Labour: fighting for imperialism
- Details
- Created: Wednesday, 22 April 2015 14:35
- Written by Joey Simons
The last Labour government waged war against Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. It remains just as bellicose:
- The assault on Libya, 2011. Only nine Labour MPs opposed Ed Miliband when he supported the NATO ‘no-fly zone’ amidst a hysterical climate demonising Colonel Gaddafi.
- Intervention in Syria, August 2013. Although Labour voted against a motion to join the US in launching airstrikes on Syria, it did not oppose military action provided it had UN blessing.
- Airstrikes on Iraq, September 2014. Labour supported airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq with just 23 of its MPs opposing a return to war. Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander said Labour’s support for extending operations into Syria would not be conditional on UN authorisation, declaring that ‘the UK’s moral compass is not set in Moscow and Beijing’.
- Sanctions against Russia in 2014: Alexander has been equally belligerent over the Ukraine crisis, stating in July that ‘Labour has called for further economic and diplomatic measures to ensure that Russia feels both the costs and consequences of its continued aggression towards Ukraine’. He has urged Russia’s expulsion from the G8, the suspension of military and civilian co-operation, and questioned whether Russia should host the 2018 World Cup. In February 2015 he supported the despatch of 75 British military advisers to the Ukrainian army.
Joey Simons
Owen Jones has become a celebrity on the left with his newspaper columns, first in The Independent and more recently in The Guardian. He is a major figure in the People’s Assembly, and can command substantial audiences when he speaks on its platforms across the country. His new book is a polemic against what he calls the Establishment, and it reads like an extended newspaper column in that it contains myriad useful facts and sharp observations for those wanting to fight back against austerity, but ultimately lacks real substance. His method is idealist: he cannot tie his Establishment down to the realities of British imperialism. As a result his conclusion, that Britain needs a democratic revolution to undermine the power of the Establishment, not only underestimates the scale of the struggle that this would require, but also fails to point to the agency for such a change. Furthermore, his failure to deal with the reactionary Labour Party leads the reader to conclude that however radical his politics seem, he will join those calling on us to vote Labour at next year’s general election.
