britain were to commit, by treaty, to remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market. But, May cannot agree to that, and so her attempts, last week, to again fudge that issue, by introducing the idea of a temporary back-stop whereby Britain as a whole would remain in the Customs Union and Single Market, was necessarily rejected, unless Britain also agreed to an unlimited backstop in Ireland. May cannot accept the idea of an unlimited backstop for the whole of the UK, because, as with permanent membership of the Customs Union and Single Market, the Brextremists would oppose it, and seek to remove May. So, as EU leaders pointed out last week, as far as they are concerned, every technical option has been exhausted, and it now comes down to the need for a political solution within Britain itself. 

But, May cannot provide such a political solution. She called an election in 2017, in the hope, and because of her need, to obtain a large enough Tory majority to be able to push through Brexit. She did so on the basis of a hard Brexit agenda, suitably accompanied by her calls for the need to elect a “strong, and stable” leader, as with the Bonapartist regimes elsewhere. That agenda was rejected. The Tories lost their majority, and Labour acquired millions of votes from those attracted to Corbyn's radical social agenda, but also from those who rejected the idea of Brexit, and for whom the Liberals and Greens were quite obviously not a viable vehicle through which to vent that opposition. 

Brexit represents a reactionary, political counter-revolution that socialists should oppose. But, precisely because of what it is, it is also a utopian adventure on the part of those counter-revolutionaries. The Tories cannot push it through, and any attempt on their part to do so via political manoeuvres in Parliament will be met by widespread opposition. Its notable that for all the talk by the Brextremists about public anger at overturning the Brexit vote, it is the opponents of Brexit that have repeatedly turned out tens and, as yesterday showed, even hundreds of thousands, to actively demonstrate, not the Brextremists. That is also inevitable, because the support for the Brextremists comes from a largely atomised mass of passive individuals, thoroughly disparate, and divided themselves on their motivation for Brexit, other than a vague emotional dislike of foreigners, and particularly of immigrants. 

Its clear that May now sees her best hope is to simply drag out the process for as long as possible so as to present to parliament with a fait accompli, of vote for her proposals, or vote for no deal. Her problem is that she cannot even get the EU to agree to her proposals, and to be able to put proposals to the EU that they would be able to accept, she would first have to face down the Brextremists and the DUP, which would bring down her premiership, and probably the government. This is the inevitable end of the line. If the Brextremists kick out May, and elect Bojo as Tory leader, or Rees-Mogg, the rules of the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen would have to ask Corbyn whether he could form a government. He would say yes, and might be able to do so, with the tacit acceptance of Tory anti-Brexit MP's, for just long enough for him to be able to negotiate a prolongation of the Article 50 negotiations, before him calling a General Election. 

If not, then its still likely that anti-Brexit Tory MP's would resign the Tory whip rather than support a Bojo or Rees-Mogg drive towards a No Deal Brexit. That would create a constitutional crisis. The Brextremists would hope to ride it through until March 29th, when the UK officially leaves the EU, which is why they were insistent on having that date etched in blood on the face of the Withdrawal Bill. They will not be allowed to get away with that.  For all her bluff and bluster, if May remained in office, and her proposals were defeated in parliament, which they would be, she would not push through a No Deal Brexit, because the consequences for the UK would be so catastrophic.  Nor would parliament allow a Brextremist Prime Minister to do so.  Either way Brexit is dead.  May's softer, unworkable Brexit does not have majority support, and cannot pass.  The Brextremists No Deal Brexit would be a disaster for Britain, and for capital, and would be opposed tooth and claw by the dominant sections of capital, who would oppose the counter-revolution it represents, by fair means and foul, first of all by mobilising parliamentary and state forces to block it.

The answer is not a second referendum, which would have many of the same deficiencies as the 2016 referendum, but is a General Election to remove the Tories from office. But, it's now time for Labour to take leadership, and to base its election manifesto not just on progressive social democratic policies, but upon the recognition that such policies can only be implemented on an EU wide scale, and that central to Labour's programme, therefore, must be an outright rejection of Brexit, a rejection of the conservative agenda of the Blair-rights for restrictions on free movement, whilst promoting an extension of the free market, but instead, for the extension of the rights of free movement of workers within the EU, as the basis for strengthening ties between the workers of Europe, of strengthening their rights, and building a workers Europe, not on the basis of liberal free markets, but of the extension on an EU wide scale, of social-democratic planning and regulation, as the basis for the long-term accumulation of capital, and creation of the conditions for the movement forwards to socialism.  The tragedy is that yesterday's march of three-quarters of a million people, opposing Brexit, was not being led by Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour leadership, which means that its political demands were also not those of a progressive, internationalist social-democracy.  Its time to change that situation, and if doing so means changing the Labour leadership, so be it.