Bourgeois-democracy is a sham. Its not only that the electoral system amounts to ballot rigging, in the shape of the first past the post-system, or the many other inconsistencies, the role of money and connections, the persistence of unelected institutions such as the House of Lords and Monarchy, and so on. It is a sham, because if ever workers were to overcome all of these obstacles, and, get a socialist government elected, that acted in their interests, not only would the permanent state obstruct it, but in the end, it would simply remove it, if needed, in a coup, as happened to Allende, in Chile, in 1973.
Long-time political journalist, Michael Crick, is not a revolutionary, and so, undoubtedly would not go along with that analysis. he describes himself, as a Labour right-winger, by which he means a Blair-Right. Unfortunately, as I have set out over several years, now, Blue Labour is much further to the Right than Blair's new Labour. It is something qualitatively different, more akin to a reactionary, petty-bourgeois, populist party of the type seen before in history that makes a sharp transition into the realm of Bonapartism and fascism. Where, Blair's New Labour was still a conservative social-democratic party, still a bourgeois workers party, geared to the interests of the ruling class, and large scale capital, Starmer's Blue labour is a reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist and sovereigntist party, not a bourgeois workers' party, but a reactionary petty-bourgeois workers' party.
The dialectic means that once the Far Right that, now, dominates Blue Labour, has used the Blair-Rights and other soft lefts, as well as the acquiescence of the useless Campaign Group, to purge the Left, it will, inevitably be led to turn its attention also to the Blair-Rights, and Centre, who will face a similar treatment, because the class interests represented by Blairism, the interests of the ruling class and of large-scale capital (most epitomised in relation to the EU) are antagonistic to the interests of the reactionary, nationalist petty-bourgeoisie upon which Blue Labour rests, and around which it has created its electoral coalition.
In this interview, however, despite not being a revolutionary, Crick seems to have an inkling of this. He rails against the Bonapartism, and bureaucratism and authoritarianism, now, apparent in Blue Labour, as manifest in the selection scandals of last week, and purging of the Left. I'm a Blairite he proclaims, but I will not be voting Labour in this election.
Last week, I pointed to the fact that Starmer's racist, Blue Labour would use racism to cover its inevitable failure, when it takes over the government. As I'd also noted, previously, the notice of that was given in Starmer's six worthless promises, when he'd promised to “Launch A New Border Security Command”. In other words, doubling down on the Tories own racist targeting of migrants, and refugees. Starmer's reactionary Blue Labour, for the last four years has been characterised by his attempt to outflank the Tories from the Right, to be indistinguishable from them, on policy after policy, other than to be acting as a a whip on their Right flank, much as UKIP used to be. Starmer says he has changed Labour. He has, but not for the better. He has changed it into UKIP, or a pale version of the BNP, as witnessed by his welcoming into the party of Natalie Elphicke, and his exclusion of socialists.
So, its no wonder that, even before Starmer moves into Downing Street, and the inevitable failure begins, he has already begun that process of scapegoating migrants, much as the reactionary, racist nature of Blue Labour has its racism clearly on show, in its treatment of Diane Abbot, Faiza Shaheen and others, inside the party. Starmer's Blue Labour has now followed the Tories in saying that it will cut net migration into Britain, even though they know that Britain has a labour shortage, that immigration benefits the economy, and so on, and that, even as they promise that, they have also made pie in the sky promises of cutting NHS waiting lists, which either requires additional foreign workers, or involves putting even more strain on an already overworked NHS staff!
Of course, when Blue Labour's abysmal candidate for Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, appeared on Sunday politics programmes, she made clear that they were not going to make the mistake of the Tories of actually putting a number on the amount of net migration they would achieve. The Tories, of course, never came anywhere close to achieving their oft repeated target of tens of thousands, and nor could they. The nature of a modern capitalist economy requires a free movement of labour as much as of capital, and although Brexit hindered that, as far as EU migration was concerned, it simply shifted it into different channels. As with everything else associated with Brexit, it increased the cost, and reduced the effectiveness of the migration.
Cooper says that Blue Labour wants to prevent that legal migration from reducing wages and conditions for workers in Britain, which is just a return to the reactionary, nationalist and racist sentiments of Gordon Brown's mantra of “British Jobs For British Workers”, put forward before he lost the 2010 General Election, and opened the door for 14 years of Tory government. If Blue Labour really wanted to do what they say, they would make legal migration easier, so that fewer workers had to resort to illegal migration. That would mean that all those migrant workers, who have to, currently, resort to illegal migration, a number that will increase, as Blue Labour seeks to make legal migration harder, would be able to claim all the rights and benefits of any other worker, to join trades unions and so on. If Blue Labour really wanted to prevent wages and conditions being undermined, they would act to strengthen workers' collective rights, raise the Minimum Wage to £500 a week, and so on.
Blue Labour has not put a figure on its net migration target, because it knows it has no more chance of reducing it than have the Tories. But, talking about it, now, fits in with all of those reactionary, racist tropes that blame migrants, and foreigners in general, for the problems created by British capitalism, and made worse by Brexit, the epitome, itself, of that appeal to the bigots and backward sections of society, purely for the purpose of building a skin deep, superficial electoral coalition, used solely to enable a bunch of self-serving, career politicians to get into government on a lie, and line their own pockets.
That was exposed, again, over the weekend, as I had predicted last week, in relation to Starmer's cakeism on the EU. It is yet again an example of how Starmer, and Blue Labour have been identical to Boris Johnson and the Tories, over the last four years, except more reactionary and nationalistic, and so, also more delusional and lying. In Starmer, we see, merely, Boris Johnson without the hair, or charisma, but all of the same deceit, and machine politics, and tactics of Linton Crosby. Crosby once talked about throwing a large dead catfish on to the table, to distract attention, when the dialogue was not going in your favour. Although, many pundits have talked about the fiasco in relation to Diane Abbot, being a big mistake, during last week, the opposite is true.
Firstly, it was no mistake, any more than the removal of other Left candidates such as Faiza Shaheen, or Lloyd Russell-Moyle was a mistake, but was part of a planned, Night of The Long Knives, Bonapartist coup, inside the party. Secondly, the Far Right inside Blue Labour saw this open assault on the Left as being beneficial to them in terms of their search for the votes of the reactionary, petty-bourgeoisie, who are most hostile to, and whose interests are most threatened by any kind of social-democratic agenda. Thirdly, the idea that a week of news focusing on Diane Abbot, distracted from Blue Labour's policy proposals, assumes, wrongly, that Blue Labour actually wants any kind of detailed scrutiny of those policies by the media and others. It doesn't, precisely because those policies are as vacuous and lying as the rest of its politics, and fall apart as soon as any such scrutiny is applied to them. Diane Abbot was used by Blue Labour, as just another manifestation of its inherent racism, as that large, dead catfish thrown on to the table, as recommended by Linton Crosby. Not only did it distract from Blue Labour's empty and reactionary programme, but it also distracted from the other Left candidates like Shaheen and Moyle, blocked from standing.
Trades union leaders, like Dave Ward, interviewed at the weekend, said that, although they were disturbed by the blocking of these candidates, they would not lead them to disaffiliate. Quite right, the job of socialists is to stay and fight inside Blue Labour, against the coup of Starmer, and the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie he represents. But, that involves an actual fight against that coup, and not just words. The reality is that the union bureaucrats are themselves responsible for creating the conditions which enabled Starmer and the Far Right inside Blue Labour to carry out that coup. That responsibility goes back even to the time of the leadership of Corbyn.
The union bureaucrats are opportunists, whose main concern is to get the Tories out at any cost, and get a Labour government in, even if that Labour government is no different to the Tories it replaces. For the union bureaucrats, it is different, simply because, from their standpoint, they feel they have the chance of being able to talk to that government, what used to be called, in the 1960's and 70's, beer and sandwiches. It is, of course, pure self-delusion, but fits their mentality as social-democratic arbiters, managing the relations between labour and capital. Its why the unions created the Labour Party in the first place. So, under Corbyn, they were a bulwark of that conservative tendency, coming from Corbyn's Stalinist advisors, to placate the Blair-Rights, and to not push the needed democratic reforms, for mandatory reselection, and so on. When the Right launched their attacks on Corbyn, via his Left base, using the lies over anti-Semitism, to implement a witch hunt, the union bureaucrats, again, stood behind that conservative approach of not confronting the Right head-on, so as to not rock the boat. The same thing had happened in the 1980's.
Even after Starmer has lied his way into the leadership, and, then, lurched the party massively to the Right, in search of the votes of the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, and other bigots, as he turns it into a UKIP Mark II, the union bureaucrats have simply acquiesced. Not even Kinnock or Blair was this far to the Right. Kinnock and Blair both stood on the ground of conservative social-democracy, of serving the interests of the ruling class, of large-scale capital, and so on, but none of that is true of Starmer, who stands purely on the basis of his own career, and of saying anything in order to build the electoral coalition required to get him elected, which, currently, means winning the votes of the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, the small traders, white van man, and all of the reactionary declassed elements on their periphery, the bigots and racists, and other such flotsam and jetsam.
The union bureaucrats, like Dave Ward, are willingly deluding themselves, about Starmer's proposals for worker's rights, if elected. Having seen the way Starmer has lied, day after day, after seeing how one social-democratic policy after another, no matter how moderate, and even popular with workers, has been ditched, in order to appease that reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, why would any sensible union member believe that Starmer would stick to that particular promise?! No sooner than Starmer is in Downing Street than that promise will be ditched like all the others. Starmer needs the unions weak, because with labour shortages, and so workers able to get real wage increases, even without taking industrial action, in many sectors, the last thing Blue Labour wants is ordinary workers beginning to, also, organise in those unions, concentrated in the state sector, and also beginning to demand their wages catch up with those in the non-state sector.
So far, union bureaucrats have led workers up the hill, and down again, in wage disputes, by limiting action to useless and demoralising one and two day protest strikes, rather than all-out, co-ordinated action. At some point union members will get fed up of that, and the existing union bureaucrats will be forced to move or be replaced. As Blue Labour fails from Day One, and the reality of its government quickly manifests in one confrontation with workers after another, its inherent Bonapartist and totalitarian nature will lead it to try to smash down any such opposition from workers, and the last thing it is going to give to them, is any strengthening in the position of their mass organisations.
The reality of Boris Johnson, as I set out from the start was that he knew that Brexit was a nonsense. Its why he wrote two Daily Telegraph articles on it from opposite positions. It was simply a means of him becoming Tory Leader, based on that same core, petty-bourgeois base. Despite all of the talk about “getting Brexit Done”, at stage after stage, he was forced to capitulate to the EU, because that is simply the reality of the relation between Britain and the EU. Starmer, even more obviously knows that Brexit is a nonsense and a nightmare, hence his strongly pro-Remain position, prior to the referendum. But, like Johnson, he is a liar and opportunist, who will say anything simply to achieve his immediate aims, and so, he used that Remainer position to build a coalition of support inside Corbyn's Labour Party, preliminary to launching his bid for leadership, just as now, as his goal is not Leader of the Labour Party, the vast majority of whose members support re-joining the EU, but is to become Prime Minister, he has become the arch-Brexiter, and jingoist, to win the votes of that large mass of petty-bourgeois, along with the declassed elements in the old decayed urban areas (Red Wall).
Just as he is the prisoner of the Far Right inside Blue Labour, so too Blue Labour will be the prisoner of that large reactionary petty-bourgeoisie. It is one reason that from Day One, Blue Labour's chickens will come home to roost. Starmer may or may not believe that he can negotiate a “Labour Brexit”, such people who lie as easily as they breathe, often come to delude themselves that the words that come out of their mouths are what they actually think, even if they are the opposite of what they said they thought the day before. But, what Starmer thinks or doesn't think is as irrelevant as what his political clone, Boris Johnson, thought. Reality is what counts, and it simply imposes itself upon them.
Britain is dominated economically by the EU, and politically/strategically by the US, hence Lammy's cosying up to Trump, as the next likely US President. These two things are themselves antagonistic as, although, in the short-term, politics dominates economics, in the long-term, it is economics that determines politics. Politics is concentrated economics. Its one reason that EU imperialism is not going to simply allow British imperialism to act as a US surrogate in its midst, and to undermine it by seeking to have all the benefits of EU membership, without being a member.
On that, Starmer is likely to also copy Johnson in claiming that any such problems in negotiating a deal favourable to Britain are the fault of the EU, just as he seeks to blame immigrants for the problems of British capitalism. It is simply the same resort to racist tropes and scapegoating, as used by the Tories. Blue Labour will be forced to recognise the reality of Britain's subordinate position relative to EU imperialism, and to accept all of the conditions required by the EU, such as signing up to Single Market and Customs Union rules and regulations, ECJ jurisdiction, and so on. As soon as it does that, its reactionary popular front with the petty-bourgeoisie will fall apart.
In the Red Wall, the petty-bourgeoisie that formed the core base of the Tories and Brexit, are already shifting to Reform, just as, in the Blue Wall, the professional middle-class support for the Tories has shifted to the Liberals and Greens. When the Tories get obliterated in the election, and a large chunk of that petty-bourgeois base has gone to Reform, the door will be open for a return of the Conservatives to their former pro-EU stance, as they seek to win back those Blue Wall constituencies. As Blue Labour's reactionary electoral bloc falls apart, it will be it, not the Tories, in the Red Wall, losing votes to Reform, whilst it also loses votes from workers, and the liberal bourgeoisie, as it tries to cover its capitulation to economic reality, with more intensive lies and jingoistic and racist rhetoric, aimed at scapegoating foreigners for its own inevitable failure.
That opens up, as I wrote some time ago, the potential for a realignment, as the Conservative Party, with its much larger resources, and ties to the bourgeoisie to take over the Liberals, though as is the nature of such things, it would be presented as a merger. Blue Labour would quickly find its rotten, reactionary electoral bloc falls apart, and at the same time, it is confronted with economic conditions, in which the working-class is strengthening, placing even greater strains upon it, and causing it to move even further on to the ground of authoritarianism, as it seeks to batter it down, with only the appeal to more extreme racist and reactionary tropes for its ideological cover. The labour movement should prepare for that, now, and begin the fight back, not after the election, but ahead of it.
Well known, US Jewish comedian, John Stewart, did a sketch some months ago in which he mocked the way the question of Israel-Palestine could never be discussed rationally, because anyone who criticised the actions of the Zionist state was immediately assailed by an avalanche of abuse and invective, on social media (though as was seen with Corbyn, not just social media, but also the media in general), as has also been seen with the huge media (and physical) attacks on students, even for establishing peace camps, whilst, likewise, anyone who refers to the reactionary, vicious nature of Hamas, is subject to a similar barrage of abuse, and charges of being supporters of Zionist genocide.
Hardly a radical view you would think, and certainly not, in any way anti-Semitic, even setting aside the fact that Stewart is himself Jewish. Someone, on X, posted a comment noting this same phenomenon, and linked it to Stewart's sketch, as summing it up. Labour PPC, Faisa Shaheen, watched the video and liked it. In part it shows why I never use X, because, its usually used by people on small mobile devices with small screens, and invites instant responses from people who are glued to the screens, whilst they really should be concentrated on the other things they are doing at the time. Shaheen says, she did so in the middle of the night, whilst sitting up feeding her baby.
As it happens, in this case, unlike the charges made against Jeremy Corbyn in relation to the anti-Semitic mural of Jewish bankers, there was nothing wrong, or even vaguely anti-Semitic, about her liking this skit, unless, of course, as is satirised in it, you are one of those Zionists for whom any mention of the genocide being committed by the Zionist state is forbidden.
Well, despite Starmer having on many previous occasions praised Shaheen, who stood in Chingford in 2017 and 2019, and ran Iain Duncan-Smith a close race, with every chance of winning the seat this time, he has barred her from standing. He can't use the lie used in relation to Diane Abbott of trying to say "not me guv', its all an independent process", because, as with Lloyd Russell-Moyle, in Brighton, no such process is being undertaken. Both have simply been barred from standing, simply on the basis of unsubstantiated and ridiculous allegations. It is clearly the same old method of using charges of "anti-Semitism", to block left-wing candidates or sitting MP's from standing, as Blue Labour careens to the Right, and into a totalitarian nightmare.
Now, John Stewart, himself, has picked up on the story, and commented that this is the dumbest thing in Britain, since it elected Boris Johnson. Commenters on Reddit, also summarised it. One asks will Stewart now be called an anti-Semite, but, of course, the Zionists and their allies have called many Jewish people "anti-Semites", as he alludes to in the sketch, dismissing them as "self-hating Jews", or the "wrong kind of Jews". The genocidal Zionist regime in Israel, has now called pretty much the whole world outside its regime anti-Semites, from the United Nations, to even Joe Biden, whilst ridiculously, in order to continue their support for that Zionist regime, Biden, Starmer and co. are led to simply echo it!
And, of course, from the perspective of Starmer and the Blue Labour Far Right, it is not stupid at all, just as for the petty-bourgeois nationalist section of the electorate in Britain, electing Boris Johnson, and voting for Brexit was not irrational, but simply an expression of their own class interest. Starmer needs to completely silence any opposition view to that of the Far Right in Blue Labour that similarly represents that class interest of the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, upon which, he, like Johnson has built his electoral coalition. The only difference is that Johnson counted on also continuing to get the votes of middle class Conservatives - now deserting to the Liberals and Greens - whilst Starmer counts on working-class Labour voters having nowhere else to go, despite their hostility to him, and the reactionary, nationalist, racist and anti-working class agenda he is pursuing.
That is why, its wrong to claim that Starmer's approach is simply a manifestation of his racism, and the institutionalised racism and Islamophobia inside Blue Labour, to which the Far Right inside the party can simply respond by pointing to the similarly barring of the white Russell-Moyle on the one hand, and the presence on the front bench of Lammy. The racism and Islamophobia is simply layered upon this underlying, reactionary nature of Blue Labour, as it seeks to eliminate any free discussion and dissent, which is typical of every such Bonapartist and totalitarian regime.
And, the reality is that the "hierarchy of racism" of the Starmer regime inside Blue Labour, identified in The Forde Report, is itself simply a device. Starmer and the Far Right of Blue Labour are not at all concerned about anti-Semitism - in fact, one of their previous tools, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, of Gideon Falcher, even accused Starmer of anti-Semitism - other than as a weapon against the Left, and to smash down any criticism of Zionism. Its why more Jews have been expelled from the Labour Party under Starmer's leadership than at any other time!!! The Zionists of the Jewish Labour Movement, are simply the latest tool used by the Far Right to conveniently bar or expel leftish Labour MP's. Its interesting that at the end of his sketch, Stewart having abandoned hope of a rational discussion on Israel-Palestine, said, what about a discussion on Ukraine, because, Jews are being used by the Far Right, as cannon fodder, in the same way that Ukrainians are being used as cannon fodder by US imperialism against Russia, the history of that has also not been happy, as the Lientz Cossacks can attest.
And, history should be a warning to the liberals still left inside Labour too, because, once the Far Right of Blue Labour has silenced the Left, it is coming for them. The reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist agenda of Blue Labour, which is the foundation of the electoral coalition built by Starmer, as much as by Johnson, is completely antagonistic to the interests of the ruling-class, and of the liberal ideas of social-democracy. Its why Starmer has promoted Brexit and jingoism, and why Lammy could even make soothing words in relation to Trump, as they recognise the potential of another Trump Presidency, reflecting those same reactionary petty-bourgeois ideas. Cut off from the EU, Britain is driven to recognise even more its dependence on, and subordination to US imperialism, much, indeed, as the Zionist regime is forced to do, in Israel.
All of Starmer's words about a closer arrangement and new deal with the EU, are just a delusional repeat of the cakesim of Boris Johnson, of British jingoism and exceptionalism, the idea that Britain only has to ask the EU to give it what it wants, and the EU will comply, especially as its now that nice Mr. Starmer in charge, and not that nasty boorish Johnson. Total fantasy, because the EU will pursue its own interests, irrespective of a Starmer or Johnson clone sitting in Downing Street. And, as that reality manifests itself, and Blue Labour fails from more or less Day One, just as did Johnson and then Truss, it will face attack from the ruling class, its state, from the liberal wing of Labour, and from the Liberals and Greens, as well as the trades unions.
We can see from the vicious, racist and totalitarian way that Starmer's Blue Labour has responded already to criticism how it will respond, when in government to that. It will move even more decisively on to the ground of Bonapartism, and a denial of basic rights and freedoms, as well as a further populist mobilisation of the petty-bourgeoisie, the lumpen proletariat, and backward sections of workers, much as Marx described in relation to the coup of Louis Bonaparte, in France, in 1848. Fundamental to it, will be an even more ramped up racism and Islamophobia, making the vile treatment of black members such as Abbott and Shaheen, look extremely tame by comparison.
But its not deranged, its the inevitable manifestation of the clear petty-bourgeois class interest that Blue Labour now represents, a class interest that is reactionary even compared to the class interest of the ruling class, of the liberal bourgeoisie, let alone of the working-class.
Starmer's reactionary, nationalist Blue Labour is a qualitative break from the Labour Party of the past. Those past Labour Parties were always representatives of the interests of the ruling class, whilst based upon the support of the working-class, for its membership and votes. They were as Lenin described them - bourgeois workers parties. As Lenin described, for example, in relation to the Narodniks in Russia, whilst Marxists do not support bourgeois goals, or parties, we recognise them as relatively progressive, as against those of the petty-bourgeoisie, which looks backward, and seeks to hold back, or reverse historical development, which involves also pandering to all of the bigotry and reactionary ideas of the past along with it.
Tony Blair's Labour Party, for example, was an epitome of that bourgeois workers' party, as brought to power by the votes of millions of workers, but which made no secret of its ties to the ruling class, and intention of acting in its interests, rather than those of the workers. But, in doing so, for example, in Blair's approach to the EU, that also, if unintentionally, yet inevitably, acted in workers' interests. The freer, stronger development of capital, and, necessarily, of the large-scale monopoly capital that dominates modern capitalism, also benefits workers, as Marx described in "Wage-Labour and Capital", for example. It broke down the reactionary national borders that act as a fetter on that development, creating the conditions for sweeping away the old, reactionary nation states, and facilitating the coming together of workers across borders.
But, Starmer's Blue Labour has made a qualitative break from that. One aspect of Blair's conservative, social-democratic Labour Party that began to make that possible was that it began to break the link with the working-class that was fundamental to its nature as a bourgeois workers' party. It did not actually break that link, as some Left sectarians claimed at the time. The trades unions continued to have an organic link to the party, at national and constituency level. The majority of individual members continued to be workers, many of them also trades union activists. But, Blair was able to pull in millions of pounds in funding from assorted billionaires and multi-millionaires, who recognised it as the main champion of their interests, as against a Tory Party that had been captured by a reactionary nationalist, petty-bourgeois base, and was increasingly driven to pursue those interests.
Blair, increasingly, did not need the financing of the unions, but that did not mean he could break the link with them, given the structure of the party, and role of the unions within it. Nor did Blair, increasingly, need large numbers of individual members, certainly not potentially troublesome working-class members, with their own agendas, and class interests that conflicted with the interests of the ruling class, and the agenda he sought to pursue. The days of needing collection of dues had long gone, with payment by direct debit, and the idea of physical door to door canvassing was seen as inefficient, as phone banks were used to canvass impersonally, using set scripts, and avoiding embarrassing questions and conversations with real working-class voters. The use of the Internet, social media, and targeted adverts has simply taken that to new level.
The link of Blue Labour to the working-class has not been formally broken either, but that appearance hides the developing reality. When Jeremy Corbyn became leader the link to the working-class became much stronger again. Membership rose by hundreds of thousands, making Labour the largest party in Europe. More unions affiliated or reaffiliated to Labour again, and millions of new working-class voters turned out to vote for it in 2017, giving Labour the largest increase in its vote, and vote share than at any time, since 1945. Starmer has destroyed, and reversed that.
The membership has fallen dramatically, as Starmer abandoned the social-democratic programme of Corbyn, and which he had said he would continue, as he lied his way into the Leadership. He has done that, because, captured by the Right, and needing to attack the ordinary members of the party, who overwhelmingly are to his Left, he has had to seek the external financing and support of rich donors, whilst appealing to the votes, not of workers, but that same large, reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist base, which provided the basis of Brexit, and the support for Boris Johnson.
Its interesting to note that, whilst Rachel Reeves boasted of the letter of support from over 100 UK business leaders, journalists pointed out that none of those signatories were currently leading FTSE 100 companies, and many were even just former heads of companies, no longer active. Reeves tried to claim that Labour was the natural party of business, and previous Labour Parties, actually have been precisely that, in relation to the dominant large-scale companies. But, that is not true of Blue Labour, which, like the Tories, is in its agenda, based upon Brexit and the interests of small business, actually alien to the interests of large-scale capital, and of the ruling class that derives its dividends and capital gains from it.
And, just as Lenin pointed out in relation to the Narodniks, in the same measure that Starmer has chased after the votes and support of that reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, and its attendant social layers, amongst the lumpen elements, and the backward sections of workers, concentrated in the old decayed urban areas, so too he has had to appease all of the old reactionary prejudices and bigotry that goes with it. That inevitably leads to resistance and contradiction inside the party, and in response to it, Starmer resorts to his natural type, that of the Bonapartist and authoritarian. Vicious and vengeful, as witnessed in the treatment of Diane Abbot.
But, it is not just Abbot that has suffered this mistreatment, which is, in part, a reflection of the institutional racism, ingrained into Starmer's Blue Labour, and also, in part, simply a reflection of the totalitarian nature of Starmer's regime, which cannot tolerate any, even the mildest criticism, and so seeks to bureaucratically and physically eliminate it, as with Starmer's employment of external agencies, connected to former members of the intelligence services.
The institutional racism of Starmer's Blue Labour, inevitably flows from its collapse into jingoism, and petty-bourgeois nationalism. Martin Forde KC, employed by the party to undertake an investigation into racism in the party (ironically what Abbot was accused of in her letter), found a perception of a hierarchy of racism, from the leadership and its apparatus, as the Right utilised "anti-Semitism", as a factional tool against Corbyn and his supporters, in conditions where the Right were in a small minority, but continued to exercise control over the party machinery, and continued to have free access to the bourgeois media, as a tool in that factional struggle.
Starmer and the Right have continued in that vein. Peter Mandelson used to speak about putting the Left in a sealed tomb, so that no matter whether they had a majority in a party that proclaimed itself a "broad church", they would never be able to get a proportional level of representation of MP's and so on. As someone put it, it would be a broad church, but with a very narrow doorway into it. It is the approach of the totalitarian that cannot tolerate any opposition, other than what can be used as a fig-leaf of cover. And, so it was inevitable that as the election was called, all those Labour MP's such as Diane Abbot that conflicted with that approach would have to be eliminated, along with all of those Labour PPC's already adopted, such as Faisa Shaheen, whose appearance on Newsnight, on Wednesday evening, illustrated the vicious nature of Starmer's Blue Labour, and its thoroughly racist nature.
Once again, the use of the right-wing Jewish Labour Movement, is the means by which Labour MP's, and PPC's are being bureaucratically removed without any attempt to disguise the factional nature of what is being done, using that same "hierarchy of racism", described in The Forde Report. Charges are being levelled going back ten years, often, as with Shaheen, to before those accused were even members of the Labour Party, as the basis, not even for disciplinary procedures, that is the minimum required by natural justice, but simply to block Leftish candidates from even standing, even after those candidates have been selected, and while they are already actively involved in campaigning.
Another such MP, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, was also blocked by this method, yesterday. When bad bosses send redundancy notices to workers by text message, Labour MP's, and even sections of the press are up in arms about it, but that is precisely the method of the vicious, anti-working-class racists and bigots, now running Blue Labour.
Of course, no Marxist should be surprised by this, as it flows inevitably from the collapse of Starmer's Blue Labour into reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalism, and jingoism. It is the kind of Bonapartism and totalitarianism that goes with it, and that is being seen elsewhere, not just with Zionism in Israel, which the likes of Starmer and Biden seek to defend, but also in the US, in Germany, France and so on.
If Starmer were on the Left, this overt and vicious racism against Black and Asian people, and rampant Islamophobia, of Blue Labour, would be resulting in screams from the Right, and from the mass media for all sort of actions and investigations by the Human Rights Commission and so on. But, of course, that doesn't happen because the Right utilise that "hierarchy of racism" to engage in their factional struggle against the Left and ordinary members of the party, and the media, which itself sees the Left as a threat they cannot control, is happy to go along with it, in alliance with a Right they think they can.
If you are black or Asian, or Muslim this vile, racist, Bonapartist Blue Labour Party represents a clear and present danger to you. We already saw, Starmer dismiss Black Lives Matter, his racist Blue Labour systematically discriminates against, and treats in the most vile manner, Black, Asian and Muslim members of the party. But, currently, it does not form the government. That is about to change, if as seems likely, Blue labour wins the General Election. As Starmer inevitably fails even to implement the pathetic agenda he has set out, and doubles down on the jingoism, and reactionary nationalism, to blame the EU, foreigners and anyone else available for his failures, racism becomes the most obvious, and usual method for achieving that goal.
Expect, Starmer and the reactionary Blue Labour government to quickly be blaming all the same targets that the Tories have blamed for their own similar failures over the last 14 years. Expect Starmer stormtroopers on the borders to be emphasising that argument, and for those stormtroopers to be targeting black and Asian communities, with renewed use of stop and search, scare stories about terrorism, and so on, as it seeks to impose a greater authoritarian and totalitarian control over society, as it fails to contain the criticism and resistance to it. And, that will extend into its actions against workers in general, as those workers seek to resist, via their trades unions.
Back in 2008, I argued that if ever a situation arose, where the BNP, became the party that workers voted for in their majority, and to which they looked for answers, then, Marxists would have to deal with that situation, by working with those workers who were members of such a party, and who related to it. Of course, that does not at all mean supporting such a party, or calling for a vote for its candidates or programme. As Lenin wrote, in relation to our attitude to the Labour Party, we support it only in the same way that a rope supports a hanged man. We could never actively support the capitalist policies advocated by the Labour Party, or call for a vote for those policies, or the candidates standing on them, yet we do engage in activity in the Labour Party, and in its elections campaigns, using that opportunity, precisely to discuss with workers the bourgeois nature of the party, of its programme, and so, why a socialist alternative is required to it.
That is what we did, back in 1979, for example, with The Socialist Campaign For a Labour Victory, which set out the anti-working-class nature of the Callaghan labour Government, and argued that we could not advocate a vote for its policies and programme in that election. Instead, we organised Labour members and trades unions to stand on an alternative programme, and called for a vote for it, and those candidates standing on it. That is our answer to all those who argue, on the basis of lesser-evilism for a vote for Starmer's reactionary and racist Blue Labour, because they claim the alternative is only a vote for the Tories, or to let them in by default.
Starmer's vile, reactionary and racist Blue Labour is not quite, yet, the same as the BNP, but it is heading rapidly in that direction, as its vicious and vengeful treatment of Abbot and others demonstrates, as its adoption of the most obnoxious jingoism and monarchism illustrates, and as its use of increasing methods of Bonapartism and totalitarianism sounds alarm bells, for all those that have seen such movements before in history. The trajectory of Starmer, and Blue Labour is fully consistent with that of nationalists who began in socialist parties, such as Pilsudski in Poland, Mussolini in Italy, and Oswald Mosely in Britain.
There is yet time to bring it back from the brink, but the Left inside Labour is divided, and has so far proved itself spineless in resisting Starmer's Rightward surge. So too have been the trades unions, which could have mobilised their resources at CLP level, and at national conference, to put a stop to the destruction of the party, as a social-democratic party. The purge of the left, and the totalitarian nature of Starmer's regime makes an equivalent of the SCLV impossible, but nor can we simply support a vote for Starmer's reactionary, racist agenda. Simply running away from the party is also not an answer. We have to organise and fight, now.
The ruling-class is a global class of speculators, of owners of fictitious capital. But, this global ruling class, does not have a global state to represent its interests, as every other national ruling class had in the form of the nation state. It has attempted to create such, with global para state bodies, such as the UN, WTO, World Bank, IMF and so on, but these cannot substitute for such a state, and simply continue to reflect antagonisms between the existing nation states, and the material national interests they represent. Indeed, not least amongst those interests are the material interests of the dominant form of property, the property upon which the revenues of the ruling class, and of the state depends, i.e. the interests of large-scale, socialised, industrial capital.
This is, in effect, a repeat of the analysis and debate about the United States of Europe, between Trotsky and Lenin, in 1915. Both Lenin and Trotsky agreed that imperialism drives towards such a solution, and that it is progressive, but, where, Trotsky argued, therefore, for raising the demand for a United States of Europe, Lenin argued that the divisions between the various imperialist states in Europe would prevent them from bringing it about, and that it would only be possible after the socialist revolution. In the 1920's, Lenin and the Comintern adopted the position put forward by Trotsky, of arguing for a United States of Europe as a transitional slogan.
Lenin, in fact, consistent with his analysis in “Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism”, misunderstood the nature of imperialism, partly conflating and confusing it with the already outlived era of colonial empires, in which the world was carved up into geographically based territories controlled by the dominant colonial powers – Britain, France, Germany and Russia. Trotsky, also, was misled by this analysis of Lenin, formulated during WWI, and largely as a polemic against Kautsky, and his theory of super-imperialism. But, Trotsky, as seen in his analysis in “The Programme of Peace”, more accurately saw the true nature of imperialism, and of that war as being, not about colonialism, but about the need of capital to develop ever larger single markets, just as the nation state had so developed in the 18th and 19th century.
“At bottom of the war lay the need of the productive forces for a broader arena of development, unhampered by tariff walls. Similarly, in the occupation of the Ruhr so fatal to Europe and to mankind, we find a distorted expression of the need for uniting the coal of the Ruhr with the iron of Lorraine. Europe cannot develop economically within the state and customs frontiers imposed at Versailles. Europe is compelled either to remove these frontiers, or to face the threat of complete economic decay. But the methods adopted by the ruling bourgeoisie to overcome the frontiers it itself had created are only increasing the existing chaos and accelerating the disintegration.”
(Trotsky - Is The Time Ripe For The Slogan: ‘The United States Of Europe’?)
Trotsky raised the demand for a United States of Europe, as a transitional demand, in the same kind of way that Marxists had supported demands for the national bourgeois revolution, in the 19th century, not as an end in itself, but as part of the process of class struggle, whose goal is the socialist revolution. It was raised alongside the transitional demand for a Workers Government.
In other words, the majority of the masses, including the proletariat, did not posses a revolutionary class consciousness. They continued to hold bourgeois-democratic illusions. We do not, but as long as the masses do, we have to deal with that reality, and, in the process of struggle, win the masses away from those illusions. The masses would continue to place faith in bourgeois and reformist workers parties in elections, and in periods of intense class struggle, as in 1905 or 1917 in Russia, in which these bourgeois-democratic struggles become folded into the wider class struggle (permanent revolution), the Marxists promote the development of workers' self-government, in the form of the soviets/workers' councils as the means of struggle for these demands.
The Marxists would not join any such Workers Government, made up of these reformist and centrist parties, but would utilise the soviets to press down on it. As he writes in The Transitional Programme,
“From April to September 1917, the Bolsheviks demanded that the SRs and Mensheviks break with the liberal bourgeoisie and take power into their own hands. Under this provision the Bolshevik Party promised the Mensheviks and the SRs, as the petty bourgeois representatives of the worker and peasants, its revolutionary aid against the bourgeoisie categorically refusing, however, either to enter into the government of the Mensheviks and SRs or to carry political responsibility for it. If the Mensheviks and SRs had actually broke with the Cadets (liberals) and with foreign imperialism, then the “workers’ and peasants’ government” created by them could only have hastened and facilitated the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But it was exactly because of this that the leadership of petty bourgeois democracy resisted with all possible strength the establishment of its own government. The experience of Russia demonstrated, and the experience of Spain and France once again confirms, that even under very favourable conditions the parties of petty bourgeois democracy (SRs, Social Democrats, Stalinists, Anarchists) are incapable of creating a government of workers and peasants, that is, a government independent of the bourgeoisie.
Nevertheless, the demand of the Bolsheviks, addressed to the Mensheviks and the SRs: “Break with the bourgeoisie, take the power into your own hands!” had for the masses tremendous educational significance. The obstinate unwillingness of the Mensheviks and SRs to take power, so dramatically exposed during the July Days, definitely doomed them before mass opinion and prepared the victory of the Bolsheviks.”
To the extent that real industrial capital expanded in the developed economies, it increasingly became concentrated in its pre-social-democratic forms. Just as newly industrialising economies filled the gaps of large-scale production, to meet the consumption needs of developed economies, so, within those developed economies, a growing petty-bourgeoisie arose to meet the needs of local consumption, i.e. a growth of labour services such as window-cleaners, gardeners, child minders, domestic cleaners, back street garages, sandwich shops and so on. In addition, of course, was all of those that simply became small traders, as depicted by Del Boy Trotter, but also as epitomised by the White Van Man.
A vast reservoir of unskilled, and semi-skilled labour, thrown out of work in the 1980's, fed into these businesses, particularly in those decaying urban areas, where that deindustrialisation had been most acute. In Britain, the growth of this reactionary petty-bourgeoisie was not only facilitated by the process of deindustrialisation, and encouragement of speculation, but also by conservative government policies, for example, the Tory introduction of the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, in the early 1980's.
But, this general, reactionary, petty-bourgeois ideology pervades the rest of politics too, much as Lenin described in his polemics against the Narodniks. As noted earlier, its not just the reactionaries in the ranks of the Classical Liberals (Libertarians), or the conservative social democrats (Neo-liberals) that have focussed their ire on large-scale socialised capital, in favour of small businesses, but it pervades the “anti-capitalism” of most of the Left too. The idea of a Universal Basic Income, to encourage the development of small business and self employment, is just another variant of the various schemas put forward by Sismondists, Narodniks, and other reactionary socialists over the years.
As I set out some months ago, this explains the transformation of the Conservatives from being a conservative social-democratic party, as it existed for much of the twentieth century, into being a petty-bourgeois, reactionary nationalist party, but explains why Labour has also been dragged along into that same camp, under Starmer. The same processes apply in North America and Europe. As I set out in that post, in the UK, the number of small businesses rose from 2.4 million in 1980 to 3.6 million in 1989, whilst the continual rise in the number of wage workers, going back 200 years, ceased in 1978, and began to fall, only resuming the upward trend in 1998. This significant change in material conditions, of the declining social weight both of the working-class, and of the ruling class, and growing social weight of the petty-bourgeoisie, was bound to exercise its reflection in the ideological and political superstructure, as it has.
The declining social weight of the working-class was greater than the fall in its numbers indicated, precisely because of those wage workers being, also, weakened industrially, as they became less secure, their organisations were undermined, and in many places they were atomised, a condition that has only begun to change with the more recent developments, as the process of labour reserves being used up, from 1999 onwards, and labour shortages arising, most notably from 2023, strengthens the hand of workers, and enables a rebuilding of their organisations. The social weight of the ruling class (already tiny to begin with, in terms of its numbers) simply meant that it resorted even more to its reliance on its state, and bureaucratism. Hence, a growing Bonapartism, both on the part of the petty-bourgeoisie, and its reactionary political parties, but also on the part of the ruling-class, and its state, in opposition to it.
Biden's stormtroopers have immense physical force to mobilise against the peaceful student protests springing up across US university campuses. Like the forces of Zionism in Palestine, they are indirectly supporting, and which itself trained these US police forces, they have an overwhelming monopoly of violence. In the end, that is the role of the state, when all of its other methods, based on the use of ideology, and its mass media have failed.
Across the US, Biden's stormtroopers are using that monopoly of violence to attack peaceful protests in order to continue to support the genocide of Zionism in Gaza, and to slap down any criticism of it. It isn't working for them as an increasing proportion of the US population opposes that genocide and opposes Biden's complicity in it.
The students cannot defeat this huge monopoly of violence by the US state, which is careening headlong towards the kind of totalitarian state seen, elsewhere, such as in Israel itself, as well as in Russia, China and so on, where the role of ideology no longer suffices to control the masses, because its presentation of reality no longer conforms with what those masses can see and experience for themselves.
The students have learned something from the experience of their grandparents, some of whom were involved 60 years ago, during a similar period of the long wave, in the protests against the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement and so on. At UCLA, recognising the superior violence of the police goons, the mantra of Bruce Lee, and of his system of Jit Kun Do, was heard "Move like Water". The students can simply move continuously as the stormtroopers launch their attacks, reforming in another place, just as when a fist strikes water, the water parts, and surrounds the fist, which only makes a temporary hole. As soon as the fist is removed, the hole fills with water once more.
The students are going nowhere, and the heavily armed goons cannot stay assembled on the campuses forever. A few protesters may be arrested, but for each one arrested, a hundred more are being recruited to the protests as they see for themselves the reality of the state violence being imposed by Biden and his increasingly authoritarian Bonapartist regime.
But, the US working-class should not settle for such a condition in which their kids on college campuses are facing this kind of violence, not only from Biden's stormtroopers, but also from the Zionist and other fascist auxiliaries being mobilised alongside them. Many working-class people from local communities have already joined into give passive support to the protests having seen the reality of the state aggression. However, given the fact that imperialism has staked so much on its support for the Zionist genocide in Gaza, it is also not likely to simply accept some kind of stalemate, especially as the Zionist state continues its genocide in Gaza, with an imminent assault on Rafah, and planned attacks on Lebanon.
The organised labour movement, in the US needs to mobilise its own violence to counter that of the capitalist state, in the best traditions of that movement, and the history of US militia, in their war against British colonialism, during their War of Independence. Local unions and activists should begin to organise defence squads to form protective rings around student protests, and the peace camps. In an election year, where Biden and the Democrats already look to have lost against Trump and the Republicans, due to the reactionary policies adopted by Biden over the last four years, those workers should use their influence through the unions to press for alternative workers candidates to be standing in the elections, on a socialist programme. At the very least, they should be raising their voices in union locals, and in local Democrat organisations to condemn the genocide and Biden's support for it, as well as the use of the fascist goons.
It may be too early yet, though the role of university lecturers and their unions provides some basis for it, to begin to call for local general strikes to oppose the state violence, but, at some point, such calls will become relevant, as well as calls to spread the occupations into workplaces, especially any workplaces related to the state, the production of weapons and so on. It is time that significant pressure was put on the unions of journalists and other media workers, as the US media has played a truly appalling role in lying about the genocide in Gaza, and supporting Zionism. That is not just the usual suspects of Fox News, and so on. We need strikes and occupations of workers in those media outlets.
The role of Marxists is to act as the memory of the class from one generation to the next. We are living through an equivalent period of the 1960's. Marxists should study the lessons of that time, codify them, and use them to the benefit of the current generation, advancing its successes and warning against its errors.
The Zionist Dictatorship in Israel is about to ban Al Jazeera, as the lies of Zionism become ever more ludicrous, in trying to justify its genocide in Gaza, and murder of civilians, journalists, medics, and aid workers on an unprecedented scale, highlighted by its deliberate targeting and slaughter of 7 aid workers from World Central Kitchen, in a deconflicted zone, in three separate attacks by the same drone, on their vehicles, which were clearly marked, and which had been previously identified and notified to the Zionist murder machine. But, the only reason that this particular wanton slaughter is in the western media is because six of the seven workers murdered, are from western countries. But, they are just the latest in more than 200 aid workers already killed in similar fashion by the Zionist regime. Its only “mistake” is in having picked vehicles containing western workers.
As Owen Jones has rightly said, the Zionist dictatorship gets away with this, because not only do western governments continue to act as apologists for it, and continue to provide the dictator with weapons and munitions, but the western media acts, also, as its direct propaganda arm. No wonder the Zionist dictator knows they can literally get away with murder. Even, last night, Sky News had on its Press Preview the Zionist propagandist Jake Wallis Simons, who was allowed to get away with the most grotesque lies that have already been thoroughly demolished.
Across the globe, a large proportion, if not the majority, of Jews have courageously opposed the genocidal actions of the Zionist regime. But, of course, attached to the corridors of power in western societies, is also the machinery of the Zionist state, and its propagandists, such as Simons, and The Jewish Chronicle, which also played a crucial role in whipping up ridiculous stories and fear amongst Jewish people, in relation to Jeremy Corbyn, and the Left in the Labour Party, as part of the campaign to restore the party into the hands of imperialist, pro-Zionist politicians, like Starmer.
And, of course, the stock response comes from the apologists of the Zionist dictator, in the media, of what about October 7th? The ability to do that, of course, shows the reactionary, and idiotic nature of the strategy, tactics and ideology of Hamas, which is also why Iran, Syria and Lebanon would be wise not to rise to the latest provocation of the Zionist regime, in its attack on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, which would only provide the Zionists and imperialists with further cover for their murderous actions.
But, the use of the whataboutery, in relation to October 7th., now, actually, backfires on those that resort to it, to justify the deliberate murder of aid workers, and so on, not to mention the genocide against an entire people in Gaza. Because, what it admits is that, yes, we did this, we targeted and killed aid workers, just as we have killed hundreds more before them, to prevent food getting to famine stricken Palestinians, just as we have targeted and assassinated journalists reporting our atrocities in Gaza, and deliberately targeted and slaughtered medics, ambulance crew, and destroyed every hospital and medical facility in Gaza, so as to kill tens of thousands of Palestinians, slowly, alongside our killing of them quickly with 2000 pound, US supplied, bombs. What it admits is that the Zionist dictator is carrying out genocide as a collective punishment on all Palestinians. What it admits is genocide and multiple war crimes! Those that facilitate that genocide and war crimes, and that justify it, are also guilty, and should be dragged before the ICC, but, as I wrote, recently, they won't, because western imperialism controls those bodies, and simply ignores them when it suits, illustrating the thoroughly sham nature of bourgeois-democracy and its claims about the rule of law etc.
The lies of the Zionist Dictatorship, and of its apologists in western governments and media are shredded, and become more ludicrous by the day, making all those that attempt to purvey them look ridiculous along with it. The genocide of the Zionist dictatorship, is rapidly undermining and exposing the sham of bourgeois democracy in western imperialist states. Hence the more rapid move to totalitarianism in those states too, first seen and most obvious in the form of Netanyahu's clone in the US, Donald Trump, whose base included not only white nationalists and fascists, but Zionists, many of whom are not Jews, but End of Days, Christian fundamentalists, who crave a war in the Middle East, which they see as signalling The Second Coming. But, it was also what all of the Anti-Zionism equals Anti-Semitism campaign was about in the Labour Party; it is what Sunak's new laws to prevent peaceful protest are about, and the same slide into totalitarianism can be seen across Europe, as those states seek to defend their support for the genocide of the Zionist dictatorship, as well as their support for the corrupt regime of Zelensky (which not only attacks Ukrainian workers and the freedom of the press, but has also just cancelled elections) which forms just one part of their global imperialist conflict with the opposing imperialist camp of Russia/China/BRICS, as the world marches forward to World War III, and the kind of Armageddon the Endtimers are seeking, driven on by the likes of Paul Mason, in the labour movement, for whom only a total commitment to NATO, and its full throttle, rearmament will do.
In Israel/Palestine, the Zionist dictatorship has repeatedly targeted journalists, particularly those of Al Jazeera, as with the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh. Many more have been murdered since the start of the genocide in Gaza. The Zionist military machine has deliberately targeted media offices, such as those of Al Jazeera, in the past, just as even Tory MP's, like Alicia Kearns, have had to admit they have done with aid organisations, and medical charities such as Medical Aid for Palestine. But, the propagandists of the Zionist dictatorship simply lie, and try to distract attention, by claiming that organisations like MAP are some kind of front for HAMAS, or are, themselves “anti-Semitic”, just as they have lyingly claimed with UNWRA. Now, the Zionist dictator claims that Al Jazeera was involved in the October 7th. massacre, as justification for banning it. This is the way all totalitarian regimes proceed to close down even the most moderate criticism of their actions.
Britain is hurtling towards totalitarianism and Bonapartism, driven by the combined forces of Sunak's Tories and Starmer's Blue Labour. In the 1950's, as social-democracy ascended, promoted both by the Tories and Labour, it was referred to as "Buttskellism", combining the name of Labour's Hugh Gaitskell, and the Tories R. A. Butler. Today, we might talk about "Sumerism", or "Starnakism", but based upon the complete opposite of "Buttskellism". Starnakism", does not represent the ideas of even conservative social-democracy, or even the liberal bourgeois democracy that preceded it, in the 19th century, as industrial capital became dominant. It represents a thoroughly reactionary ideology dating back to before that time, which was manifest at the end of the 18th century, beginning of the 19th century, in the Anti-Jacobin, movement that arose in knee-jerk response to the liberal-bourgeois ideas that flowed from the French Revolution.
That reactionary movement led to the introduction of the Combination Acts that outlawed workers forming trades unions, or even meeting in significant numbers on pain of being charged with conspiracy, sedition and so on, and pain of being transported. Its what led to the transportation of The Tolpuddle Martyrs. As Marx notes, in The Poverty of Philosophy, those laws and the reactionary ideology that lay behind them, was eventually overturned by the development of that very industrial capitalism, which, in turn, led to the development of the ideology of social-democracy.
"In England, combination is authorized by an Act of Parliament, and it is the economic system which has forced Parliament to grant this legal authorization. In 1825, when, under the Minister Huskisson, Parliament had to modify the law in order to bring it more and more into line with the conditions resulting from free competition, it had of necessity to abolish all laws forbidding combinations of workers. The more modern industry and competition develop, the more elements there are which call forth and strengthen combination, and as soon as combination becomes an economic fact, daily gaining in solidity, it is bound before long to become a legal fact.
Thus the article of the Penal Code proves at the most that modern industry and competition were not yet well developed under the Constituent Assembly and under the Empire."
But, a racist and reactionary Tory Party, indistinguishable from a reactionary, racist, jingoist and Zionist Blue Labour Party, has regressed, following Brexit, logically to supporting those ideas and methods that preceded the rise of large-scale industrial capitalism, and of the social-democracy that emerged from it. It would be tempting to describe the development of Starmer and Blue Labour in this reactionary nationalist direction as equivalent to the similar previous direction of travel of the Polish national socialists, Pilsudski, or of Mussolini, or the former British Labour Minister, Oswald Mosely into Nazism. However, all of the former, clearly represented the interests of developed industrial capital; their programmes, as with the Mosely Memorandum, supported by Nye Bevan and others, were based upon the development of that industrial capital, and, as such, far more radical than anything Starmer's Blue Labour is proposing, as it is hamstrung by its reactionary jingoist support for Brexit, and a desire to get the votes of the petty-bourgeoisie, by not proposing further state intervention, which in turn requires more taxation.
The centre ground has collapsed, because the peculiar conditions that existed from the 1980's onwards, which enabled the development of the delusion that wealth could come from asset price inflation, has itself collapsed. But, the main bourgeois parties cannot reconcile to that reality. It had a putative alternative in Corbynism, and Sanders, and similar progressive social-democratic movements in Europe, but the unsound nature of the ideas behind them, the attempts to conciliate the right-wings of social-democracy, inevitably led to their collapse, and the revenge on the working-class by those right-wing, overtly reactionary elements within those parties, whose main concern is to feather their own nests, at whatever cost.
Unable to reconcile their ideas with material reality, they have inevitably resorted, as the "anti-Jacobins" did, to the methods of fore and repression, and of the most grotesque lies against the masses they fear, in order to justify their headlong rush into the development of Bonapartism and totalitarianism.
The Starnakists talk about society being driven into division, but it is they that have stoked that division. It is the Tories that have stoked the racist hostility to migrants with their endless wittering on about "stopping the boats". It is they that have talked about "no go areas" in British cities, about the introduction of Sharia Law, and other such blatant lies, who have talked about London being taken over by the Islamist mates of Saddiq Khan, and so on. Now, when they and their Blue Labour clones get wiped out by the voters in Rochdale, they want in total conformity with the method of such totalitarians, to blame the voters, and to get a new electorate more to their liking, or better still, to restrict the voting altogether, as though having a choice just between two reactionary twins is not bad enough.
But, that bad choice is illustrated by the fact that, much as the Starmer component of Starnakism, makes verbal challenges to the Sunak component, it has no grounds to do so. It too is racist, and Islamophobic, and equally jingoist, if not more so. In pursuance of its reactionary nationalist agenda, it has sought to wrap itself even more in the flag than has the Tories. In pursuit of its Zionism it has expelled anyone even pointing to the genocide committed by its allies in Tel Aviv, as it justifies continuing to support arms sales to them, the better to butcher even more Palestinian babies, whose body parts get flung in all directions, by the huge bombs dropped on them. The Zionism of Blue Labour inevitably manifests as a racist disregard for Palestinians, and the expulsions of those that object to the genocide being committed against them.
It was manifest in the expulsion of lifelong anti-racists, such as Marc Wadsworth, purely on the spurious statements of Zionist proponents such as Ruth Smeeth, who previously worked for BICOM, itself stuffed full of former members of the Zionist state apparatus. But, typical of Zionism's approach, which also disparages "the wrong kinds of Jews", i.e. those that oppose Zionism, more Jews have been expelled under Starmer's regime than at any previous time, simply for opposing Zionism.
Society is being divided, but those responsible for that division along ethnic and communal grounds are the reactionary Starnakists, who are desperate to distract from class divisions, and the chaos arising from their continued backing of Brexit. Even the Torygraph has been forced to admit that Brexit has been a disaster. The opinion polls continue to show that the majority of the population oppose the genocide that the Starnakists are supporting in Gaza, but the attitude of such totalitarians is to first turn a blind eye to that opposition, then, to libel its visible manifestation on the streets, and in the actual polls, such as in Rochdale, and then to look to the methods of the police state to smash it by physical force.
The Left has been complicit in this development. For those that ask the question "what is fascism", or how to fight it, look, now to the actions of the Starnakists.
