Andy Beckett’s recent article in The Guardian highlights the
political crisis facing Britain’s liberal intellectuals. It describes the
growth of a reactionary movement opposed to immigration and equality, but fails
to explain why it emerged or how to combat it. The article is a lament from a
social class that has lost direction, still holding onto outdated beliefs about
a political system that is no longer relevant.[1]
Beckett's depiction of a “right-wing counter-revolution”
actually reflects a capitalist system in deep crisis. However, since he refuses
to recognise the class roots of this crisis, he replaces analytical
understanding with moral outrage. The article considers the rise of the right
wing primarily as a cultural anomaly rather than a class problem. Beckett
explains that opposition from Reform UK, the Conservatives under Badenoch, and
far-right street groups is driven by resistance to “multiculturalism” and
“equality.” He references Nigel Farage’s claim that “anti-whiteness is
institutionalised into every aspect of public life' and notes the
Conservatives’ pledge to abolish the public sector equality duty.
He sees these shifts as the result of bad ideas spreading or
a small elite manipulating public discourse. This is a common misconception
among liberals. The growth of the far right is not mainly due to "culture
wars.” Instead, it's fuelled by years of austerity that have impoverished
millions, caused real wages to fall, hollowed out public services, intensified
imperialist conflicts, and a political elite—Labour included—that fails to
provide progressive solutions to the capitalist crisis.
Under these conditions, the ruling class resorts to
authoritarianism, nationalism, and xenophobia to redirect social unrest away
from itself. The far right is not an external menace but a weapon used by the
political establishment. Beckett cannot recognise this because doing so would
amount to criticising the entire political system he endorses.
When addressing Becket’s assertion, it’s important to see
that Labour isn’t ignoring the right; instead, it’s actively backing it. Becket
portrays Labour under Keir Starmer as hesitant, misguided, or excessively
cautious. He claims that Labour’s sporadic opposition and overall appeasement
have been ineffective, and points out that the party has shown Union flags and
adopted stricter immigration policies.
This is a significant distortion. Labour isn't merely trying
to appease the right; it is actively part of the right-wing agenda. Starmer has
adopted nationalism and militarism, promised to strengthen borders, supported
austerity measures, endorsed the government’s foreign policies—including its
alignment with US militarism—and has overseen crackdowns on protests and
dissent. Labour even considers reactionary grievances, such as the false notion
of a surge in immigration, as legitimate. This isn't just a strategic
mistake—it reflects the party’s fundamental political stance.
Labour’s purpose is to diminish left-wing ideas among the
working class and direct dissatisfaction into safe, nationalist, pro-capitalist
outlets. The far right advances because Labour has disconnected from the
working class. Beckett cannot admit this, as it would mean recognising that
Labour is not a defender against reaction but one of its creators.
Beckett’s suggested approach is to revive the spirit of Ken
Livingstone’s Greater London Council (1981–86) and imitate Sadiq Khan’s
rhetorical stance on diversity. His nostalgia for the GLC and Khan reflects a
liberal fantasy and leans toward political escapism. The GLC’s campaigns—like
the poster stating “Black people do not cause slums… They are forced to live in
them”—were rhetorically striking but primarily focused on municipal reform.
They did not challenge the underlying capitalist property relations. Thatcher’s
swift abolition of the GLC was because it posed no real threat to the ruling
class. Livingstone himself later became a loyal Labour figure, presiding over a
London transformed into a playground for finance capital.
Today, Khan’s London stands as one of the most unequal
cities globally. While he lauds diversity, the city is primarily driven by
global finance, leading to the displacement of working-class areas, the
demolition of public housing, and rising social inequality. Reform UK’s poor
performance in London does not signify Khan’s success; rather, it highlights
the city’s social stratification—its professional-managerial class is deeply
connected to global capitalism and shows limited concern for Farage’s economic nationalism.
Beckett’s narrow view of London reflects a liberal middle-class perspective
that mistakes its social reality for a political strategy.
Certainly, the so-called “right-wing counter-revolution”
exists, but Beckett misidentifies what it targets. He cautions that the
backlash “rarely stops,” which is true. However, he misunderstands what is
being reversed. The actual counter-revolution isn't directed at
“multiculturalism” or the 2010 Equality Act. Instead, it opposes the social
advancements achieved by the working class after the war, including the NHS,
social housing, free education, secure jobs, trade union rights, and the
welfare state.
Both Conservative and Labour administrations have
consistently eroded these advances. The Equality Act, lauded by Beckett as a
major achievement, was enacted under a Labour government that also engaged in
imperialist wars and broadened surveillance. The liberal emphasis on
“diversity” masks the underlying class issues: the working class—regardless of
ethnicity—is being pushed into poverty, instability, and political exclusion.
Britain is not facing a sudden “backlash” against equality
or multiculturalism. Instead, it is experiencing the deliberate creation of
reaction by a ruling class that has exhausted all democratic and reformist
options for addressing the capitalist crisis. The far right is not an outsider
insurgent threatening the political system; rather, it is a distorted mirror of
the establishment, created to divert public anger away from the true causes of
social suffering.
For over ten years, since the Brexit referendum exposed the
contradictions within British capitalism, the political elite has increasingly
turned to nationalism, xenophobia, and authoritarian measures. Reform UK, the
Conservative right, the billionaire media, and various online reactionaries are
not separate entities. They serve as the ideological fighters for a system that
no longer maintains power through consent.
Nigel Farage’s claim that Britain is a “two-tier state
against white people” goes beyond fringe rhetoric and illustrates a wider
political strategy: directing anger over declining living standards,
overburdened public services, and ongoing conflicts towards minority groups
like immigrants, Muslims, and the idea of “wokeness.” The Conservatives’ plans
to abolish even the modest public sector equality duty support this approach.
Overall, the ruling elite is systematically removing legal and ideological barriers
to openly adopt racialised nationalism as official policy.
The small number of Britons holding these opinions is not
important. Historically, reactionary minorities have often influenced a fearful
bourgeoisie, supported by the media, and they dominate the national debate.
Meanwhile, the liberal middle class becomes passive, and the working class
faces political marginalisation.
The liberal perspective argues that Labour under Keir
Starmer is too timid, too cautious, and excessively eager to appease the right.
However, this is a comforting illusion. Labour’s embrace of Union-flag
nationalism, tough immigration policies, condemnations of protests, and its
proximity to the security forces are not just mistakes but fundamental elements
of the party’s identity.
Labour functions as the party representing the interests of
the capitalist state. Its main purpose is to quash left-wing movements within
the working class and channel social discontent into socially acceptable
channels, such as nationalism and pro-imperialist policies. Starmer’s emphasis
on “strong borders” and “restoring order” isn't a right-wing concession but
rather the core ideological basis of his administration. This leads to a
foreseeable outcome: socially conservative voters, who favour genuine right-wing
nationalism, dislike Labour, and liberals, sensing the party’s superficiality,
abandon it—meanwhile, the far right gains influence because Labour has
inadvertently validated its fundamental ideas.
The right-wing counter-revolution primarily targets the
social advances secured by the working class in the 20th century, such as the
NHS, social housing, free education, secure jobs, trade union rights, and the
welfare state. These achievements have been gradually weakened over decades by
both Conservative and Labour governments. The reactionary push now aims to finalise
this process by dismantling the political and social structures that have
allowed the working class to resist.
Beckett’s optimistic view—that Labour, possibly allied with
other “progressive” parties, might stop the right-wing surge—is the last
illusion of a political trend that has run its course. The right-wing
counter-revolution cannot be halted through better messaging, more confident
liberal leaders, or a resurgence of 1980s municipal radicalism.
It requires independent political action by the working
class, united internationally around an anti-capitalist, anti-system platform
aimed at overthrowing capitalism itself. This crisis is systemic. The far right
is merely a symptom, Labour is complicit, and liberalism has run its course.
The goal now is to develop revolutionary leadership capable of uniting workers
from diverse backgrounds in the fight for socialism.
[1] The right-wing counter-revolution is gaining ground – and Labour’s softly-softly approach won’t stop it- www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/17/the-rightwing-counter-revolution-labour-multiculturalism-equality-london
