Labour's Great Purge (1939 - 2021)

In 1983, Labour party member and Marxist Ted Grant said the following:

"My final point, comrade chair and comrades. Michael Foot was expelled from this party. Nye Bevan was expelled from this party. (Interruptions) Mortimer was expelled from the party. (Calls of 'no, no') Yes, it's absolutely true, these were all expelled from the party.

"Whatever the result of this vote, whether we gain a victory or whether we are expelled, we shall still continue to work for a Labour victory.

"We shall still continue to work to make certain that this Tory government is thrown out, and preferably a Labour government with socialist policies returned. Whatever programme is put forward, Militant, as it has always done in the past, will continue to work for the victory of this movement. There is no way that Marxism can be separated from the Labour Party. There is no way you will succeed with these expulsions. We will be back. We will be restored, if not in one year, in two or three years. We will be back.

"At every trade union conference, at every ward, at every GMC, at every shop stewards' committee meeting this question will come up and we will be back."

How prescient! Bevan, Mortimer and Foot were expelled, as were Ted Grant himself and Militant. It's strange how history has repeated itself today.

In the 18th Brumaire, Marx famously said this:

"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Hegel was right about many things and so was Marx, and what's being expressed above definitely applies to the Labour party today.

It's easy to derive from Marx's quote that history is simply cyclical, but that's not what he meant. When history repeats itself, it does so in the face of unresolved contradictions. In the Hegelian sense, only a singular will resulting from "the negation of the negation" can drive history forward. In plain English, that'd mean the resolution of disagreements through a rugged and rational discussion. That resolution would then drive us forward, we'd have a combined singular will until we hit the next contradiction.

Here's the thing though: Labour is a party of two wills - socialism and capitalism. Two wills that are so opposed to each other as to be essentially unresolvable. It is the principle contradiction within the party. One is about to overthrow the other and put an end to the tragedy and farce of Labour's history. Hegalian dialectic prevents this, though; you cannot overthrow something by mere conversation or the vigorous clashing of ideas. If that were the case, socialism would've won out a long time ago.

No, what has to happen is something material instead. A real action that results in a real, material difference.

When Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader, he did so as the result of years of ongoing contradictions within the party. Labour has always given a somewhat false impression of political diversity and as such, 12 MPs who had supported other candidates lent support to Corbyn to this end. He was the diversity candidate and he was not expected to win. His election to the position of leader was the penultimate expression of the capitalism-socialism contradiction, placing party power into the hands of the members and ordinary workers in the form of internal democracy, suggestions of open selection, and removing the power of corporate donors was the final straw.

Despite preaching unity, Sir Kieth of The Trilateral Commission and his lapdog David Evans have decided to resolve these contradictions in the most materialist way possible - the forcible expulsion and proscription of groups of socialists from the party. In other words, the removal of political diversity from within the party's walls. If he succeeds, the party can continue to give the impression of political diversity without any risk to the status quo. This will be the final expression of the contradiction and thus its end.

In short, plain English, what I'm saying is that the current state of Labour is a grotesque production of its ongoing internal factional battle between the forces of capitalism and socialism represented by these factions. 

By the hands of the leadership, the very people who professed unity and working class politics, the contradiction is resolved. Capital has won out.

As to how Labour got into this state in the first place, that can be put down to the form of electoral politics practiced in the UK - first past the post. In an electoral system that prefers a duopoly, party politics becomes internalised and factions develop within parties.

I think the following quote from Lenin is apt:

"A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfils in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people.

Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification—that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses."

It's unfortunate for us socialists that Labour is not yet politically obsolete. It has neither the spirit to be fully earnest with its members and voters alike nor the moral decency to fulfil its political obligations as a party of the working class. The leadership has constantly put on a facade of unity and reneged on every single one of their pledges. 

Labour was briefly the party of the working class, but it is no longer. It's the party of a faux-left circle instead. It was briefly the party of the masses, but it is no longer. Instead, it is the party of Blairites and the few workers who wish to ape their worst qualities.

What was the mistake that Labour made? It was of offering real political diversity. A mistake that has now been rectified.

Labour refuses to address the fundamental issues of capitalism, the fundamental issues of society and the material conditions of the working class. It refuses to address the great capital-labour contradiction in the party through dialectic and dialogue. Instead, it uses its own members and voters as a proxy for resolving the conflict by purging them. This energy could've been spent much better elsewhere, such as coherently and forcefully attacking the Tories on their catastrophic record on the economy and handling of the pandemic, for example. 

By focusing all of this negative energy upon itself, Labour sends a clear message to working class members and voters alike: We can't be trusted and we don't want you. To the big donors, billionaires and corporate sector, the message couldn't clearer: We're safe for you again.

It was the real political diversity that kept the party going, the dialectic between opposing points of view that created a new and aspirational political form for the party. It helped lay the groundwork for a transition toward a socialised economy. 

But no longer.

In removing all political character and content from the party, Labour has transformed itself into a harmless alternative to the Tories. The Labour party today is the party of the faux-left, the left-wing of capitalism. 

Labour is out of pocket, out of members and out of its mind.

I think we all know where Labour is headed.

Welcome to the Dumpster Fire of History, contents: The Labour Party