Lessons For The Left
Lesson 8 – Programme and Politics (i)
Labour's 2019 Programme was a confused mess. At the heart of that mess was the contradiction it faced over its commitment to pursue Brexit. The clearest manifestation of that contradiction was its attempt to combine that with a similar commitment to hold another referendum. Labour's position had been correct in 2016. We support remaining in the EU, but we reject the current neoliberal (conservative social-democratic) political regime that dominates it. Of course, that political regime is simply a reflection of the fact that the same conservative social-democracy dominates the national parliaments of the majority of EU nation states. That, in itself, shows how ridiculous Lexit was as an idea, because the most conservative of those conservative social-democratic states, was Britain itself! Having adopted the correct political position in 2016, based upon a correct analysis, and understanding of the reactionary nature of Brexit, Labour should have stuck to that principled position, irrespective of the referendum result, which could not change the truth of the underlying analysis.
Had Labour done that in 2017, its quite possible that it could have won a majority in the General Election. It could certainly have deprived the Tories/DUP of a majority to push through Brexit. In 2019, the pro-Brexit stance taken by Corbyn saw Labour eviscerated in the Spring local and European elections, as it haemorrhaged votes to the Liberals, Greens, Plaid and the SNP. Corbyn was forced to pull back from that disastrous position, but it was too late, and the resultant position was clearly ludicrous, with Labour saying it would try to negotiate a have cake and eat it “Labour Brexit”, but that, even if it got it – which was never going to happen – it would, in any case, still argue for Remain in a following referendum! No wonder voters saw Labour as incompetent and dissembling. As it became ever clearer that Labour was losing, the party took its already bloated manifesto, and daily added more bribes to voters that were uncosted, and for which there had been no prior work done to win support for them amongst the working-class. It was a shambles.
The idea that there could be some have cake and eat it “Labour Brexit” was ridiculous, and relied upon the same kinds of ideas that the Tory Brexiters themselves had been propounding, about how the EU would need Britain as much or more than Britain needs the EU. But, in Labour's case it was worse. It relied on the Utopian, reactionary ideas of Lexit, founded upon the notion of building Social Democracy in One Country. In this Little Icara scenario, not only would Britain get this marvellous deal with the EU, but it would, simultaneously, be able to nationalise large parts of the economy, increase taxes, so as to significantly increase public spending, and would also be able to introduce all sorts of new environmental protections and so on. At least the Moggites realised that the truth about Brexit was that it would necessitate and bring about a carnival of reaction, of increased competition, of lower wages and living standards for workers, a bonfire of regulations in order to allow businesses to reduce their costs so as to compete with capital internationally.
This was the contradiction at the heart of Labour's programme and politics. And, in that regard nothing has changed. Yet, Starmer, the great architect of Labour's Six Tests, and champion of the second referendum, no sooner than becoming Leader, has become a bigger Brexiteer than Corbyn! Gone is even the call for a second referendum, or any opposition to a Tory Brexit. Instead Starmer calls on Johnson to get on with his hard Brexit negotiations, in the same way as he has goaded him on to implement even harsher restrictions on civil liberties as part of the idiotic lockdown. There is no commitment from Starmer to oppose Brexit, or to promise to negotiate a British re-entry into Europe, even as each day passes shows that the effects of Brexit will be disastrous.
And, here, Paul also offers no progressive alternative, but also collapses into the same delusions as the Lexiters.
“Labour’s offer should be to amend the FTA — or to seek one in the case of No Deal — in a way that gives maximum access to the Single Market; and to reform the points-based immigration system based on principles of social justice, while offering full UK citizenship and voting rights to every EU citizen who wants it. For clarity, we should not try to build a political narrative around reversing Brexit or a return to Freedom of Movement.”
This is just a repetition of the policy of have cake and eat it. There is no maximum access to the Single Market without Single Market membership, or acceptance of Single Market rules, and that will involve acceptance of free movement. Failure to argue for reversing Brexit means giving up on Scotland, and accepting Scottish independence, because federalism will not provide the answer that Scots require in relation to Brexit. It also means giving up on trying to win back the votes of Liberals, Greens, Plaid and indeed many progressive, young Labour voters. It also means that any radical Labour agenda becomes utopian, because no such agenda is feasible outside the EU, which is precisely what was wrong with the economic nationalism of Corbynism. As for offering full UK citizenship to every EU citizen, how can you do that without giving all EU citizen's the right of free movement to Britain? But, what is equally important is obtaining full EU citizenship for all UK citizens who want it, so that they have free movement in Europe!
The basis of any credible, progressive social-democratic agenda, let alone socialist agenda is internationalism, because in a world of international, and increasingly globalised capitalism, any programme must start from at least that scale. There can be no purely national solutions to any problems of workers, be it in relation to environment, taxation, investment, wages, employment, or industrial democracy.
That is one reason why, today, there is no such thing as progressive nationalism. A starting point for socialists is the unity of workers across borders that have become increasingly irrelevant, and anachronistic. The starting point for socialists, and progressive social- democrats, therefore, must continue to be opposition to Brexit, and commitment to Britain's re-entry into the EU. At the very least, it requires currently, insistence on a commitment to free movement, and to adherence to the rules of the Single Market and Customs Union. Labour should vote against anything that does not provide that. It is the best way, not only of protecting workers interests in the short-term, but also of creating the conditions in which the next Labour government can simply take Britain back into the EU.
Paul is doing what Starmer and every opportunist does, whose focus is solely on winning the next election, rather than developing a principled programme as the only sound basis for any progressive social-democratic government. As part of an electoral calculus, it seems to think that those younger Labour voters in the cities will continue to vote Labour solely on the basis of a progressive agenda, having accepted that Brexit is a settled issue. But, for most of those young voters, who have 40, 50, or 60 years of their life ahead of them, Brexit can in no way be considered a settled matter, and it immediately affects them. Such a calculation makes the same mistake, but in a different way to that made by Blair, that he could continually suck up to the interests of the middle class, to win over centrist voters, whilst the core vote would continue to back him. It didn't, which is one reason that Labour faces the problems it has today.
The mistake being made now is that those young voters will continue to vote Labour. But, why would they? Moreover, as described above, Labour's supposedly radical agenda is not credible outside the EU, anyway. All that is being prepared is failure and the necessary disillusion that follows it, which is the prelude to reaction. As Trotsky put it,
"Fascism is a form of despair in the petit-bourgeois masses, who carry away with them over the precipice a part of the proletariat as well. Despair as is known, takes hold when all roads of salvation are cut off. The triple bankruptcy of democracy, Social Democracy and the Comintern was the prerequisite for fascism. All three have tied their fate to the fate of imperialism. All three bring nothing to the masses but despair and by this assure the triumph of fascism.”
(Phrases and Reality)
And, by the time, this disillusion and despair manifests itself, at the end of the next Labour government, its likely that we will, indeed, have reached that point in the long wave cycle that is equivalent to the period of the 1920's, and so where the parallels with the rise of fascism become relevant once more.
The calculation is that the appeasement of nationalism, and the acquiescence in the promotion of reactionary “values” will somehow enable Labour to win back those votes of reactionary Labour voters in the decaying urban areas. The reality is it won't. For one thing, many of them were never Labour voters to begin with. As I said earlier, the old people in those decaying towns are dying out, and their inherited reactionary ideas are dying out with them, as those ideas themselves were generated by a different world that has gone. But, also those towns themselves are dying and changing. In ten years time, smaller towns, some filled with people who have migrated from high cost cities, as COVID encourages a more rapid move to home-working, will have entirely new populations that more closely resemble the cities in their attitudes.
No comments:
Post a Comment