Afternoon of the RINO

Afternoon of the RINO

The Tory RINOS (Rebels in Name Only) have shot their bolt.  Their day is over.  Whenever, in future, the Soubry's, Grieve's et al, claim to be opponents of a No Deal, or Hard Brexit, they will be laughed at derisorily, and reminded that it is they that kept Theresa May in her job, even as she, once again, hard-facedly told them that she was pressing ahead, in spite of them, and in spite of the overwhelming majority in parliament, with her proposals for a No Deal Brexit come March 29th, in just over 70 days.

The various pundits, and politicians within the ranks of both the Labour and Tory parties have bemoaned the fact that, had Theresa May reached across the floor of the House of Commons, to Labour members, and proposed, two years ago, forming some common approach to Brexit, her problems could have been avoided, and some form of compromise, soft Brexit could have been pursued, with Britain now also having in place the outline of an agreement on its future trading relations with the EU.  That is nonsense, and, three years ago, I set out why it is nonsense.  May sits atop a Tory Party that is overwhelmingly driven by a hardline nationalist agenda, which represents the interests of its core membership comprising all of those small capitalists, the white van men, market trader shysters, and backstreet sweatshop owners that stay in business only to the extent that they are protected from competition from larger, more efficient businesses, of which the EU is the epitome, and whose regulations protecting workers, consumers, and environmental rights are anathema to them. 

As I pointed out three years ago, had May approached Labour for a joint approach to push forward even some kind of softer Brexit that incorporated a continued application of those EU principles, she would have been out on her ear, kicked mercilessly by the Tory rank and file.  The ERG are a minority within the Tory parliamentary party, but they represent the authentic voice of Tory Party members, and of its core voters.  At the Cabinet meeting this week, some Tories, such as Amber Rudd, set out the need for such an approach across the House of Commons, but the Tory Party's Chair, along with the Brextremists in the Cabinet, told them and May, in no uncertain terms, that were May to do so, the party would not tolerate it.  As it is, the Tory Party is on the brink of civil war, and a decisive split.

It was never the case that May, or any other Tory Leader, could reach across to Labour and others to create an alliance for some kind of soft Brexit, based upon Norway, or some such arrangement.  The only way such a National Government style solution was possible, was over the bones of the existing Tory Party, and probably the bones of the existing Labour Party, as led by Corbyn, and his nationalist agenda, driving inexorably towards a hard Brexit.  And, despite Corbyn essentially sharing the same hard Brexit agenda as Mogg, and Co., covered over, only under duress, by his latter day, and reluctant acceptance of the need to be in "A" Customs Union, and with "close association" with the Single Market, whatever that vague phraseology is supposed to mean, May could never have reached across to him to form a partnership on Brexit, given that she and the Tory Party, have been continually portraying him as the devil incarnate,  a threat to national security, a supporter of terrorists, and other such nonsense.

Eventually, having lost her Meaningful Vote, by the largest majority ever in parliamentary history, and having initially repeated her mantra that "Nothing has changed", May was forced to offer some talks with other MP's, whilst initially making clear that such talks would only be with those MP's in the Tory Party, DUP, and right-wing nationalist Labour MP's, like John Mann, who she thought might help her create a reactionary nationalist coalition, to force a slightly modified version of her terrible Brexit deal through parliament, next week.  And, having won her No Confidence vote, which turned the Meaningful Vote into a Meaningless Vote, despite the majority, the RINOS thereby not only destroying themselves, but showing just what an absurd mockery, bourgeois democracy really is, she was free to continue in that vein, offering talks with Corbyn, Cable and the others, but only on the basis that her ridiculous red lines were maintained.

All logic, and political science says that Theresa May will not continue to push forward to a No Deal Brexit, on March 29th.  She knows, and every other politician knows, that it would be catastrophic, and destroy the Tory Party.  It would also destroy Corbyn, who will be seen as facilitating that catastrophe, by his refusal to oppose Brexit.  In the next few weeks, if not days, the representatives of large-scale capital, will begin to increase their pressure on May and the Tories, including an increasing rush to the exits, as they seek to protect their capital, by moving it out of Britain, and into the EU.  The UK economy is already at a standstill, in terms of growth.  The speculators, will begin to sell the Pound, and UK, bonds, and shares, pushing up inflation, interest rates, and starting the cratering of UK assets.  That should be enough to make May change course, or for others to force her out.

But, the RINOS have demonstrated that they are a spineless bunch that cannot be trusted, had anyone ever had any illusion that they could be.  And, May seems like a latter day General Haig, unable to change course, whatever is happening around her, at least until it is too late, and the troops have been sent over the top to their death.  Yesterday, was the day when the RINOS should have stopped her, if they were going to.  They failed, and they have made themselves into her accomplice.  Corbyn, by his continual refusal to line up with 90% of party members, in opposing Brexit, and his trying to reinterpret the Conference resolution, to justify that, even though it is quite clear that the resolution was intended to set Labour on a course of clear opposition to Brexit, is also complicit in the tragedy that is set to befall the country, and particularly the working-class.  What is unfolding, more clearly by the day, is that, just like in the days running up to World War I, everyone could see the tragedy that was about to unfold, everyone said they wanted to avoid it, and that it would be unthinkable, and yet they all seemed incapable of stepping outside the trenches they had dug for themselves, so as to stop it from happening.  It is like Trotsky wrote, in response to the Balkan Wars.  The Liberals, like today's liberal interventionists, had argued for intervention against atrocities committed by the Turks, whilst censoring the reporting of atrocities by the so called liberating forces.  Trotsky, opposed the liberal intervention, arguing that the tasks of history cannot be subcontracted by the working-class to the bourgeoisie, or to some kind of "democratic" imperialism.  When the wars of liberal intervention, then turned into further wars, with their own dynamic, the liberals tried to deny any connection between the two, and Trotsky responded to their representatives,

“If you don't see the link between today's disgrace and yesterday's 'glory', that's because you imagine that in the Balkans somebody is conducting a policy and answering for its reasonableness. In actual fact, policy is making itself down there, just like an earthquake. It was precisely the first war, the 'war of liberation' that reduced to insignificance, to a negligible quantity, all the factors of calculation and political discretion. Blind, unthinking spontaneity came into its own – not the benign spontaneity of awakened mass solidarity, which already has so many good deeds to its credit in history, but malign spontaneity, the resoluteness of which is only the other side of blind despair.” (War Correspondence, p 327) 

In other words, of course, in any historical event, there will be unforeseen consequences, but that is precisely why, before, or rather instead of, recklessly engaging in or encouraging some adventure, Marxists should do all they can to ensure that the revolutionary forces are mobilised in such a way as to ensure the greatest possible chance of victory. Without that, events will simply overwhelm the forces of the Marxists, and of the progressive sections of the working-class. The despair, which often leads to such outbursts, will instead lead to the kind of malign spontaneity that Trotsky describes here. We may not be able to prevent it. Marx argued against the Parisian workers rising in revolt in 1870. Lenin opposed the July Days in 1917, and as in both those cases, Marxists may have to still provide their support for workers once they have begun, but we should do all in our power to warn against them, and to direct the workers away from any reactionary road such spontaneity leads them towards.  That is why Lexit was such a ridiculous notion that was bound to unleash spontaneous forces of reaction that would spiral out of control.

We could be heading for such a situation that spirals out of control, just as happened with the Balkan Wars, and with the descent into the chaos and carnage of the First World War.  It should not happen.  It need not happen, but all of the major forces are driving inexorably towards it.  We can only do what we can do, and what we have control over.  For the rank and file of the Labour Party, that means immediately that we must demand an emergency conference to set the party's policy clearly as demanding an end to Brexit.  We should be mobilising, with the TUC, for a General Strike to stop Brexit, as damaging to the interests of all workers, and if necessary for a General Election to ratify that in law.  If Corbyn and the party leadership will not convene an emergency conference, we should take the example of the National Left-Wing Movement, from the 1920's, or of the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory, from 1979, and bring together CLP's, branches, MP's, and Trades Unions to put forward a programme of opposition to Brexit, based upon the principles of socialist internationalism, and against the economic nationalism of Corbyn.  It now probably means that the rank and file of the Labour Party needs to begin the process of removing Corbyn himself, and of setting in place a process of parliamentary selections so as to get Labour MP's more reflective of the new Labour Party, and its more dynamic, young, and outward looking membership.

We need to rebuild the Labour Movement on these sound principles of socialist internationalism, and that will also mean building a new socialist international, in conjunction with our comrades across the EU.

STOP BREXIT - AGAINST CORBYN'S REACTIONARY ECONOMIC NATIONALISM - AGAINST STALINIST NATIONAL-SOCIALISM - WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE - FOR A WORKERS' EUROPE - BUILD A NEW SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL - FOR A UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF EUROPE