Keir Starmer's Blue Labour Parliamentary Party is making a fuss about the fact that its attempts to play parliamentary games, by putting a motion of no confidence in Boris Johnson has been knocked back. It illustrates the nature of Starmer's Blue Labour – parliamentary cretins, reactionary, populist, and opportunist.
Time and again, Starmer's Blue Labour has refused to do even the basic bourgeois liberal bit of opposition politics by putting a motion of no confidence in a Tory government. In fact, how could they really, because for the last two and a half years there has not been a hair's breadth of difference between them in policy terms. There is not a Tory policy, during that time, that Starmer, and his gang of Blue Labour reactionaries, have not liked, be it Brexit, to all other forms of reactionary nationalist flag waving and jingoism, to reactionary economic policies designed to hold back rational, capitalist development, by imposing higher taxes and burdens on the large-scale, technological forms of capital, which are its most progressive elements, and giving subsidies and other boons to the small-scale capital that is its most reactionary elements.
Social-democracy is not, and never has been socialism. Its purpose is to represent the interests of large-scale socialised capital, as it emerged in the last half of the 19th century, and to do that, as the Liberals did, at that time, by attempting to mediate the interests of labour and this large-scale capital, as epitomised by the function of trades unions. That is, it recognises, as Marx sets out that, so long as you accept the premise that capitalism is eternal, workers best interests are upheld by the most rapid and most rational development of that capital, which provides workers, then, with greater employment, and greater opportunity to improve their living standards.
It seeks then only at a harmonious development of capital, and to try to mollify the workers' condition by improving their wages and conditions within it, but only up to the limits consistent with that rapid and rational development of capitalism. Socialism, by contrast, whilst recognising also that reality, and so also not wishing to hold back the rapid and rational development of capitalism, does not see it as eternal, or providing workers – or indeed the whole of society, in the end – with its optimal solution, which can only be achieved by going beyond he limitations of capitalism, and establishing a socialist mode of production, on the basis of the productive forces and social relations that capitalism provides. Workers
“ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"
(Marx – Value, Price and Profit)
Social-democracy is the ideological manifestation, in the realm of politics, of the bourgeois ideology of the trades unions, of simply bargaining within the system for fair shares to the factors of production. And,
“Trades Unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system.”
(ibid)
But, social democracy, in seeking, at least, that continued rapid and rational development of capital, was relatively progressive, continuing to ensure that development of the productive forces and social relations required for a transition to Socialism. Even in its conservative form, social-democracy sought that development, whilst seeking to do so within the constraints imposed by the control over that capital by shareholders, whilst in its progressive form, it sought to also go beyond those constraints by recognising the need, in the context of the role of the capitalist state, and of large-scale macro-economic planning, to extend political democracy into the realm of industrial democracy.
But, Starmer's Blue Labour has gone backwards from that. It represents no form of social-democracy, but purely petty-bourgeois reaction, most notable in its reactionary nationalism and jingoism. Not only is it not Socialism, but it is not even social-democracy, of the kind even represented by the 19th century Liberal Party, it is, at best, Sismondist, petty-bourgeois reaction. At worst, it is simply reactionary Toryism, economic nationalism, jingoism, protectionism, and a defence of the past against the future, of the reactionary, backward facing sections of small capital, rather than even the progressive forward looking sections of large-scale capital.
So, its no wonder that Starmer's Blue Labour, with all of its populism and opportunism, which, as a parliamentary party, is also manifest in its sole focus on parliamentary games, on all of the clever quips and jibes from the dispatch box, as opposed to any real political differences, has been marked in its relation to the Tories, over that time, only by demanding that they act in an even more reactionary and illiberal manner, be it over Brexit and other flag waving, or over locking down the economy, or in imposing taxes on the most progressive forms of capital, and yet further subsidies and support for all of the reactionary small capitals, as with proposals for windfall taxes and so on.
Eventually, now that the Tories themselves have forced Johnson to resign, Blue Labour puts forward a no confidence vote that they should have brought forward months ago. But, even now, they cannot help but do so, by playing parliamentary games, phrasing it as a motion of no confidence in the government so long as Johnson is Prime Minister. Parliamentary rules preclude such motions that name individuals, rather than the government itself, enabling the government to rule the motion out of order and refuse to allow it time for discussion. They have agreed to provide time for a motion of no confidence in the government that does not refer to Johnson, but Blue Labour objects to that.
What is the implication of Blue Labour's position? By demanding that the no confidence vote be in Johnson's government, and nothing else, what they are saying is that they would, then have confidence in a Tory government so long as it was not led by Johnson! But, even for a social-democrat, let alone a socialist, its not the fact that the government is led by Boris Johnson that is objectionable and the basis of no confidence in it, but the fact that it is a Tory government, and we oppose it whichever Tory is Prime Minister.
In fact, Starmer and Blue Labour will soon get their wish, because the Tories are removing Johnson, but unfortunately, as could have been predicted, and, indeed, as I have predicted for many months, the consequence of his removal will not be any kind of advance, but will be a further step backwards for workers, because he is going to be replaced by someone even worse, even more reactionary, or at least who will have to promote even more reactionary positions than Johnson was forced to do, in order to become Leader. Its easy to see why Starmer and Blue Labour might have confidence in a Tory government led by Liz Truss, rather than Johnson, for example, because, like Starmer, she has gone from being a one time student President of the Liberal Democrats, and supporter of remaining in the EU, during the referendum, to being being a rabid Brexiter, and proponent of encouraging economic war with Europe!
The truth about Johnson was that he was never really a supporter of Brexit, other than as a means of using it to become Tory Leader. He is essentially a conservative social-democrat of the type that the Tory Party has always had within its ranks, because, as a pragmatic party, they have always known that its on the basis of that large-scale capital, and its interests, that the future of the state depends. That is why, although hostage to the reactionary wing of the Tories, who got him elected, on the basis of his Brexit rhetoric, he capitulated to the EU at every turn, and why he moderated it with his economic policies of increasing the role of the state, and increased fiscal spending on infrastructure and so on. It is why those same Tory reactionaries mobilised to remove him, and why we are now going to get something much worse, in the form of a Prime Minister not only led into greater jingoism and conflict with Europe, but one for whom all of the other concerns of the reactionaries, of slashing the size of the state, and tax cuts for the rich will be front and centre.
Again it shows just how bankrupt Blue Labour is, but the affair has also exposed the bankruptcy of the Left, such as it is, too. Sections of the Left have frequently called for a General Strike to bring down a Tory Government, but as Trotsky describes, in his response to such demands, by the ILP, in the 1930's, such calls are nothing but light-winded, revolutionary phrase-mongering, and dangerous. As Trotsky describes, a political General Strike, as against just one-off, protest strikes and rallies, is a revolutionary, and insurrectionary act. If the level of class consciousness of the workers is such that it is, indeed, ready to mobilise in such an act, then the question of which bourgeois politician should sit in Downing Street, or lead the government anywhere else, is trivial, because in such conditions, it is the question of state power itself, which is on the agenda. As Trotsky quotes Engels as saying,
““leads directly to the barricades.” A strike of this sort can result either in complete victory or defeat. But to shy away from battle, when the battle is forced by the objective situation, is to lead inevitably to the most fatal and demoralizing of all possible defeats. The outcome of a revolutionary, insurrectionary general strike depends, of course, upon the relationship of forces, covering a great number of factors; the class differentiation of society, the specific weight of the proletariat, the mood of the lower layers of the petty bourgeoisie, the social composition and the political mood of the army, etc. However, among the conditions for victory, far from the last place is occupied by the correct revolutionary leadership, a clear understanding of conditions and methods of the general strike and its transition to open revolutionary struggle.”
Are workers in Britain at a level of class consciousness where such a political General Strike is a potential? Clearly not, and even if they were, we lack the revolutionary leadership described by Trotsky to ensure its success. If it were to happen, that lack of leadership and organisation would led to defeat and a violent backlash, but without any possibility of it happening simply raising the demand, is, as Trotsky describes just phrase-mongering.
The worst form of this has come from the Workers Revolutionary Party, which has argued,
“Workers up and down the country must now mobilise to force the TUC to call a general strike to bring down the Tories and bring in a workers government and a socialist planned economy. This is the only way forward.”
Combined, here, is the fantasy that the British working-class is at a level of class consciousness required to mobilise for a political General Strike, with the trivialising of that demand to limiting it to simply replacing one bourgeois government with another, to the further fantasy that arising out of this can arise some “Workers Government”, to which the obvious question must follow – comprising who exactly, the WRP?
When Lenin and the Bolsheviks raised the demand “Down with the capitalist ministers”, its purpose was to demand the provisional Popular Front Government be turned into a Workers Government, by demanding the workers parties throw out the Cadets and so on. But, today, the whole of Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet, and much of his Blue Labour PLP has the same pro-capitalist politics of those very Cadets that Lenin wanted thrown out of that Provisional Government!!! So, who exactly is to be in this government?
Actually, to say that today’s Blue PLP has the same pro-capitalist politics as the Cadets is wrong. Its worse than that! As Lenin describes, the Russian bourgeois Liberals, like the Cadets were relatively progressive, because they pushed for the kind of liberal agenda required for a rapid and rational development of Russian capitalism, and bourgeois society, including its Europeanisation, and so on. Compared to that, Starmer’s Blue PLP is definitely to the Right, given its reactionary, petty-bourgeois, nationalist agenda, based upon support for small capital against big capital, holding back capitalist development, support for Brexit as part of that agenda and so on. His position is closer to the reactionary position of the Narodniks, as described by Lenin.
But, if the demands for a political General Strike amount to fantasy and revolutionary phrase-mongering, in conditions where there is widespread, and intensifying industrial struggle, as workers, feeling firmer ground beneath their feet, respond, as Marx describes, to defend their living standards, as inflation spirals ever higher, to also make your priority the calling of a General Election is itself, pure reformism and parliamentarism, whose only result can be to demobilise the actual workers' struggles being undertaken, whilst offering no real progressive alternative.
But, as Lenin, says,
“action by the masses, a big strike, for instance, is more important than parliamentary activity at all times, and not only during a revolution or in a revolutionary situation.”
The question, then, of whether to demand a General Election, rather than participating in elections, when they are called, is not at all the same thing. If elections are called, during a period of intense industrial action, Marxists have to intervene in both, and to combine their actions in both spheres, in a revolutionary manner. But, in a period of large-scale industrial action by workers, demanding a General Election is a diversion, especially in conditions where Marxists represent tiny forces, and where those elections will be dominated by the politics of the main bourgeois parties contesting them.
In 1968, for example, when workers across France were engaged in General Strikes for higher wages and better conditions, and where they were occupying industries and running them under workers' control, supported by strikes and occupations by students, the French Stalinists demanded elections, and in the process demobilised the class action by workers and students, at the very point where it should have been driven forward. The consequence was that DeGaulle put forward very limited concessions to workers and students, and won the largest victory ever in the subsequent election.
In 1984, as the Miners Strike was getting into full swing, I know that, in Stoke, Labour candidates in the May Council elections were told not to mention the strike for fear of alienating voters and scabs that opposed the strike. I guess the same thing happened elsewhere, and certainly, it was the attitude of Kinnock, and the Labour leadership, who tried to present themselves as responsible politicians, keen not to upset the sensibilities of polite sections of society. The mantra of the soft left, as is the case with people like Paul Mason today, was “keep your head down, don't rock the boat, so that we can get a Labour government.” The trouble was that that led to the defeat of the miners, and to Labour Councils, demoralised and demobilised workers, and Labour Party members, and so led not to the hoped for Labour Government, but to an increased power for Thatcher!
Today, we have already seen Starmer demanding that Labour MP's stay away from RMT picket lines, and how much worse would such scabbing become if a General Election were called? And for what. We have no large-scale Marxist parties able to stand in those elections and intervene with a revolutionary programme; we do not even have the forces available in 1979, when we launched the SCLV, and even if we did, the reality of Starmer's Blue Labour, as even more reactionary, and more authoritarian than that of Callaghan, is that any such action would lead to immediate expulsion! To suggest to workers, at the present time, as they are already engaged in large-scale and intensifying and widening industrial action, that the solution to their problems resides in a General Election, is to mislead them grossly, to demobilise their existing struggles, and to promote their defeat.
What exactly would be the benefit for workers and the class struggle in any such General Election. In Left-wing Communism, Lenin talks about the Hendersons etc.
“It is true that the Hendersons, the Clyneses, the MacDonalds and the Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary. It is equally true that they want to assume power (though they would prefer a coalition with the bourgeoisie), that they want to “rule” along the old bourgeois lines”.
But compared to Starmer and Blue Labour, they were radical social democrats. Even Ian Blackford of the SNP, at last week's PMQ's, pointed out that there would be no benefit in Starmer replacing Johnson, because it would be a case of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” In 1979, even Callaghan's Labour government held out the prospect of a more progressive social democracy, and extension of industrial democracy as proposed in the Bullock Committee Report, and even with all of its corporatist limitations, that progressive social democracy, via Enterprise Boards, Planning Agreements, the development of cooperatives, and forward looking stance towards the EU, was light years in advance of today's reactionary Blue Labour, under Starmer. Where exactly is the benefit for the working-class in an election that puts Starmer in Downing Street, promoting his reactionary economic nationalism and Brexit, his gut wrenching jingoism and flag-waving, and his reactionary Sismondist support for the small-scale reactionary forms of capital, as against the progressive large-scale socialised capital, which is the basis of future development and Socialism?
No comments:
Post a Comment