This morning I tweeted this:
I find it very boring to be told socialism requires Brexit.
Socialism is internationalist. Brexit is not.
Socialism is about protecting people. Brexit is the exact opposite.
Socialism is cooperative. Brexit is not.
Whatever Brexit is, it is not socialist.
#Stayandreform
Why did I do that? Because I am, as I said, so bored of the mindless claims that to be in favour of staying in the EU is to be a Tory; that wanting to Remain is to be opposed to any form of radical policy and that leaving the EU is necessary for modern monetary theory to work, which in my case also gets thrown in.
The tweet, when I last looked, had been shared 181 times and liked more than 450 times. It's clear I am not alone in this thinking.
That was confirmed when I read Paul Mason's article for the Guardian this morning. Let me be clear; Paul is to the left of me: he is a Marxist and I am not, although I understand why people are and have no problem with it. He would unambiguously identify as socialist when I have problems with the materialism I think implicit in that term. Both of us would, however, be offended to be called social democrat when I suspect Chukka Umunna probably still claims to be that. So there are differences, but let's not overblow them. And we've both been associated with the Corbyn project. So I welcome this headline:
Corbynism is now in crisis: the only way forward is to oppose Brexit
And this sub-title:
The officials around Jeremy Corbyn who designed this electoral fiasco need to go. Labour must unite around the remain and reform strategy
As I do this comment in the main body of the text:
[T]he leadership's Brexit position and the woeful performance of senior officials have now become an impediment to defending the left project. I will enthusiastically circle the wagons around Corbyn. He has grown since 2015 into a politician who thrives on adversity and class struggle and will do so now. But the officials who designed this fiasco, and ignored all evidence that it would lead to disaster, must be removed from positions of influence.
They include Seumas Milne, director of strategy, and Karie Murphy, Corbyn's chief of staff. With an electoral fiasco like this, the buck has to stop somewhere, and it must stop with them — together with Ian Lavery MP, the party chair, who twice broke the whip to oppose the second referendum.
I would most especially agree on Milne. He is the impediment to progress in my view. He thrives on dispute. He loathes those who do not toe his line. His political position is way beyond any I - and most Labour supporters - could ever reasonably embrace. It is also from an era long-gone. And I know he likes me as much as I do him. The divisions he sows need to end.
But not, as Mason says, for their own sake - although that would help. The left does, instead, need to have a plan to go forward. I have a chapter on how it might do so with regard to tax in a book out on Labour policy next month. But, as Paul Mason says, the issue is bigger than policy at that level now. What Labour needs is to, as Mason says:
[B]egin from the facts: the struggle against rightwing authoritarianism and fascism is now the main priority. No amount of pledges to nationalise stuff, or appeals to class solidarity, wins that war. We are engaged in a culture war over values and narratives. Labour's narrative has to be built around resistance to Brexit as a project of the racist and xenophobic right, and a story of communities revived by hope and solidarity.
Quite so. But for too many in the hardcore of Labour this is now sacrilege. And that's why it failed last night.
I'm not a member of Labour. I have voted Labour in an election this month. I have voted Green too. Locally, I voted for a LibDem as well when that was the only available choice to try to unseat a Tory left. I'm not tribalist. I was invited to work with Corbyn: as I always say, he chose me and not vice versa. But I see the value in having a functioning left of centre party in England. In Scotland and Wales I suspect that mantle has moved on. It may too in England, to the Greens. But for now the option has to be left open. And I support what Paul Mason is saying.
Labour has to get its act together. But it can only do that by shredding the old school, 1970s and before era, model of socialism that Corbyn has chosen to surround himself with. It's either it does that or, as Paul Mason very clearly knows, it's day is over
Could I sacrifice Milne, McCluskey and Murphy for a better Labour Party? Of course I could. I just hope Corbyn will have the sense to see that nothing less is necessary.
But he chose them. And they're not alone: there are ample others around them of not very dissimilar view. So this may not happen. But it is Labour's last chance, in all likelihood.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, you’re spot on re the scale of socialism and I think the Leftexit argument has always been weak. I have made it myself but only in the sense of a forlorn hope that it could increase potential both here and in the EU. My thinking on that was that the UK was a real neo-liberal thorn within the EU, our voting record proves that, and they could make progress otherwise impossible due to our veto. On the flip side the right/central neo-liberals/Tories would make such a fiasco of Brexit that space for a rise of the economic left would be created in the UK.
The weakness is really that in or out we face the same original problems and out creates a whole host of new ones….all of which will be blamed on causes other than the real ones.
There was never a need to leave the EU to make serious reform, that is just a lie plain and simple. It’s another example of attacking symptoms rather than diseases and their causes. You can make the same arguments around immigration, you don’t need tougher controls you just need to restore protections to labours wages and conditions and enforce the regulations.
I know quite a number of S&D Group MEPs – which is, of course, the group Labour are in
They think it absurd that Labour members think that leaving is a badge of being a socialist
Well it is absurd, socialism exists regardless of Brexit and Brexit is most definitely not rooted within socialism. As you know the real threats are within ideologies, specifically neo-liberalism which still clings, and poisons, despite the failure of most of its ‘promises’. This is heavily bolstered via education, institutions and the MSM.
I find it all so frustrating as I think that all the bits matter and don’t believe in any ism in isolation. Economics is basically a complex tool we’ve developed to enable us to operate ever more complex societies. But it is a tool and as such can be changed/adapted to fit needs. The Green New Deal would be a prime example of such. To me that is short term and urgent.
On the longer term we really need to have a think about consumerism, equality, population and the concept of work itself. I get sick and tired of hearing the rubbish spouted about democracy when most of us spend our working lives(which more and more seep into our private lives) within dictatorship heirarchies, some more benign than others. But then there were some slave owners that were kinder than others, it doesn’t say a lot really. I’m also sick and tired of this sort of constant looking for the next great hope, a leader that will sweep all before. It’s magical thinking, with the help of FPTP it retards our urges to cooperation and we need to take more personal responsibility.
Oh and some day I’m going to go postal on hearing the words ‘but I live in the real world’. Those words were no doubt spoken against advocates for every major change we’ve seen in our history. Jeez, you get enough of that on here with comments that try to come across as possessed of specialist knowledge but are really just the cries of little minds.
………….and breathe, bloody bank holidays, too much time to think and no work to numb those thoughts
I totally get the point you are making, and I think it is important to consider what has been happening to UK domestic politics for some time – the exceptionalism as displayed by the political parties themselves: that they – and only they (Tory, Labour, whatever) – have the answers and this also helps to fuel the tribalism you mention.
Labour may be so tribal now that they not only push away the opportunity to work with other parties in the UK but also reject working with similar parties in Europe to overcome they very things they wish to depose! That cannot be right.
To me, Labour wants to become isolationist in the way it wants to put things right and I just don’t think that is going to work.
If the centre or centrism is the correct way to govern a country, then the major parties need to stop believing that they alone can do this because all it ends up being is the party concerned arguing/discussing things amongst itself about whether they are centrist or not when what is really needed is for parties to SHARE power and debate/develop those issues with the constitutional aim of creating the greatest amount of social welfare for the greatest amount of people (‘social welfare’ includes the environment too as well as other quality of life factors).
FPTP is finished as far as I am concerned and the future is collaborative politics. Labour (and the wider Left/progressives) had better get cracking now on this before the Right gets itself into gear and does it first.
To me this election shows just how atomised the Remain vote is and that in itself is not good.
In many ways even though I voted to Remain, I wish in some way that May had spoken to Labour earlier (both parties have a anti-EU history) and that a deal had been brokered to leave the EU and that we were out. At least now the consequences of doing so would be emerging and the seeds would be being sown for us to be sensible and go back in.
Alas all that seems to be on the horizon now is the prospect of an even worse departure than we could have had. It’s a mess – especially when you consider that the UK is sending a troop of anti-EU MEPs into Europe whose funding is opaque to say the least.
A fascinating post much I agree with and much I disagree with. Anyway to be concise:
I am not a socialist, I am a real social democrat. Chukka Ummuna might claim he is but I would argue he is not, he and his ilk are, for want of a better label, social neoliberals.
The EU (well EEC) was a Tory project originally but now it is a neoliberal project, whether left or right neoliberal, it is still neoliberal. However as problematic as that is, to reduce this to just this one huge factor is over-reach. I agree on that.
Yes Milne, McCluskey and Murray (I think you meant him not Murphy?) must go to revitalise Labour as a real social democratic party, not the rear view mirror neo-Bennites of the 70s (how I miss Tony Benn as much as I disagree with him, we need someone like him in Labour still) nor the 90s social neoliberal Blairites (don’t miss them!). The problem was that it is Corbyn that did choose them. the buck stops with him. He is the root cause of that and he needs to go too.
One of the fundamental confusions has been trying to make a multi-faceted non-partisan constitutional issue into a single dimensional partisan binary issue. It simply is not. Mason’s argument that this is a “culture war… Labour’s narrative has to be built around resistance to Brexit as a project of the racist and xenophobic right” is part of the problem and not the solution, it is exactly the issue that encourages the divisions the has infected this far deeper debate. Unless we can transcend these erroneous simplifications, we will not heal what divides our nation.
I would label myself a soft Lexiter. That is I agree with the core Lexit argument but this is not so much socialist argument, it is better understood as a critique of the neoliberalism embedded in the DNA of the EU but I disagree on the socialist solution, as I have zero faith that we could have a government that could make a hard exit a success. I am not a tribalist either, although I have never voted Tory. The soft Lexit solution is Efta/EEA. This is the only solution that could possibly heal the divide and satisfy the majority or leavers and remainers, once they realise the many myths over the Efta/EEA are, in fact, myths.
However my real issue in your tweet is over #Stayandreform.
How exactly is that meant to work? What reforms are required, how can we get other states to agree to them? The how could these be implemented in the EU? Whilst I am always dubious of TINA claims e.g. ‘Brexit is impossible’, I am waiting to see a single decent argument as to how to achieve remain and reform. When I look at the issues and challenges involved, the best reform I can see would end up being Efta/EEA, so why not go there now?
Can I be clear, there is no soft Lexit solution that comes close to the advantage of being in the EU? Why would you want to impose something suboptimal on the UK? I cannot see how anyone on the elft would want that. Haven’t we suffered enough for pointless dogma?
I note your last para. I will work on it.
I look forward to the fruits of your deliberations….
I read your Tweet yesterday, spot on.
I had also read Mason’s paper before that and thought it very good, quite brave coming from him, a true believer. I felt he was really looking for solutions and questioning strategies, even if he doesn’t question policies.
I agreed with all his points, though I thought his sheltering of Corbyn was still too much, but he is a faithful follower and a Party member, so…
He has a large following and a strong voice in the Labour Party, he will be heard, but Milne is still around, and others there who will try and stop any change of course.
After I read about Milne, and listened to what he has said in the past, I wondered how a person like him could get anywhere near someone who was planning to govern “for the many”. What was Corbyn thinking when he chose him. It only serves to confirm that he is not the person needed to lead the country.
And then you have the wafflers sent to press conferences who will carry vague as ever robotic messages about the “will of the people”. Labour’s communication strategy has been disastrous, an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.
In Wales, thanks in part to the massive historical slap Labour has received in Michael Foot’s and Aneurin Bevan’s heartlands, the line has moved. Drakeford’s written declaration yesterday was totally clear. A Final say, with a strong unequivocally pro-Remain campaign, is what Welsh Labour is now working towards.
Immediately, the backlash from Plaid was felt. Adam Price, whose Party had done well, lied on TV, saying Drakeford’s line had not moved and his declaration was fudged. It was not. I despair of politics when it is driven by ideologues who are blind to realities and people’s interests.
Like you, my vote has floated between different Parties, depending on policies and circumstances. I’m a Green Democratic Socialist with a touch of regionalism… no Party offers me that! so I move my vote to the most likely to win who will be closest to my position. I really think that’s how it should be to stop Politics becoming in-bred. Once, I even voted for a right winger (!!) in the final round of a Presidential election in France to stop Le Pen becoming President…I feel the trauma to this day ;-(
If politics were more pragmatic and less ideological, we’d all be more able to compromise and work with others to move forward.
Here’s me dreaming again.
Dreaming is an essential part of politics
The term social democrat, used happily by socialists across Europe probably equates most closely to Democratic Socialist in the UK. The problem we have with the term is that the SDP poisoned it as a term and it carries too much guilt by association. Chukka is probably closer to the SDP (though it does still exist, morphed into a brexit monstrocity and it’s former leader likewise) and a supporter of neoliberalism.
I think the Delores model where a social europe was equal to an economic Europe is a model still worth advocating and following.
The social not= the economic. The social framework is more inclusive than the economic one. Linked, yes. But not equal. Hence, this model is not worth advocating and following. It could, in fact, be seen as a foundation stone of neoliberalism. The Delors model must be rejected.
What do you mean by the ‘Delors Model’? What aspects of Delors’s economic policies are you referring to?
The same model I think that NeilL is referring to.
What I mean, is the desire to grow markets, but underpinned by a social agenda that prevents it being a race to the bottom. Coupled with an acceptance that the state sometimes has to override markets and often has to interven for the public good.
On the Paul Mason article – while he says he would ‘circle the wagons around Corbyn’ the logic of his argument is that Corbyn (and McDonnell) should go too as they are part of the leadership.
The ‘strategy’ was not just a vote on some ‘deal’ but with no remain option – – it was coupled with a demand for an election to counterpose to the Brexit issue.
This was curious, first, as they were in no position to make it, as it requires two-thirds of MPs under the 2011 Five Year Parliament Act and would therefore need Tory support. But, secondly, it would only make sense if you thought you might win it. Labour did not win last year and has never been in a position to win since. This was made clear by the local elections and made much worse by last week’s performance. If there is a election this year Labour will not win and Corbyn will have to go. Even if he stood down now it is unlikely a replacement would improve their prospects much. But I doubt if he will. With the half a million members he had he could have held mass meetings in any town with rallies in the big conference centres. Notably on the day of the Peoples’ Vote demo he chose to go canvassing in Morecombe Bay, where Labour won two seats. Perhaps he is too used to the practices of hole-in-the-corner leftism?