FOR the Labour left, I would argue that what is happening to socialists and socialism, in general, is one of the major consequences of Corbyn’s leadership not taking the threat the centrists offered seriously enough.
              
If anything Corbyn was too nice. Corbyn offered the hand of unity to all the Labour movement to build a party that would address the issues that so desperately required attention, such as saving the NHS from the clutches of the capitalists, more social housing, workers’ rights and green issues — to name but a few.

However, while accepting the offer with one hand, the centrists, metaphorically speaking, concealed a dagger for Corbyn’s back in the other.

Labour had one of the nicest and strongest political leaders ever. I can’t recall any other leader that has had to endure the sustained and vile attacks not only from the media but from commentators and former MPs that he once called comrades, all to bring him down.

Yet through all this, socialists that are Labour Party members are being urged to “stay and fight.”

There is now a situation under the current leadership, whereby former Tory MP John Bercow, yes, from the very party that along with the Lib Dems unleashed a savage austerity regime on the poorest in society, feels comfortable enough to cross the floor to join Labour.

Running parallel to this, Starmer has failed to restore the whip to Corbyn and at the time of writing, Ken Loach, a man who has done more over the decades to highlight the problems faced by the poorest in society than the vast majority of politicians, is in danger of being expelled.

In addition, other groups such as Resist, Socialist Appeal, Labour in Exile Network and Labour Against the Witch Hunt have been banned and members who openly claim that the anti-semitism allegations are overblown could also be expelled from Labour.

Still, the message for socialists is to “stay and fight.”

Be under no illusion, Starmer has changed the direction of the Labour Party forever, in the same way the removal of Clause IV under Blair’s watch changed Labour.

Labour had always been a party for members with a broad range of views — this is no longer the case.

It is now no longer acceptable for Labour Party members to take to social media and express their thoughts and opinions on Israel, as they can on the injustice shown by agencies in the US when dealing with peaceful protest.

If they do, their views are in danger of being flagged as anti-semitism.

Aside from this, if reports are true, there also appears to be a McCarthy-type witch-hunt of Labour members that express views that could be seen as promoting communism.

This attack on the left is fooling no-one. It is crystal clear that Starmer, in his bid to emulate Tony Blair in 1997, wants a Labour Party that has no room for any members that have any views to the left of centre.

This of course is all based on the assumption that at the next general election, voters, whether they hold a communist view or not, if they want to be rid of this Tory government have no other mainstream party to turn to except Labour.

Besides, as the old saying goes, a bad Labour government is better than any Tory government — right?

Well, actually no, that’s not a view I share. Nor do I suspect it’s a view shared by the families of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis that were sacrificed in the lust for war by Bush and Blair under the pretence of looking for weapons of mass destruction that it is alleged they knew never existed.

Nor is it shared, I imagine, by many trade unionists who after 13 years of a Labour government, found themselves facing the same restrictive trade union laws brought in by the Tories.

While I disagree with them, I respect comrades that have chosen to remain in the Labour Party, but I believe they are missing one important point.

Labour’s 2010 general election defeat was the consequence of Labour’s actions in government.

Following the loss, senior Labour MPs were falling over themselves saying “we get it” while another said “we’ve had a kick in the behind.”

Yet despite the “we hear what you're saying” mantra, come the 2015 general election and another manifesto, when Ed Balls as shadow chancellor threw down the gauntlet to his counterpart George Osborne, the challenge was not who would be better at helping the poorest in society, but who could be the toughest.

We were asked to “hold our nose” and vote for the least of two evils. An easy statement to make if you are not one of the poorest in society, which thankfully I’m not. For those who were, both evils offered nothing but more misery and trips to the food bank.

Hence the reason why those that are in the poverty trap feel unrepresented and are more likely not to vote at all, which always enhances the Tory vote — and who can blame them? Once again, the consequence of Labour’s actions was the loss of another election, which ultimately resulted in Corbyn becoming the leader.

However Labour’s loss in 2019 was not the result of bad policies or leadership, but due to centrists within Labour conspiring to prevent a socialist Labour government led by Corbyn, who may have proved that another way was possible. There have to be consequences for their actions.

Come the next general election, if Labour continues with its direction of travel and continues to follow a right-wing agenda while at the same time silencing those on the left that have remained in Labour, or expelled those that have spoken out on issues such as Palestine or promoted communism, are we as socialists once again being expected to vote for the “lesser of two evils?”  

If that happened and Labour came to power led by Starmer or another leader that ran on a similar agenda, where are the consequences for their actions of conspiring to prevent a socialist government?

Where are the consequences for Labour’s actions in shutting down all effective criticism of the Labour leader, preventing Labour members from calling out vexatious claims of anti-semitism, calling out the injustice shown to Palestinians, expelling former communists while welcoming former Tories? Where are the consequences?

Surprisingly, some comrades who have “stayed to fight” have suggested that if Labour were to win a general election, albeit with a centre-right policies, the left would be in a better position to influence change within the party.

This begs the question why a Labour Party that had just won an election with pro-capitalist policies and silenced criticism of Israel while distancing itself from all forms of socialism would consider moving the party left? If anything, it would justify the decisions it had taken — and that’s why there have to be consequences for Labour’s actions now.

If not, Labour will be forever a centrist, right-wing party with left-wing members that have agreed to sell their voices as the price of membership.