The Idiocy of Left Brexitism and Its Twin - Part 13 of 15

The arguments of the Left Brexiters, are, therefore, nothing new. They are simply a repetition of those same petty-bourgeois ideas of Sismondi, Proudhon, the Narodniks, and later the Stalinists, Anarchists and others that, on the one hand, proclaim their hostility to the bourgeoisie, to monopoly, to imperialism and, consequently, capitalist development, in the name of the petty-bourgeoisie, but, who, ultimately, end up simply failing to decisively break with the bourgeoisie, and allying with one section of it against another.

The position of the Marxist, in that regard is determined by our analysis of what Brexit represents, from the perspective of the working-class, and of Socialism. It cannot be determined by what is currently, electorally popular, or by what this or that section of “Left” public opinion might be, as Comrade Douglass would have us do. Such an approach is simply opportunist and tailist. It refuses to offer any principled basis for Brexit, based on any kind of analysis of its effects and consequences on the working-class, to justify its support for “British” capital, and the “British” state, and relies only on demanding that we fall in behind what it claims to be the opinions of “British” workers. Why, on that basis, then, we should not, also, fall in behind the opinions of those same “workers”, in relation to other questions such as hanging and so on, is not clear, and often, as with Comrade Douglass's willingness to embrace other aspects of the Reform agenda, the proponents of this approach are very selective as to its application.

Comrade Douglass, writes,

“Paul Demarty assures himself that Brexit was a largely Tory affair (‘Breaking the mould’, May 8). I’m sure that seven out of 10 Labour constituencies voted ‘leave’, but doubtless he’ll correct me. Certainly, in the rust-belt industrial towns and areas - coal, steel, heavy industry - ‘leave’ was the dominant trend.”

This is not only opportunist in its implication, when combined with Comrade Douglass's further comment,

“Reform is picking up huge swathes of working class votes because its slogans are the ones the workers themselves are demanding”

but is simplistic, and, indeed misleading and fallacious. You would think, from the first comment that the only voters in Labour constituencies were workers. Is that true? Of course not. The working-class, in Britain, comprises around 70% of the population, and, so, is significant, but its not 100%. The petty-bourgeoisie, which has grown by around 50%, since the 1980's, comprises 30% of the population. That petty-bourgeoisie is the core vote and membership base of the Tories. Just because many of those petty-bourgeois, small business people, self-employed window cleaners and so on, are themselves employed in their businesses, and often poorly educated, and have low incomes – which Marx, Engels, and Lenin detailed long ago – the so called “white van man”, does not change the fact of what they are, or why their relationship to the means of production determines their individualistic and reactionary ideas.

In addition, it has never been the case that the working-class has voted solidly for Labour. Sections of the working-class, that are often termed “middle-class”, i.e. those in professional or other white collar jobs, have voted Tory, reflecting, in some cases, their own ambiguous relationship to the means of production, as “functioning capitalists”, day to day professional managers and so on, or else, their own individualistic aspirations. Similarly, there have always been “working-class” Tories, at the other end of that spectrum, i.e. less affluent workers, poorly educated, usually employed, themselves, in small businesses, where union organisation is lacking and so on. There are, also, those people who are “working-class”, but who form part of a long-term reserve of labour, being either long-term unemployed or unemployable, dependent on welfarism, and often, thereby, resentful of organised labour itself. Finally, in a similar position, dependent on fixed incomes, are the large number of former workers, who are now pensioners.

So, whilst the working-class comprises around 70% of the population, any deduction from that that these 70% of the population/electorate, are synonymous with Labour voters is clearly false. If that were the case, Labour would win every seat in the country, in every election! The problem that Labour, and, more specifically socialists, have to overcome, in terms of elections, is the fact that 30% of the population/electorate are constituted by the petty-bourgeoisie, and this forms a fairly solid bloc of reaction, when it turns out to vote. Again not a 100% solid block of Tory/Reform/BNP votes, but a much more solid bloc than that of the working-class, as a support for Labour.

In the past, in Labour seats, the problem for the Tories/BNP etc. has always been turning out that petty-bourgeois vote, in conditions where it seemed hopeless. Its why, it was only in small polls, such as local elections, where Labour, also, usually, fails to turn out its own vote, that the BNP/UKIP etc., were able to do well, and that was enhanced as the question of nationalism was put centre stage, and turned into a single issue referendum

In fact, Comrade Douglass's claim that 70% of Labour seats voted “Leave” is wrong. The proportion of Labour seats that voted “Leave” in 2016, was 60%, whereas it was 70% of Tory held seats that voted “Leave”. But, as set out above, this, in itself, proves nothing. The question, even, in purely electoral terms, is how Labour voters voted, not how all voters, in a constituency, voted. And, when considered on that basis, which maps, in broad terms, to how class interests were represented, it is quite clear that the large majority of Labour voters, everywhere, including Labour held seats, and including in seats that, overall, voted “Leave”, in fact, voted “Remain”. That explains why the proportion of Tory held seats that voted “Leave” is greater than the proportion of Labour held seats.

Back To Part 12

Forward To Part 14