Superficially Labour

To paraphrase Rupa Huq, Starmer's reactionary, nationalist/monarchist party may be barely, superficially Labour, but that is all.

If you strained your eyes, you could sometimes see a sign using the word Labour, hiding behind all of the Union Jacks and other symbols of the British imperialism that was responsible for the enslavement, rape and murder of millions of people, across the globe for several centuries, and the pillaging of the wealth of entire continents, during that same period, but it is a label that is a purely meaningless token, devalued of any connection to its origin, much as with the devalued Pound Sterling, which has no real connection to the Pound of Sterling Silver that was the origin of its name.

If you had listened to the Labour conference, you would not even have seen those purely superficial labels linking back to a party that was once a Labour Party, and its origins within the trades union movement.  In neither place would you, of course, have seen or heard the word "Socialism", long since banished from the superficial vessel that now bears the label Labour.

Listening in, you would have heard the voices of comfortably off, upper-middle-class people, educated in all the right places, alongside the other boys and girls of the ruling class whose interests they serve, and share.  Without even the guidance of the superficial labels to give you a hint that this was a Labour conference, you would be convinced that it was the conference of a party of middle class careerists, serving the interests of middle-class careerists.

And, what would strengthen your belief in that is that, whilst the voices of its representatives were those of a privileged elite, sanctimonious and self-serving, and whilst, even the singing of the vile, racist and blood-thirsty national anthem, has been undertaken by other conservative parties in the past, for those parties that came naturally, whereas, for this party, it is grossly exaggerated, and false, like a suitor meeting potential in-laws, who has to fawn and grovel to seek their approval.

For the Tories, over the years, obsequiousness in relation to the Monarchy came naturally, as they understood it for what it was, a figurehead on the ship of the capitalist state, a figurehead that symbolised the old feudal regime out of which the capitalist class had emerged, and come to conquer, the Monarch having been captured, and secured to be utilised for its own purposes.  It was the means by which the capitalist class had both incorporated the old ruling classes into its own regime, and which, having secured itself in power, also sought to emulate, with its own grandiloquence, pomp, flummery, and extravagance, as it also married into those old ruling families.  It was the final symbol of its conquest and secure knowledge of its position.

But, those Tories, at least in the twentieth century, were, as representatives of that ruling class, themselves conservative social-democrats.  They understood the dominant role of the ruling class as a class of money-lending capitalists, owners of fictitious-capital, land and property, and whose interests, therefore, depended upon the success of large-scale, socialised capital.  In that, they were no different from the rump left behind in the Liberal Party, or the main representative of conservative social-democracy, the Labour Party that had emerged from it.  These two main, catch-all, social-democratic parties differed only in degree.  The Tories were still based upon the petty-bourgeoisie and landed property, but they had no control over what the party in parliament actually did.  For much of the time,  they didn't get a vote on the Party Leader, or party policy.  That was left to Tory MP's, who were themselves effectively foisted upon them by Tory HQ.

The Tory Party, as a catch-all party, was a spectrum running from the reactionary right (reactionary in its scientific sense of wanting to turn the clock back, and so representing the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie or small producers), to conservative social-democrats who wanted to defend the status quo at all costs, and so including fascists (fascism is a movement based on the petty-bourgeois, as foot soldiers, but which, in order to gain and retain power, must represent the interests of the ruling class, and, thereby, of large-scale socialised capital), but mostly comprised of bourgeois democrats.  

Peterloo - the rebellion of the bourgeoisie
and petty-bourgeoisie, with the nascent
working-class in tow.

Labour, as such a catch-all party, was from the beginning a Popular Front.  Ideologically, it simply copied and pasted the social-democratic ideas developed in the 19th century by the Liberal Party that itself emerged as a catch-all combining workers and industrial capitalists in their joint struggle against the old landed aristocracy, and its allies amongst the commercial and financial bourgeoisie.  As the party became bottom heavy, once workers gained the vote, and trades unions came to have both money and members that could be mobilised, centrifugal forces, necessarily sloughed off the openly bourgeois element, separating out the bulk into the newly formed Labour Party.

It was, then, always a similar spectrum, just starting from a different point.  Its right most point being the conservative social-democrats, barely distinguishable from their equivalents in the Tory Party, particularly during the period of Buttskellism .  Studying politics, in the late 1970's, one of the bits of data that stuck in my mind was that 90% of all legislation in the pipeline, at the time of an election, was carried into law by the opposing party after it won the election.

The spectrum continued through to the progressive social-democrats, who still saw capitalism as eternal, and only to be mollified, but who drew the rational conclusion that, even this mollification, and the supposed unity of interest between capital and labour, was only possible if workers also had a say in production, via some form of industrial democracy.  They were the rational expression of Taylorism/Fordism, of the most rational and democratic development of capital, as it existed as large-scale socialised capital.

And, beyond them were reformist socialists, much of the kind as the earlier SPD, or French and Italian Socialist Parties etc.  That is those that actually wanted to go beyond capitalism to Socialism, but who wanted to get there by gradualist means, as society evolved towards it.  And, beyond them were centrists like the ILP of the 1930's, vacillating between reformism and revolutionary socialism, with always only a small element beyond them that was itself comprised of revolutionary socialists.

The historic origin of the Labour Party within the Liberal Party, and the continued characterisation of its ideology as bourgeois, meant that attempts to reunite them was always inevitable.  The Fabians never wanted to create the Labour Party to begin with, but to continue to operate via the Liberals.  Some of the trades unions objected to the involvement of "socialist" elements, from the beginning, and they insisted that any commitment to anything like Socialism was excluded from its constitution.  The SDP set the course, illustrating that tendency.  Blair's vision was always to try to reunite with the Liberals, alongside ditching the link to the unions, and further neutering any influence of the party membership, much as was the case inside the Tory Party.  The same ideology is reflected, today, by people like Paul Mason, who advocate this further liquidationism, and subordination to bourgeois ideas in search of unity with the Liberals.

But, even that is still recognisable as a Labour Party with a link to its past.  It is a bourgeois ideology, but it is still a social-democratic, bourgeois ideology.  It goes no further than a belief that capitalism is inevitable, but it at least bases itself on the reality of a capitalism dominated by large-scale, socialised capital, its need for a large social-democratic state, and indeed, an ever larger state, such as represented by the EU, and beyond it, global para state bodies.  Starmer's, reactionary, nationalist/monarchist party has broken the link with that tradition and that social-democratic ideology.  Like the Tories, it has become reactionary in the true sense of the term, seeking not even to preserve the status quo, but to actually turn the clock backwards.

The closest thing I can compare them to is the Russian Octobrists.  They can't even be compared to the Russian Kadets, because they, at least, were representatives of large-scale capital, and its rational development in Russia.  Starmer's Blue Labour, like the Brexitories is noted for its attacks on large-scale socialised capital, with proposals for windfall taxes on it, other taxes on it and the more developed forms of capital so as to subsidise reactionary and inefficient small capital, the dying business model of the high street, and so on.  In all that, they are more like the reactionaries of the Narodniks of the 1890's, other than they came out of a populist movement against Tsarism, whereas Starmer now worships at the feet of monarchy, tugs his forelock, bows and scrapes in servile manner like Uriah Heep incarnate, and whereas most of the Narodniks considered themselves some form of socialist, Starmer seeks to position his Blue Labour Party as far away from any contamination by such ideas as possible.

Had you been listening to the conference on radio, that is what you would have heard, a right-wing, reactionary party, sycophantly prostrating itself at the feet of a corrupted and degenerate monarchy that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history 300 years ago, singing along cheerfully to a racist, blood-thirsty national anthem, whose words are even xenophobic and oppressive towards the non-English nations contained within the Union, let alone to other nations, or to the other ethnicities from many of those nations that are now British "citizens", or more correctly, given the continuation of that Monarchical regime, and as stated on their passport, British subjects of the Crown.

Much like the reactionary polices of the Narodniks that sought to turn the clock back to the ideal of a society of individual small producers, one of the main factors that has both held back economic development, and also fostered reactionary ideas over the last 40 years, what you would also have heard is utopian ideas of state funded and developed programmes, such as in respect of Green Energy.  Alongside it, you would have heard very little detailed policies and solutions for the problems of British workers for the here and now.  For such careerist politicians, the solutions always amount to pain today, and jam tomorrow, except tomorrow never comes.

Starmer's reactionary nationalist/monarchist party has simply shifted further to the Right, chasing after a rapidly rightward moving Brexitory Party, and that is always the way with such catch-all parties, or Popular Fronts.  In order to secure votes, or seats in parliament, it always becomes necessary to make the tent bigger, by subordinating yourself to more right-wing ideas and forces, in order to draw them in.  The trouble with lesser-evilism is that there is always a greater evil to the ones you have already reconciled yourself to allying with.  Eventually, you become the evil you originally set out to confront.

Starmer can hardly criticise the Tories effectively, because all along he has been simply a cheap knock-off of them, a shoddy counterfeit, in search of populist support from reactionary elements in society.  He has tried to separate out his support for the policies pursued, from the consequences of them.  If we take the current high levels of inflation, they are the consequence of decades of central banks printing excess money tokens, to inflate asset prices, as well as the policies of governments in promoting that asset price inflation at the cost of the real economy.  It may have begun in Britain, in earnest, under Thatcher, but it was continued and intensified under Blair and Brown, particularly after 2008.

And, the most recent manifestation of it was under lockdowns, and indeed made necessary by those idiotic blanket lockdowns.  But, who was it that criticised the Brexitories for not locking down sooner, for longer, and on an even wider scale?  It was Starmer.  Who fully supported the payment of replacement incomes, and huge borrowing and money printing to cover it?  It was Starmer.  Who was it that fully supported US imperialism and its insane boycotts of Russian oil and gas that has pushed up European gas prices by 1,000%?  It was Starmer.  Who is it that has gone from being a proponent of a second referendum, under Corbyn, to being a bigger Brexitory than Boris Johnson, and so causing all of the damage and increased costs from it?  It is Starmer!

And, so, if you listened to the conference, rather than seeing any of the labels, or knowing what you were listening to, you would have believed you were listening to the conference of a party of comfortably off, elitist, reactionary nationalist/monarchists.  But, something would not have rung quite true from it.  It would have that ring of a fake, as though somewhere within it there was a crack or some other kind of flaw.  If you then took  a look at it, and if you did not see the labels, hidden behind all of the jingoistic paraphernalia, your impression would be confirmed.

In 2008, the fantasist, Mikhail Saakashvilli, in Georgia, would appear on TV, and behind him there would be a plethora of EU and NATO flags.  If you didn't know, you would think that this was a man and a country at the heart of the EU, and stalwart member of NATO.  In fact, Georgia was neither.  Saakashvilli wanted to become a member of both - he is now doing the same thing in Ukraine - and more importantly, as he began a genocidal attack on ethnic Russians in South Ossetia, which inevitably provoked a Russian response, he sought, their backing, much as Ukraine is doing now.  Georgia was not a member of the EU or NATO, nor likely to be one, any time soon, and so, to make up for the reality, Saakashvilli simply exaggerated the superficial appearance, by drowning everything in the associated regalia.

Starmer's reactionary nationalist/monarchist party is doing the same.  It competes with the Brexitories as to who can have the largest, and most number of Union flags on display, glorying in the blood and misery that this butcher's apron actually represents as a symbol of British colonialism over centuries.  It does so, because the careerist politicians of Starmer's Blue Labour have disconnected themselves even from the social-democracy of a Blair, let alone a Wilson, Attlee, or a MacDonald.

Grandson of the modern John Bull, Former Labour Minister,
Oswald Mosely also sought cheap votes by wrapping
himself in the flag, and moving ever rightwards, ever more
nationalistic and xenophobic.  His programme was supported
 by Nye Bevan.

In search of cheap votes from wherever they can get them, they have become petty-bourgeois Little Englanders, trying to gain some of the reflected imperial glory of Britain's bloody and shameful past.  Hence the gimmick of singing the racist, xenophobic, blood curdling, English National Anthem, along with all of the profusion of Union Flags, and other flummery.  In its excess, it simply demonstrates its falsity.  The only thing missing was for Starmer to turn up on stage wearing a Union Flag suit, and top hat, with a British Bulldog at his side, much in the vein of John Bull.  He of course, was a satirical character, whereas, the trajectory of Starmer's politics is more like that of the more modern John Bull's grandson, Oswald Moseley, or his admirers in the BNP, or its more acceptable form of UKIP and its inheritors.