Patriotism, The Last Refuge Of The Scoundrel

Moseley also wrapped himself in the
 butcher's apron

It appears that no British politician can make a media appearance without having the butcher's apron prominently displayed behind them. They are all draping themselves in the rag that is stained with the blood of millions of colonial slaves, and of the workers that have died in numerous wars fought for the glory of British capital and its thirst for profits. It is not just the inevitable consequence of Brexit, despite all of the claims that the Lexiters put forward in defence of their own pursuit of the reactionary, nationalist fantasy, but also of the weakness of the Left itself, which results in its perverse view of socialism, as inevitably nationalistic, being created, not by workers self-activity and self-government, but by the actions of a nation state.

Dr. Johnson described patriotism as “the last refuge of the scoundrel”, whilst Oscar Wilde described it as “the virtue of the vicious.” The Tories have, of course been driven ever deeper into the sewer of nationalism and patriotism, for the same reason that they became the party of Brexit in the first place. That is that they have been wholly captured by the petty-bourgeoisie, whose material interests are inextricably tied to nationalism, and the nation state, as they seek its protection against foreign competition, and against the imposition of civilising rules and regulations designed to meet the needs of large-scale industrial capital, which has long since found that the nation state has become a fetter on its continued development. That was what Brexit was all about.

The Brexiters created the narrative that Britain, one of the world's oldest, and most powerful imperialist nations was somehow being “oppressed” by the EU. It is the same narrative that Trump paraded in the US, in appropriately modified form. As Lenin described more than a century ago, this is the way the demand for “self-determination” was captured and abused by social chauvinists, as merely a cover for the nationalistic demand for “defence of the fatherland”, in the existing advanced countries, which really meant defence of the idea that the old privileges, the old means of oppression used by the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, in those countries, should not be infringed. Today, the big bourgeoisie has itself gone beyond those bounds imposed by the nation state, and it is the demand of the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, and those social layers attached to it, symbolised in the slogan “Take Back Control”.

The Left in Britain, of course, itself drowning in this same kind of reactionary petty-bourgeoisie ideology, in which Socialism becomes dragged down to being nothing more than a moralistic, Sismondist, wailing at the iniquities of capitalist development, and a reactionary attempt to hold back, or even reverse that development, became an accomplice. Large sections of it, also promoted the reactionary idea of Lexit, seeing Socialism as being, at best, an exercise in statism, by the capitalist nation state, which would nationalise this or that, and introduce a variety of other economic nationalist measures, all of which experience shows would be doomed to failure, and to result in a reduction in the condition of the working-class. Nothing in that perspective sees Socialism as being about the self-activity and self-government of the working-class, which can only realistically be undertaken on an international, and, at least, EU wide basis.

Instead of socialist internationalism, it put forward the Stalinoid notion of economic nationalism and national Socialism, whose immediate purpose appeared to be nothing more than a reactionary attempt to disrupt the existing development of capital on a European basis, and whose actual effect could only be to divide British workers from their European counterparts. As Lenin put it,

“One such idea is refined nationalism, which advocates the division and splitting up of the proletariat on the most plausible and specious pretexts, as for example, that of protecting the interests of ‘national culture’, national autonomy or independence’, and so on and so forth.

The class conscious workers fight hard against every kind of nationalism, both the crude, violent Black Hundred nationalism, and that most refined nationalism, which preaches the equality of nations together with… the splitting up of the workers’ cause, the workers’ organisations, and the working class movement according to nationality. Unlike all the varieties of the nationalist bourgeoisie, the class conscious workers, carrying out the decisions of the recent (Summer 1913) conference of the Marxists, stand not only for the most complete, consistent and fully applied equality of nations and languages, but also for the amalgamation of the workers of the different nationalities in united proletarian organisations of every kind”

(Lenin – “Corrupting the Workers With Refined Nationalism”)

And,

“We must always and unreservedly work for the very closest unity of the proletariat of all nationalities, and it is only in isolated and exceptional cases that we can advance and actively support demands conducive to the establishment of a new class state or to the substitution of a lesser federal unity etc. for the complete political unity of a state.”

(Lenin – “The National Question in Our Programme)

The same thing was seen in Germany, in the 1920's and 30's. The Germans, of course, had some cause to bemoan their plight as a result of the dreadful consequences that the chains of the Versailles Treaty had imposed on them. The Nazis seized the opportunity to blame the plight of German imperialism itself on other nations, and to whip up nationalist fervour on that basis. They too rallied the forces of the German petty-bourgeoisie, and lumpen elements of society behind them on that nationalistic and patriotic basis. But, instead of the German Socialists and Communists taking on the reactionary ideas of the Nazis, and making the case for an international struggle by all workers against capital, and also, thereby, against the imposition of the Versailles terms, they attempted to jump on the same patriotic bandwagon as the Nazis. In the process, they, thereby, legitimised the reactionary nationalist message of the Nazis.

At the same time, the Socialists and Stalinists elsewhere, responded in like manner. Instead of the Communist Parties aligning themselves with the German workers, they were lined up with their own bourgeoisie, as Stalin sought to build an international alliance with “democratic imperialism” against the potential for Hitler's “anti-Comintern Alliance” with Italy and Japan, launching an attack on the USSR. The consequence of the Communists and Socialists allying with their own bourgeoisie, in such Popular Fronts against Germany was inevitable, as Trotsky pointed out.

"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...

The democracies of the Versailles Entente helped the victory of Hitler by their vile oppression of defeated Germany. Now the lackeys of democratic imperialism of the Second and Third Internationals are helping with all their might the further strengthening of Hitler’s regime. Really, what would a military bloc of imperialist democracies against Hitler mean? A new edition of the Versailles chains, even more heavy, bloody and intolerable. Naturally, not a single German worker wants this. To throw off Hitler by revolution is one thing; to strangle Germany by an imperialist war is quite another. The howling of the “pacifist” jackals of democratic imperialism is therefore the best accompaniment to Hitler’s speeches. “You see,” he says to the German people, “even socialists and Communists of all enemy countries support their army and their diplomacy; if you will not rally around me, your leader, you are threatened with doom!” Stalin, the lackey of democratic imperialism, and all the lackeys of Stalin – Jouhaux, Toledano, and Company – are the best aides in deceiving, lulling, and intimidating the German workers."

(Phrases and Reality, Writings 1938-9)

And, so reactionary nationalism was strengthened on all sides. As it turned out, Stalin's attempts to ally with democratic imperialism failed anyway. The Popular Front government of Leon Blum, in France, only in office because of the support of French Communists, proposed the policy of non-intervention in Spain, refusing arms supplies to the elected Republican government, whilst Franco's fascists were being armed to the teeth, and supported by the German and Italian war machines. In 1935, Britain signed a naval agreement with Nazi Germany, and the relations between the British Monarchy and aristocracy, and with the Tory Party through Lord Halifax, gave every sign that Britain would stand by, if Germany launched a war against the USSR, which, in turn, led to Stalin's further quick change of course, and his signing of the non-aggression pact with Germany.

There is no progressive route for the working-class via nationalism and patriotism. Indeed, even the interests of capital today are served by breaking down national borders, not by erecting new ones, or fortifying old ones. That the Tories, representing the interests of a reactionary, backward facing petty-bourgeoisie, should do so, is inevitable, but that even a social-democratic Labour Party, let alone anyone considering themselves a socialist should do so is a disgrace. Starmer's chasing after the flag is simply a crude, opportunistic scramble after reactionary votes. It has inevitably failed even in that, because the reactionaries likely to vote for those that wrap themselves in the blood soaked rag of British imperialism, will always vote for the real thing not their impersonators, just as in Germany, in the 1930's, they voted for the Nazis.

Starmer has not even mobilised the kinds of support that Corbyn was able to achieve after he became Leader. Instead, he has demobilised and demoralised large sections of the mass party created under Corbyn, as he has plied his wares to any section of the bourgeoisie that would give him a hearing; he has brought in all of the bourgeois management and image consultants; he has laid down in front of the Tory media waiting for them to tell him to sit up and beg; he has paid off all of those Tory fifth columnists that acted to wreck Labour's electoral chances, and to cause as much disruption as possible under Corbyn; he has watered down even the mildly social-democratic policies advanced under Corbyn; he has even reversed 180 degrees his former position under Corbyn of opposition to Brexit; on issue after issue he has acted as Johnson's wing man on Brexit, on lockdowns, on immigration controls, on protecting British war criminals and so on. All of it has failed to advance Labour's standing, and no wonder.

Such reactionary nationalism whilst not winning over more than a handful of votes from reactionaries can have no other effect than turn away the millions of votes of progressive voters that turned to Labour in 2017. They left Labour in 2019, when Corbyn's own pro-Brexit position re-emerged. Why on Earth would Starmer think they would now come back, as he sinks even further into that reactionary nationalistic and patriotic mire? It really is time for Starmer to go. There are rumours of a mobilisation behind John McDonnell for a challenge. McDonnell is not tainted with the same pro-Brexit nationalism as Corbyn. His position has always been more nuanced, but he is still linked with that same camp, and with its later representatives such as Long-Bailey. I believed that, in the last Leadership election, Clive Lewis offered the best hope, mainly because, as well as his better position on Brexit, his emphasis was on the need to democratise the party, and to advance on the basis of the mobilisation of the party membership.

I still believe that offers the best way forward, but last time around Lewis failed to mobilise the required support to go into the ballot. Today, that might be different. Lewis has himself come out with a strong opposition to Starmer's collapse in flag waving nationalism. A combination of Lewis and McDonnell, might offer the chance of a successful, and much needed challenge to the disastrous rule of Starmer.

“Those who seek to serve the proletariat must unite the workers of all nations, and unswervingly fight bourgeois nationalism, domestic and foreign. The place of those who advocate the slogan of national culture is among the nationalist petty bourgeois, not among the Marxists.”

(Lenin and Equal Rights for Nations Within One State)