Labour Is Falling Into Cummings Trap

Boris Johnson's strategist, Dominic Cummings, is a counter-revolutionary. Revolutionary socialists have a tactic known as “extreme opposition”. Cummings and Johnson are about to implement the same tactic, and Labour is falling into their trap. 

The tactic of “extreme opposition” for revolutionaries means that, we will not enter government office unless, not only do we have a large majority of our core supporters elected to parliament, but that majority is also based upon a large active majority of support in society at large. It is what Marx called “winning the battle of democracy”. It means we then use the platform of parliament to oppose the government by every possible means, and to use it to propagate our own revolutionary ideas, so as to build the necessary majority.  We have learned the lesson of the past, as Engels described in his essay on The Peasant War in Germany, where he wrote, 

“The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lost. We have seen examples of this in recent times. We need only be reminded of the position taken in the last French provisional government by the representatives of the proletariat, though they represented only a very low level of proletarian development. Whoever can still look forward to official positions after having become familiar with the experiences of the February government — not to speak of our own noble German provisional governments and imperial regencies — is either foolish beyond measure, or at best pays only lip service to the extreme revolutionary party.” 

This, however, is also the position that Cummings/Johnson, and their supporters, who want to carry through a political counter-revolution, now also face. They seek a counter-revolution to overturn the social-democratic regime that has existed for the last century. They seek to turn the clock back to the conditions that existed, of liberal democracy, at least in the first half of the 19th century, if not the 18th century, based upon the rights and freedoms of the millions of small private capitalists, and the unfettered domination of free markets. There are five million such small, often very small, businesses in Britain. Together with the families of these business owners, and their attendant layers, that means around 12-15 million people. They form the bulk of that 17 million people who voted for Brexit, and for the introduction of such a counter-revolution, and the introduction of such a red in tooth claw, dog eat dog society. 

But, in a country of nearly 70 million people, that 15 million, still represents only a minority. Moreover, amongst the remaining 55 million people, its not just workers who have no desire to see such a counter-revolution, symbolised by a No Deal Brexit, implemented. The truth is, whatever the fantasies of all those small businesses, and their Tory representatives, the economy of Britain, as with all developed economies, depends not on them, but on big business. The professional managers of those big businesses, know that any such return to the conditions of the 19th century, and of unfettered free market competition would be damaging to their interests. They have spent most of the last 150 years trying to avoid such unfettered competition, by trying to give themselves dominant market positions, taking over their competitors, and so on, in order to be able to dominate the market. They have also, for the last 100 years, looked to the state to create macro-economic conditions that provide them with relative long-term stability, in which they can make long-term plans for capital investment that now involves them in spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of pounds. Indeed, one of the reasons the economy is slowing, in the UK and EU, at the moment, is precisely the uncertainty that Brexit is crating, just as Trump's similar policies, and his global trade war is creating the same uncertainty in the US, and across the globe. 

Cummings and Johnson do not have a clear majority for their counter-revolution, either in parliament, or in the country. Their strategy is designed to create such a majority, or, as Lenin put it, to have a majority over those who would actively oppose them. That is what Cummings and Johnson's tactic has been about. The groundwork for it was created as soon as Johnson and other Brextremists walked out of May's government. Now, at every opportunity they describe their opponents as traitors, of surrender to a Europe that is increasingly portrayed in wartime narratives as a foreign enemy, and so on. 

The Tory Party, most notably in parliament, like all modern bourgeois parties, is a coalition. In parliament, it comprises, reactionaries such as Rees-Mogg who want to carry through this counter-revolution, whilst on the other it contains conservative social-democrats like Ken Clarke, who recognise that the future of Britain depends upon that big business, on its links into the the EU, and also on the social-democratic state, which creates the necessary conditions under which it operates, including things like the welfare state. The Tory Party outside parliament, much like the Labour Party outside parliament, is much more homogeneous. Around 80% of Tory Party members, and voters support No Deal Brexit, and the kind of dog eat dog vision of society that entails. 

Implementing a tactic of extreme opposition required Johnson to firm up the Tory Party in parliament, clearing out the wavering elements. He has, in fact, done what Corbyn should have done, in the other direction, with the PLP. The Westminster bubble, and all of the liberal middle class media have been up in arms that Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames has been thrown out of the parliamentary Tory Party – presumably forgetting the Churchill himself left the Tories to join the Liberals, and later left the Liberals to rejoin the Tories, which is one reason the Tories never trusted him. They are appalled that former chancellors and ministers should be summarily dismissed by Johnson. But, Johnson and Cummings knew exactly what they were doing. Extreme opposition requires that the party implementing it is more or less homogeneous and disciplined. Some of the Tory MP's that clung to Johnson's apron strings will, in fact, still get ditched, because they are out of step with the Tory rank and file's counter-revolutionary agenda, but, for now, Johnson and Cummings can be happy that they have been cowed. 

Removing the whip from the 21 Tory MP's implements another aspect of Johnson/Cumming's plan. It means that Johnson's government is now in a clear minority in parliament. He can, with quite clear justification, say that he is trying to implement the Brexit decision, but is being frustrated by parliament. That will be further confirmed today, when Labour's motion calling for Brexit to be delayed until January, unless a deal is achieved, will undoubtedly be passed. Johnson has made it clear that, in that event, he will ask parliament to dissolve and call a General Election. Labour, is now apparently following Blair and the Liberals advice not to vote for such an election, on the grounds that Johnson might subsequently set the date for the election after Brexit has happened on October 31st. 

As I wrote, yesterday, that is a big mistake. Already, right-wing Labour MP's, like Caroline Flint, are putting down amendments to Labour's bill, seeking to tie to it, that any extension should be supported only on the basis of it being used to seek a Brexit Deal. That simply highlights the divisions within the opposition, which is Johnson/Cumming's greatest advantage, an advantage that will grow for them having homogenised the parliamentary Tory Party, and its message. Labour's bill will undoubtedly pass, and it will be moved to the House of Lords for approval, prior to Royal Assent. There have been suggestions that Johnson might try to prevent Royal Assent being given. That is possible, but unlikely. Instead, Johnson has already set out what his position will be. He will, call for a General Election and dare the opposition parties to vote for it. Already Labour and the Liberals have said they will not, which gives Johnson an immediate propaganda win, making them seem dithering and weak. 

Having then made a big play about the undemocratic nature of the opposition parties being afraid to fight a General Election, so as to get a popular mandate for their “undemocratic” “Corbyn Surrender Bill”, Johnson will, after milking that for a few days, then put a bill before parliament to suspend the Fixed Terms Parliaments Act, and call a General Election, which would require only a simple majority, rather than two-thirds. Its likely that Johnson will lose that vote too, having ensured, by chucking out the 21 rebels, that he now leads a minority government. By the time that vote is lost, parliament will be at the stage of the prorogation on 9th September. It will then close down for five weeks. 

During all of that five weeks, the government will continue to function, making further rash promises, unchecked by parliamentary scrutiny, in the same way that it is notable that the government now always refuses to put up any spokespeople to appear in TV discussion programmes, in relation to their policies. They will have five weeks of intensively pushing the betrayal narrative, and opposing the “Surrender Bill”. They will be amply supported by the reactionary gutter press of the Mail, Express and so on, whilst the Tory media will continue to give wide coverage for the Faragists, such as Suzanne Evans, the unrepresentatives of Spiked Online etc., who are never absent from their screens for more than a day. 

But, as I wrote, yesterday, the “Surrender Bill”, as Johnson/Cummings will present it, requires the Prime Minister to go to Brussels to request an extension if no deal has been reached by 17th October. Johnson, who we know has been conducting absolutely no negotiations for a deal with Brussels, will simply wait until the EU Council Meeting, and then announce that, no deal has been reached, but that, as he promised, he would not be responsible himself for any such surrender. He will then simply go to the palace and resign himself as Prime Minister, handing over the problem to a divided, weak and fractious parliament, whilst himself leading his homogenised Tory party into “extreme opposition”, as the principled proponents of Brexit, and implementing the “democratic wishes of the people”. 

Labour is falling into the trap of allowing him to pursue that tactic. Having resigned as Prime Minister, and taking the Tories into extreme opposition, he will expose the weak and divided nature of the opposition. The Liberals, and rebel Tories have said they will not back Corbyn as caretaker Prime Minister. Labour clearly could not support a Liberal, Ken Clarke, and even less some back bench Labour MP, which would be tantamount to accepting a coup against the Corbyn leadership of the party. But, that is, of course, what Johnson's strategy could provoke. It could cause Labour to split, with right-wing, and Blair-right MP's, breaking party discipline in order to form some kind of centrist government of national unity with the Liberals. That would necessitate Labour expelling those MP's prompting a split in the Labour Party itself. 

But, its not clear that any such government of national unity could be formed prior to October 31st, still less that the opposition parties would actually do what is necessary and line up behind Corbyn. During all of this chaos, Johnson and Cummings, and a disciplined, hard Brexit, Tory Party would simply hammer away, each day, at the dithering of the opposition, repeating ad nauseum their simple message of the need to implement Brexit and leave on 31st October. They would throw all of the responsibility for the chaos, including the chaos that would result from the subsequent No Deal Brexit on to whoever would then be in office, but with no time or space to change anything. It would mean that, in the ensuing election, a hard right, Tory Party, with a clear message, the one that all Bonapartists pursue under such conditions, of restoring law and order, would be able to mobilise core Tory support behind it, in the face of a weak and divided opposition. 

Already, right-wing Labour MP's, like Flint, are saying they will argue in any election for a fantasy Labour Brexit deal, and it is still not clear exactly where Corbyn stands on that point. The idea that Labour could call an election, arguing that it would try to negotiate a deal, but would then offer a referendum, in which it would argue for Remain, even against the deal it had itself just negotiated, is nonsensical. It means that all of those young, progressive voters attracted to Labour in 2017, as the best way of stopping Brexit, would still be given no real reason to vote Labour rather than to continue to move towards the Liberals, Greens, Plaid or the SNP. 

Labour needs its own clear principled position of revoking Article 50, and of adopting its own position of extreme opposition. Its strategy in the last three years has been both unprincipled and disastrous. That needs to change, fast.  Labour should continue to mobilise outside parliament, with the calls for a General Strike to Stop The Coup.  Labour should vote for an immediate General Election.  Labour should make clear that, if it wins the election, it will, if necessary pass retrospective legislation to Revoke Article 50, and keep Britain in the EU.  It should couple a progressive, internationalist position on Europe, with a radical, progressive social-democratic programme for Britain, including a reform of corporate governance laws to scrap the privileged position of shareholders, to introduce industrial democracy to make company boards elected wholly by workers, for a programme to end austerity,  and massively increase spending on infrastructure, especially on broadband and communications.  It should commit to bursting the huge asset price bubbles that are impoverishing millions, and commit to providing support for a large scale house building programme, particularly for cooperative housing developments.