Skip to content

Lunacy in London or Starmers Washington disaster

Marxist Theory · 2024-09-13

Core Argument

The article argues that Keir Starmer's September 2024 visit to Washington represented a catastrophic miscalculation rooted in a delusional understanding of Britain's place in the world. Starmer arrived expecting to secure US approval for Ukraine to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles against targets deep inside Russian territory, having been led to believe by Antony Blinken's carefully planted leaks that a deal was imminent. Instead, Biden humiliated him by refusing to agree, exposing the reality that the much-vaunted "Special Relationship" is not a partnership of equals but the relationship between a master and his butler. The deeper thesis is that the British political establishment — both Labour and Conservative — suffers from a collective inability to accept that the British Empire is dead, and that this delusion is driving them toward reckless warmongering that risks nuclear escalation while Ukraine's military position collapses.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on the Marxist understanding of the state and inter-imperialist rivalry, but does so through the lens of national decline and ruling-class delusion rather than through formal economic categories. The article implicitly deploys Lenin's theory of imperialism as a system of uneven and combined development, showing how Britain's ruling class continues to act as though it remains a first-rank imperial power when its material basis for such a role has long since evaporated. The "butler and master" metaphor is not merely rhetorical — it captures the objective subordination of British capital to US imperialism, a relationship that British politicians refuse to acknowledge.

The article also draws on the Marxist critique of the "liberal interventionist" wing of the bourgeoisie, showing how figures like Starmer, Lammy, and the five former defence secretaries represent a faction that is both more belligerent than its US counterpart and more detached from reality. This connects to the classical Marxist analysis of how declining powers often produce the most aggressive and irrational foreign policies — the desperation of a ruling class that cannot reconcile its self-image with its actual position in the world order.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article is situated in a specific moment: September 2024, when Ukraine's military position was deteriorating rapidly. The Kursk incursion had failed to achieve its objectives, Pokrovsk was on the verge of collapse, and Ukraine was losing up to 2,000 dead and wounded daily. Zelensky's demand for long-range missiles was a desperate gamble to provoke direct NATO-Russia confrontation, since he could no longer win conventionally.

The conjuncture is defined by three intersecting crises:

  1. Ukraine's military defeat: The article claims the war is "lost irrevocably" — a position that was controversial in mainstream discourse at the time but has since become increasingly accepted. The material basis for this claim is the collapse of Ukrainian manpower reserves, with young men fleeing abroad to avoid conscription.

  2. Divisions within the US state: The article identifies a split between the Pentagon and CIA (opposed to escalation) and figures like Blinken (pushing for it). Biden is portrayed as a figurehead, no longer in control, being pulled in different directions by competing factions.

  3. Britain's delusional self-image: The five former defence secretaries — Grant Shapps, Ben Wallace, Gavin Williamson, Penny Mordaunt, Liam Fox — plus Boris Johnson, are presented as the most extreme warmongers, demanding unilateral British action even without US support. The article exposes the technical impossibility of this: Storm Shadow missiles require US GPS guidance and satellite targeting, meaning Britain cannot act independently.

The article also notes the domestic context: Starmer cut the £300 winter fuel allowance for pensioners while spending £12.5 billion on Ukraine, demonstrating the class priorities of his government.

Where the Argument Continues

This article is part of a sustained intervention by Alan Woods and the In Defence of Marxism platform on the Ukraine war. It explicitly references the author's "last article" from 13 September 2024, which presumably laid out the strategic situation in more detail. The argument continues in several directions:

  • Against the Stream episodes: The podcast regularly covers Ukraine, NATO expansion, and the dynamics of inter-imperialist rivalry. Episodes from this period would likely develop the analysis of US-Russian relations and the internal contradictions within NATO.

  • IDOM articles on the "Special Relationship": The article's central metaphor — Britain as America's butler — is a recurring theme in Woods' writing, and would be developed in other pieces examining Britain's subordination to US foreign policy.

  • The broader Marxist analysis of the Ukraine war: The RCI's position — that the war is an inter-imperialist proxy conflict in which the working class has no stake — is elaborated across multiple articles and pamphlets. This article focuses on one episode, but the theoretical framework is developed elsewhere.

  • The question of nuclear escalation: The article touches on the danger of World War III but does not fully develop the analysis of how nuclear powers manage escalation. This is addressed in other IDOM pieces on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the theory of nuclear deterrence.

Connections

  • Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: The theoretical foundation for understanding inter-imperialist rivalry and the uneven development of capitalist powers.

  • Trotsky, The War and the International: Trotsky's analysis of how declining imperial powers produce the most aggressive and irrational foreign policies.

  • Alan Woods, "The Ukraine War: A Marxist Analysis" (IDOM): The broader framework for understanding the conflict as an inter-imperialist proxy war.

  • Against the Stream, episodes on NATO expansion: The podcast regularly covers the historical context of NATO's eastward expansion and the Russian response.

  • IDOM articles on the British ruling class: The analysis of Britain's decline and the delusions of its political elite is a recurring theme, with parallels to Woods' writings on the Suez Crisis and the Iraq War.

  • The "Istanbul Agreement" of April 2022: The article references Boris Johnson's sabotage of peace negotiations at Washington's behest — this is a key piece of evidence for the RCI's claim that the war could have been ended early but was deliberately prolonged.

Key Quotes

  1. "The much-vaunted 'Special Relationship' does, in fact, exist. However, there is a comical misunderstanding on the British side as to its exact nature. It is the relationship between a butler and his master. Neither more, nor less."

  2. "The real reason for his persistent demand to use missiles against targets deep inside Russian territory is to provoke a conflict that will drag the Americans into a direct military confrontation with Russia. In that way, the Americans can do the fighting on his behalf."

  3. "By repeatedly provoking and pushing the Russians through constant escalation into a more belligerent stance, you are, in effect, gambling with the lives of millions of people. A greater crime against the people of this planet is difficult to imagine."

  4. "The constant vacillations over the missile question is a manifestation of profound divisions within the administration."

  5. "The fact of the matter is that the war in Ukraine is now lost, and there is absolutely nothing that Britain or America can do to change that. And no amount of bluster and bluff in the columns of the Sunday Times can alter that."

  6. "If the Americans decide to equip their Ukrainian proxies with sophisticated weapons for use against Russia, the Russians will feel free to deliver equally sophisticated weapons to their friends and allies, for example in the Middle East."