Its only been days, but Johnson, having pursued a hard line Brexit stance, has caused Labour's stance to disintegrate. The highly confected unity of Labour's position forged around opposition to a No Deal Brexit, has fallen apart on contact with the field of battle, with Corbyn collapsing back into his pro-Brexit stance that most Labour members hoped he had ditched, following its disastrous effects in the elections earlier in the year. At the same time, Tom Watson, as representative of the Blair-rights, could not refuse the opportunity to put forward an alternative Brexit stance designed to undermine Corbyn, but which is itself a thoroughly bonkers strategy.
The problem with Labour's stance on Brexit, whether it is that of Corbyn, or that of Watson, is that it starts not from a foundation in principle and internationalism, but in opportunism and nationalism. That is most superficially apparent in Corbyn's pro-Brexit strategy because it is openly based upon the ideas of economic nationalism. Corbyn is prepared to go along with an unprincipled reactionary agenda – Brexit – because he, misguidedly, believes in the ideology of building Socialism in One Country, a failed and reactionary idea proposed by Stalin, but whose basic outlines could also be found in the National Socialist ideology of the Nazis, of Mussolini, and Oswald Mosely. Those who pursue this ideology of economic nationalism, whether from the left or right, and, so, however well-intentioned, in the first place, they may be, always end up following the same reactionary path that leads to economic chaos, and increasing authoritarianism to try to subdue the rebellion against it.
Marx pointed out that the ideas of Malthus and of Sismondi were essentially the same, with the plagiarist Malthus simply stealing Sismondi's economic analysis and theory. The difference was, Marx says, that Sismondi arrived at his ideas on the basis of a genuine concern for the misery of the workers that was being caused by the industrialisation that capitalism was bringing, which led him to want to hold back capitalist development. Malthus arrived at the same position, but from a wholly different standpoint of having no concern for the plight of workers, but a deep concern to defend the interests of the landed aristocracy and their lackeys, against the onward march of the bourgeoisie. But, Marx says, despite their diametrically opposed motives, they both ended up advocating the same reactionary solution. Lenin also points out that, in Russia, the Narodniks, who adopted this same Sismondist approach, wanted to put forward the idea that Russia could somehow cut itself apart from the march of world history, and the development and spread of capitalism. They saw the development of capitalism in Russia as some kind of departure from Russia's natural path of development, as something that was being imposed on it by outside imperialist investment. The Narodniks, like Sismondi, wanted to halt that development, and isolate Russia, to undertake development on the basis of the traditional Russian village commune. As Lenin points out, it was again a thoroughly reactionary approach, no matter how well meaning some of the Narodniks, and “Legal Marxists” may have been in putting forward their ideas as an alternative to Tsarism.
But, the position of Watson and the Blair-rights is even more unprincipled and nationalistic. Corbyn's position, however misguided, at least starts from a confused concept of “socialism”, of wanting to promote the interests of workers. The problem with it is not just that this kind of economic nationalism became impossible, even 200 years ago, with the growth of capitalism as a global system, but that it likewise sees the interests of workers in nationalist terms, rather than in internationalist terms, which is the only rational and principled basis upon which the working-class can be viewed. It does not present the question of Brexit in terms of what is best for the interests of the working-class, as a global class, or even, immediately, as a European working-class, but only in terms of what is in the interests of British workers, which necessarily then means that the interests of “British” workers are privileged over the interests of French, German, Italian etc. workers. It inevitably, as with the Mosely Memorandum of the 1930's, and with its 1970's equivalent, the Alternative Economic Strategy, frames the question, first and foremost, as what is in the interests of British capitalism, so as to facilitate the position of British workers within it. It associates the interests of British workers with British capital not with European workers.
All of the Brexit negotiations are negotiations about Britain's relationship to the EU, and thereby about the relationship of British capital to EU capital. They are not about the relationship of workers to capital.
What Corbyn proposes is not to negotiate a new deal for workers, which requires that the Labour Party, and TUC, unites with other EU workers, trades unions and socialists, but a new deal for Britain, i.e. a new deal in the interests of British capitalism. But, the Blair-right position as advocated by Watson is even more nationalistic and unprincipled. At best, what the Blair-right position amounts to is accepting all of the conservative social-democratic (neoliberal) elements of the EU, in terms of the preeminence of the free market over all else, but limited only in that sphere that is vital to workers interests, i.e. the right to free movement! That is most apparent in the shape of those more right-wing Blair-rights like John Mann, Caroline Flint, Gareth Snell and so on, who started from a position of capitulation to the reactionary nationalist bigots amongst their electors for whom Brexit was a means of closing the borders to immigrants, and who have been prepared to line up with the Tories, including their most reactionary elements to that end.
The Blair-right position begins and ends with a concern not for the interests of workers, but the interests of capital, and specifically British capital. For the Blair-rights, it then comes down only to a question of tactics, and their own personal belief in how they can hold on to their seat, and the cushy parliamentary career that comes with it. For some in Remain voting areas, it comes down to wanting a referendum in the hope that it might come down in favour of Remain, and the advocacy of which they see as winning them support in their constituency. For others, like the right-wing nationalists referred to above, it comes down to supporting the Tories, in the hope of some kind of deal that will still close the borders, support for which they see as vital to winning them the votes of bigots amongst their electorate.
The real purpose of Watson's demand for a referendum prior to a General Election is to undermine Corbyn, for the reasons I set out a few days ago. A referendum, prior to a General Election means that Corbyn can be sidelined. It means the Blair-rights, Liberals and Remainer Tories can come together to form a pro-Remain bloc on the same kind of conservative social-democratic (neoliberal) agenda that they presented in 2016 – which is one reason they would be likely to lose such a referendum again. They hope to pin Corbyn down to that campaign without him really having any control over it. Were they to succeed, they would see it as a staging post to his removal, were they to lose, they would blame Corbyn for the failure, as they did in 2016, and use it as a means of launching another drive against him.
But, the proposal for another referendum prior to a General Election is more stupid than Labour's current position of fighting a General Election on the basis of then renegotiating Brexit, and then holding a referendum, in which Labour would campaign against its own deal! It is more stupid, because if Labour won an election, and opened Brexit talks, it would determine the options that would be put to voters in the subsequent referendum. It could at least ensure that the Brexit option was one that it could hold its nose whilst implementing, if it had to. But, if the Blair-rights get their way, on the basis of what they think they have achieved, with their cunning plan to force Johnson to ask for an extension of Article 50, then it will not be them that gets to determine the questions on the ballot, but Johnson!
Does anyone seriously believe, that Johnson, leading a Bonapartist regime, with the full backing of the Tory press and media, with the backing of Trump, and Bannon's international ultra-nationalist network, of Russian oligarch financing, and Russian bots and trolls working overtime, using the latest manifestation of Cambridge Analytica, highly targeting social media, would not have a massive advantage in ensuring that a thumping vote for a No Deal Brexit was achieved! And, having then achieved that vote for a No Deal, Johnson agreeing to a General Election would be a rather Pyrrhic victory for Watson and the Blair-rights wouldn't it? Firstly, on the back of that referendum victory, Johnson would be in pole position to win an election, but if Labour were, by some accident, to then win the election, what a catastrophe for them that would be. Now, they would be in government and have to carry out this reactionary and disastrous No Deal Brexit that voters had voted for in the referendum they insisted on having!!!
For the Blair-rights, the demand for a referendum is an escape route to avoid adopting a principled position of saying that Brexit is a reactionary agenda that should be opposed. They will not do that, because like Corbyn, they are opportunists with their gaze fixed upon the ballot box. They look at the large number of Labour held constituencies that voted Leave, and wrongly conclude that, in order to hold on to those seats, they have to appease Leave voters.
For Johnson and the Tories it is easy. They know that 80% of the Leave vote came from Tory/UKIP voters. Johnson knows that Farage has simply carried over the former UKIP vote, and that the Tories can quickly hoover it all up, by simply adopting a hard Brexit stance. The Tories will lose few of their Remain supporting votes, most of whom have already gone to the Liberals, by adopting such a stance. They will lose a few seats in Scotland to the SNP, and a few in the South-East to the Liberals, but they correctly calculate that Labour's disastrous, confused position, and the division of the Remain vote between Labour, Liberals, Greens, and Plaid in England and Wales will hand over large numbers of Labour marginals to them, as Labour's Remain voters, that comprise 75% of the Labour vote, deserts it to these more clearly Remain supporting parties.
Again, for the Liberals the position is clear. They only have to maintain a militant anti-Brexit position committing to revoke Article 50, and in Tory-Liberal marginals they will hope to pick up Tory Remainer votes, plus have Labour and Green Remain voters move over to them. But, in Labour seats too, the Liberals can pick up large numbers of Remainer votes. They can pick up Labour Remain voters dismayed at the parties continued Brexit stance, plus pick up Tory votes, which vote Liberal tactically to deny Labour the seat. The Greens are likely to get squeezed everywhere, and the same applies to Plaid other than where they already hold seats.
But, the local elections showed that even where Labour already hold seats they can lose them to the Tories, not because of Labour voters switching to the Tories or Brexit Party, but precisely because they switch to the Liberals. Across the country, including in Leave voting seats, Labour voters back Remain by a margin of around 3:1 (a Figure that has increased from around 2:1 in relation to the 2015 Labour vote). In any seat where there is something like an even three-way split of the vote between, Labour, Liberals and Tories, a large chunk of that 60-70% of the Labour vote, will see a tactical advantage in voting Liberal as the clear anti-Brexit Party. In some seats, that will mean that the Liberals win the seat, in others it will mean that the Liberals take enough votes away from Labour for Labour to lose, but not enough for the Liberals to win, enabling the Tories to win the seat with maybe only 30% of the vote. This is the whole basis of the Tory vote strategy which becomes a winning strategy now that the political centre has collapsed, and politics has been polarised. Any party fighting in the centre, on the basis of compromise and fudge will get squashed. At the moment that is the position that Labour is in.
In fact, if you take my current constituency, the sitting Labour MP is a militant Remainer. I will be voting for him, obviously. But, the Tories are snapping at his heels. I would hope, given that the Liberals and Greens have no chance of winning the seat, that other Remain supporting voters in the constituency will do likewise, to stop the Tories winning. Yet, its perfectly conceivable given Labour's disastrous stance and strategy over Brexit, over the last three years, and their continued position of arguing for some form of Brexit, that disgruntled Remain voters in the seat, including many passionate Labour Remain voters may become so angry at Labour's continued support for Brexit, that they vent their anger by voting Liberal or Green, as even 60% of Labour Party members did in the local and EU elections earlier this year.
Labour has only one chance of winning. It is to adopt a militant anti-Brexit stance, of proclaiming that it will Revoke Article 50, and will adopt a socialist internationalist perspective of working with other EU workers and socialists for a reform of the EU in workers interests. Now that Labour conference is being held prior to any election, its vital that we commit the party to that position, and drop all of the nonsense about “Jobs First Brexits” or referenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment