As a committed
democratic socialist (and therefore someone who supports Labour’s current
leader) and also – which seems to me to follow anyway – as a committed
internationalist (who therefore opposed the bigoted anti-migrant campaign which
led the “Vote Leave” camp to victory last year and set us on the path out of
the European Union) my social media is full of two sometimes conflicting
debates. On the one hand there is the debate about how to defend Corbyn, and
the supporters of the leadership from incessant attack and, on the other hand,
a debate among opponents of “Brexit” about how to act (which action often seems
to lead to those attacks upon our leadership).
Paul Mason, writing
today for the New Statesman, addresses both of these two issues, and whilst
his analysis arguable skirts around one vitally important question, I have
considerable sympathy for what he has to say.
The first thing to
do is to understand where our current political predicament has come from, as
most critics of the Corbyn leadership refuse to do – or to use Mason’s words; “ One of the saddest aspects of mainstream
Labour’s panic about the party’s poll rating is its refusal to understand the
objective causes; its refusal to debate the origins of the problem within the
class dynamics of Britain; its determination to reduce everything to the issue
of Jeremy Corbyn, his politics and his leadership style.”
I could hardly agree
more. As Lenin
said, politics is the concentrated expression of economics and our politics
today are the product of developments in the economic base over the past
generation. The defeat of the National Union of Mineworkers in the 1980s was
merely the largest moment in our domestic defeat, the impact of which has been
augmented by the absence of a global alternative to capitalism since the
collapse of the Soviet Union.
The consequent
weakening of the working class at the point of production (reflected in the halving
of trade union membership and density since their peak) has its corollary
in the rightward shift of the “centre ground” of our polity, in the context of
which New Labour was only able to pursue a path of social liberalism alongside
neoliberal economics whilst the economy could sustain the cost of the former.
However, capitalist
economies don’t grow in a straight upward line and the economic crash of 2008
wasn’t just a one-off loss of wealth and income. The trend increase in per
capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1996 – 2006 was 1.6% pa but since the
crash this figure has fallen to 0.3% pa. (This means, among other things, that the
social policies of New Labour in its heyday are no longer affordable on the
basis of its economic policies).
The experience of
social democratic parties in the rest of Europe rather suggests that the UK is
not alone in facing these political consequences of economic developments.
Whilst the choice of
Labour Party members to reject the (New) Labour “mainstream” in two successive
leadership elections shows far more understanding of this reality than the
attitudes of the terminally disappointing majority of the Parliamentary Labour
Party (never mind the Party’s official “machine” and the bulk of the local
government leadership) – we cannot change what has happened over the past
generation simply by an effort of will.
The decline in class
organisation has produced a decline in class consciousness which has led to a
decline in class politics, such that our polity is now organised around issues
which are not class issues (i.e. they are not fundamentally issues between the
ruling class and the working class). Mason warns what this means since last
year’s Referendum; “Brexit reframes all
issues around the national economic interest – and it is likely that the
hard-line negotiating position of the EU27 will do so even more”.
Leaving aside the
anodyne observation that the very idea of a “national
economic interest” is, from a socialist point of view, meaningless (other
than as an ideological device to secure the assent of workers to policies in
the interests of “their” “national” ruling class), the key point is that the
main dividing line in our polity is not currently a dividing line between
classes.
We saw what this
meant in Scotland, where the independence referendum reorganised politics
around a division between nationalists (led by the SNP) and unionists (of whom
the Tories are the most committed), marginalising a (previously dominant) Scottish
Labour Party which does not appear to know what to do next.
Brexit now threatens
the same outcome at the level of the United Kingdom as a whole, and Mason’s
article (which I urge you to read now even if that means you read no more of
this) explores the challenges which this poses for this (or any) Labour
leadership, facing the challenge of uniting those of its supporters who voted
to leave the EU with the (much-maligned) “urban
salariat” (of which your blogger is proud member).
Mason addresses the
leadership as follows; “The leadership
needs to firm up its “red lines” in the Brexit negotiations. The detail of Keir
Starmer’s “six tests” scarcely matters against the need to pledge, loudly and
irreversibly, that if they are not met Labour will vote down any Brexit deal in
the Commons”.
Since any worthwhile “tests” of a Brexit deal will
not be met in the negotiations between the May Government and the EU27, and
since there are sufficient other Members of the current Parliament who would follow
suit that Labour opposition to such a deal would lead to its defeat, such a
position would unite we “remoaners” with as many of Labour’s leave voters as
would be prepared to recognise their own self-interest (and still could prevent
the UK exiting the EU).
Mason also addresses the recalcitrant PLP majority
and their supporters (who do not seem to be paying much attention to the Party’s
evolving position in relation to the EU) as follows; “The Parliamentary Labour
Party needs to stop sabotaging and undermining the leadership. It needs to
accept that the balance of forces inside Labour’s broad church has moved to the
pews on the left of the aisle. For those who can’t accept this, it would make
everyone happier in their skins if they found a different party to be in”.
Whilst I think that it was a mistake for the Party
to leave it until after we had supported the triggering of Article 50 to come
up with a policy platform which reflected the wishes of the majority of Labour
supporters and trade unionists (who voted by a sizeable majority to remain in
the European Union) I generally agree with Mason both about the nature of the
political challenge we face and about how to respond to that challenge.
If there is one thing missing from Mason’s analysis
(and I think there is – albeit it may not have been an issue he was intending
to address) then it is that the genie which came out of the bottle during and
after the referendum campaign cannot now easily be replaced in its bottle. That
was the genie of bigotry in general and racism in particular.
Of course supporters of the “Leave” vote (in
particular the increasingly absurd supporters of the mythical “Lexit” or “left-Exit”)
can justifiably point out that racism and bigotry in this country did not begin
last summer (on the contrary, racism in particular was at the heart of the
Empire to which many supporters of Brexit plainly look back with desire and delusion).
Nevertheless, it is evident that the victory last summer of the forces of
reaction has further unleashed those very forces.
The referendum result itself has accelerated the
rightward shift of the past generation, moving the Tory Party in Government to
the right (not the left) from its former Europhile position and empowering (at
least in the short term) the right-wing opponents of Labour’s socialist
leadership, whilst dividing the political left, the genuinely internationalist (and
therefore anti-Leave) majority of which is plainly on the defensive).
The strength and encouragement which the referendum
result has given to racists will continue to challenge our movement – and to
threaten the lives and security of black and migrant workers in this country.
Our mass membership Labour Party under a socialist leadership needs to build
opposition to racism in every constituency right here and right now as an
integral part of our long
term project to build support for socialism.
The problems we now face are not problems which
arose over the past eighteen months but over the past generation. They will not
easily or swiftly be addressed or resolved.
1 comment:
What a load of patronising nonsense. This Brexit thing is really clouding your judgement on everything. Class consciousness is alive an well and resulted in a huge chunk of the working class rejecting the neo-liberal status quo by voting leave. You've made it pretty clear which side you're on with that one so forgive me if I'm sceptical regarding all your other arguments for socialism. You talk about the strike then condemn the people who took part in it with one fell swoop of your simplistic argument. Mining areas had the highest leave votes in the country. Men & women that stood firm in 84/85 and put up with all that the state threw at us are worth 10 sneering metropolitan liberals. When you demonise us for voting a different way to you and label us racist, anything you subsequently say is treated with the contempt it deserves. To re-use a phrase: "Which side are you on?" I'm not looking for an answer, I expect you to equate me with Hitler and say I'm best mates with Farage.
Post a Comment