Socialists Should Vote Against This Reactionary Brexit

Socialists, and progressive social-democrats should vote against Johnson's reactionary Brexit, today in parliament. The argument put by Starmer that to vote against this deal, now, is to vote for No Deal, is a fraud. In his speech, he claimed that those voting “No”, really wanted “Yes”, but wanted others to take the responsibility for that “Yes” vote. That is a blatant lie. Those that vote “No”, mean “No”, and have really meant “No” for the last 4 years. It appears that Starmer is admitting that his “No” for the last 4 years was really a “Yes”, or at least a maybe, but as with the use of “Anti-Semitism” as a weapon with which to beat the Left in the LP, was also just a means of Starmer and the Right, attempting, during all that time, to undermine Corbyn, by playing parliamentary games. It exposes Starmer and the other Liberals around him in the PLP for the charlatans they really are. 

These Lib-Labs are the people who shouted from the roof tops, over the last four years, their opposition to Corbyn, for his failure to militantly oppose Brexit, and to argue for their wishy-washy compromise position of a second referendum. They were, of course, right to oppose Corbyn's lack of a militant opposition to Brexit, just as they were right to oppose anti-Semitism, and the failure to deal with it. But, what is now clear, is that, for them, both their opposition to anti-Semitism, and their anti-Brexitism, were more to do with finding tools with which to attack Corbyn, rather than any principled politics on their behalf. Corbyn, of course, played into their hands, on both issues, because his own petty-bourgeois nationalism led him into alliances with reactionary nationalists that left him wide open to charges of “anti-Semitism”, as well as leading him into his own support for the petty-bourgeois nationalist ideology that lies behind Brexit. 

But, the fact that Corbyn, as well as the Right, has abysmal politics is no reason why principled socialists should make common cause with the Lib-Labs, who attacked him for those politics, only out of their own narrow self-interest. There is no reason why we should be simply useful idiots in the cause of the Right, in their campaign to turn the Labour Party back to the safe vehicle of the bourgeoisie. For that Right, Starmer's capitulation into Brexitism, and other jingoism is simply another indication, if any were needed, that for these cretinous, career politicians, there is no principle they will not abandon in order to try to save their careers. The only Marx they resemble is Groucho, and his comment “These are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have plenty more that you might prefer.” 

Its notable, that, in parliament, Starmer's collapse into support for this reactionary Brexit was supported by nearly all those other Lib-Labs, for whom opposition to Brexit was the touchstone for the last four years. The only Lib-Labs not following Starmer into that reactionary nationalist sewer, were the ones who find their careers in jeopardy from open Liberal candidates in their parliamentary seats, who stand to benefit from Labour's populist capitulation to nationalist reaction. 

And, that capitulation has also exposed the nature of those petty-bourgeois, moral socialists that did back Starmer. For example, in this post, Tendance Coatesy has done all he could to square his backing for Starmer, and opposition to Left Populism, with the fact that, now, it is Starmer himself that is in the camp of the Left Populists, of the Morning Star, in openly promoting Brexit! Rather than answering my question as to whether this caused him any embarrassment, he replied with a convoluted response that leaves the reader unclear as to where he might stand, whilst trying to distance Starmer's position from that of the CP/MS, with whom he now finds himself in bed. 

I have responded twice to this answer, but both times, the reply has failed to materialise, so, let me present it, here. 

“What does any of this “response” mean? I have no idea from the rambling, inconclusive first paragraph whether you agree that opposition to “monopoly capitalism” is reactionary or not, and if not, why you think its not. The only thing that is clear from your reply is that you think that the national economic stance of Corbyn, the CP/MS is no solution, with which I heartily agree, but the implication of what you say is that you think that opposition to the current manifestation of “monopoly capitalism”, being somehow different from its 1960’s/70’s manifestation, in your opinion, is somehow progressive, despite the fact that on the basis of any objective materialist analysis, the current manifestation of monopoly capitalism is simply the natural development of capitalism, i.e. the one that has arisen, the really existing monopoly capitalism, driven by the same historical materialist laws that led to the development of capitalism itself. 

Opposition to the actually existing monopoly capitalism, as the more mature form of it, is just as reactionary as the opposition to monopoly capitalism by the CP in the 1960’s and 70’s, for the same reason. It proposes some non-existent alternative as simply a schema plucked out of thin air in the same way that the Sismondists and Narodniks did, rather than seeking to be partisan fighters for the revolutionary component of that forward movement, as advocated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Because it is a subjectivist and idealist basis for proposing opposition to what actually exists, it is equally utopian and reactionary as was the method of Sismondi, Proudhon, Duhring or the Narodniks. 

And, of course, Popular Frontism does come into it directly, because the “anti-monopoly alliance”, just as with the “anti-imperialist alliance” is a direct development of the concept of the Popular Front as against the United Front of the workers parties. The fact that your blog has opposed Left Populism and its manifestation from the CP/MS does not change the fact that you have also supported that very Stalinist strategy of the Popular Front, as you have said in relation to France in the 1930’s. As Lenin describes in his writings on petty-bourgeois Socialism in Russia, the Narodniks began in the 1970’s (sic) with a position of opposing Russian Liberalism, but the very nature of their own petty-bourgeois politics that began as Peasant Socialism and then developed into Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, inevitably led them under pressure of the changes in material conditions to become themselves Liberals by the 1890’s. 

The fact is that your political positions have led you despite your many writings against Left Populism and the CP, to collapse into that same camp, as a result of your attempts to defend Starmer, and his promotion of those very same politics of economic nationalism and jingoism. I note that in all your convoluted, and ambiguous response, you still did not answer the basic question asked, which is do you not feel somewhat embarrassed by the fact that Starmer is now arguing the same economic nationalist, and jingoistic crap as the CP? Even John McDonnell, and Ben Bradshaw have been able to unite in agreement on that point for goodness sake!”” 

Paul Mason, of course, argued, some months ago, that Labour should simply accept that Brexit was now a done deal, and move on (See: here). But, I'm glad to say that Paul not only came out quickly to say that Corbyn should have not been suspended, and should have had the whip restored to him, but has also changed his previous position in regard to Brexit, now clearly stating in his tweets that Labour should vote against Johnson's deal, that not to vote against it is insupportable, and that one reason for that is that “Labour is an anti-Brexit party.” 

Paul sets out in his tweets, some of the points also made by Labour's former leader in the European Parliament, Richard Corbett. Both point out that for Labour to support this reactionary deal is to invite the Tories, later, to share blame for its effects, by simply saying, “You voted for it.” Starmer has repeated the lie that to vote against this deal in parliament, today, is to vote for No Deal. Nonsense. No one seriously believes that, if parliament votes this down, the result will be No Deal. Johnson does not want to be held responsible for that catastrophe, and nor would the EU. Voting down this deal, would simply result in hurried discussions between the UK and EU, the EU stopping the clock, and Britain passing legislation to extend the Transition Period, so that negotiations could continue. 

As Corbett notes, 

“Most importantly, in the longer run, it would mean that we also “own” the deal and its numerous consequences, making it more difficult to criticise the government for its shortcomings. The next months and years are likely to see many negative consequences of the deal beginning to hit the public. We don’t want the words “you voted for it” being thrown back at us.” 

And, 

“It would put us on the wrong side of public opinion. Recent polls have shown a record majority saying Brexit itself was a mistake. Even more will be critical of Johnson’s incompetent deal. Those criticisms are likely to grow as the consequences bite. This is true across the country, even in the ‘Red Wall’, but perhaps especially so in Scotland where Labour risks being outflanked by the SNP.”  

But, if Johnson were stupid enough to push through No Deal, if his reactionary deal were voted down, then it is he, and the Tories, not Labour who would have to bear responsibility for the catastrophe that ensued. It is they, who, once again, as they have done repeatedly, over the last four years, took the country to the edge of the abyss, in order to try to force through a vote based on such a non-existent dichotomy. And, in many ways, under those conditions, a No Deal would be better than this reactionary deal. It would lance the boil, rather than allowing it to fester, become infected and turn into something much worse. For one thing, the Tories would bear immediate responsibility for the disaster, destroying their government, and their chances of governing for a generation to come. The disaster would lead to Britain having to seek salvation from the EU, which would almost certainly have to come in the form of being readmitted to the EU, meaning that the issue of Brexit would be laid to rest forever. 

As Corbett says, this reactionary Brexit is pushed through by Johnson with Starmer's support, at the very moment when opposition to Brexit is at its highest level, and a No Deal catastrophe would see that opposition grow massively. The truth is that the Brexiters know that this is their last chance to push through such a reactionary Brexit, because, as the elderly Tories that backed it die off, and as new progressive, younger voters enter the electorate, the mandate for Brexit has already disappeared. Starmer's, opportunism and populism has led him to propose this course, because he thinks that the issue will die away, and in search of protecting the careers of right-wing Labour MP's, he thinks that a collapse into nationalism and jingoism will help them collect the votes of reactionaries. It won't. 

The reactionaries deserted Labour long ago, if they ever supported them, in anything other than the delusions of some Labour politicians, and the equation in the mind of middle-class observers that poverty and deprivation equals support for Labour, an equation that has never existed, in reality. The truth is that Brexit is a more divisive issue today than it was at the time of the election or of the referendum, and it is not going away, as the effects begin to materialise. And, even if this deal goes through it will not be the end of even negotiations. Not only will Britain try to renege on its commitments at the earliest opportunity, but the deal fails to cover the vast majority of Britain's dealings with the EU, in relation to services and so on. 

It was notable that Johnson, responding to an intervention by arch Lib-Lab, Peter Kyle, highlighted the fact that in his concerns, Kyle had not only stated his intention to back Brexit, but had also set out his concerns and support for British bankers. Johnson, of course, was taking advantage of Kyle's slimy opportunism to score political points, but the thrust of Johnson's comments was absolutely correct in identifying the nature of the politics of these Lib-Labs that is a million miles away even from progressive social-democracy, let alone Socialism. 

Progressive social-democrats and socialists should vote against this reactionary Brexit deal. They should do so, not as Starmer claims, because we really want “yes”, but want the Tories to take responsibility for it. We should oppose it because we mean "No", and because whatever Starmer thinks, the issue of Brexit is not going away. The issue of Brexit is merely the manifestation of a division in society, and a struggle between two great class camps that will go on whether Brexit happens or not. That struggle is between a reactionary petty-bourgeois class that seeks to turn society back more than a century, on the one side, and the progressive working-class and middle class on the other that seeks not only to defend the advances made over that century, but to move forward, a forward movement that is only possible on the basis of the EU, and a united struggle by the working-class of Europe. 

Petty-bourgeois moralists like Coatesy want to present Starmer's position as somehow different to the sovereigntist, economic nationalist positions of the CP and Morning Star, but, of course, they it's not. Starmer's Six Tests were themselves a fantasy based on the idea that it was somehow possible to negotiate a “have cake and eat it Brexit”, a Jobs First or Labour Brexit, that was never possible. In parliament, today, Starmer even said that he would have negotiated a “better deal” than this one, thereby, confirming this delusional belief. It implies the same delusion as the Lexiters that such a better deal was, or is, possible, that it is somehow possible to successfully build social-democracy in one country, which is really what the Stalinists mean when they talk about building Socialism In One Country. Starmer's Six Tests, as one SNP MP, made clear in parliament, of course, have become nothing more than toilet paper in his hands, as he collapses into the sewer of nationalism. 

The division in society between, on the one hand, that reactionary petty-bourgeois mass, and the working-class and middle class on the other, means that, if this Brexit deal goes through, the former will simply seek to press their advantage further. They will press for that bonfire of regulations that their representatives already promised. And, that will not be simply a question of a distributional struggle. In order to undermine the ability of workers to defend themselves in that distributional struggle, the reactionaries will begin an immediate attack on political rights and freedoms too. Indeed, Johnson has already done so under cover of the lock downs, again with support from Starmer. 

As a result of Starmer's betrayal of the working-class, and his treachery in relation to the position of the Labour Party, and the vast majority of its members and voters, for whom Brexit is an abomination, Johnson will undoubtedly get this reactionary Brexit through parliament, and begin this further attack on the working-class. Like Oswald Mosely, or Mussolini or Hitler, he will do so under cover of presenting the Tories as the real friends of the working-class. But, Johnson himself may find that the dynamic now put in place, will lead to his own removal. Starmer's slogan for his new, New Labour party, is “A New Leadership”, but it is neither new nor leadership. The lack of any real opposition means that the Right are free to continue to press forward, and in that movement, even Johnson may be an obstacle. Farage is already mobilising forces for a further shift to the Right, this time focussing on constitutional changes. 

It is clear that the working-class needs real new leadership, and it cannot come from Starmer. The large mass of new members that were attracted to Labour by Corbynism, must now step up to the plate. Its time for them to organise and take back control of the party. That would, of course, be helped if the various Left sects could for once put their inveterate sectarianism to one side, and form a united front to help such a development, but I am not hopeful that such a development will ever be possible, as those sects are ossified, with leaderships that treat them as their own fiefdoms. It is necessary for Labour's rank and file to build its own networks, to begin the job of removing right-wing councillors and party apparatchiks. Its necessary, to turn branches and CLPs outwards to the community, bringing in new blood, and building party membership and its implantation into the life of the working-class. Its necessary to begin democratising the party, and the trades unions and cooperative movement, and to start deselecting right-wing MP's, union bureaucrats and so on. 

But, joining this to even a progressive social-democratic programme is not possible without connecting it to the need to build a Workers Europe. As a minimum, its necessary for socialists to argue for the maintenance of free movement for workers. Even outside the EU, its necessary to maintain the European TUC, and connections between British and European trades unions. The same is true of the cooperative movement, which has no limits on building worker owned cooperatives across any national borders. As part of building towards a struggle for a United States of Europe, as a starting point for a Workers Europe, European labour movements will need to rebuild the Socialist International, and to present themselves as a single European Socialist Party. The Labour Party should be a section of such a European Workers' party, whether Britain itself is in or out of the EU. Workers across Europe should be campaigning for a levelling up of trades union rates of pay, working conditions, pensions benefits and so on, and Labour and the TUC should insist that Britain matches those improved conditions won by workers across Europe. 

Such levelling up of conditions has nothing in common with Johnson's claims about levelling up in Britain, which will actually mean levelling down, and a race to the bottom, as his government seeks to introduce Free Ports, Enterprise Zones and so on, where shady businesses will be free to operate with a lack of regulations and supervision. Johnson makes such claims whilst continuing to spread the lies about immigration and so on, for example. Tories and reactionaries continue to purvey the lie that open borders means that millions would flock into Britain. But, if that were true, why is it that millions of people in poorer parts of the US do not flock to the affluent economy of California? Indeed, why is it that even in the stagnation of the 1930's, when unemployment on Tyneside was around 25%, the workers of Tyneside did not move wholesale to the booming economy of the Midlands and South-East, where the new industries of car production, of petrochemicals, and domestic appliances were thriving and paying high wages? Some of course, did “get on their bikes” and go in search of such work, as Norman Tebbit told us, when his Tory government created mass unemployment in the 1980's, but they are always only a small minority, because the constraints on moving even just a few hundred miles, even within a national economy, with no issues of language and so on, are still considerable. 

Yet, the reactionaries continue to promote this garbage, and the Lib-Labs facilitate it, in their collapse into jingoism. The best response is the kind of Europe wide struggle for a real levelling up described above. That should be the focus of the Left in the period ahead. 

• In or Out of Europe, for a United Struggle of European Workers 
• Rebuild the Socialist International, and for Labour to be a member of its European Section 
• Defend The Right To Free Movement, No To Immigration Controls 
• Level Up Workers Pay and Conditions Across Europe, including in Britain, to the highest standards 
• There Can be No Progressive Solution For Workers Outside The EU. Begin the struggle now for workers to rejoin their European brothers and sisters in the EU. 
• For a United States of Europe, as the minimum basis for the struggle for a Workers Europe, as a transitional stage to a United Socialist States of Europe, as part of a world Socialist federation. 

Our guiding principles must be, class, solidarity, internationalism.