Starmer has sacked Shadow Transport Minister, Sam Tarry, for performing the basic act of anyone who claims to be a supporter of workers - showing solidarity with them on the picket line. But, anyone who has followed the progress of Blue Labour under Starmer, into the camp of petty-bourgeois reactionary nationalism, cannot be surprised at it.
Contrary to what John McDonnell has said, keeping a distance from trades unions and industrial disputes is not uncommon for Labour Leaders. Kinnock famously did it during the 1984-5 miners' strike, and, of course, it was Callaghan's decision to take on low paid public sector workers and their unions, in 1978, combined with his decision to delay calling a general election until the following year, that led to the Winter of Discontent, and the election of Thatcher.
The Labour Party is not a socialist party. It has always been a social-democratic party, and the role of social-democracy is to try to reconcile the interests of capital and labour, which always means in the end prioritising the interests of capital rather than labour. Its why, in times of inflation, as in 2008, Labour Ministers, like Darkling, then, or Callaghan in 1978, can tell workers not to try to have their wages keep up with prices - meaning that profits rise faster than prices - for the greater good of "the economy".
But, that shows why socialists should never join such a Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet, because they will always, thereby, be constrained by the pro-capitalist ideology, and policies it will pursue. In 1917, following the February Revolution, when the Provisional Government that came to power, was a Popular Front government, comprising representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie (Cadets et al), as well as parties representing workers and peasants (Mensheviks, SR's et al), Lenin and the Bolsheviks, raised the demand "Down With The Capitalist Ministers".
In other words, it was a propagandist demand aimed at the representatives of the workers and peasants in the Provisional Government, to break from the representatives of the bourgeoisie. It was a demand for them to establish a Workers and Peasants' Government, knowing full well that they would not do so, and, in the process that would strengthen the position of the Boskheviks, as well as the actual Dictatorship of The Proletariat supported by the Peasantry that was being formed in the Workers and Soldiers Soviets.
But, the reality of the Labour Party is that, politically and ideologically, it has always been the equivalent of those very capitalist ministers that Lenin demanded the Russian workers parties throw out of the Provisional Government. It has never been possible to raise a similar demand in relation to it, so that those left represented some kind of Workers Government. But, now, under Starmer, it is even worse than that.
At least, under Blair, the ideology was that of the liberal bourgeoisie, it was forward looking, seeking a further rational development of large-scale capital, inside the EU, and global economy, even if driven by he interests of the shareholders in those companies. The same was true under Attlee, Wilson and Callaghan. Not so under Starmer. Starmer has adopted all of the reactionary ideas of Blue Labour, based upon petty-bourgeois, reactionary nationalism, symbolised by his support for Brexit. It is not even a progressive liberalism, but a reactionary nationalism, aimed opportunistically at merely winning the votes of the petty-bourgeois and lumpen elements that voted for Brexit, and gave Boris Johnson a majority.
In that alone its short-sighted, because, at best, it means competing for that vote with the Tories, who historically have it sewn up. And, Starmr's action against Tarry, along with all of his other anti-working class positions, is fully consistent with that. The liberal bourgeoisie, resting upon large-scale socialised capital has never had a fundamental problem with trades unions, because they understand that the role of those unions is itself, mediating and managerial, i.e. social-democratic. The trades union ideology is bargaining within the system, which means never demanding more than is compatible with the system itself, and having trades union leaders that managers can deal with as managers and mediators, is far more rational than having a thousand points of conflict to resolve.
But, that is not the outlook of the petty-bourgeoisie. It is based upon small scale private property. Not only does it employ few people per establishment, who can be ruled over oppressively, and who can be replaced on a whim, but its ability to make even small profits depends upon it being able to treat workers in this repressive fashion, to pay them minimal wages, to provide poor conditions and so on, because other wise it cannot compete with large scale, more efficient capital. So, given that it is to that reactionary section of capital, and to all those with that same reactionary mindset, that Starmer has set his cap, its no wonder that he can have no truck with support for workers and their trades unions.
Starmer and his Blue Labour, are not just "capitalist ministers", but unlike those that Lenin directed his demand in 2017, they are capitalist ministers whose ideology and positions are determined by the most reactionary sections of small capital, and so even against the interests of the large-scale, more progressive sections of capital, let alone of the working-class.
No comments:
Post a Comment