The severity of the defeat in the LP is a consequence of it being brought about by the Leaders of the “Left” itself. It was not the Right that defeated the Left, and majority of members, but the Corbyn leadership. It repeatedly failed to confront the Right; it participated in the fake anti-Semitism witch-hunt, against the Left; it backtracked and cavilled over its own principles, for example over the Monarchy, Ireland and so on. All of that led to a lack of credibility that was compounded by Corbyn deserting the internationalist principles of the vast majority of members that voted for him, by his decision to swing, once more, behind the reactionary nationalist agenda of his Stalinist advisors, and promote the ridiculous notions of a “Labour Brexit”!
So, in those conditions, its also ridiculous to think that the lurch of Starmer's Blue Labour, into the arms of UKIPian, reactionary nationalism, and jingoism can be countered by the alternative of a return to Corbynism inside or out of the Labour Party. What is seen is a change in the balance of class forces. In 2015, and after, the working-class was on the move, and it was reflected in Corbyn's election as Leader, and surge in Labour's vote, in 2017, which gave it the highest vote share since 2001, and the biggest increase in votes for Labour since 1945. Similar things could be seen in Europe and the US. But, the inadequate politics of the Left reformists, in each case, led to defeat, and a falling back. As Trotsky wrote, in relation to China,
“If we do not help it to purge itself, in the shortest period, from Menshevism and the Mensheviks, it will enter a prolonged crisis, with splits, desertions, and an embittered struggle of various groups. What is more, the heavy defeats of opportunism may clear a road to anarcho-syndicalist influences.” (p 37)
The truth is that workers have been led into political defeats by poor leadership, but, in conditions like those of the early 1960's, when labour is regaining strength, relative to capital, as a consequence of the long wave cycle. Across the world, millions of workers are on strike, trades union membership and organisation is growing, but political leadership is missing. (In fact, I predicted such a movement back in 2007, and it is only the consequences of the measures taken after 2008 to deep freeze the global economy that has slowed that process down.) Or, rather, it is not missing but bad leadership, mis-leadership, in the direction of petty-bourgeois nationalism, either of the Lexit variety, or of the social-imperialist variety. The Far Right have taken advantage of that latter betrayal, and we will, yet, see the consequences of it.
In China, following Chiang Kai Shek's coup, the Stalinists looked to line the workers up behind the Left Kuomintang of Wang Chin Wei. As Starmer has implemented his coup, and takes Labour further Right than it has ever been, the “Left” are encouraged to, yet again, line up behind the same leadership that led to the defeat in the first place. Sections of it, still inside Labour, have continued the old appeasement of the Right, to an even more cretinous degree.
Starmer's current position does not reflect the interests of the ruling class, which requires an end to Brexit. He is, also, likely to be ditched if Labour is to fulfil its function as the rational expression of the interests of the ruling-class. To prepare workers for the political battles ahead, its necessary not to be diverted into dreams of LP Mk.II, with a new left reformist leadership, nor to repeat the errors of the last 8 years. Revolutionaries have no alternative but to operate within, and through, the Labour Party, but to maintain their own political and organisational independence, openly if possible, covertly if not. Either way, it means an even more intensified critique of the politics of Labour's bourgeois factions of Right, Left and Centre, and the presentation of a revolutionary, international socialist alternative.
“The workers were not simply crushed. They were crushed by those who led them. Can one believe that the masses will now follow the Left Guomindang with the same confidence that they accorded the whole Guomindang yesterday? From now on the struggle must be conducted not only against the former militarists allied with imperialism, but also against the “national” bourgeoisie which, as a result of our radically incorrect policy, has captured the military apparatus and considerable sections of the army.
For the struggle on a new, higher stage of the revolution, the deceived masses must above all be inspired with confidence in themselves, and the not yet awakened masses must be aroused. For this, it must first of all be demonstrated that not a trace has been left of that disgraceful policy which “sacrificed the interests of the workers and peasants” (cf. Tang Pingshan) in order to support the bloc of the four classes. Anyone who will lean in the direction of this policy must be mercilessly driven out of the Chinese Communist Party.” (p 41-2)
That sentiment, applied, in context, to the Labour Party, becomes all the more important, as millions of workers have raised their heads from the ground, for the first time in more than a decade, and where the danger of anarcho-syndicalist tendencies exist, on one side, and the siren calls of reaction, on the other. Remember that the militancy of the 1960's not only saw a growth of IS, but also the NF, and that dockers, who marched one day to free the Pentonville Five, marched on another in support of Enoch Powell. The development of class consciousness does not run in a linear course, but, via a series of contradictions.
“... the masses need a revolutionary program and a fighting organization which grows out of their own ranks and contains within itself the guarantee of contact with the masses and of loyalty to them.” (p 42)
No comments:
Post a Comment