Corbyn Goes AWOL

A month ago, I argued that Brexit is an historic struggle between two great class camps. Its comparable to the struggle over the Repeal of the Corn Laws in the 19th century. This is a struggle that cannot be settled in the centre-ground of politics, which is why all the talk about building a consensus, or trying to bring the country together and heal the division is so much nonsense. Britain, and indeed much of the developed world is at an inflexion point. The forces of conservative social democracy that have held sway for the last thirty years, have lost the material foundation upon which they rested. So, this is now manifesting itself in an historic battle that can no longer be resolved by a simple change of government reflecting policies a bit more or less to the centre-ground. On the one hand, we have those reactionary nationalist forces, supporting Brexit, that want to turn back the clock to a less developed form of capitalism, constrained within the boundaries of the nation state, based upon a myriad of small capitalists, and rampant free market competition, on the other we have the forces of progressive social democracy, and of international socialism that seek to push through the constraints that conservative social democracy has come up against, to extend the foundations upon which social-democracy itself exists, of socialised capital, of an increasing democratic control, and planned and regulatory framework, in which capital can accumulate, and which leads forward to the abolition of an economy based upon production for profit, towards one based upon production to meet human needs. 

At the weekend, more than 1 million people marched in London, on the side of progress, and the demand that Brexit be scrapped, whilst 5 million people have signed the petition demanding that Article 50 be revoked. By contrast, the self-publicising – though greatly aided and abetted by the Tory media that hang on his every word – Nigel Farage, could muster only a few dozen weary souls to trudge from Sunderland in the reactionary cause, of trying to stop the world, and return it to the dreary past. The vote in the EU referendum, in fact, fails to reflect this underlying reality of the forces standing on either side. On the one side, that, on a single day, in June 2016, had a majority, a phalanx of elderly Tories, who are literally dying out, and on the other, an almost equally sizeable number of younger voters, who represent the future. The image is distorted, because although the former are weak, and growing weaker by the day, they have the advantage that the party that represents their interests, the Tories, is currently in government, supported, by the reactionary DUP. 

Appearance and reality, are seriously out of alignment. The forces of reaction, standing behind Brexit, should actually be capable of being swept away forthwith. Unfortunately, the party that should provide the leadership for bringing that about, and whose members should be in the vanguard of providing the progressive social-democratic alternative to the forces of reaction, has failed to carry out its responsibilities. Its newly invigorated membership, is itself up for that task. A half million members, clearly demanding a new more radical social-democratic agenda, which it thought it was getting with Corbyn, is 90% in favour of stopping Brexit, as indeed, are 75% of Labour's voters in the 2017 General Election. The problem lies entirely with the Labour Leadership, which refuses to lead. 

At the weekend, when more than 1 million people marched to oppose Brexit, and to oppose the reactionary, nationalist agenda it represents, Corbyn was AWOL. We were later informed by Corbyn's attorney John Trickett, that he was too busy attending an event in Morecambe. That is like Wellington failing to turn up to the Battle of Waterloo, because he had a prior engagement at a skirmish in Jersey. And, as I wrote last week, if Corbyn failed to head up this demonstration, Watson would. It is as though Corbyn does not want to lead the Labour Party, as though he wants to return to his previous quiet life on the back benches, where he could content himself with all those things he is against, without having to worry about leading any kind of struggle for all the things he is for. So, instead, he vacated the field. It is fortunate that the forces of reaction are so weak, other than when it comes to passive activity, such as voting in a referendum. Instead of strengthening the forces of reaction, therefore, Corbyn's desertion of the struggle, has simply left open the door once more to the forces of the centre, of that same old failed conservative social-democracy, that dominated the last thirty years. The same happened in France, which opened the door for Macron. Corbyn appears to be actively encouraging the forces of Blairism to return, and is giving every opportunity for the visible figurehead of those forces, Tom Watson, to establish himself as the effective leader of the Labour Party, while Corbyn sits it out on the sidelines. For the last three years, Corbyn has failed to defend any principle when it is under attack, failed to defend any of his supporters, or other members of the left, when they have come under attack, and at every step has appeased the forces of the right inside the party. Watson now openly organises his own party within a party, and Corbyn not only allows him to do it, but gives him a massive platform to promote his alternative party, in front of a million people. 

The failure of leadership by Corbyn and his entourage is not just about their failures in relation to Brexit, driven by their adherence to the reactionary national socialist ideology of Stalinism, and the concept of building Socialism In One Country, but is also this failure to defend basic principles, and to confront the right inside the party. But, that is in part a feature of the same Stalinist politics, the politics of bureaucratic manoeuvre, as an alternative to open democratic political struggle. Corbyn, and his Stalinist advisors fear mobilising the hundreds of thousands of party members against the right, and their supporters in the Tory media, because to do so is to unleash the genie from the bottle. The whole practice of Stalinism is to ensure that control is kept at the centre, so that, for example, when Corbyn sought to prevent an open debate over Brexit in 2017, he was able to keep it off the conference agenda, then in 2018, when it was clear that was not possible, and that the vast majority of party members were backing a second referendum, and opposition to Brexit, it meant further bureaucratic manoeuvres along with McCluskey, to contain it within the composite of a vague and convoluted composite, that gave Corbyn the leeway he required to effectively ignore the wishes of the party members. 

Rather like the history of Stalinism in the USSR and Eastern Europe, what this bureaucratic strategy of Corbyn does is to open the door again to the right, and from there to the forces of reaction. It led to Gorbachev, and those seeking to introduce capitalist market reforms, as a brief interlude before it led to the reaction of Yeltsin, and then Putin, and to the likes of Orban in Hungary. In France, the left had the opportunity of coming together on a progressive social-democratic agenda, but instead was divided, with Melonchon, offering a similar reactionary nationalist agenda to that proposed by Corbyn, and which was barely distinguishable from that of Le Pen. Its failure, and the election of the Blair-right Macron, offers no way forward, and as predicted, has simply opened the door once more to reaction, in the form of the weekly protests of the gilets jaunes. 

The truth is that Corbyn's so called “Jobs First Brexit” is a reactionary delusion, and in practice Labour's position is no different to that of Theresa May. That fact, was spelled out last week by John Heeley, who accepted that Labour had no problem with May's Withdrawal Agreement, but only with the political statement attached to it. The farcical implications from that were demonstrated by Trickett, on Sunday, when he tried to square this circle when appearing on the Sunday morning politics shows. Labour disagrees with May's deal, Trickett informed us, because Labour wants Britain to be permanently inside the Customs Union, and close to (whatever that means) the Single Market, and May's deal, as set out in the political statement does not provide such commitment. But, then, when asked why Labour does not support May's Withdrawal Deal itself, Trickett says, because the Withdrawal Deal includes the backstop which ties Britain into the Customs Union, and Single Market permanently! Honestly, you could not make this stuff up. 

As Sraid Marx points out, when it comes to Labour's objection to being actually inside the Single Market, rather than just “close to it”, it comes down to a thoroughly reactionary stance of opposition to the free movement of labour. As I have set out here on previous occasions, Labour's stance on Brexit is thoroughly reactionary, and built upon delusions. The idea that Britain could be in the Customs Union, and yet, continue to negotiate its own trade deals with other countries is a fantasy. The whole point about a Customs Union, is that it not only has tariff free trade inside it, but that it has agreed common tariffs with countries outside it. Where those tariffs are the result of negotiation with those other countries, it is the Customs Union itself that negotiates them, not individual countries, which would negate the whole purpose of the Union. Moreover, the idea that Britain could have a seat at the table of that Customs Union, in setting those tariffs, whilst not being in the EU, is also not tenable, because it would mean that Britain would then have advantages resulting from not being in the EU, that actual EU member states do not enjoy. No organisation that wants to survive can operate on that basis. 

And, Labour's attitude to the Single Market suffers from the same delusion. It wants to be “close to” the Single market, whilst not being inside it, or complying with any of the conditions of being a member of the Single Market. There is no reason why the EU would grant such privileges to Britain, which would undermine the EU itself. 

So Labour's actual position comes down effectively to the same position that May has put forward in her Withdrawal Agreement and its backstop that Britain will essentially be tied into the Customs Union and Single Market, but, as a result of being outside the EU, will have no say in determining the rules and regulations of those organisations. As May is finding now, the only alternative to that, as presented by the ERG, and indeed by the EU, is that Britain has to be completely outside those bodies, to implement a No Deal Brexit, and then to negotiate some kind of Canada style free trade agreement. 

The ideas being put forward by some on the Labour backbenches, now being taken up apparently by Corbyn, in the hope of keeping his Brexit nightmare alive, that it would be possible to negotiate some kind of Norway ++, or Common Market 2.0 deal are no better. Firstly, here is no reason the small countries inside EFTA, would want the disruptive influence of Britain in their organisation. It is typical British arrogance once more to think that this solution is just a matter of Britain choosing to adopt it, rather than these other countries having a say in the matter. Norway, with its 7 million people, and its economy heavily reliant on energy exports, has its own reasons for being inside EFTA, and outside the EU, but it is quite a different thing for Britain to do so. Why on Earth would a British government agree to be in EFTA, or some other such arrangement that ties Britain into the tariffs, and single market regulations of the EU, without having any input into EU decision making bodies? 

Trickett's ridiculous flailing around on Sunday, trying to square these circles, showed the underlying contradiction in Labour's position, as it tries to find some fig-leaf of cover to justify, promoting its own Brexit fantasy, whilst opposing the more or less identical position put forward by May in her Withdrawal Agreement. In so doing it simply conveys the impression that Labour is being duplicitous. Labour, of course, should oppose May's deal, but not for the reasons Labour gives. It should oppose it because it should oppose Brexit itself, not try to put forward some identical, differently phrased, but equally reactionary, and unachievable alternative to it. 

Time is running out. Labour should put itself at the head of the forces of progress and oppose the forces of reaction. It should come out clearly with a demand to Revoke Article 50, as now demanded by more than 5 million people.