Ditch the liberals — win the workers

Hatred for Starmer’s Labour is at new highs, Farage is entertaining deals with the Taliban to deport refugees, and the moribund Tories are trying to win back their base by one-upping Farage and promising that they will deport women and children to Afghanistan as well, not just the men, like that softie Farage!

In this utterly miserable state of British politics, the launch of Your Party by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana is a welcome development indeed. It presents a real opportunity to forge a left-wing alternative to the status quo which can win workers away from the right and halt the march of Reform UK.

But this will not be an automatic process; the road ahead is a complete minefield. For starters, not only is the right gaining ground, but many among the left and activist layers are in denial about just how discredited the left is among the working class. If this wasn’t bad enough, instead of debating the reasons for the gulf between the left and workers (hello lessons of Corbynism!), most are putting the cart before the horse, bickering over organisational questions and whether the structure should favour federalism, one man one vote or sortition (what even is that?).

There seems to be a deep illusion that by having good and democratically arrived at slogans about peace, justice, anti-racism, anti-austerity and socialism, the working class will be drawn to the party like a moth to a flame; everyone will get together and unite—immigrants, minorities, white workers, pro-Palestinians, trans people, feminists, environmentalists and anyone else sick of Broken Britain. Meanwhile, Corbyn and Sultana are engaged in some intense clique fights which have bubbled out into the open, and there’s a fresh new controversy on the trans question. Not a good start, to put it mildly.

At this rate, things could turn into a disaster. To be successful, Your Party needs to emerge as a serious challenger to Reform. It can only do so by being a pro-working-class party, which means understanding what drove the working class to the right, learning the lessons and not repeating those mistakes. It must also take a hard stance in defence of all the oppressed.

Your Party activists need to put the organisational bickering and turf wars to the side and provide real answers to the hard questions polarising Britain: immigration, rising ethno-nationalism, anti-trans hysteria, foreign policy, and the state of the economy. A failure to provide working-class solutions to these problems will guarantee the failure of the new party, turning the left into an even bigger joke, which will only strengthen the right. In short, Your Party needs to win the workers!

How liberalism drove workers to the right

If Reform’s strategy to win the white working class is to be the anti-establishment voice, then why hasn’t the left been successful at doing the same? Surely talking consistently about austerity and fighting the bosses makes the left an anti-establishment voice too, so why hasn’t it gained from the discontent at the system?

The short answer is liberalism. But “what is liberalism?” people always ask. Isn’t it good to be a liberal, to be “progressive”? Liberalism is the use of “progressive” ideas by the ruling class—ie, the City of London—to advance its own interests at the expense of the workers. For decades, in Britain as in other countries in the West, the ruling classes embraced an enlightened view on social issues as they shafted the working class by offshoring vast swathes of industry, leaving entire regions deindustrialised, hollowing out trade unions and condemning working-class communities to rot.

Not convinced? Think back to New Labour: along with bombing Iraq to bits at the orders of the White House, Blair went on a union-bashing spree and rammed through huge privatisations of public services. But at the same time, Blairism was also defined by socially liberal policies, such as anti-racism, feminists in the cabinet, huge hikes in immigration and the Good Friday Agreement. Blairism pandered to certain segments of society using progressivism while openly mounting attacks on the working class. This dynamic continued under the Tories and drove large layers of white workers to hate “woke” ideas and resent those they supposedly benefited, ie, racial and sexual minorities, seeing them as responsible for their worsening conditions and a general breakdown of society.

There is no better example of this than the EU and Brexit, a decisive question for Britain on which most of the establishment banded together under the banner of “Remain”. Brexit was a referendum on the liberal status quo that was devastating the country, pure and simple. Most of the working class was done and wanted out but it faced a barrage of blackmail by the City and the Guardian-progressives: Leavers were hordes of backward Northerners (ie, anyone living north of the M25) and uncultured anti-immigrant bigots who hated diversity; in short, Brexiteers were racists.

This hysteria divided the country along the lines of “backward Northerners” vs “progressive Londoners”, buried the genuine grievances of native-born workers, abandoning them to the likes of Johnson and Farage, and shackled immigrants and their defenders to the “progressive” wing of the ruling class, their real enemy!

Instead of providing a working-class opposition to the EU, most of the left and trade union leaders criminally echoed the same liberal blackmail about open borders and anti-racism. This is true first and foremost of Corbyn who jumped ship from “Leave”—his historic position—and campaigned for “Remain” because he prioritised keeping unity with the Blairites, ever faithful servants of the City. As such, despite all the talk of socialism and workers’ struggles, the left failed to emerge as a real alternative because it was completely bathed in the very liberalism of the ruling class. Either it was unable to see how the ruling class was using “progressive” ideas to sink the rest of the country, or it consciously embraced liberalism as a step forward.

In the last decades, these same dynamics were constantly at play on a whole number of questions making it easy for the right to use anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ poison to whip up reaction. The unions, for their part, while holding immense potential for organising the multiracial working class, are becoming more of a joke everyday: they organise anti-racism and anti-everything campaigns but are incompetent at winning real gains (no, petty annual raises are not gains), which only drives workers further away. The 2022-23 strike wave was a case in point. It was driven to defeat by trade union leaders who couldn’t bring themselves to put the Tory government out of its misery. Would Starmer’s Labour or the right act so emboldened if they were afraid of union power? Absolutely not.

Your Party and all those looking to it must understand what got us here: decades of assault by the City waged under the banner of progressive ideas, with no credible force on the left and the labour movement to mount a fundamental challenge to this liberal poison—this has pushed workers towards the nativist poison of the right wing as the only anti-establishment, anti-liberal voice, ultimately pitting them against immigrants and minorities. Of course, there are nuances here and there, but only wilful idiots or apologists for liberalism and the union tops will deny the broad contours of our explanation. (We of course welcome debate.) What is urgently needed to avoid repeating past failures and build unity in the multiracial working class is a political break with liberalism. This just so happens to be the central lesson of Corbynism.

Your Party: why so cliquey and bureaucratic?

One million have signed up to Your Party’s mailing list, unofficial branches are already popping up, and activists are hosting a slew of (sometimes chaotic and undemocratic) meetings. At the same time, since the very start there has been constant drama between the faceless and nameless cliques behind Corbyn and Sultana. Many are rightly concerned that Your Party could turn into a bureaucratic and factional mess and self-destruct. What’s behind this and how can we prevent it?

The source of bureaucratism is the unfortunate combination of zero strategy and careerist appetites (did you really think Corbyn and Sultana are above careerism?). Without any meaningful answers for anything and lacking genuine differences, all struggles end up revolving around secondary questions and ultimately get posed on the organisational plane: how to use structures and connections to best secure influence, leadership, money etc. Politics and empty slogans of class solidarity get tacked on to this infighting to keep the hope alive for the masses.

Sceptical? Let’s make it concrete. Both Corbyn and Sultana have thrown punches out in the open, with Sultana calling out Corbyn’s capitulation on the anti-Semitism witch hunt and Corbyn rebuking her for it; they don’t see eye-to-eye on the Greens and there are many other issues which, if left unresolved, promise to tear the party apart. But instead of genuine and open debates, what we see is a giant shroud of secrecy and a ridiculous focus on the party structure. Corbyn wants a federation, ie, a coalition of different entities and groups under the umbrella of Your Party, but Sultana wants a more “unitary” structure with “One Member One Vote” (OMOV). Both insist theirs is the best model for ensuring democracy, and the “grassroots” activists are losing sleep figuring out which structure is best—after all, both have their merits and flaws, so how to decide?

Sultana’s OMOV is geared to her goal of securing the co-leadership with Corbyn and advancing her career as the face of the British left. How exactly does OMOV help her? Because it allows her to appeal to the masses (hurrah democracy!) against the existing trade union tops, independent councillors and MPs, and even socialist groups all concerned about their turf (read “local issues”). On the other hand, the federal model suits Corbyn better because it allows him to duck responsibility, avoid taking hard positions and keep being Corbyn (ie, a conciliator) while pretending to do something. In reality, neither one is inherently democratic because both serve the interests of these two great leaders, not the working class: a federation hands more influence to sellout trade union leaders and local politicians; OMOV democracy guarantees drowning critics and detractors in mass Zoom meetings which always operate as the stomping grounds of those in charge.

Beyond the specific clique dynamics, the emerging bureaucratism in Your Party is fundamentally about containing the various contradictions pulling at the yet to be formed party. Bureaucratism is not the evil creation of “bad people”, but is the unavoidable consequence of conciliating the ruling class. We can already see this in Corbyn’s angry reaction (what happened to the cute grandpa vibes?!) when asked if he is anti-Zionist. The problem he faces on the question of Zionism and many others is that he cannot sit on the fence. If he respects the red lines of the ruling class over Israel to appease the petty bureaucrats, careerist councillors and local “personalities” flocking to the new party, he will necessarily have to trample the radical aspirations of his base. For this, bureaucratism is indispensable.

This goes to show that if the party is not built on a clear working-class programme, one that can overcome the various conflicts between oppressed groups through a consistent struggle against the entire ruling class, it will necessarily have to suppress the legitimate aspirations of certain segments of the party, whether that be anti-Zionists, trans activists, communists or the working class. To fight bureaucratism, we must of course fight for rules which will best favour the most radical segments of the new party; but we cannot do this in a political void. This struggle must be based on a set of clear principles which can unite the working class.

How to win and unite the working class

1. Palestine and NATO

While Britain has seen some of the largest pro-Palestine demonstrations in the world, they have also been detached from large layers of the working class. The truth is that not everyone is spurred into action through moral outrage; many don’t see Palestine as a cause linked to their lives and even come to resent those who they deem to be distracting from “domestic issues”. Still more, there are those who are patriotic or who work in the arms industry. That a spectacle of such unimaginable horror and devastation as we see in Gaza hasn’t jolted workers into taking mass action is not due to their moral failings, despite what many think. It’s because the pro-Palestinian movement has been unable to link the fight for Palestinian liberation to the needs and struggles of the working class.

The pro-Palestinian movement must stop counting on empty appeals for peace and justice and build alliances with the working class (no, union leaders speechifying doesn’t count) on an anti-imperialist basis. It must show how the struggles of British workers for their needs are inseparable from the cause of Palestine, and that common to both is the foreign policy of the ruling class—NATO and Zionism.

When it comes to NATO many are quick to point to the fact that many workers support the alliance. This is true, but the answer is not to back down, but to convince workers why it is important to oppose NATO. The argument is simple: all of Britain’s recent wars were to secure its position as top US lapdog; workers, sent to kill and be killed, lost out and this only created new problems which have come home in the form of a refugee crisis. More wars, for the increasingly crazy plans of the White House, will plunge Britain into a spiral of disaster. Like before, the working class will be the first to lose, whether through austerity or conscription. The way to break out of this spiral is to make a clean break with allegiance to the US, NATO and British imperialism.

As Trump squeezes the allies to cough up more for NATO, many in left and liberal circles are outraged. But any who cross this red line for the British establishment are persona non grata, putting them in the impossible position of opposing NATO while eyeing No 10. Their solution is to ask for a nicer NATO (à la Zack Polanski, new Green Party leader) while maintaining intact Britain’s partnership with the US, giving oxygen to the horrendous illusion that Britain, and NATO generally, play a vital role in ensuring safety or defending democracy against authoritarianism (ie, the Ukraine war).

Whether over NATO or Palestine, the equivocations of the liberals end up conceding on key principles of anti-Zionism and anti-imperialism. But they also abandon the arguments most likely to win over the working class: those based on a clear class opposition to the ruling class. This is why on these questions, as on all others, ditching the liberals is necessary to win the working class.

2. No alliances with the Greens

Your Party must oppose all alliances with the Greens and the pro-green agenda. With Greens having gained a chunk of Labour’s vote in the last general election and with new leader Polanski spitting radical truths, there is pressure on Your Party to merge or build coalitions with the Greens to consolidate the progressive vote. This would be a mistake that would drive working people away.

Green Party politics are the quintessential expression of petty-bourgeois metropolitan liberalism. Huge swathes of working people hate the green agenda because the ruling class has co-opted the concern for the environment to mount countless attacks against workers, closing factories by upholding the banner of net zero.

The climate crisis is real and there is an urgent need to find answers, but the Greens’ solution is to tweak the status quo at the expense of the working class, which is a recipe for disaster. Consider ULEZ: exacting an extortionate levy each day someone with a polluting car comes into London makes no qualitative difference to the climate problems of London or Britain. Nor does filling the coffers of the Mayor of London improve public transport, contrary to many promises. It is a pure tax on working people for not being rich enough to afford “clean” cars.

Your Party must not conciliate the green agenda and must oppose Sultana’s overtures to the Greens. Instead, it must win environmental activists to the understanding that their very association with liberalism alienates the working class, the only force that can change the direction of society in a positive way and ultimately fix the climate crisis.

3. The trans conundrum

The trans question shows most clearly just how easily differences threaten to blow apart Your Party. Tensions over the trans question are the latest scandal, with Independent MP and Your Party secretary Adnan Hussain tweeting in defence of trans-exclusionary women’s “single sex spaces”. Since then, many have called on Corbyn and Sultana to denounce him, with Sultana tweeting that “bigotry has no place” in the new party, only to get heat from those sympathetic to Hussain. Quickly, supporters from both sides launched into fiery exchanges on backwardness, Muslims, conservative women, the woke left—all to the delight of the right.

In one of her tweets Sultana aptly pointed out that “The same forces targeting migrants and Muslims are attacking LGBTQ+ people, especially trans people.” This is true, but it will take much more to really unite the LGBTQ+ movement and the Muslim community. The only way to cut through the poisonous debates on this question is to frontally take on wrong views on both sides.

The starting point must be the defence of the rights of trans people. It is essential that the new party patiently explain to Muslims and other socially conservative sectors of society why it is in their own interests to oppose the backlash against trans people. We must sharply oppose comments like those of Adnan Hussain and show how restrictions on the rights of trans people to accessing facilities corresponding to their gender are the same kind of encroachment on civil liberties as the ban on veils enforced in many countries. The point is that individuals should be free to choose what they want to do with their own bodies. This should be a basic unifying principle in Your Party.

The main aim must be to push back against the mounting wave of reaction. This does not require that we agree with everything in each other’s heads, but that we defend each other’s rights. We should not expect all Muslim people to agree with gender transition, nor should we expect the socialists in Your Party to agree with women being veiled. The point is to unite against a common enemy.

But for this to have any chance of happening, pro-trans activists need to consider the precarious position they find themselves in and adapt their strategy to these conditions. They must understand that the socially conservative sentiments on gender and sexuality in the Muslim community or in the working class won’t go away through moral blackmail or shocking their sensibilities. The sharp social segregation of the sexes is not simply the product of conservative ideas but is rooted in the millenary institution of the monogamous family. You can’t shame this institution away. You need to transform social conditions, and you cannot do this in isolation from the rest of society.

What does this mean concretely? It certainly does not mean conceding when it comes to the rights of trans people. But it does mean making certain adjustments to reach out to socially conservative layers of society. For example, when it comes to women’s shelters, we should insist that trans women have access to women’s shelters. But we should also demand that more shelters be built and that some cater for socially conservative women who insist on strict biological segregation. Only through such a flexible (and non-liberal) approach can a real alliance be built between trans activists and other oppressed sectors of society ( see "Transgender liberation: Fighting the backlash").

4. The immigration quagmire

It’s starting to be a bit scary to be a minority in Britain. The dominant strategy to fight back is to shout and yell “Racist!” at those who question the immigration problem, rather than pinning it on the liberal status quo of the last 30 years. This hysterical defence model only drives people towards racist reaction and strengthens the far right, and ultimately, it undermines the defence of immigrants.

The most important thing in mounting any kind of fightback against racist reaction is to not be seen in any way as defending the current status quo. It is not inherently racist to oppose the current government’s policy of housing refugees in deprived communities or of encouraging mass immigration to keep Britain’s decaying economy sputtering a little longer. To convincingly show that Farage is scapegoating immigrants and letting the real culprits off the hook, we must not shy away from acknowledging that the status quo is a disaster. Only then can we start to get a hearing for socialist solutions that address the roots of Britain’s social decline (see “How not to fight the right”).

The task for communists

To be successful, Your Party needs to unite the working class and oppressed. Many in the socialist left will agree with this. The real struggle will be over how. We have argued that this can only happen through an intransigent struggle against the influence of liberalism in the party. Most groups will either reject this or minimise its centrality by talking endlessly about the perfect 5, 10 or 20 point transitional or revolutionary programme, or whether there should be nationalisations or expropriations with compensation.

The differences among the revolutionary left at this stage of development of this party are not about who screams most loudly about socialism or communism, but about the tasks; how will the far left shape the politics of this party and fight to strengthen the position of the working class? How can socialists use this moment to change the balance of class forces in Britain?

In our view, Marxists have two interrelated tasks: first, as we have been insisting, to fight as hard as possible for a working-class break with liberalism by sharpening the class polarisations on key questions. The Marxist movement has long known that any party of the working class must be politically independent of the ruling class, its ideology and any elements tied to these. Failure to fight for this means that the pro-socialist impulses of this party’s supporters—opposition to the ruling class, imperialism and Zionism—will be swamped by conciliation of the status quo, paving the way for another Corbynite debacle.

The second task must be to win over left-wing elements to a Leninist banner, the only antidote to the plague of left-Labourism. For this we must cohere a revolutionary wing which demonstrates through debates why the Marxist programme (yes, including the dictatorship of the proletariat) is essential to overcome the reactionary polarisations and advance the struggles of the working class now.

The launching of Your Party presents an occasion for left groups to work together on common issues, as well as to fight out political differences. Key to the success is for the left to break from its usual cliquey modus operandi and keep the interests of the working class front and centre.