Left-wing populism’s one per cent problem
City of London (Shutterstock)
Populism is pretty hot right now. While much has been written about right-wing populism in Europe, Brexit and Trump, their mirror image is simultaneously on the rise in the form of hard left movements across Europe and North America. Populism is blooming across the political spectrum, not just on the right. Corbyn’s Labour Party might be the most radical opposition in British history. In two weeks’ time, they may be in government.
Left-wing populism — whether Syriza in Greece, Bernie Sanders in America or Germany’s Die Linke — can be understood primarily as an economic rejection of austerity following the 2008 market crash, with each version driven by powerful Marxist movements, Momentum in the UK being a prime example.
On the face of it, most of these left-wing populists have justifiable complaints. The neoliberal order does not seem to be providing the kind of living standards it promised decades ago. The new hard Left, like its forerunners in 1968, is a shifting alliance between disgruntled Labour movements and starry-eyed university graduates with visions of a better tomorrow.
Such an alliance is not entirely natural and may at some point collapse, yet for now it is held together in every case by a singular motif: tax the rich, or rather tax the one per cent. Let’s take Corbyn’s Labour manifesto. It promises huge spending increases alongside massive changes to workers’ rights. To pay for his agenda, Corbyn has promised only to tax those earning above £80,000 — although this isn’t strictly true, as taxes on business and share dividends will also affect lower earners. Is there anything more “populist” than this? Corbyn proposes to improve the lives of the majority by taxing a tiny minority. It’s no wonder he has his supporters.
There’s one small snag. What if the one per cent doesn’t pay? To be clear, I’m not referring to tax evasion, although that is always going to exist. What’s to stop this tiny number of fat cats, whom Corbyn expects to fund his government, simply moving their assets out of the UK?
I haven’t heard a Corbyn or Bernie Sanders supporter address this issue. Are we to assume that the rich will simply accept their new situation? The idea that they will suddenly discover a sense of moral responsibility flies in the face of the Left’s entire narrative — that capitalism produces greedy, immoral billionaires who care nothing for wider society.
Perhaps the Left assumes that in the UK the one per cent are tied to the land, like aristocrats of old? Not so. Our one per cent can move their assets in hours or even seconds, and our manufacturing sector isn’t looking too sharp these days. Britain is a service economy. Such an exodus has already happened in France, where the socialist government was eventually replaced by Macron’s neoliberal En Marche.
What of other socialist countries? How do they deal with this? Well, we have plenty of history to look back on. Let us assume the Labour manifesto is honest and they don’t slide in other tax increases on the middle class. They would be entirely reliant on the one per cent that funded them, to the point where they would have to provide some kind of quid pro quo. This would inevitably lead to an oligarchy.
Imagine a Britain where a tiny number of elites control the nation’s wealth while being protected by Corbyn’s Labour Party. Sounds a bit like Putin’s Russia, doesn’t it? Of course, our natural resources aren’t on the same level as Russia’s. As you can see, it’s hard to see how Corbyn would ever convince these people to stay. And even if he succeeded, would the resulting oligarchy, which would surely emerge, solve the concerns of the typical Labour voter? I’m not sure.
If I had to guess, a Corbyn government would quickly dissolve and be replaced by a Macron figure, or perhaps someone further right. Either way, fully automated luxury communism isn’t on the horizon, here or anywhere else. Of course, I might’ve missed something obvious. Andrew Neil asked Jeremy Corbyn this question in their interview and the Labour leader completely dodged it. I would love to hear a response to this problem from an intelligent (and honest) Lefty.
