Keir Starmer’s Labour government has become one of the most unpopular in history in just 12
months, with only 23% of respondents expressing a favourable opinion of the prime minister and
67% expressing an unfavourable opinion. His warmongering policies and the associated welfare
cuts (from disability benefits to heating allowances) have alienated even some of those who voted
for him to get rid of the Tories. His measured distancing from Israel will not suffice to restore his
popularity.
It is in this context that Labour MP Zarah Sultana has decided to abandon the sinking ship and build
a new party with Jeremy Corbyn, former leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn had been elected to
that position against the party establishment, but after the 2020 election defeat, he was demoted and
eventually expelled for his pro-Palestinian stance (on charges of “anti-Semitism”). The two MPs are
working to build a new party, provisionally named Your Party, which eschews ideology and aims to
appeal to the Main Street.
The statement posted on its website announces:
‘ We will only fix the crises in our society with a mass redistribution of wealth and power. That means
taxing the very richest in our society. That means an NHS free of privatisation and bringing energy, water,
rail and mail into public ownership. That means investing in a massive council-house building programme.
That means standing up to fossil fuel giants putting their profits before our planet.’
The “redistribution” of social wealth is the favourite theme of reformists who do not intend to
question, let alone overturn, capitalist relations of production, i.e. the division of society into wage
earners and capitalists, but want wage earners to receive a less small share of what they produce.
They would also like the healthcare system to remain public and the government to nationalise
energy, water, railways and postal services, as was the case in Italy in the 1960s and 1970s under
Christian Democrat leadership – when, however, improvements in workers’ conditions came about
thanks to strong and widespread workers’ struggles, not public ownership of numerous industries.
Added to this is the defence of the right to protest against the genocide in Gaza for a “free
Palestine” and the arms embargo on Israel. Nothing else of significance.
In the first week since its online launch, 600,000 people have signed up, demonstrating that a large
number of people do not feel represented by the traditional parties, nor by Nigel Farage’s racist
right-wing Reform UK, which is also on the rise with 30% in favor, but 61% against (yougov.co
poll).
Corbyn and Sultana intend to form an electoral platform together with the Greens and the six pro-
Palestinian Independent MPs (including Corbyn himself) who won the elections in their respective
constituencies, inspired by the Popular Front formed in France around Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s
France Insoumise. The Socialist Worker Party, whose leader Alex Callinicos participated in the
Internationalist Conference in Naples last June, immediately indicated its intention to join this
platform, known in English as an “umbrella party”.
We believe that such a decision would be a serious political mistake on the part of the SWP, in
relation to the internationalist heritage to which it refers.
A resolution approved by the participants at the Naples Conference, “On the rise of the ultra-right
and the tendency to fascism and how to fight them”, openly criticizes the policy of popular fronts as
disguised ‘class collaboration’, citing the historical experiences of the 1930s in France and Spain,
the early 1970s in Chile, and the recent experiences of Lula’s Brazil, Podemos in Spain and the
French Front Populaire, which, formed to stop Le Pen’s xenophobic right wing, instead first
favored Macron’s party in the elections with the mechanism of desistance in its favor, and then
“obtained”, as a thank you, the formation of a centrist government very attentive to the demands of
the right wing. What a masterpiece! The fact that this is the “model” indicated by Sultana shows
that the new formation is targeting only the electoral result, and not the political-social one – not
even the simple shift in the balance of power between the classes, which can only be achieved
through struggle. It is, therefore, an exclusively electoral operation.
The risk, but one can say with certainty the inevitable outcome, of the SWP joining the new
electoral coalition, with the presentation of its own candidates, as envisaged, would be that they will
provide “left-wing” cover for this reformist formation, which in turn acts as ‘left-wing cover’
to the Labour Party, supporting its internal left wing – made up of members of the Socialist
Campaign Group who, after signing the Stop The War Coalition’s appeal, backed down and did not
participate in its pacifist demonstration against the war in Ukraine under threat of expulsion by
Starmer.
After all, Corbyn himself has shown that his ‘principles’ against war are very, very… flexible, once
again in line with electoral calculations. Having come to the leadership of the Labour Party in 2015
on anti-militarist positions, advocating the abandonment of nuclear weapons (based on Trident
submarines) and withdrawal from NATO, he reneged on everything on the eve of the January 2020
elections. He declared that if he became head of government, in the event of an emergency, he
would submit the decision on the use of nuclear weapons to a collective government decision, while
withdrawal from NATO was no longer part of his programme. In the hope of winning the
elections, he had already given in to the media campaign of the economic and financial power
centres, presenting himself as a reliable interpreter of national interests, capable of leading the
bourgeois state.
The new political formation maintains its pro-Palestinian position, but on the war in Ukraine, in
which the British government is heavily involved with the sending of weapons, the training of the
military and the proposal to send troops, its silence is deafening and complicit.
The SWP claims to be aware of the dangers of this electoral frontism. In a Socialist Worker editorial,
‘Can left seize time after Corbyn and Sultana announce new party?’ it states:
‘ A new left has to learn the lessons of Syriza in Greece or Podemos in the Spanish state in the last
decade. Such formations spoke of both elections and struggles—but, in the end, prioritised winning
elections over building struggle. When they reached government, they conceded to the bosses and
bankers, moved rightward—and failed.’
We would like to hear the SWP comrades’ assessment of the experience of the Respect electoral
coalition (2004-2016), which they led together with the Muslim Association of Britain and the
controversial politician George Galloway (1) , its main beneficiary in electoral terms.
However, it seems to us that the attraction of the new formation’s electoral potential (10% of the
vote according to some polls) clearly prevails. In a statement on 5 July, immediately after the
announcement by Sultana and Corbyn, the SWP’s line is formulated in the following terms:
‘At this stage, we believe an “umbrella” organisation, with real roots and high-profile support [in
which sense?? –ed], would be the best way forward. Candidates would sign up to principles such as
no to austerity and cuts, refugees welcome, fight racism, women’s and LGBT+ liberation, welfare
not warfare, free Palestine and real action on climate change.
‘Candidates would accept these, but could go further than them if they wanted to. Such a “filter” of
basic socialist principles [?? – ed.] would bring together the fragmented groups of independents. We
would be prepared to offer our members as candidates in such a grouping.’
This is a set of democratic demands, but – frankly – we do not see even a shadow of the evoked
‘basic socialist principles’. On the contrary, we see the removal of the class struggle against the
roots of war, racism, exploitation and oppression of all kinds: capitalism and the state power that is
its expression. Without raising these issues, the proletariat is deluded into believing that it is
possible to manage this society, based on the exploitation of wage labour by capital, and a state,
such as the British one, which is the expression of its class domination, in favour of the exploited
and oppressed. This is the essence of reformism, yesterday, today and tomorrow: an organiser of
defeats, according to Trotsky’s apt expression. Even, or especially, when it is capable of achieving
some electoral exploits: unforgettable – for Italy – are the “historic victory” of the PSI in the
November 1919 elections (the largest party with 32.4% of the vote) and the “historic result” of the
PCI in June 1976 (34.4% of the vote). In both cases, the illusions generated by these “exceptional
victories” at the ballot box decisively facilitated the advent of two historical periods of severe
retreat for the proletarian movement: the twenty years of fascism and the forty years of
neoliberalism. We will spare readers the endless list of similar experiences in other countries and
return to the United Kingdom and the present day.
We are sinking step by step, at increasing speed, into a historical crisis of the entire capitalist social
system, which is heading towards a head-on, warlike clash between two opposing imperialist
camps: the US-led camp, the old rulers of the world who are losing power and hegemony, and the
imperialist camp of rampant (emerging) capitalisms led by China. In such a historical context, a
party that carefully avoids tackling this trend head-on, and avoids with equal care outlining a
programme of action against British militarism and imperialism as such, focusing almost
exclusively on the need to stop Farage’s rise through the ballot box and through more or less under-
the-table agreements with the current Labour Party, is a party that is preparing the defeat of the
working class.
It could not be otherwise, after all, considering that on a fundamental issue such as the war in
Ukraine, the new party, as well as the new coalition in formation, have different positions, some
favourable to Ukraine, i.e. to NATO, but almost none in favour of an internationalist opposition to
British imperialism and support for defeatism on both fronts. And, above all, considering that “Your
Party” (this name really sounds like an advertisement for the sale of a merchandise) has no intention
whatsoever of questioning, even in words, even on Sundays (like the old Italian socialists), the
capitalist social system, wage slavery, and all its other well-known beauties. Among which,
precisely, militarism and war.
To erect a solid and lasting barrier against the populist right wing of Reform UK, which exploits the
growing material hardships experienced by the proletariat, and then diverts proletarian and popular
discontent and anger against immigrants, who are the most exploited stratum of society, it takes
much more than a mass of ballot papers. That is why, in recent months, we have greatly appreciated
the commitment of the SWP and other forces to fighting in the streets against the groups carrying
out pogroms against immigrants, fomented by the racist right, as well as their commitment to the
vast movement of solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Against Farage and Co., a coherent class opposition would have a very strong political argument:
you, demagogue and certified rascal, claimed that Brexit would solve all the problems, especially
those of the most suffering people, and yet the outcome of almost a decade of Brexit is, precisely
for this section of society, disastrous in terms of worsening living conditions and heavy cuts to
social services, increasing mental distress, and growing poverty and marginalisation. The only thing
that is gradually gaining ground in post-Brexit Britain is militarism, the insane and criminal fever
to regain through war the position of command that the United Kingdom has lost forever.
This fever has not only been felt by the fanatical Truss or the Conservatives, but is now also
characteristic of the Labour Party, with which, one way or another, the Corbyn-Sultana party
aspires to govern.
It would not be too difficult to pillory Farage in front of workers, reproaching him for his deceitful
promises, but only those who at the time took a class position against both Remain and Brexit, for
class autonomy from both capitalist alternatives, could do so.
The founding of a new party, especially one with a fairly large following (in terms of votes), is
always an interesting political phenomenon because it expresses a movement in society and, in this
case, specifically in the British proletariat, which in recent years has been the protagonist of
multiple trade union struggles, albeit always unfortunately fragmented, and has participated in its
most advanced forms in the broad movement denouncing Zionist genocide. But as far as the
struggle against war and capitalism that generates it is concerned, this new party is not only useless,
but harmful, very harmful, because it spreads the illusion that the rush to war and the war economy
can be stopped with a ballot paper, when more than two centuries of history prove otherwise.
No credit, therefore, to Corbyn’s party, a pale copy of the US DSA, another set of snake
charmers whose totally negative role in the class-conscious and revolutionary maturation of the
acute social contradictions in the United States is obvious to comrades who have studied their
ideology and actions.
No credit, and certainly no alliance! We therefore sincerely hope that the SWP will reconsider its
current inclination to join the new electoral coalition. It would inevitably become its spare wheel,
despite the best of intentions, and would become jointly responsible for the political disaster that
this new coalition will produce.
Post-scriptum – Our criticism in no way calls into question the class-based united front within movements of
struggle: we are talking here about relations between parties. The two issues are not at all
equivalent.
August, 7
