The 2017 general election may not have ended in a total victory for the Labour Party, but it was in so many ways a huge personal victory for Jeremy Corbyn and a massive personal defeat for Theresa May. Everything the Prime Minister stood for has been put to the sword; she has put the future of her country at risk and she has the lost the respect of her Party. After a successful campaign Corbyn and McDonnell need to take credit for re-founding the Labour Party to the Left; a 'rebranding' the like of which has not been seen since Blair and Brown shifted the Party to the Centre Right. The period has ended which saw Labour wandering aimlessly in the a political vacuum, chasing rainbows, this is indeed the second New Dawn. Gone, are the political science graduates, focus group policy makers, and media moguls; back are the authentic leaders of the British Working Class. New Labour is dead, long live political authenticity.
However, whilst the political momentum is with the Socialists in the field, there are still the Nationalist castles to overcome. True, the UKIP vote has collapsed, but in favour of the Tories by a ratio of 2:1. The Tories now represent the Unionist vote in Scotland and will rely on the Unionist vote in Northern Ireland to govern. According to these facts, for the Nationalist vote, Brexit was less about immigration and more about the Sovereignty of the UK. For Sovereignty, read power; and for power read the triumvirate of war: the oil, arms, and finance industries. In contrast, Corbyn has been unable to avoid his association with Sinn Fein, his pacifist principles and his sympathies for unilateral disarmament.
So what has attracted voters back to him from UKIP? Arguably it is the Re-Nationalisation of our vital public services.
On immigration Corbyn, along with many other Marxists in the trade union movement, believe that freedom of movement is bad if it involves an increased supply and exploitation of labour that drives UK wages down. Thus, he wants to restrict freedom of movement in the EU, but only in traditional manual labour occupations. On the other hand he is not against the internationalist aspirations of EU University graduates who continue to be net contributors to the UK economy. Thus, Corbyn want a form of 'quota system' and managed migration. Although few commentators have drawn attention to it, this position is not that different to UKIP's position. Both Left and Right wing now seem to agree with the basic Marxist theory, that wealth is created via the exploitation of labor. They simply differ in their moral attitudes towards that fact.
But the Democratic Socialism espoused by the UK Labour Party, and therefore Corbyn, is not Marxist. After all it is not Marxist to want to eradicate the inequalities between the upper and working classes (and the basis of the Aristocratic/Feudal system) through growing a capital owning Middle Class. It does not entail a proletarian revolution but it does require trade routes to international markets whose security is 'underwritten' by the Nation State. It is not Marxist to want to maintain democracy, educational opportunity and freedom of speech: empowering individuals to question and challenge the abuse of power. It is petit bourgeois, perhaps, but only in the sense that it requires a professionalised Middle Class who carry their capital assets with them in their knowledge, skills, attitudes and languages; these commodities are valuable to the Upper Classes because they have greater evolutionary potential than the people who possess them. Thus, the class consciousness of the Middle Class poses a threat to Feudalism but it could be the bastion of Capitalism. A Middle Class consciousness tends to recognise that it is not accessible to all; and some degree of redistribution of wealth needs to be dictated by government in order to balance the needs of the many with the wealth of the few; but it sees that the level of redistribution has to be set at an acceptable level, that does not extinguish the aspirations of Capitalism.
Thus, clealry, it is not Marxist to want to grow a macro-economic, international focused, capitalist economy, based on the contradictory forces of individual diversity and economic inequality. But there does appear to be a post-Marxist consensus forming that wants to use those contradictory forces to justify the regulation of the socio-economic gradients. Going forward, I believe this means that all the material assets of the nation state should be held under common, public ownership; with the division between public and private ownership being based on the division between the general needs and specific abilities of its citizens to maintain and increase the sum total of good quality life years. The sum quality adjusted life years is the metric used by the NHS to make its life and death decisions. This should replace GDP as a measure of the success of our modern political-economic system.
However, whilst the political momentum is with the Socialists in the field, there are still the Nationalist castles to overcome. True, the UKIP vote has collapsed, but in favour of the Tories by a ratio of 2:1. The Tories now represent the Unionist vote in Scotland and will rely on the Unionist vote in Northern Ireland to govern. According to these facts, for the Nationalist vote, Brexit was less about immigration and more about the Sovereignty of the UK. For Sovereignty, read power; and for power read the triumvirate of war: the oil, arms, and finance industries. In contrast, Corbyn has been unable to avoid his association with Sinn Fein, his pacifist principles and his sympathies for unilateral disarmament.
So what has attracted voters back to him from UKIP? Arguably it is the Re-Nationalisation of our vital public services.
On immigration Corbyn, along with many other Marxists in the trade union movement, believe that freedom of movement is bad if it involves an increased supply and exploitation of labour that drives UK wages down. Thus, he wants to restrict freedom of movement in the EU, but only in traditional manual labour occupations. On the other hand he is not against the internationalist aspirations of EU University graduates who continue to be net contributors to the UK economy. Thus, Corbyn want a form of 'quota system' and managed migration. Although few commentators have drawn attention to it, this position is not that different to UKIP's position. Both Left and Right wing now seem to agree with the basic Marxist theory, that wealth is created via the exploitation of labor. They simply differ in their moral attitudes towards that fact.
But the Democratic Socialism espoused by the UK Labour Party, and therefore Corbyn, is not Marxist. After all it is not Marxist to want to eradicate the inequalities between the upper and working classes (and the basis of the Aristocratic/Feudal system) through growing a capital owning Middle Class. It does not entail a proletarian revolution but it does require trade routes to international markets whose security is 'underwritten' by the Nation State. It is not Marxist to want to maintain democracy, educational opportunity and freedom of speech: empowering individuals to question and challenge the abuse of power. It is petit bourgeois, perhaps, but only in the sense that it requires a professionalised Middle Class who carry their capital assets with them in their knowledge, skills, attitudes and languages; these commodities are valuable to the Upper Classes because they have greater evolutionary potential than the people who possess them. Thus, the class consciousness of the Middle Class poses a threat to Feudalism but it could be the bastion of Capitalism. A Middle Class consciousness tends to recognise that it is not accessible to all; and some degree of redistribution of wealth needs to be dictated by government in order to balance the needs of the many with the wealth of the few; but it sees that the level of redistribution has to be set at an acceptable level, that does not extinguish the aspirations of Capitalism.
Thus, clealry, it is not Marxist to want to grow a macro-economic, international focused, capitalist economy, based on the contradictory forces of individual diversity and economic inequality. But there does appear to be a post-Marxist consensus forming that wants to use those contradictory forces to justify the regulation of the socio-economic gradients. Going forward, I believe this means that all the material assets of the nation state should be held under common, public ownership; with the division between public and private ownership being based on the division between the general needs and specific abilities of its citizens to maintain and increase the sum total of good quality life years. The sum quality adjusted life years is the metric used by the NHS to make its life and death decisions. This should replace GDP as a measure of the success of our modern political-economic system.
