Yesterday, amongst its coverage of the farce that is the General Election campaign, the BBC had this snippet to offer which sums up the entire thing;
All three main parties have conceded job losses will result from cuts in public sector budgets as the row over their spending plans has continued.I write this for the benefit of those comrades who, sharing a lot of my thoughts and ideas on politics, disagree with my abstention from the charade of electoral politics. In itself, it provides an excellent rebuttal to the idea that - in areas where it matters - political parties are not all the same.
The Tories have said vacant posts will be axed in order to meet their £12bn savings target next year but have ruled out any compulsory redundancies.
A senior Lib Dem MP said it was "dishonest" to pretend there would not be job losses over the next four years.
And a Labour minister said public sector employment would shrink.
In the instance of the BNP and other fascist parties, there are a variety of arguments on this point. Yes, if there really is no other way to stop them gaining power, it is excusable to go down to the polling office, hold your nose, and put a tactical cross by somebody else's name in the hope of denying them enough votes to get into office. But it shouldn't come to that.
The whole point of abstention from voting is not apathy. The message of anarchists isn't "don't vote, don't do anything," it's "don't vote, organise!" This means working together within our communities and workplaces to solve problems for ourselves and to reclaim the power, and so it is with antifascism. The BNP and groups like them don't get into office because their argument has merit and they're a positive voice. They get in because people are justifiably pissed off with mainstream politics and, due to the utter failure of the left to respond to this, have nowhere else to turn.
The response to this shouldn't be to mobilise the middle classes to drown out the protest vote and shout "racist" at the white working class, as groups such as Unite Against Fascism do. It should be, firstly, to counter the idea that the BNP offer any form of alternative to mainstream politics. In the recent By-Elections in Fazakerley, Liverpool Antifascists did this. Labour leafletted the ward once. The Lib Dems barely covered a quarter of it. Merseyside BNP leafletted the ward three times over, canvassed, and had their infamous Lie Lorry out to spread their bullshit to as many people as possible. Liverpool Antifascists delivered 5,000 plus leaflets in the ward, hammering home a simple but effective message: "We fully understand why white working-class communities feel abandoned by politicians. But a vote for the BNP is NOT a so-called 'protest vote' - it is a vote for FASCISM."
The results speak for themselves: the BNP's vote in the ward was half that in the previous election there. The message of working class anti-fascism worked.
But it's not just a question of getting across why the BNP aren't an alternative, it's also a matter of building that alternative for ourselves. This ties into the question of "keeping the Tories out." How will not voting help when the Tories get into power and decimate our jobs and services?
In itself, it won't. But how will voting help when which party wins the election doesn't lie with the working class at all but with the "swing" voters of Middle England? To take Liverpool, the Tories have virtually no chance whatsoever of taking the city, with Garston, Walton, Riverside, and West Derby all being considered safe seats (Walton perhaps Labour's safest seat in the country) and only Wavertree facing any effective challenge to Labour dominance - by the Liberal Democrats.
What will help is organised resistance by ordinary people, on the streets and on the picket lines. Keeping the Tories out will not stop vicious public sector cuts and job losses. It will not stop further attacks on the poorest under the auspices of "workfare." The major problem with keeping the Tories out is that, although in itself a good thing, it still leaves us with New Labour.
As Johann Hari put it in an op-ed for Friday's Independent;
Money being endlessly shovelled up to the top by the state is considered the natural state of affairs; anybody trying to speak for the interests of the majority is considered a rude and irrational "warrior." These premises were best rebuffed by the billionaire Warren Buffett, who quipped: "Let's face it – if there's a class war, my side's winning."I don't doubt that there have been some incredibly positive changes in the past thirteen years. This, indeed, is the point of Hari's piece;
Yet the media is trying to render all of this taboo, by claiming that any discussion of class is an attack on Cameron's childhood at Eton. One front page screamed: "Now The Class War Begins!" – referring not to Cameron's policies, but Gordon Brown's mild reference to himself as "middle class." But how can the British people know what they are choosing, if we can't discuss which class will benefit from Cameron – and which classes will lose?
Yes, the differences between New Labour and the Conservatives are far too small, on this as on all issues. There are myriad ways in which the current Government has also spoon-fed the super-rich. They cheer-led the economy-crashing deregulation of the banks; they turned Britain into a de facto tax haven for non-doms; when you add it all up, a tycoon still scandalously pays a lower proportion of his income in tax than his secretary.But Hari makes the mistake of assuming that Labour is being "intimidated into silence" on the issue of the media creating a "false middle" out of the upper classes in order to promote politics that ignores the interests of ordinary people. He automatically translates a point against the Tories into a point for Labour, and blames their failure to capitalise on this as a "lapse."
But it is wrong to say, on this issue, there is no difference at all. The gap is real, and millions of people live in that gap. The Institute of Fiscal Studies just published a long-term study of how Labour's tax changes have affected different classes, compared to the last Tory government. It found that the richest 10 per cent have seen their incomes cut by 9 per cent, to pay for an increase in the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. A rich man has lost on average £25,000 a year; a poor woman has gained on average £1,700 a year. I have seen these changes among my own family and friends: gaining £1,700 is the difference between struggling to pay the bills, or being able to give your kids a summer holiday. Yes, there should have been much more – but the cigarette paper between the parties is big enough to make a pretty fat roll-up.
Cameron's policies make it pretty plain: this redistribution will be slammed into reverse by him, with state cash flowing in the opposite direction. Is this due to the fact that Cameron has lived his life in a bubble of extreme privilege, and thinks it is natural that People Like Us should be the primary beneficiaries of government action? This is a question that matters – but it needs to be answered carefully. It is idiotic to attack somebody for a decision their parents made when they were a child, or money they earned before he was conceived. There's nothing wrong with being an Etonian: George Orwell went to Eton, and went on to become the greatest left-winger this country has ever produced.
The problem isn't Cameron's extreme privilege – it is that he has never tried to see beyond it.
So, yes, it will almost certainly get a whole lot worse if the Tories get in. But if Labour hold power it won't get any better. We cannot end the injustices of capitalism, or push back the class war waged by the bosses, with a ballot paper. All we can do is help determine how dovish or hawkish that class war will be. Reform may force a concession or two out of the ruling class, but if we want real change we're going to have to make it.
An integral part of communism is the notion that workers can run the workplace without bosses. Anarchists believe the same about local communities and political leaders. The former do not need the latter, and the only way to prove that is to put it into action by organising for resistance ... and revolution.