Here, I plan to discuss Brexit and the recent election but, first, a few words on recent articles.
Here, I plan to discuss Brexit and the recent election but, first, a few words on recent articles.
The most recent new article is Anarchism, Marxism and the lessons of the Commune which is a revision and expansion of an older article (The Paris Commune, Marxism and Anarchism). Like the first version, it shows how misinformed some Marxists are about anarchism and how the Paris Commune should not be claimed by Leninists. The revision draws upon such works as Property is Theft!, Direct Struggle Against Capital and Modern Science and Anarchy, although the basic arguments could all be supported when Gluckstein wrote his book. Hopefully its lessons will be useful to activists today, including its discussion on alternatives to “political action” (Bree Busk likewise suggests popular assemblies for the Chile crisis).
And, yes, I worked on this partly as a result of procrastination related to working on the introduction to my new edition of Kropotkin’s Words of a Rebel, although to be fair some of this material will be utilised in what. As it stands, I’m working through the lengthy Glossary for that book – so progress is being made, amongst the distractions…
Another big article is On Anarchist Organisation, which was how my chapter on organisation in B. Franks, N. Jun, and L. Williams (Eds.), Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach (New York: Routledge, 2018) would have looked if the space had allowed (although the section on transformation was added when I was revising this first draft of the chapter). The published chapter is an edited version of Anarchist Organisation – Practice as Theory Actualised. I must admit enjoying working on this, as I have always viewed anarchism as a very practical theory and one with a strong perspective on how best to organise. Indeed, it is the only theory which takes the question seriously – for we are the only ones who actually take liberty seriously and think about the relationships required to keep free individuals free once they join with others.
Finally, there is a review of Whither Anarchism? by Kristian Williams and the next instalment of Precursors of Syndicalism (IV). The former discusses the state of the movement and what can be done about it while the latter summarises the communist-anarchist critique of revolutionary syndicalism, a critique I think most syndicalists these days accept (with the possible exception of the need for anarchist federations to work within and outwith the unions to keep them libertarian).
I should also note that An Anarchist FAQ version 15.3 has also been released since my last blog. I do plan to work through the various appendices and hopefully have the next one ready by early next year (but we will see).
Anyways, been busy – above and beyond translating Words of a Rebel and its supplementary material, not to mention actual work and family responsibilities. So apologies for not blogging much, beyond announcements, but there is a good reason.
Now, back to Brexit. I started working on this blog months ago, when May was still clinging onto office. However, it has been such a fast-moving shitstorm, that it is hard to find the time (and often the enthusiasm) to comment on it. As in America with Trump, the crazy is so bad that it is hard to keep track of – and yesterday’s horror or stupidity is forgotten in the growing pile of today’s horrors and stupidities. It also affects my family, so it is also hard to be objective about it (which is no bad thing, as we are not robots – the ability of Leninists to be “objective” when faced with the horrors of the Bolshevik regime is one of the many reasons they are counter-revolutionary).
In terms of Trump, yes, he is a horror but – although much worse – it is all very similar to Bush II, including the misplaced hero worship by “the base” and Republican politicians. Sure, Bush II was better spoken and less crude, but remember that he campaigned as a dove against Gore. Elements of the Republican establishment and US State want a war against Iran – and Trump is unlikely to stop them (given the right flattery at the right time). He even at one point talked of how any war would be “quick” – presumably because US troops would be welcomed as liberators? – but that possibility seems to have just as quickly disappeared… which suggests a lack of willingness of the bulk of the US ruling class to get involved in another potential quagmire after Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, since starting this, May hung on for what seemed like forever before finally going. Boris Johnson became Tory leader and faced a Parliament willing to act, to some degree, on its own. An election was finally called to “Get Brexit Done” – but only after Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement was passed by parliament but his timetable rejected – and now we have a Tory majority big enough to do whatever a serial liar wants, with so-called “representatives” already pledged to do what their master, sorry leader, proclaims. Indeed, the promises made are already being ripped-up with “new legislation has stripped out protections for workers’ rights, watered down a commitment to take unaccompanied refugee children from Europe, and removed parliament’s say on the future relationship.” Which means that after getting people to vote for “his” deal, he has changed it in within a week…
This is, to be honest, what I expected back in 2017 when May launched her failed general election plan to crush the opposition – indeed, Johnson followed much of her campaign (such as avoiding scrutiny nearly as much but lying and hiding in fridges more). So the 2017 result was a pleasant surprise, the 2019 was not unexpected (I was as pessimistic as in 2017).
But the May years are of note for a few things. Like Trump, the May regime showed how dependent we are on those in power playing by the accepted norms. Once someone is in who refuses to do so, it is extremely difficult to hold them to account or get rid of them – an elected King, in other words. So-called leaders can simply ignore anything they want, with little or no consequences. May could cling onto her office in spite of losing massively in Parliament and in spite of (eventually) most members of our own party wanting her to go. Johnson can lie at will and refuse to attend Parliamentary oversight committees, refuse interviews which other party leaders agreed to (on the assumption all would, as traditionally done, do them), break promises, etc. In fact, with Johnson, you actually get rewarded for shattering the traditions – somewhat strange for a “conservative” (which shows that, at bottom, they only value power and promote tradition only insofar as it secures or venerates that power).
We must not forget that the new unassailable Tory parliament was produced by just over a 1% increase in their vote. As in the 1980s, democracy means a minority gets its way (it also means dishing out peerages to people who did not stand or did not get re-elected so they can remain in the People’s Democratic Government of Britain). But the election – like the 2016 referendum, but even more so – was marked by industrial-scale lying by the Tories (and, to a lesser degree, the LibDems).
Indeed, we are so post-Truth that Piers Morgan feels he can berate Stormzy for telling children that Johnson is “a bad man.” By any objective measure that is true – Johnson was found in the highest court of the land to have lied to the country (over prorogation), during his election campaign it would have been easier to list the (few) factual statements than the lies and misleading ones, he was fired twice for lying, he was been serially unfaithful, he has happily said and written sexist, homophobia, classist, racist and xenophobic comments (and was happy to utter the last two to garner support in the last election), conspired to attack a journalist, wasted millions of tax-payers money on pet-projects as London Mayor, he has betrayed numerous people (the DUP being notable here with the border down the Irish Sea he had previously denounced), lazy, self-serving, and a coward (as seen by avoiding hard interviews, including hiding in a fridge from… Piers Morgan).
Apparently all the above is not worthy of comment but noting it and drawing an obvious conclusions is to be condemned. But, then, waging a class war against the working class is fine but noting its impact is just not on…
But, then, many of those subject to this top-down class war voted for the party which imposed it for nine years. Indeed, many of those North England constituencies suffered the most from austerity – perhaps some voters saw how the Tory constituencies in the South were favoured and came to the conclusion that they were being punished for voting the wrong way? Appeasement, though, is meant to be wrong, you are meant to stand up to bullies…
So a few comments on the previous months before discussing what is to be done…
We saw the rise and quick demise of “Change UK” and its ever-decreasing number of M.P.s. Again, in the name of democracy, they urge a second vote on the EU because people know more and may have changed their minds – but, of course, no letting their constitutions have a say over whether they want to be “represented” by them (the election result shows why…)
And, before the election, the DUP “representing” a remain Northern Ireland? All in the name of “democracy”? As farcical as someone in the DUP suggesting “taking back control” meant having a completely open border in Ireland in order to avoid the “back-stop.” But then the clash between reality and ideology often sparks the crazy in order to make the circle square, at least in a few minds.
The great illusion is that the Tory Party, particularly its members, are “centre-right” – far from it:
“For a poll this week of that membership showed just how extreme a body it has become, with a majority willing to accept Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK, significant damage to the economy, and even their party being destroyed so long as Brexit is delivered – and 46% of whom would be happy if Nigel Farage became their leader. There’s a need for caution in interpreting this – such responses could just be a way of signalling strength of feeling about Brexit rather than the actuality of what those responding would accept – but, even so, it is remarkable.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the fascist British First (ex-BNP) is urging its members to join the Tories as, to quote its leader, Johnson “is obviously a populist nationalist under the surface, like the type of patriotism as promoted by Britain First.” Again, though, Thatcher’s Tories saw its fair share of former National Front members join, so Johnson is hardly breaking new ground.
Pushing a right-wing party further to the right rarely produces the same pearl-clutching that it would were it a left-wing party seeing a few “far-left” types joining it – just see the nonsense produced by Labour electing a leader who remains true to the post-war Keynesian consensus. Here it is a case of the party going into “crisis” – I would like the anarchist movement to have the same crisis, namely a massive increase in membership! So we can expect little mainstream comment on how the Tory party appears to now to be the natural place for fascists to be.
I wrote the following before the election (and, on cue, a letter from a Rabbi appeared – the endorsements of Corbyn by two other rabbis went unmentioned): And the “anti-Semitism” attacks were now so regular – just before an election – that it surely has no impact now? The one before the EU elections was left a bit late – just before election-day itself – and really clutching at straws, for Hobson’s Imperialism is not remembered for its anti-Semitism (which amount to two sentences, which could be removed without affecting the argument). It also interesting to see the flurry of edits on the book’s Wikipedia entry just before and after the story broke…). And when I was working on Kropotkin’s Modern Science and Anarchy, I had to track down a few Hobson quotes – and I had no idea how bigoted his some of arguments against the war in South Africa were and the passages Kropotkin quotes do not refer it. Still, can we expect Kropotkin to now be proclaimed an anti-Semite because he quoted Hobson’s work?
Now, the following after the election, it is best not to ponder the reporting if Corbyn had, like May, attended the unveiling or had, like Johnson had an election photo-op, of a statue a pro-Nazi anti-Semite… more than a few articles here and there, we can be sure (like his editorial decisions). Still, it is impressive (if that is the right word) how the media has turned a slight problem (reflecting the size of the Labour Party) badly handled into the (false) notion that it was the new Nazi Party – but, then, it appeared that Jeremy Corbyn was personally responsible for every anti-Semitic comment on the internet… the flood of headlines was sufficient to turn a lot of people against him, while Tory racism was left to run riot. The smear has been so successful, the American right are now trying it against… Bernie Sanders – that he is Jewish seems of no concern, presumably because the smear will stick regardless (like Rachel Riley proclaiming Noam Chomsky anti-Semitic…).
Which points to a wider problem: Johnson has the benefit of a media machine which will bolster him at every turn, ignoring or downplaying (when not providing excuses for) his failures, demonising the opposition. He has already acted against those perceived as being “disloyal” – the Mirror being excluded from the Tory “Battle Bus” during the election, Channel Four for not kowtowing when Johnson refused to attend a leaders debate on the climate and the BBC for Andrew Neil’s completely factual call for Johnson to be interviewed (in spite of its general pro-Johnson bias as well…). But then, “bias” seems simply to mean not accepting blatant lies with a cheerful smile…
I wrote this after May finally left: And the notion that Gove or Johnson are in the running to be Prime Minister shows how far Britain has fallen… and these are meant to be “the brightest and the best” of the Tory M.P.s! Johnson seems the almost certain winner of the Tory leadership campaign. It speaks volumes that a serial liar and proven incompetent is so popular in the Tory Party – although, he did feel he had to start his campaign with a bribe of raising the 40p threshold from £50,000 to £80,000. So M.P.’s and Tory party members, who are in general wealthy, get a clear cash incentive to “back Boris.” And not only is it helping those who least need it, its cost of £9.6bn a year will apparently come from the no-deal preparations budget – and he also simultaneously wanted to ramp up the threat of “no deal” to force the EU to concede!
I now add that I did laugh when Johnson announced during the general election campaign that not cutting corporation tax as planned would give the Challenger extra-billions to spend – so destroying the whole neo-liberal spin of the past 40 years that cutting taxes increases revenue! In a few words he exposed Cameron’s and Osbourne’s rhetoric for the nonsense it was. So at least one truth was uttered by Johnson during the campaign!
When some people suggested that parliament simply revoked Article 50 I noted:
I think it unwise for Parliament to nullify a referendum, regardless of how flawed and manipulated it was. After all, I would not put it past the Tories to nullify a general election if they had a precedent like that (given that Raab C. Nesbit and Ester McVile have already, seriously, suggested propagating parliament to force through their preferred “No Deal” Brexit, this seems not as far-fetched as it once was [and which Johnson then immediately did, lest we forget!]). I think that we should follow the example of trade unions here – we are balloted over strike action and we are balloted when a deal is brokered, so we see what is offered and whether we agree to it or not. I would not wish union officials to be able to impose a “deal,” and so the best solution here is a second referendum on what is being proposed.
Now, given the arguments presented by them, I am sure the Brexiters know they would not win a second referendum. At the very least, many leave voters have died and many remain voters have joined the electoral ranks (and, given this, it seems wrong that those who would be impacted least by the vote had the same weighing as those who would be stuck with the decision decades after the former had shuffled off this mortal coil). More, many people – at least those paying attention – have realised it is not as simple as portrayed and the impact worse.
Ultimately, if you deny people the chance to change their minds then democracy is not hanging by a very strong thread…
The idea that Parliament should overrule a referendum – even one as flawed as the 2016 one – is not something I like. So, there should be a new one based on whatever deal is agreed – that is what happens in a strike. We are balloted over an issue, negotiations then start and any proposed deal is put back to the members for approval. Not that any news person has put that to the anti-vote Brexiters…
After a referendum without a notion of what leaving meant, we now have a so-called party – the Brexit Party – without members and without policies getting numerous M.E.P.s before disappearing a few months later. It was amazing how Farage gets to set the agenda by the media – after all, he proclaimed that coming second in the EU elections was great for a party which was just a few weeks old. Yet the Farage-fan-club (for that is what the Brexit Party is, being based on extracting £25 from those who register as a “supporter,” plus £100 to stand as a candidate in the general election) has existed for many decades in the shape of UKIP. But then he rails against “professional politicians” while being a MEP for decades….
We all know that manifestos are not worth the money they are written on, but at least they provide some indication of what a party stands for and – more importantly – to judge their actions by. Yes, electing a representative gives them carte-blanc to do what they like for 4 or 5 years so the rise of the Brexit Party brings this farce to its head – people voting for someone who does not even have any policies to ignore or betray! – and to this comment written a few months back I now can add the Tory’s 2019 manifesto, which was light on policy and heavy on dread (not least the vague comments on page 48).
Still, does this election mean that Farage will, finally, go away? That would be a real – probably the only – Brexit-dividend!
The Brexit party results in the European elections – and the Peterborough be-election – suggests that around a third of voters across the UK want a “No Deal” Brexit. This will not stop the Brexit Party (and Johnson, of course) seeking to impose it – all in the name of “democracy” and the “will of the people.” Likewise, with around 43% of the votes cast, Johnson proclaims democracy means refusing a confirmatory referendum in spite of over 50% voting for parties which offered it – strange, he was all in favour of forcing trade unions to re-ballot for strike action after a certain period has passed since the initial vote: clearly striking is of more import than leaving the EU.
The general election result means the Tories “saw off” the UKIP and Brexit Party threat… by becoming UKIP and Brexit Party. In short, the English Nationalist Party – perhaps even the English Nationalist-Socialist Party, with its rhetoric about being a “People’s government” and increased State spending (what would Thatcher say?). Johnson was quite happy to fan the xenophobia against EU citizens here during the campaign, so we should be concerned. Massive lying, utilising racism, xenophobia, sexism, and so on has consequences when rewarded at the ballot – and becoming the far-right does not nullify the far-right, quite the reverse by placing their ideas into everyday society. And if Johnson does not do as promised in terms of “the foreign” then we can easily see an actual fascist party gaining ground rather than one embracing some of its ideas and rhetoric. After pushing what is acceptable in campaigning so far to secure votes, it will be hard to get that genie back in the bottle. Indeed, any move to “the centre” would be seen as a betrayal by some and perhaps unlikely – racism, sexism, xenophobia, classism, homophobia, etc. were utilised and rewarded. Stormzy again just stated the obvious:
“If the top person can openly say this racist thing – the ‘piccaninnies’ remarks, ‘watermelon smiles’, comparing Muslim women to a letter box – if that is our figurehead, the top man, the leader we have to follow, and he openly says these things, he encourages hate among others…. Before, people had to hide their racism. If you felt something bad about about black people, about Muslims, you had to shut up. Now these people have the confidence to come out in public to say everything. This is scary to me, that scares the shit out of me.”
Nor should we forget that the move from “we need to leave because there is no space here for new people from the EU” to “we need to kick these foreigners out because too many people are here” is only a matter of time, particularly if a no-deal exit at the end of 2020 causes the predicted issues – without “Brussels” to blame for the impact of Tory policies, the right and its media will need to target someone… and now that EU citizens have to register, well, any change in policy will have a handy list to consult to aid rounding people up.
It is amazing to see the UK go down the American rabbit-hole in terms of frankly insane political discussion. But then, we have followed America in terms of policies for a long time, reproducing its soaring inequality and plummeting social mobility, so why not its wing-nut political talk which both is a product and driver of the process?
Other than the lying and the bigotry, what else can be said about the election?
This is not the first post-truth election. The 2016 referendum was also like that (to a then shocking degree) and I was reading something recently which noted that back in 2015 a turning point in the election came when Ed Miliband said that did not think New Labour had spent too much and that this had not caused the economic crash. Which was true, but not the narrative put by the media and so this harmed his credibility: so being accurate and factual helped cost him the election! So the post-truth era has been around a while, as to be expected in such an unequal society – the truth cannot be told (as can be seen from the man who proclaimed on Question Time that earning £80,000 did not put you in the top 5%, as reflecting the long-standing Daily Mail narrative). Likewise with using racism – the Tory party was more than happy to use racism during the London mayoral elections of 2016 (so, as with Trump, Johnson built upon what was already there rather than create something completely new). So Johnson is not some shocking “new” right-wing development as some “moderate” Tories suggested, like Trump he is the product of tendencies already long existing within the right.
It must be stressed that Johnson did not campaign just against Labour but also his own party and its dreadful legacy (he did the same during the 2012 London Mayor campaign, seeking to stress his distance of the Coalition Government and so, in effect, people were urged to vote for an independent). Now, in office, he is repeating the mantra – an office he is in because, in part, he paid lip-service to ending austerity he helped imposed and introducing state spending he also opposed. In short, Labour won the argument – austerity was a choice and Johnson paid lip-service to making another one, one previously championed by Labour in 2017. Let us not forget (or more passionately – although Jonathan Pie has his issues):
“While the decade’s Conservative ascendancy has gone on and on, extraordinary crises have spread through British society. During the 2010s, the average life expectancy, which had been growing almost continuously for a century, stopped rising [although food-bank use did soar]. The average wage rose more slowly than in any decade since the Napoleonic wars [while benefits were frozen or cut, via the mess that is Universal Credit]. A million more children with working parents entered poverty. The number of people sleeping rough more than doubled. [Then there is the onslaught against the long-term sick and disabled, and the bedroom tax] One of the archetypal British public spaces of the 2000s was St Pancras station in London: once tatty, now renovated, with smart new shops, bustling food outlets and trains to the continent – a confident intertwining of private prosperity and state spending. Since 2010, its restored Victorian alcoves have filled up with people living in sleeping bags and tents.”
As such, the election result reminds me of a certain scene in The Life of Brian…
So Johnson again effectively ran against his party and its legacy – saying his “new” government was different from the previous one (in which he was the worst-ever foreign secretary, lest we forget) and the ones before which he supported… Still, “Vote Tory – so we can undo some of the damage caused by… the Tories” worked, many people seemed to believe this, or did not care, or viewed it as another lie on the growing mountain – bar the biggest one, getting Brexit “done.” This will drag on for ages – even if we drop out at the end of 2020, some form of free trade agreement would be needed (there is a reason why all bar, what, 2 countries in the world have moved away from WTO terms…). And, again, to sell goods in Europe will require these goods to meet the regulations and laws there – so forms will need to be filled out showing this, assuming regulatory divergence. And, again, trade agreements have usually been based on convergence of standards…
After all, why was the election called? Because, according to Johnson, Parliament was blocking Brexit. He forgot to mention that he was instrumental in “blocking Brexit” when May tried to “get it done,” twice – only changing his vote when May announced she would step-down as leader and he saw the chance for furthering his career. He also forgot to mention that he, unlike May, got his deal through – he then pulled it because he was not prepared to give Parliament time to properly debate and amend it. So the greatest change in UK life for four decades will now be nodded through by a compliant Parliament…
Likewise with his “new” deal – he presented himself as showing his mettle by going to the EU and getting a deal when everyone said it was not possible. Yet it was very possible if you simply accept the EU’s original plan – which he and May had loudly rejected! – was portrayed as a great victory for him. In terms of Northern Ireland, I can see why the Republicans are happier and the Unionists are feeling betrayed. The “new” agreement does put a border down the Irish Sea and, as the EU itself shows, economic integration will lead, inevitably, to closer political union. After all, to sell goods in other countries they need to meet those countries laws and regulation – so a common market will eventually produce a common regulatory regime. It is only a matter of time before there is an united Ireland – little wonder the DUP is unhappy (shedding no tears for them, obviously).
Needless to say, May voted for the very thing she said “that no British Prime Minister could ever accept” when she was P.M., presumably to help rebuild “trust” in politics as “Now, I have to tell you, that no British Conservative government could or should sign up to any such arrangement” (to use Johnson’s own words,
So the reasons for the election and the campaign itself were built on lies – the biggest being that Labour was “far-left.” As a member of the “far-left,” let me assure you that Corbyn was never “far-left” – he would have been considered a mainstream social-democratic politician in Europe today or, indeed, in the UK between 1950 and 1990. His grand plan was to make us more like, say, those socialist utopias France, Germany or Ireland!
Does this mean that traditional labour voters rejected a traditional labour manifesto? Well, the Labour vote in many of these places has been falling consistently (often massively) since 1997 (so it should not have come as too much a surprise that the once massive majorities finally disappeared, as such it is hard to blame Corbyn for a decline going back to Blair). Given the age voting pattern, we can say those who benefited from the post-war consensus Labour sought to re-introduce denied their own children and grandchildren the same opportunities they had. So in terms of demographics, the Tories are hoovering up the old vote while the young (unsurprisingly) are looking for alternatives – which will explain many a Johnson law going forward (namely to disenfranchise the latter and to continue the bribing of the former started under Cameron).
Some have complained about too many Labour policies – yet there are a lot of problems needing to be addressed, particularly given nine years of austerity (and decades of neo-liberalism). Many of the issues people grumble about were identified and addressed, to varying degrees – unlike the thin Tory manifesto (if such a document can be called that). However, the policies were not necessarily the issue but rather Corbyn – but what to expect after years of demonisation, slander, etc.? Blaming Corbyn seems the main focus in Labour politician ranks, which seems unfair as any Labour leader will be smeared as much as he was (remember “Red Ed”)? His personality may not have suited his role as leader, but then many people seem to prefer a liar punting simplistic and demonstrably false slogans to any kind of substance and thoughtfulness.
And “Conservative” voters? Apparently they are fine voting for someone who by his actions holds their scared institutions in contempt: the Monarchy (lying to the Queen over prorogation!), family, loyalty, honesty (a gentleman’s word is his bond), etc. But, then, “conservative values” have usually just been used to lecture the working class, of use to blame the working class for producing their own situation (Proudhon: “Political economy – that is, proprietary despotism – can never be in the wrong: it must be the proletariat”) While some be concerned, post-election, that they have been informed that they were in fact voting for “New Tory” rather than the traditional Thatcherite Tory Party? Probably not, as they will put it down to Boris lying again to secure his victory – and they are probably right.
Ah, but this is about Brexit and getting “it done.” Yet the new government will do a lot more than that for the next four years. And Brexit was never defined in 2016 and so it will be used to foster whatever ideologically and class driven legislation Johnson (or his advisors) wish. So we can look forward to GM crops as expressing what people voted for in 2016 – as this was long desired by US agri-business, US medi-business must be rubbing its hands in glee.
In short, as well as “getting Brexit done,” the Tories are now empowered to get a lot of other things done as well… So democracy means that 43% of the country decides for the rest… and, apparently, everyone who voted back in 2016 to leave they were voting for the current Brexit deal (one initially suggested by the EU, remember, and rejected by May and… Johnson). In short, the question on the 2016 ballot paper must have been a lot bigger than I remember – given what it seemed to have included a long list of positions which, apparently, are what people voted for…
It seems certain that the new government, thanks to page 48 of the Tory manifesto, will seek to limit these possibilities – along with American-Republican style voter suppression measures. Ah, but will not the Tories winning “traditional labour seats” stop that? Doubtful, for every Conservative PM proclaims themselves a “one nation” Conservative and acts as a “one class” Conservative (although as one class owns the nation, it is hardly surprising). Moreover, because the demographics are not on the right’s side and so they will utilise ever win to secure their power and do as much damage as possible. Thus the almost non-existent voter fraud will be used to disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters – most of whom will be working class.
We can be sure that any “Workers’ Rights” Bill will strip workers of yet more rights (particularly if they are organised) and perhaps provide a few “new” rights which will not be enforced, in part because the unions who could make them real on the ground are so weak. Can we expect the plans to impose a “minimum service” during railway strikes be extended to other “essential” services – like healthcare, education, whatever? In short, democracy as an elected dictatorship (as it can only be in a State).
So the man who has done the most in creating and widening divisions is now talking about healing the nation and us all coming together — in other words, shut up and do what we tell you.
Need we forget that the minority in 2016, 48%, have been simply ignored and discounted – yet we are called upon to “compromise” by those who never once sought compromise. And all we did was march politely in the streets, asking “please, could we all have a say in events as a democracy that cannot change its minds is not a democracy…” As with the Iraq war protests, these were ignored – but then, the Brexiters knew that they are again in the minority and were not going to let those affected by the 2016 decision the most (people who were too young to vote then) have a say in their future.
That all the candidates have pledged to obey the Brexit policy suggests that they are cyphers – not representing their constituents nor even using the judgement as to how best to serve their constituents. “Boris Bimbos,” if you like (male and female both covered by the term and used purely for alliteration purposes) and any “Boris Brexit” will be, if the past is anything to go by, crap. The Boris Bikes were a con (although good for the corporations who got cheap advertising) and the Boris Buses are terrible, and best not mention the £50+ million wasted on the Boris Bridge – to provide just a few examples. Again, Boris is like Trump in this – sticking his name on numerous botched ventures (so proving any publicity is good publicity). So, we have our own very Trumpette…
Why did this not happen in 2017? Why the rejection of May when she basically launched an election for the same reasons (crush the opposition to secure Brexit, Labour behind in the polls). Their campaign was a bad and Johnson as robotic and incompetent (hiding in a fridge…) But the fright of 2017 saw an increase in the attacks, utilising demonstrably false narratives to ensure 2019 would be different. And for all those on the Labour-right who joined in with the anti-Semitism, “far-left,” attacks, they have forgotten that this will be used going forward – the damage is done and its utility demonstrated beyond doubt.
A few words on the LibDems – well, if the current mess can be blamed on one person (not that I am suggesting it can, but individuals can and do play a role in historic processes) it would not be David Cameron but rather Nick Clegg. His decision to go into coalition with the Tories had the predictable and predicted effect of destroying their vote (as most voted for them to keep the Tories out and they were to the left of New Labour). This allowed Cameron to win in 2015 and the impact of the austerity they happily supported undoubtedly helped many to vote Brexit. Then Swindon’s refusal to support a caretaker government under Corbyn and the refusal to stand aside in Tory/Labour marginals all helped – driven by the crazy notion they would win a majority… then breaking ranks, based on the Euro-elections, to agree an election desired by Johnson in the face of a Parliament which was effectively controlling an autocratic executive… In short, “I would do anything to stop Brexit but I won’t do that…” (that being anything effective to stop Brexit).
As with the US presidential elections, people need to remember Parliament is made up of specific elections – as a slight increase in key places can secure quite massive changes at the top… and EU elections were always somewhat misleading as turnout is less and the consistencies different. So misreading various signs, the Libdem wanted a new election, a demand eventually backed by Labour, and this was a mistake: for it ensured that an empowered Parliament (well, at least those within it who were willing) would ensure scrutiny over the bad deal and amend it, stop the worse desires of the Tories being enacted (why else did Johnson himself pull the bill after it passed its first reading? as can be seen from the second reading, where numerous previous commitments made to get support were removed and reduces Parliament’s power) and, at some stage, ensure a confirmatory referendum took. As with a trade union, there was a ballot over action (leave the EU), a process of negotiation and an agreement – which then goes back to the membership to agree to, or not. In this, Emily Thornberry was right, agreeing to an election on Johnson’s terms was a stupid mistake. So we went from elected representatives being somewhat in control (after much prodding) to a far-right executive being in complete control with a compliant majority in Parliament… Is that what democracy looks like? In the State, yes… and we do not have to look far to see how democratic norms and traditions can be undermined and even destroyed by formally “democratic” processes (which is why anarchists are not democrats in this sense of the word). Moves towards autocracy are not to be encouraged or celebrated, regardless of how useless and self-serving M.P.’s can be.
Still, at least we now know for sure that Johnson does not need over a month to produce a Queen’s speech…
Which brings me to Brexit. I’ve not blogged very much about this, as it is hard to get enthused about it as I noted before it is a clash of neo-liberal regimes – so, if you have to choose, go for the least bad one. The evidence and the argument is clear, namely being in the EU is the least bad option of the two, as I suggested back in 2016 and nothing since has convinced me otherwise – particularly given that Johnson himself noted this when he was praising his own deal’s benefits for Northern Ireland which remains de facto within the Single Market (“Actually Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”) Although the notion that it also has “as it says in the deal, unfettered access to GB” is a lie (unless, as may be likely, he has not read his own deal in which case it is not a deliberate lie but rather ignorance and laziness).
So, yes, I’ve part of “the remoaner elite” which in 2016 comprised 48% of voters, now over 50% – which shows you how meaningless and misleading Brexiter rhetoric can be (Jacob Rees-Mogg is not part of the elite, while I, a unionised worker originally from one of the poorest parts of Glasgow, is…). I have family reasons to be bothered by it, but that is a different matter. As it stands, all this shows well Proudhon’s arguments against those on the left who suggested “direct government” during the 1840s.After all, what could be more democratic than asking the people its views? Yet the government asks the question:
“Moreover, M. Rittinghausen, after bringing forward the finest maxims upon the inalienable right of the people to legislate their own laws, ends, like all political operations, by juggling the question. The people are not to propose the questions: the government is to do that. Only to questions proposed by the government, the people may answer Yes or No, like a child in the catechism. The people will not even have a chance to make amendments.” (Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution)
More, not only does government gets to define the question it also, even more importantly, gets to define what the answer means:
“After relieving the People of all legislative duties, you would place upon them the responsibility for every act of Power, pretending that it is but the application of their own laws. You seem to say to the People, the Sovereign, Legislator, and Judge: Talk, decide, legislate, vote, command! We, your deputies, charge ourselves with the interpretation and afterwards with the execution of your orders.” (Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution)
This is very obvious with Brexit, with May (amongst others) proclaiming that those who voted to leave the EU were actually voting for her (then unwritten) Brexit deal (and now Johnson’s nearly identical, but worse, deal – which he stopped “getting done” twice). Of all the possible options of being outside the EU, she narrowed it down to a xenophobic, anti-immigration one (after all, for example, Norway is outside the EU and being similar to that country is consistent with the question on the ballot paper).
Worse, the referendum is being used to strengthen the executive against Parliament. This was seen under May, with the use of “Henry VIII” powers and Johnson will use the alleged “remoaner” blocking of Brexit to further erode Parliamentary power and oversight (he has already refused to attend oversight committees) – regardless of, it must be stressed, parliament passing his Withdrawal Agreement bill but refusing to just nod it through in the three days he had generously allowed for discussion of the most significant change in British life for nearly 50 years… now, thanks to the election victory, it will be nodded through, with “democracy” meaning Parliament’s role is (self-)limited and based on ignorance as it will not challenge his Chancellor’s refusal to produce impact analyses of the “new” deal (presumably because the independent analyses all showed it as being worse than May’s). Not to mention that Ministers will no longer be bound by the legislation to provide updates on the future trading relationship or to make sure parliament approves the government’s negotiating objectives – they also, apparently, will not talk publicly about the trade negotiations as “people don’t want to have to listen to complicated trade deals.”
So under the State, a referendum will increase the power of the executive, centralise power into fewer hands and marginalise parliament…
Not that most members of parliament were that bothered – indeed, given the crisis of summer was proclaimed extremely serious it did not stop them taking their holiday recess. Making Parliament take some interest in events was generally thrust upon it, either via court cases or the Lords (the Lords!) batting things back. As Kropotkin put it in Words of a Rebel:
“It is a strange fact indeed! Representative government had as its aim to put an end to personal government; it set out to place power in the hands of a class, and not of an individual. Yet it has always shown the tendency to revert to personal government and to submit itself to a single man.
“The reason for this anomaly is quite simple. In fact, having armed the government with thousands of prerogatives which are still from the past; having confided to it the management of all matters that are important to a country, and given it a budget of billions, was it possible to confide to the mob in parliament the administration of such numberless concerns? Thus it was necessary to nominate an executive power — the ministry — which was invested with all these quasi-royal prerogatives. What a miserable authority, in fact, was that of Louis XIV, who boasted of being the State, in comparison with that of a constitutional chief minister in our day!
“It is true that the Chamber could overturn such a minister — but for what reason? To name a successor who would be invested with the same powers and whom it would be forced, if it were consistent, to dismiss in a week? So it prefers to keep the man it has chosen until the country cries out loudly enough, and then it discards him to recall the man it has dismissed two years ago. It becomes a seesaw: Gladstone-Beaconsfield, Beaconsfield-Gladstone. And basically it changes nothing, for the country is always ruled by one man, the head of the cabinet.
“But when the choice falls on a clever man who guarantees "order" – that is to say internal exploitation and external expansion – then the parliament submits to all his caprices and arms him with ever new powers. However much contempt he may show for the constitution, whatever the scandals of his government, they are accepted, and even if there are quibbles over details, he is given a free hand with everything of importance. Bismarck is a living example of this; Guizot, Pitt and Palmerston were such in preceding generations.
“That is understandable: all government has a tendency to become personal since that is its origin and its essence.”
So the systematic undermining of the parliament whose sovereignty Brexit was meant to secure is not an unexpected irony, but a good one nevertheless. Like “direct democracy” (albeit an atomised form of it) being used to empower the executive – and for all those Brexiters who denounce “remoan traitors” in getting parliament a say, well just as well otherwise you would have had May’s deal inflicted upon us (which few supported, although May insisted it was what people voted for in 2016 – and Johnson’s deal is mostly the same).
Likewise, within the parties themselves. While 2019 shows how strong the executive is and how easily marginalised our “sovereign” parliament is, it also shows the power of a leader who had happily squat in a position while losing all support from their fellow “representatives.” I thought May was never going to leave and, ultimately, she only left when she decided to – in spite of massive pressure. Corbyn, at least, had the support of the membership of his party, making his stubbornness in the face of the PLP more justifiable (and many in the PLP seemed to hate the membership of the Labour Party more than the Tories).
The Tory incompetence has simply been stunning – not least invoking Article 50 before the Tories – or even simply the government – had finished negotiating amongst themselves… For May is an authoritarian, but an incompetent one. Which is good – like Trump, it is better to have lazy, self-serving authoritarians in office (just think of all the extra damage he would be doing if he were not golfing, watching tv, ranting on twitter, holding rallies, etc.). May was not lazy, but she was incompetent. Johnson is incompetent and lazy, so potentially the damage may be less – after all, the easiest means of getting a trade deal is to simply agree to regulatory alignment (although that seems unlikely, but who can tell with a serial liar?)
Where are we now? As it stands, where we are is pretty much reflects what I thought back in 2016 – in terms of negotiating power, the UK is weaker against a union of 27 countries. And a negotiating strategy based on threatening to shoot yourself in the head if your demands are not agreed to is hardly a strong one. Sure, having the clean up the mess would cause the other party some inconvenience but, well, the flaw in the position should be obvious – or so you would think, but no…
But we now have went from “this will be easy” and “they need us more than we need them” to war analogies – yes, the UK “won” against Nazi Germany all alone, if we ignore the USA, the USSR, the resistance in occupied Europe, the Empire nations, etc…. but did people really vote in 2016 for an outcome now regularly compared to a world war in terms of sacrifice? But then, amongst the many, many pieces of misinformation they have been fed is the simultaneous notion that a no deal Brexit must be used as a threat against the EU and is nothing to worry about as it would have little impact (“a bump on the road”) – it cannot be both of those things, but “cake-ism” and Brexit seem synonymous.
As a communist-anarchist, I am a revolutionary and I am fully aware that any revolution would involve economic disruption (see An Anarchist FAQ version 15.3). That is why I’m a libertarian, because the impact can only be minimised by mass participation and initiative from below upwards, locally and federating outwards. As Russia showed, centralisation will simply result in economic collapse – that is, make a difficult situation worse. Which makes Brexit even stranger, as we have now morphed from “this will be easy” to “well, we survived the second world war” (via, it won’t be a Mad Max wasteland – thank you, David Davis!). I am well aware of the limitations of mainstream economics, but in terms of their modelling of impact of Brexit it should be reasonably reliable all-in-all – after all, even the most neo-classical bastard Keynesian managed to correctly predict the negative impact of austerity before it was implemented.
There will be a negative impact to Brexit, a large one. So why accept pain (at least for others, the wealthy retirees and others in the south-east of England) for what appears to be so little gain?
I understand that the disruption associated with a social revolution is a cost but the benefits of a free society are obvious. The economic hit of Brexit for, what, a blue passport? Something we could have had in the EU? Perhaps that explains why, when asked, the supporters of Brexit find it hard to specify a specific restriction due to the EU – all (including Johnson when he was waving a kipper) were UK introduced measures, not EU ones (and even if they were, the UK had a veto…).
The myth spun was that the Brexit vote reflected the “left behind,” those working-class people and communities who have suffered most and have been ignored. This does not seem to be based on strong evidence (quite the reverse), although there seems to be an element of truth within it. First, even if this were the complete truth, then the reason why they have suffered is not because of the EU but rather UK government policy – first and foremost, the austerity the Tories imposed from 2010 onwards. After all, if the Tories gave a flying fig for, say, Wales, then it would not be left up to the EU to channel funding into it. Second, given that the Tories regularly ignore most of these people’s wants (so, for example, no attempt to re-nationalise the railways!), the very selectivity of this “listening” exercise is of note. It is the same selectivity which placed “immigration” at the top of the pile when it comes to government “action” (I write “action,” because the Tories could not even bring down the immigration numbers from places they could – in theory – control which means that adding the EU to that group will make little difference). But, of course, “immigrants” like “the EU” is a useful way to shift blame away from Tory policies (Indeed, one Tory MP had the bare-faced cheek to suggest we had to leave the EU because it was going to impose… austerity! This, of course, was not challenged – after all, who decided to do impose austerity in 2010?). Third, we can be sure that any “savings” made from sending monies to the EU will not be invested in the NHS but will, rather, be used to cut taxes for the wealthy (as shown by Johnson’s first policy announcement in his leadership campaign – although then “forgotten” when seeking votes from the masses). And the “savings” will be pyrrhic, due to the economic damage caused by leaving the EU (and pursuit of yet more Thatcherite policies) and the direct and indirect costs the new regime will produce (including an expansion of State bureaucracy).
As for “controlling” immigration – well, the UK government already controls (in theory) immigration from outside of the EU. In the 9 years of Tory rule, they never managed to “control” it. Assuming this is “a good thing to do” as apparently many do (and so ignoring the many benefits immigration provides), it would appear the Tories cannot do it – adding EU citizens to these numbers seems unlike to make the task easier. Either it is not possible (given the costs involved, the extra bureaucracy, etc. this seems the most likely) or they could not (and so are incompetent, which is possible admittedly). So if “controlling” immigration is considered important, a fair chunk of the money not sent to the EU will be used to build the bureaucracy required to attempt to do that – minus, of course, the tax monies no longer gathered from EU citizens who, rightly, have left or will leave the country they made their home – as Proudhon said in 1851: “There will no longer be nationality, no longer fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they will mean only places of birth. Whatever a man’s race or colour, he is really a native of the universe; he has citizen’s rights everywhere.”
And, perhaps, we will now see the long-desired introduction of a national id card? After all, the Tories in the early 1990s suggested it and was opposed by Labour, then New Labour started going on about it – clearly some section of the State bureaucracy would like it. Still, nothing says “British Values” than the expression “Show us your papers” – but, then, that was started under the “hostile environment” with hardly a peep from the flag-wavers…
Which, along with many other spending promises, means those millions that could go to the NHS will go to less useful things – but, then, who can argue with something on the side of a bus? Nor should we forget the millions wasted by “no deal” planning – the storage facilities built, the products stock-piled, the bureaucratic departments bolsters, the pathetic advertising campaigns, etc., etc., etc. – all resources wasted, all resources which could have been better used: not to mention the work needed in the run-up to exiting proper at the end of 2020 (assuming we do, big assumption!), preparing systems, paperwork, hiring staff to do all this rather than creating goods and services, etc., etc., etc. So the uncertainty and it looks like those who muttered that Johnson would become his “natural” liberal-Tory self after the election were (at best) clutching at straws – no deal is a possibility, again (“No Deal 2.0,” if you like). So Brexit will not “be done” any time soon – although the media may appease the government and report on it less.
And if this expansion of the State bureaucracy works and immigration is “controlled,” will it increase wages? No, because wages are driven by power and the balance of power remains with the bosses due to the numerous anti-union laws in place, the rampant job insecurity, the hardness of Universal Credit – in a word, the “hostile environment” against the working class the Tories built which was also applied to immigrants (or anyone who could not prove they were British – soon to be joined by EU citizens and their children). This is all a product of neo-liberal success – weak unions mean wages are stagnating, no matter the levels of immigration. Ultimately, wealth does not trickle down – it floods up, from the real wealth-creators, us, the workers, to the owning class unless we organise and fight. That is why inequality soared under Thatcher and her successors (and why social mobility fell).
Just to reiterate: immigration does not cause lower wages – lack of effective unions does. The idea that wages will rise by the natural force of economy processes is a myth, one which Milton Friedman argued and one which the impact of Reagan’s and Thatcher’s embrace of his ideology disproved. Bosses will not give pay rises unless forced to. There is a certain irony to know that the Tories think there should be more hoops to jump to go on strike than leaving the EU… which shows they know where our power lies.
Oh, and of course, another fair chunk of the money not sent to the EU will be used to build the bureaucracy to monitor trade across borders – as required by WTO rules and by any trade agreement not based on regulatory alignment. Indeed, I remember one American – was it Trump? – saying that America would never be part of a “super-state,” so forgetting that America is a “super-state” – it is there in its name: United States of America! So Brexit is like Florida deciding to cede from the USA. Untangling years of convergence will take time, unless you are willing to inflict a lot of damage onto people – which the Tories will be happy to do (they did so before in the 1980s, after all) for they will not be affected by it (indeed, they may make a lot of money from it). This can be seen when May proclaimed that as a diabetic, she knew the importance of ensuring appropriate medicine – as if she would suffer from shortages caused by her decisions!
And talking of bureaucracy, I should note that the above also applies to welfare – one of the many benefits of universalism is that it ensures resources goes to those who need it rather than employing bureaucrats to stop people getting it by applying means-testing. Another benefit of universalism is that it encourages everyone to take an interest in defending them – and history shows the benefits limited to the poor ("the most deserving") become, over time, poor in nature, scope and help (see The assault on universalism: how to destroy the welfare state). Moreover, countries “where social programmes are less anchored in universality have less generous redistributive budgets and are less effective in redistributing income and reducing poverty; countries with more encompassing welfare states spend more on transfers and services and do more to redistribute and reduce poverty.” (Olivier Jacques, Alain Noël, “The case for welfare state universalism, or the lasting relevance of the paradox of redistribution,” Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 28, Issue 1 [2018], 82). As for benefits going to those who do not really need it? That is where higher taxation of the wealthier comes in. In this, Corbyn’s campaign should be congratulated in making these obvious points.
So, sure, the EU is a neo-liberal regime – but “sovereignty” for a neo-liberal UK is at best a step sideways. And best not think too much to having to adjust regulations in-line with American ones, so in practice a step backwards. Backwards in terms of the damage done to the economy as well.
Which raises an interesting question. If a Labour government were challenging the interests of big business as Brexit does, we would have expected some kind of bureaucratic pushback or extra-parliamentary pressure. Of course, the State still maintains capitalist property rights and its associated power, it still maintains the anti-union laws, etc., so the acceptance of Brexit does not challenge that. However, it seems strange that it is tolerating a situation which – not least in increasing uncertainty – is causing the capitalist class and businesses problems.
The State machine is the means by which certain sections of the ruling class gets sacrificed to maintain the system as a whole. This is usually sacrificing a minority for the majority – Brexit seems to be placing the interests of the smaller section of the elite against the majority. Yes, the capitalist class is split – but the big companies are generally for remain and the balance of influence is surely with them? Perhaps it rests in the industrial-finance capital split, for UK capital has seen the dominance of finance over industrial capital since the 1980s. Brexit reflects this, and also that a section of the Tory Party (and the vested interests it reflects) have always been pro-America, seeking to turn Britain into the 51st State. Brexit clearer allows them to do this – and an economic slump is a price they are clearly willing (for others) to pay to achieve this realignment.
Ideology plays its role. The German ruling class were well served by the Nazis – however, the leaders of the party made decisions which were not in its best interests. Resources which could have been used to win the war were utilised for ideological purposes. The deathcamps were hardly essential for German imperialist interests but took up resources which could have been used to fight the Allies. Similarly, Nazi sexist ideology stopped them utilising women labour (their role was in the kitchen and producing children and that was about it) and so they turned to the less efficient slave labour (and the related guard labour), again, harming the war effort. Finally, leading Nazis – right up to the final months – utilised troops for vanity projects, including propaganda films (whole divisions were being used to recreate glorious battles of the Germanic past rather than be used in the actual battles being fought). More examples could be given, am I sure.
Much the same can be said of the Bolshevik regime, many of whose policies made the urban working class worse off (the ostensible “ruling class” of the regime). For example, the use of troops to stop “speculation” (i.e., peasants bringing bags of food into the towns) was a drain on the resources of the regime – they were being fed, armed, etc. rather than being used to produce goods, etc. But the Bolsheviks had a vision of socialism which suggested the petit-bourgeoisie was the real enemy, not capitalism (which was well on its way to creating “state-capitalism” and was a tendency which the new regime simply encouraged, as Lenin promised). Whose interest was that promoting? Which class was favoured by that? Presumably the bureaucracy, but even then, while elements of it undoubtedly enriched themselves due to the officialdom it generated, it was hardly in their interests to limit the amount of food and goods which they could appropriate. So they simply followed orders, orders produced by people with certain ideological positions and biases.
None of this makes much sense if you view the State as simply a machine for the economically dominant class. If you recognise that State machine has its own interests, it becomes more understandable. But you also have to include in the ideological factor, that those in office can and do make stupid decisions and, at times, become subject to “group-think” – including the pursuit of policies which harm the interests of those who you would think they should be supporting.
This is particularly the case when the ruling elites believe their own rhetoric. When an elite forgets that what they say is to keep the plebs quiet and start to believe it, then a regime is in trouble (Proudhon was right, “every society declines the moment it falls into the hands of the ideologists”). I think the Tories are here – they have so long considered what is best for them as best for “the country” (i.e., the wealthy) that they (or at least most of them) do not realise that a divide has appeared. They may dismiss the cries of pain from business as “false consciousness.” Some do see the divide but are placing their nice lifestyle above that in the hope that the gap will narrow rather than widen: so party above country, even about the interests of large sections the dominant class.
Simply put, there is a human factor in all this which plays its role in the State machine as well as its role as instrument of the economically dominant class and its own vested interests – plus the conflicts within factions of both. So Brexit is a combination of many factors, some of them contradictory – but then, as Proudhon noted long ago, capitalism itself is a System of Economic Contradictions… one thing is sure, the post-Brexit State will still be defending inequality of wealth and power, the class struggle, controlling organised labour and social protest – Brexit will not change that, indeed will make it worse given the Tories track record.
To sum up.
The right has no ideas – just xenophobia to draw attention away from tax-cuts for the wealthy few which is its only enduring policy, beyond increasing military spending (many of Johnson’s policies are just watered-down versions of the Labour policies the Tories attacked during the 2017 election). At best it looks to the 1980s, at worse the 1880s (if not further back). The austerity-imposing, tory-enabling LibDems just want “sensible” neo-liberalism, that is pre-2015 policies. Labour, well, also look backwards, to either the 1970s or 1990s: the Blairites want to party like its 1997 (and hate the membership for not agreeing with their own self-image of themselves) and the Corbynites land on the 1960s (perhaps an exaggeration, as John McDonnell does seem to be looking wider – but will these actually be implemented?) and were fixated on 2017 and winning the next election… which they then lost.
There is – and has been for some time – an opening for an alternative, a libertarian alternative but only if we get our act together. For given the mess we are in, it seems strange that some people still wonder why anarchists are anarchists! Hopefully my article On Anarchist Organisation shows there is a better way to organise society.
Well, here we are. What to do about it? Well, until people do more than just grumble or march, nothing much will change – the slow slide downwards will continue…
The imposition of austerity was ideological, although with an element to curry favour with the ruling class but it continued long after its counter-productive impact on the wider economy was obvious (objectively, the capitalist class should have embraced Corbyn as the policies would have helped boost British capitalism!). Sure, it was finally rolled back — but for its effects to surface in the shape of a slightly better economy in time for the 2015 election (slightly better in terms of macro-figures, not necessarily in terms of its impact on working class people). And lest we forget, in 2015 Cameron’s Tories were viewed as master of all they viewed – but times changed swiftly.
Yet the nightmare before Xmas has arrived – what now? I talked to a few people at the 2015 bookfair, I think, on Corbyn and I said that we need to convince the Corbynites of the need for a labour movement rather than a labour party. Unless there is agitation at the base of society, expecting to see votes appear at election time would be unlikely. And this, undoubtedly, helps to explain Labour’s problems – they did not build a movement after 2017 and instead proclaimed themselves a “government in waiting” and so postponed any real work until the Tories desired an election (which was not going to happen soon after the fright 2017 had given them). Elections do not win themselves – the media hostility, the inertia and servile mentality produced by class and hierarchical social relations, the domination of “conventional wisdom” cannot be overturned by a focus on elections nor a burst of activity during the campaign.
This helps explain the long-term decline in the Labour vote in many places – being at the bottom of a social hierarchy does not automatically produce mass opposition to it. There is a need for those who do see the situation clearly to organise to encourage their colleagues to question and resist it. So the decline in the vote undoubtedly has its roots in the decline of the unions (thanks to many factors, not least state action by the “roll-back the State” Tories) for the flower of electoral success cannot survive without the fertiliser of social and non-political struggle and organisation (unions): but as an anarchist I know that ironically, sadly, this very success also helps to undermine said social and non-political struggle and organisation.
The spirit of revolt needs to be fanned, action outwith parliament encouraged, the mental chains forged by hierarchies can only be broken by direct struggle by those subject to them. This is essential and the only way forward – why do you think the Tories continually seek to tighten the anti-union laws? I ended my original notes with this:
And as long as people look to the ballot-box for change, this will continue indefinitely. Sadly, I don’t see much sign of people taking to the streets and disrupting the situation by direct action (climate change protesters – with school-children at the front – being a welcome exception). The British working class has been well-tamed by Thatcherism and lost the ability to take effective collective action. The spirit of revolt is lacking and until that changes, the current shitstorm will just get worse.
This remains true now, with no election in sight for at least four years. The problem is that various groups – at their head Marxists of various sorts – will disparage such attempts, saying “real” power lies in government or, at best, say its useful but it must become a party and utilise “political action.” And so, again, repeat the mistakes of the past, stretching back to the First International, even the 1848 Revolution in France and before. Instead, we must urge the neutrality of mass movements and campaigns, seeing in them as a good in themselves rather than as a means to fleeting electoral success. We also need to build an alternative media (easy for me to say, given that Freedom is now just twice a year!) but it is still needed.
After all, this was what happened to the anti-poll tax movement – it had groups in many (most?) communities across Britain and, once the poll-tax was replaced, they disappeared after being used – in Scotland – as the basis for getting Tommy Sheridan into first the Glasgow City Council and then Holyrood. And so a movement based on collective, direct struggle, by our class organisations was ignored in favour of the atomisation of the ballot box of the bourgeoisie. In the short term, well, victory was achieved (the SSP got a few MSPs, for a while) – in the long term… well, here we are with another five years of hard-right Tory government and no means to stop it.
Is it too much to ask that the “scientific socialists” apply the methods of science (drawing conclusions from the evidence) and perhaps look for an alternative to going down the same path as the German Social-Democrats and Greens? Perhaps not seeking to turn mass movements into election-fodder? That these mass movements are neither pro- nor anti-“political action” but simply seek to create groupings willing to challenge authority by effective – direct actionist – means, by acting for themselves rather than waiting for an election in the hope of getting someone to act for them? Rather than debating the pros or cons of voting, we need to work together to build a mass movement – and for Labourites, well, if we are successful then you would surely expect more votes as this will counteract the poison of the press against even the most moderate Labour Party and its leader.
One obvious area of conflict will be Scotland and Northern Ireland. For the latter, a border poll will only be a matter of time – Johnson may deny it, of course, as he seems to be denying another Scottish Independence referendum. Democracy sure is a selective – It is fun to see the Brexit-loving Tories reverse their position when it comes to the “union” between Scotland and England, where the former needs the permission of the latter to have a vote – while proclaiming the EU as a dictatorship when that is not the case! Likewise, with them proclaiming the economic damage of breaking ties with Scotland’s main market… the doublethink is truly amazing – but then Ruth Davidson can rail against the evils of nationalism while also waving a union jack from a tank!).
As a Scot I hope that we see a mass civil disobedience movement begin to force the issue in Scotland (a general strike for democracy, anyone?). Sitting a home awaiting the ballot box will not, regardless of what Engels said, mean much. And if a referendum does occur, please vote for independence – as I urged in 2014 and, as then, ensure that the social question is put to the forefront. Such a struggle should provide inspiration elsewhere in Britain and show resistance is possible – as long as, as noted above, it does not focus or rely on politicians to act on our behalf.
Enough! This is much longer than intended and I have things to do – what a great winter solstice!
Until I blog again, be seeing you…