Thursday 28 March 2019

Why Parliament is not working.

Lots of commentators are trying to explain the increasing chaos in Britain's political leadership. From university professors with their historical analogies on Radio 4, to the screaming expressions of the id to be found in social media - and everything in between - Britain's political crisis is showing the nation in a new and unparallelled light.

At least two of the more serious 'analyses' so far are worth some examination.

David Runciman (see London Review of Books, January 2019) describes Parliament as 'incapable.' In his view Parliament is an institution that is structurally unable to manage Brexit because Brexit must inevitably boil down to a compromise. The British Parliament is, by definition, confrontational. The implication of this view is that the British Parliament needs to reform itself, via a more European style voting system, into coalition-based governments. The British Parliament as it stands is simply heightening the Brexit divisions in its own chambers and in society.

Many others have focused on the apparent decline of Britain's mainstream political parties. Despite the huge expansion of the membership of the British Labour Party, it is argued that both of the main British parties are no longer rooted in separate social classes that originally defined them. Instead they are becoming backward looking anachronisms, unable to deal with the new society of the 21st century.

Looking at the strong points of these arguments it is certainly true for example that the reform of Britain's Gilbert and Sullivan style Parliament is long overdue. And it is also right that all of Britain's political parties are, from different angles, in serious trouble. But Britain's political crisis is not, essentially, a Parliamentary problem. It cannot be solved, not by Parliament however reformed, and not on its own.

The British 'problem' starts from the dramatic shift of Western capitalism from the end of the 1970s. This is something that has not been addressed at all in the British Parliament. And therefore, for millions, Brexit was simply the accessible opportunity to act as a representation of resistance to globalisation and the concomitant decline of working class living standards. Why? Because a powerful chunk of the Tory Party and its membership went awol and broke from their traditional defence of the evolving, internationalist, finance-led ruling class. Instead they settled on its most backward and rightist elements, among other things because racism could be weaponised against a radicalising Labour Party. All that opened up the anger of Britain's working classes and mobilised an unprecedented vote for Brexit (in its course sadly splitting the labour movement.)

The British Parliament has not seriously dealt with the matters of wealth and power since 1948. The role of Parliament (whatever government) has become narrower and narrower over decades. Occasionally (most significantly in the stop the war march against Labour PM Blair) critical issues and mass actions have produced reflections in Parliament. Today, the British Parliament is drenched by Brexit because the ruling class party has split away from the main parts of the ruling class, and because Brexit has become the imitation for austerity, insecurity, decline and marginality.

Consequently Parliament appears to be the centre of the cauldron. The fury of large sections of Britain's working class appears to be over Brexit. And the efforts of the main political parties (despite the heroic attempts to turn the issues to poverty and wealth, to welfare or decline by Corbyn and others) appears to be what sort of Brexit should Britain have. That is the point of Corbyn's continual call for a General Election. It is to get to the essence of the conditions of the working class, today, in Britain. Corbyn hopes and argues for a General Election that will force out the substantial, critical, realities from behind the Brexit shenanigans and reunite a class on the basis of radical change.

The battle that is on the horizon; resisting and defeating a coalition of big business, of a large part of (suddenly united) right wing parliamentarians, of EU rules on government intervention, of Labour MPs and ex Labour MPs that support globalisation, will put Brexit in to its real place. It will also demonstrate why mass action and a mass movement with the European peoples' support, will be the real engine room for political reform of any note. The failure to take on this battle will not just send Parliament back to sleep. It will build modern fascism, because only the steel fist can force the working class into greater and greater sacrifice.

Friday 8 March 2019

The West, nationality and the Jewish people

Britain's political chaos is not unique. Britain's crisis has its own character that dissolves any shreds of the idea that it remains the world's most politically stable country. But Britain's political woes share, with the rest of the West, the general impact of the end of post WW2 styles of regimes. Many governments in the West are more different in their character than at any time since the early 1950s.

Alteration is an obvious feature of the ex Soviet European countries. New change is less immediately obvious in some other European countries because they have been built on a foundation of uncertainty since 1945. (See Spain and Franco; Greece and the Colonels and now the EU; Portugal and its revolution; Italy, with its long-term failure of centralisation and now its vulnerable borders.) Such historic malfunctions can mask the West's new shift in those particular countries. The new crisis of the West is more obvious in what are often called the most 'successful' Western countries; Germany, France, Britain, Sweden the Netherlands and, of course, the US. While all sorts of catch-all phrases bubble up from the modern media's hysteria - the rise of populism, the clash of civilisations, the revival of the nation, the revolt of the 'left behind' etc., - the substance of the West's series of political shocks lies in the decline of its global domination and the reorganisation of the capitalist system. That has meant a drastic decline in living standards for 700 million people.

This shock has started to cause more than a tremor in what used to be understood as political certainties.

For example, the Economist magazine recently featured an article about the current French situation.
'The level of publicly expressed loathing harks back to the 1930s' was the bi-line of a piece that shuddered with alarm at the emergence of a new 'peoples fascism' and an end of the steady political 'centre'. This has been a mainstream political theme in the French media in the last 3 years. And French cultural concerns regularly reflect the break up of the standard political parties in France as a critical weakness.

Part of the political responses made by the Macron regime to all this, (his party is without any deep social base or historic baselines) smells more of fear, desperation and a return to backward myths than radical and responsive policy.

Poorly thought out efforts were made to smooth over France's 'mood' last July when the French National Assembly, under Macron's control, unanimously voted to remove the word 'race' from the French constitution. A similar, drastic error occurred on February 21st 2019, when Macron, trying to tarnish the 'Yellow Vests' movement as a whole, said there was a 'resurgence of anti-Semitism unseen since World War II,' which he continued is not only happening in France but in 'all of Europe and most Western democracies.' Macron then explosively added that 'anti-Zionism is one of the modern forms of anti-semitism.'

First, an ostensibly anti-racist measure designed to deny the existence of race in the definition of what constitutes French citizens - to 'prove' the 'egalite' of all of the French nation - turned (of course) into its exact opposite. Anti-racists and feminists exploded. In theory the French constitution explains who it is that constitutes the nation. In France, theoretically, the nation is anybody who lives in the nation's boundary. But the removal of the 'race' clause from the constitution is so important because different classes, and races, and sexes, are all critical in and for the social system that the world, including the French world, lives under. Their absence as specific groups in the definition of the 'Nation' is, in effect, a denial of the reality of their distinct existence and therefore of their oppression. Shared nationality does not of itself solve that oppression. On the contrary, it assumes equality due to its 'Frenchness', and thereby denies it in a capitalist, social and economic reality, in the handling of the police, the courts, employment, housing, in the main engine room of society and of life.

The French National Assembly therefore took a step backward  several centuries to defend France from the struggles fighting for progress and real equality.

Second, attacks on Jewish people and their institutions across Europe have been rising steadily. While still far behind the waves of official and unofficial racist attacks against Muslims in general, North Africans, Syrians, Turks and Roma, the Jewish diaspora across Europe felt relatively settled and secure after the defeat of Fascism in 1945, yet they are now under fire again. Like the people of West Indian heritage in Britain, (in their case dramatically attacked by the British Home Office) they have suddenly found themselves once more at risk and once more in the front line of racism.

The British Prime Minister, Teresa May (who led the Home Office offensive against Britain's Caribbean citizens) and President Macron, who is redefining the character of his nation and laying down stupid laws, are typical of the new set of European (and US) leaders, out of their depth and full of Canute like efforts to roll back the tide. In effect their (and others) efforts are actually stoking fascist responses. In the case of May and Trump, deliberately legitimising them to provide new political levers.

Which brings us to Macron (and various British Labour MP's) versions of Zionism.

Macron's description and his consequent defence of Zionism maybe stoked as much by ignorance as cynicism. In British politics, the national focus of anti-semitic hostility centres on Corbyn's Labour Party and is largely political. Corbyn's Labour Party is one of the least hostile institutions to the Jewish people in Britain. Inevitably, and in order to try and show the Jewish population in Britain as a whole that Labour is and remains hostile to anti-semitism, the left leadership of the party have not opened theoretical debates about Zionism but have (correctly) admonished those who have wildly responded to attacks from some Labour MPs who called Labour institutionally anti-semitic. But not because they accepted the term applied to Labour.

The working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on 26 May 2016 says this: 'Anti-semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.'
Examples of anti-semitism offered by the IHRA include: 'Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.'

For the purpose of fighting against Labour's left leadership's criticism of Israel's policies some Labour MPs have coalesced direct support for Jewish self determination with Zionism. Macron has underlined this idea in his speech on February 21st. But this is another step backwards and does not defend the Jewish people from anti-semitism.

The creation of Israel was a defensive act of self-determination led by Jewish Zionists - and by many non Zionist Jews. It was a product of a successful struggle against British Imperialism and the defeat of the goals of European fascism. It was also turned into an act of war against the indigenous people, mainly the 700,000 Palestinians, whose families now live in militarily-controlled, despotic, slum-settlements.

The US 'nation' was created, in part, by the destruction and military control of American Indians and their dominated settlements. In more modern times Turkey was created in part by the genocide of Armenians and the permanent war against the Kurds, and the South African Boors denied nationality to black South Africans in their own country. Yet it is absurd and futile to try and re-run History.

Despite the crimes against the Palestinians, the Kurds, the American Indians, the South Africans and many others, the nations created by their imperialist histories and now by their new victors cannot and will not be dissolved in any act of super-morality or simply as a result of local wars. But despite the new military and economic realities of such nations, they can still be transformed - as the South African experience partly shows. The accommodation of all the races and peoples who were either once established or are now newly established on what has now become a 'new' nation, is the only political and social answer. The example of the 'two-nation' 'solution' in Israel/Palestine is an utterly catastrophic example of the alternative.  

Of course all of the nations mentioned, and including some of the the most modern nations emerging today, have tried to establish myths designed to prevent any progressive measures in the direction of a shared-state that might help resolve, in part or in whole, the accommodation of local races and peoples into the new nations on a completely equal basis. In South Africa the black population has begun to overturn what was the previously lawful white supremacy. But another example of a retrograde step is the recent law in Israel, defined enthusiastically by its supporters as a pro-Zionist law. The Bill, pushed through by the right-wing and religious coalition in Israel's parliament, the Knesset, defines Israel as a nation-state only of the Jewish people. The measure sets 'the development of Jewish settlements nationwide as a national priority' and downgrades the status of Arabic from an official language to one with 'special status'. It is even a step behind the 1794 French Constitution in that it no longer even supports the formal equality of all who live in the boundaries of Israel.

These are some of the errors created when Zionism is conflated with, or even defined as the only way to express the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. Even those whose radicalism stops at the door of the 18th century French Constitution must realise the contradiction here. And while the existence of a State of Israel as such does not, in and of itself, prevent a multi-racial, religious and political population and citizenry, a single state that combined Arabs and Jews as its equal citizenry, its current law confirms exactly the opposite. It, and the whole idea that the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Arabs should not seek a common state must be challenged, headed up by the Jewish and Arab people themselves.

Returning to a the need for a successful fight against the new anti-semitism in Britain and Europe, the widest possible defence, including every right of the Jewish people to defend themselves, is vital. But that also implies the widest possible alliance, which cannot be cut back by refusing the support of non-Zionists, or those who criticise the direction of the state of Israel. Otherwise we will confuse, limit and and distort the resistance to fascism and racism.

Most European and US political leadership are faltering with, or actually helping create, a succession of crises across the West. Included in those failures are the stimulation of racism and of virulent anti-semitism. Meanwhile those agents, like the left of the Labour Party and its supporters, who would be on the first line of any fight against racism and anti-semitism, find themselves attacked for the opposite. More and more, the most elementary and accepted expectations established in the second half of the 20th century in the West, regarding social welfare, education, health, economic and personal security, are breaking up. Replacing these traditional 'certainties' are wild schemes promoted by over-ambitious or covertous political leaders who turn the piddling epithets of the blindest media into the wisdom of ages. The answer to this imploding world of the super rich is to rise to the defence of those who need a new society and are able to build it.

Friday 1 March 2019

Labour's Brexit future.

Labour's resolution.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the British Labour Party, has started to implement the final part of the Labour Party's Conference resolution over Brexit. After challenging the Tory Government and its allies to call a General Election and after presenting Labour's alternative Brexit plan to Parliament, in the end both proposals were rejected by a majority of MPs. In that event the unanimous 2018 Labour Conference resolution called for opening up, once again, of a vote by the people, where 'all options would be on the table.' There follows the relevant and final section of the Labour Resolution;

'Should Parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal or the talks end in no-deal, Conference believes this would constitute a loss of confidence in the Government. In these circumstances, the best outcome for the country is an immediate General Election that can sweep the Tories from power.

If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.

This should be the first step in a Europe-wide struggle for levelling-up of living standards, rights and services and democratisation of European institutions Labour will form a radical government; taxing the rich to fund better public services, expanding common ownership, abolishing anti-union laws and engaging in massive public investment.'

What are the basics here?
Over the past two years this blog has made three arguments about the Labour Party, the working class movement and Brexit. The first argument was that the Brexit referendum was forced on us but was in practice a diversion from the critical measures that were needed to end austerity and transform Britain in 2016. (The dominance in society given to Brexit was created by a struggle in the Tory Party, led by a Tory Grandee who thought he could secure his party and divert the emergence of a credible Labour left, which was focussing on austerity and social change.) The second argument was that the 2016 referendum was led in practice by a new right in Britain, promoted by populist racism and which had a background endorsement in the more piratical section of capitalism who wanted a British national tax haven. Therefore, the second argument went, the referendum vote (without any illusions about the nature of the EU) should be against Brexit as, at that stage, its main product would be to build a new hard-right movement inside and outside Parliament. The third argument, largely based on the rise of a radical Labour Party and the hesitation and limits of the new right in 2017, was that a second referendum, if it took place, would increase EU power to curtail a Labour government's most radical policies and therefore should be rejected. All three arguments put the Brexit referendum as such as subordinate to the different stages and levels of the successes of the working class and the left in (and outside) the Labour Party as well as a possible breakthrough into government.
Notwithstanding the support for Brexit in working class areas in England and Wales (but not in Scotland or the main cities) and accepting the clear, opposite view of British big capital, to remain in the EU, it remains critical to understand that Brexit as it stands today is still working as a diversion. Whether to support or oppose Brexit therefore has to be subordinate to the wider interests of the working class of Britain, Europe and the world. For example, leaving the EU would be at its most significant if it was clearly demonstrated that it stood against specific and vitally important, radical, reforms in Britain. But in the case of a wholesale eruption in Europe against the EU political system a new alternative European alliance would be essential. The whole world is dominated by big Capital. Ultimately it is a tactical and political choice when and if a particular battle is immediate or delayed.

The reality is of course that Brexit is forced onto Britain and its social classes in the here and now. Brexit choices, however so far distorted, wrongly focussed and even reactionary, cannot be avoided and must be re-made.  

Labour's choice now.
The radical, extra-Labour left, and even parts of the Labour left itself, found themselves, up to Summer 2017, mainly marginal in their attempts at progressive approaches when either supporting EU membership or going for Brexit. In both cases they had very little influence among the mass of supporters of the EU or of Brexit - especially in England and Wales. In both cases more significant political forces and ideas dominated the mainstream debate in wider society. This was not an accident. Just as the choice to have a referendum on the EU was not an accident either. 
The actual terms of the debate over the EU up to 2017 were obvious from the ex Prime Minister Cameron's get-go and were virtually entirely developed from the right and from the Blairite 'middle way'. Britain was invited to accept a globalist, continental future or accept the full return of traditional British chauvinism. Cameron and leading advisors were more than aware of the rise of the left in the Labour Party and indeed Labour was never really able to break into that argument. Until, that is, when the Labour left in 2017 nearly broke through to government. And then Brexit became different, very concrete and open. The EU could and would try to block Labour's new policies. After 2017 a real issue, not a diversion, began to surface in society. Would there be a radical Labour government? What were the obstacles to such a government? 
The main obstacles now against a radical Labour government include both the national and the super-national capitalist class in Britain, the Tories, the mainstream media, a large bloc of Labour MPs and Chuka Umunna with his the mini-Macrons. And the EU is the main, immediate, international block to a radical Labour government. Which brings us back to the Labour Party's 2018 Brexit resolution.

Democratic choices?

There is a lot of incoherent jumble surrounding the 'democracy of Brexit.' (And sadly a lot of the left have got involved with it.) Does the debated and discussed 'democracy' of the Labour Conference stump the speculative referendum vote in 2016? (Was that a 'false' vote anyway?) Does a new vote contradict 2016 or simply extend it, now that we know what Brexit means in reality? Will the pro Brexit voters of 2016 never 'forgive' Labour if they promote a new referendum?

A future blog will discuss the real, substantial nature of modern, British democracy. What is crucial here and now is that the real character of the EU has emerged from out of the Tory, chauvinist and racist soup which previously defined the EU. The EU will be the main, immediate, international block to the last part of Labour's Conference resolution. The measures that Labour says it will carry out, including the 'democratisation of European institutions...' require breaking with the current EU (but also opening out the intention to move to a real international democracy of Europe's working class people and their organisations.)

Some rightwing Labour MPs etc., will insist on presenting Labour's last part of its Conference resolution as a 'remove Brexit' referendum. Others will insist that Labour back the overturn of the 2016 referendum as a defence of the international Blairite program. The left wing core of the Labour leadership will fail utterly if they allow that to happen. Given that both the Prime Minister May's 'deal' was massively rejected as well as Labour's 'deal' by Parliament, if Labour need to follow their Conference policy then both 'deals' should now be offered the people for a vote, with their relevant motivations. That upholds the legitimacy of the first vote and carries out the last part of Labour's Conference resolution in that it moves on the Brexit process (which Parliament cannot do without a new election) by explaining the goals of the future of the different prospective 'deals.'

In other words Labour should not offer a peoples' vote designed to to reverse the referendum of 2016 - not while it has a chance to establish a radical government. But it can ask the people which Brexit it wants - with a proper argument about the most important reasons.