Citation preview
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
1/32
Abstain: The referendum and class independence
Vote No: No support to the EU neo liberal cartel
In Defence of Trotskyism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
2/32
2
Joe Stalin (enhanced by airbrush and com- plete with
adoring halo!) personally over- saw the 1951 British Road to
Socialism:
“There is nothing socialist let alone genu- inely communist about
this ultra-patriotic bourgeois reactionary nonsense. The nar- row
and ignorant nationalist outlook of the bureaucrat found its
expression in the pro- gramme of socialism in a single country, the
corollary of peaceful co-existence with imperialism and the
reformist theory of stages in the revolution, originating in
the
Second International. It amounts to theindefinite postponement of
the struggle for socialism, the idealistic and impossible
peaceful parliamentary road to socialism, openly embraced in
1951”
Back issues of Socialist Fight and In Defence of Trotskyism
All these are available from our PO Box 59188, Lon- don, NW2
9LJ at £2.50 for Socialist Fight and £1 for
IDOT plus P+P £2. Bulk orders price available onrequest.
Alternatively current issues of Socialist Fight are available from:
Calton Books, 159 London Rd, G1 5BX Glasgow, Rebecca Books 131
Crwys Road, Cardiff, CF2 4NH, Connolly Books 43 East Essex Street
Dublin 2, Solidarity Books, 43 Douglas Street, Cork city, Ireland.
Word Power Books, 43-45 West Nicolson Street, Edinburgh, Scotland,
EH8 9DB, UK, October Books, 243 Portswood Road, South- ampton, SO17
2NG, News from Nowhere, 96 Bold St, Liverpool, Merseyside L1 4HY,
Bookmarks, 1 Bloomsbury St, London WC1B 3QE , Housmans 5 Caledonian
Rd, London N1 9DX.Housmans also carry a set of the back issues of
IDOT from No. 6.
Join Socialist Fight To join Socialist Fight or learn
more about our work and revolutionary politics contact us at
our email or PO Box address.
Socialist Fight is a member of the Liaison Committee for the Fourth
International with the Liga Comunista of Brazil and the Tendencia
Militante Bolchevique of
Argentina.
Socialist_Fight@yahoo.co.uk.
http://tmb1917.blogspot.co.uk/
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of IDOT or
SF
Vote Yes: For the Socialist United States of Europe! By Gerry
Downing…….………..p. 3
The EU referendum and class independence By Ian Donovan
……………….……….. p.15
VOTE NO! NO SUPPORT TO THE EU NEO-LIBERAL CARTEL! By Graham
Durham …………………... p. 20 End austerity. vote to leave the EU
By Michael Calderbank ………………..p. 25
Europe and the politics of fraud, By John Fuller Carr……………….…....
p. 25 For Abstention in Britain’s EU-Referendum! By RCIT
(abridged) .…...…….….……..p. 27
Vote Yes and fight for a socialist united states of Europe By
Workers Power (abridged)………….p. 29
The British Road to Socialism (1951) By Gerry
Downing…………...…...……. p.32
Contents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
3/32
3
T rotsky explained the economic and political basis for Lenin and
the Bolshevik’s interna-
tionalism in opposition to the Stalinist revisionist theory of
socialism in a single country in 1929:
“The essence of our epoch lies in this, that the produc- tive
forces have definitely outgrown the framework of the national state
and have assumed primarily in Ameri-
ca and Europe partly continental, partly world propor-tions. The
imperialist war grew out of the contradiction between the
productive forces and national boundaries. And the Versailles peace
which ter- minated the war has aggravated this contradiction still
further. In other words: thanks to the development of the
productive forces capitalism has long ago been unable to exist in a
single country. Meanwhile, socialism can and will base itself on
far more developed productive forces, otherwise socialism would
represent not progress but regression with respect to capi- talism.
In 1914 I wrote: “If the problem of socialism were compatible with
the framework of a national state, it would thereby become
compatible with national defence.” The formula Soviet United States
of Europe is precisely the political expression of the idea that
socialism is impossible in one country. Socialism cannot of course
attain its full development even in the limits of a single
continent. The Socialist United States of Europe represents the
histori- cal slogan which is a stage on the road to the world
socialist federation.” [1]
We should call for a Yes vote in the coming in-out referendum
on membership of the EU. As socialists and Trotskyists we must ask
and answer the question, is it in the interests of the working
class and oppressed in Britain and internationally for the UK to
remain in the EU or to leave it? That is our sole criterion. We are
for a Yes vote primarily because we recognise that socialism in a
single country is impossible. Indeed
as Trotsky points out above capitalism has long ago become
impossible to sustain and develop in a single country and socialism
must be built on a far higher level of wealth and productivity. An
exit from the EU would inevitably strengthen the nationalism and
patriotism not only in the British ruling class but also in a big
section of the Brit- ish working class. Trotsky, “If the
problem of socialism were compatible with the framework of a
na-
tional state, it would thereby become compatible with national
defence.”
Economic Nationalism and Stalinism Economic nationalism, calling
for import controls and the exclusion of immigrants and ‘foreign’
workers, would be enormously strengthened by an exit. This
would
Vote Yes: For the So-
cialist United States
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
4/32
4
strengthen the right wing of the Tory party, the United Kingdom
Independence party (Ukip) and fascist groups. It would also
strengthen the aristocracy of la- bour, those skilled and
privileged sections of workers with relatively good jobs, on whom
the trade union bureaucracy essentially rests. As the spokesperson
for
the trade union bureaucracy and primary ideologue of and defender
of this layerof workers the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) and
their mouthpiece, The Morning Star (MS) are the foremost
ideological advocates of exit from Europe in the labour movement.
We clearly saw this danger in the strike wave in 2009 over
British jobs for Brit-
ish workers. As we wrote then:
“Socialist Fight (SF) unequivocally opposes the current ‘wildcat’
strikes because they were called on the reactionary basis of
‘British jobs for British workers’ (BJ4BW), it was on this
xenophobic basis they were spread, with the assistance of the right
wing
media and on this basis they were tacitly endorsed by the entire
Unite and GMB lead- erships. We place the blame for this situation
squarely on the backs of the reactionary Labour movement leaders;
Gordon Brown and the Labour party leaders for endors- ing the
reactionary slogan, borrowed from the BNP, the Unite, GMB and other
TU leaderships for tacitly endorsing and pursuing negotiations on
that basis. A major
weight of responsibility also rests on the shoulders of those
left groups and organisa- tions, the Communists Party of Britain
(CPB), the Socialist Party of England and
Wales and others who have acted as left apologists for these
bureaucratic misleaders of the working class. When similar demands
were made on the French TU leadership
they immediately rejected them as reactionary chauvinism and
insisted on the de-mands like ‘we will not pay for the
bankers/capitalism’s crises.
“These are reactionary strikes for reactionary ends which can only
win by driving foreign workers out of the country and setting in
train the destruction of the entire
working class and its organisations and all their historical
gains. Fight them now, fight the reactionary leadership of the
class who are responsible for this appalling situation or it will
get worse. Do not try to find the silver lining; it is not there.
They do mean what they say. If they occupied the plant and forged
international solidarity that would be an entirely different
strike, with entirely different leaders. To pretend
otherwise is to defend the existing leaders and to prepare more
defeats. This is differ- entiating the left in Britain; it goes to
the core of class politics. Fight the reaction
without reservations and you will find new revolutionists who
will come forward to champion the interests of the class as an
international whole.” [2]
In the last referendum in 1975 the MS could boast that they were
the only news- paper to support the No campaign then, gathering
under their banner Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, Enoch
Powell, Ian Paisley, the Communist Party of Great Britain, the
Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Un- ionist party
and the Democratic Unionist party. A truly revolutionary popular
front who shared platforms without regard to class, creed or
politics but which nevertheless failed in its endeavours!
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
5/32
5
As the CPB/MS are Stalinists, the ideological foundation of
which is socialism in a single country, they invariable follow the
very patriotic line of defending capitalism in a sin-
gle country too. In fact this is the logical theoretical basis of
all who seek the parliamentary road to so- cialism.
Split in the Ruling Class The split in the ruling class over
Eu- rope is a historic one which is based on economic factors which
have existed since after WWI but have developed strongly in recent
decades. The British economy, particularly since the Thatcher
epoch, relies very heavily
on the City of London; its manufacturing base has shrunk
dramatically since the 1970s, diminished by her assault on the
working class and its historic vanguard, the miners. Economics
Help tells us:
“Manufacturing as a share of real GDP has fallen from 30% in 1970
to 12% in 2010.” [3]
“The UK had the second largest stock of inward foreign direct
investment and the second-largest stock of outward foreign direct
investment. The UK is one of the
world’s most globalised economies… the service sector
dominates the UK economy, contributing around 78% of GDP; the
financial services industry is particularly im- portant and London
is the world’s largest financial centre (tied with New York).”
[4]
Britain exited from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM),
which was preparing for monetary union, in Black Wednesday 16
September 1992 because the run on the pound showed it could not
compete economically with Germany. Germany is a far different type
of economy to Britain:
“In 2014, Germany recorded the highest trade surplus in the world
worth $285 billion, making it the biggest capital exporter
globally. Germany is the third largest exporter in the world with
$1.511 trillion exported in 2014. The service sector contributes
around 70% of the total GDP, industry 29.1%, and agriculture 0.9%.
Exports account for 41% of national output. [5]
Britain operates as a junior partner to American imperialism, it
basically takes its orders from Washington on all important matters
of economy and war. Obama
wants Britain to remain in Europe as a counterweight to
Germany. If Britain leaves Europe then Germany will be tempted to
defy the USA more frequently and to forge alliances which they see
as in their interests against the USA. On exit- ing Europe its
manufacturing base will shrink even further, it will become
even
Black Wednesday 16 September 1992: the run on the pound showed the
UK could not com- pete economically with Germany
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
6/32
6
more reliant on the City of London and more of a tool of the USA
and will follow it even more obediently into every war and conflict
without the counter-balancing
weight of the EU. A big section of the British ruling
class do not welcome this prospect. It is sig-
nificant that Britain along with Germany, France and Italy defied
the USA and
joined the China-dominated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
The fact that the USA and David Cameron oppose exit from the EU is
not an argument for exit, they are opposed to a downward spiral
towards WWIII subjectively whilst supporting the system that is
driving it. We do not oppose them in order to bring that prospect
closer politically.
Who leads the No Campaign? As the forces on each side
line up in the coming in-out referendum there are many differences
with the 1975 referendum but also many similarities. The
British
ruling class itself is seriously split on the question between a
section of the finance capital elite and manufactures and so is the
labour movement but the MS still leads the No vote on the left and
is willing to collaborate with everyone to its right to prove its
patriotism yet again.
The No camp MPs includes those on the right of the Tory party
(maybe up to 100 MPs if Cameron gets little by way of concessions
from the EU, it is ru- moured), Labour MPs Kate Hoey, Graham
Stringer, Kelvin Hopkins and Roger Godsiff and Ukip’s sole MP
Douglas Carswell. The campaign is “bankrolled by a
string of millionaire party donors, including Labour money-man John
Mills, for-mer Tory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas and spread-betting
tycoon Stuart Wheeler, who has pumped a fortune into Ukip”,
according to The Mirror . MS – influenced TU
leaders and many Stalinists influenced by its
socialism-in-a-single-country ide- ology like Arthur Scargill are
for exit as are both the Socialist Party (CWI) and the Socialist
Workers party (although the latter is far less ‘patriotic’). Jeremy
Corbyn, a long time MS columnist, has voted against the EU in the
past but is now for re- maining in.
In October 2011 then RMT president Alex Gordon made the following
social
patriotic statement to a conference of the Peoples Movement
(Ireland) in Dublin : “ The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is
demanding measures to protect particularly unskilled workers where
social dumping is threatening jobs. “It is an iron law of eco-
nomics that an abundant supply of labour pushes down its cost. It
is insulting people’s intelligence to pretend otherwise,” it said
in a statement. Across Europe, it is clear that
we are witnessing large movement of capital eastwards as
labour heads west. And this is happening in accordance to the
principles of the single European market, which allow the ‘free
movement of goods, capital, services and labour’, regardless of the
so- cial consequences. Single market rules, therefore, truncate all
forms of democracy,
including rights to fair wages, working conditions, welfare and
social protection and collective bargaining. These EU policies can
only mean a continuation of mass migra- tion and, ultimately, feed
the poison of racism and fascism, the last refuge of the cor-
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
7/32
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
8/32
8
left are speaking out over the issue. But why exactly should
left-
wingers be campaigning and advocating for a
British exit? For methere are three main reasons. The first is that
the EU is run on secre- tive decision-making.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partner- ship (TTIP)
has revealed how backdoor privatisa- tion deals can be made through
totally above-board bilateral trade agreements be- tween the EU and
the US.” [8]
The TTIP is a thoroughly reactionary agreement negotiated by
the EU. Howev- er Comrade Carl neglects to tell us in what way the
British government, or in- deed the Labour opposition up to the
election of Jeremy Corbyn, has opposed the TTIP. And if Corbyn
proves the champion to fight against it would he not be more likely
to succeed within Europe? We have just seen an absolutely huge
German demonstration in Berlin of 250,000 against it on 10 October.
That is surely the united force we need to tackle this global
attack. Because along with
TTIP is TiSA and TPP, this is a global offensive by global
imperialism, its great finance houses and its transnationals. A
global response is called for. But Pac- man demurs:
“The second reason is the existence of the EU means neoliberalism
is here to stay. I recently spoke with some Greek trade union
representatives who told me the best they can hope for is a social
EU that tones down the neoliberal agenda. This lack of hope is
tragic. In any case, it is also fantasy. The troika has effectively
won its battle
with Syriza in Greece since Alexis Tsipras has backed down.
The upshot for the country is more austerity with privatisation
measures. The likelihood that the EU is about to go softer on
neoliberal austerity measures is highly unlikely.”[9]
The likelihood that we will get a British government to
opposes neo-liberalism before 2020 is small. And even if we do it
will not be able to do it in Britain alone. This version of two
steps back in order to go one step forward will not
work. It will be two steps back followed by two more steps
back. And reason No. 3:
“Finally, the EU is inherently uninterested in creating European
harmony. Contrary to the supposed original principles of a union of
European nations, the EU today
has pitted richer countries against poorer countries. Countries in
the EU are either creditors, such as Germany and France, or
debtors, like Ireland and Greece. Loans made to Greece,
underwritten by European creditors to the previous Pasok
govern-
Carl Packman, author of Loan Sharks and Nigel Farage: “I
don’t care if a socialist heads up the campaign.”
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
9/32
9
ment, were unsustainable. The conditions for these loans
— imposed austerity
measures — made things even worse and the economy
shrank by 25 per cent from 2007-2014.”[10]
Again telling us what a terrible thing has happened to Greece
without posing anything other than a nationalist solution is worse
than useless. Even more so
for Greece than for Britain, if in a very different way. An
independent Greece in the midst of a raging global financial crisis
that could survive without the imme- diate assistance of the
working class of Europe and the world coming to its as- sistance is
a fool’s illusion.
Others to have presented basically the same MS arguments are Owen
Jones and George Monbiot. Jones begins his 13-7-15 Guardian
article, The left must put Britain’s EU withdrawal on the
agenda , thus:
“Everything good about the EU is in retreat; everything bad is on
the rampage,” writes
George Monbiot, explaining his about-turn. “All my life I’ve been
pro-Europe,” says Caitlin Moran, “but seeing how Germany is
treating Greece, I am finding it increasing- ly distasteful.” Nick
Cohen believes the EU is being portrayed “with some truth, as a
cruel, fanatical and stupid institution”. “How can the left support
what is being done?” asks Suzanne Moore. “The European ‘Union’. Not
in my name.” There are senior La- bour figures in Westminster and
Holyrood privately moving to an “out” position too.
“If anything, this new wave of left Euro scepticism represents a
reawakening. Much of the left campaigned against entering the
European Economic Community when Margaret Thatcher and the like
campaigned for membership. It was German and
French banks who benefited from the bailouts, not the Greek
economy. It would threaten the ability of leftwing governments to
implement policies, people like my parents thought, and would
forbid the sort of industrial activism needed to protect domestic
industries. But then Thatcherism happened, and an increasingly
battered and demoralised left began to believe that the only hope
of progressive legislation
was via Brussels. The misery of the left was, in the 1980s,
matched by the triumphal- ism of the free marketeers, who had
transformed Britain beyond many of their wild- est ambitions, and
began to balk at the restraints put on their dreams by the Europe-
an project.” [11]
Having rejected the left wing politics of his parents, who were Ted
Grant and Militant supporters, Jones in now busily advising Jeremy
Corbyn to tack to the right, to adopt politics in defence of
British capitalism and basically abandon any arguments for
socialism or real leftism. He wrote the following disgraceful tract
in an article on 16 September:
“That means adopting an inclusive, cheerful, positive approach:
love -bombing oppo- nents, even. Nearly 4 million people voted for
Ukip at the last election. If they are dismissed as racists rather
than working-class people who often have unanswered fears over
jobs, housing, public services and the future of their children and
grand-
children, they will be lost forever.” [12]
The puerile advice to them is that we should be “love-bombing
opponents” in-
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
10/32
10
stead of fighting reaction and demonstrating to them how wrong they
are. This is what produced Miliband’s racist immigration mug
(logo, ‘controls on immigration, I’m voting Labour 7 May’) that
went a long way to persuade those voters that their racist views
were legitimate. Enough of the “love-bombing” nonsense, fight the
cap- italist class and show these backward workers the bosses are
the real enemy and not
the immigrants. His arguments in Europe are from the same
perspective. A sort of a right wing
version of the old Militant programme of Enabling Acts passed
through parliaments with the working class as a stage army to
assist the real revolutionaries and workers in uniform and defence
of ‘British interests’ in foreign wars etc. so as to mollify reac-
tion. The blueprint for The Morning Star and Owen Jones’ arguments
is the bourgeois nationalist nonsense that is Joe Stalin’s 1951
British Road to Socialism and its global counterparts for almost
every country approved by Joe in that period. His argu-
ments on Greece and TTIP are the rehashed The Morning Star
arguments.
What is the positive case for a Yes Vote? In 1929 Trotsky
explained:
“The basic task of unification (of Europe – GD) must be
economic in character, not only in the commercial but also
productive sense. It is necessary to have a regime that would
eliminate the artificial barriers between European coal and
European iron. It is necessary to enable the system of
electrification to expand in consonance with natural and econom- ic
conditions, and not in accordance with the frontiers of Versailles.
It is necessary to
unite Europe’s railways into a single system, and so on and so
forth ad infinitum. All this, in its turn, is inconceivable without
the destruction of the ancient Chinese system of cus- tom borders
within Europe. This would, in its turn, mean a single, All-European
customs union – against America.” [13]
But surely we must not attempt in any way to confuse the Socialist
United States of Europe with the present imperialist cabal that is
the European Union? The United States was established in the War of
Independence and maintained in the Civil War in revolutionary
struggles. France’s internal customs borders were demolished
along
with the ancien regime by revolution. However both Germany
and Italy were unified from the top down basically by reactionary
political movements. Trotsky explains:
“It has happened more than once in history that when the revolution
is not strong enough to solve in time a task that is mature
historically, its solution is undertaken by reaction. Thus Bismarck
unified Germany in his own manner after the failure of the 1848
revolution. Thus Stolypin tried to solve the agrarian question
after the defeat of the 1905 revolution. Thus the Versailles
victors solved the national question in their own way,
which all the previous bourgeois revolutions in Europe proved
impotent to solve. The Germany of the Hohenzollerns tried to
organize Europe in its own way, i.e. by uniting it under its
helmet.
“The leadership of the Comintern, and particularly the leadership
of the French Com- munist Party are exposing the hypocrisy of
official pacifism… The slogan of the United
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
11/32
11
States of Europe is not a cunning invention of diplomacy. It
springs from the immutable economic needs of Europe which emerge
all the more painfully and acutely the greater is the pressure of
the USA… In the person of the Opposition the vanguard of the
Europe- an proletariat tells its present rulers: In order to unify
Europe it is first of all necessary to
wrest power out of your hands. We will do it. We will unite
Europe. We will unite it
against the hostile capitalist world. We will turn it into a mighty
drill-ground of militantsocialism. We will make it the cornerstone
of the World Socialist Federation.” [14]
The leadership of the Tory party, the Labour party (with the
small opposition above), the Liberal Democrats (almost no
opposition here), the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru (Welsh
nationalists), the DUP, UUP, SDLP and Sinn Fein (the four north of
Ireland parties) are in the Yes camp. The nationalist parties all
hope to attract US investments by low corporate tax and large tax
breaks and that vitally depends on staying in Europe, hence the big
change there since 1975. Of the far left
Workers Power, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the CPGB
(Weekly Worker) are for Yes. The SSP in Scotland and Left Unity in
England and
Wales also support a Yes vote. Socialist Resistance are unde-
cided although Alan Thornett is for Yes and has strongly
argued for it. The Revolutionary Com-
munist International Tendency (RCIT, British section) are for
abstention, on the basis that this referendum is the equiva- lent
of an inter-imperialist war on which Marxists must be dual
defeatist. [15] Obama has urged Cameron to fight to remain in
Europe and Cameron visible strengthened his stance as a
consequence, the leadership of France and Germany want the UK to
remain in. Opinion polls put the Yes camp in the lead by
approximately 39-44%, an insignificant margin.
Of course we acknowledge that the EU is a ‘bosses’ club’ that its
structures are undemocratic even in the very limited terms of
bourgeois democracy, that it does not have the advantages of a
federal capitalist state in terms of bourgeois democra- cy, that
monetary union is not fiscal union so all the weaker states in the
EU are at
the mercy of German imperialism in particular which exploits the
size and strength of its economy to oppress all other nations. But
revolution against the British State
would be in a far better position to defend and extend itself
with the assistance of
A stereotypical vision of the
new – from-the-old Europe?
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
12/32
12
the European and global working class if they are joined together
in the EU.
How will it advance this historic task if we first of all succumb
to
national socialism, reject alliances with the other working
classes of Europe and seek national solu- tions to the problems
facing the
working class in Britain alone, which are profoundly
global in origins and whose solution is to be found only in the
international arena? You may argue that that it is profoundly
con-
trary to your intention to advance British chauvinism in voting No
but that is what will result as sure as night follows
day.
Conclusion As one comrade commented on Owen Jones’ Guardian
article, British progressives and the European Union: should we
stay or should we go? on 16 July:
“A question for Owen Jones: why is it that the radical left in
Greece (apart from the Sta- linist KKE) is desperate to remain part
of the EU despite suffering at the hands of the European bankers
and rightwing politicians. The answer is that the European left are
unit-
ed in wanting to see a peoples’ Europe not a bankers’ Europe. The
British left walking away from this fight will only strengthen
those who represent the City of London and reactionary, bigoted,
backward forces in British society and culture.” Nick Long, London.
[16]
Spot on there, Comrade Nick. Of course the collaboration between
the Socialist Par- ty, the Socialist Workers Party, the CPB/MS and
the National Union of Rail, Mari- time and Transport Workers (RMT)
under late general secretary Bob Crow and now under Mick Cash in
No2EU, yes to Democracy and in the Trade Union and Socialist
Coalition (TUSC) was partly on the basis of their mutual opposition
to Europe andsoftness on immigration controls apart from the SWP
who oppose immigration con- trols but manages to collaborate with
the other two without any problem in TUSC.
The SWP say “Our role in the referendum is to try to carve
out a space for an international-
ist No campaign” [17] The SP have a position of opposition to
racist immigration con- trols, the traditional hypocritical
position of the old CPGB. As Peter Manson ex- plained in Weekly
Worker:
“In fact the policy of the ‘official’ Communist Party of Great
Britain (and, after it, the
CPB) has been one of ‘non-racist immigration controls’ for over
half a century. Here I amgrateful to Dr Evan Smith and his website,
Hatful of History, for having collated the state- ments of the CPGB
on this question since the early 1960s. [20] For example,
Evans
Nick Long, People Before Profit party, canvassing in the general
election in Lewisham East.
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
13/32
13
quotes the Communist Party weekly, Comment, which in 1963 stated
that the previous year’s Commonwealth Immigrants Act must be
opposed, because it was “not an act to control immigration in
general”, but constituted “colour discrimination in immigration”.
[18]
The SP have not softened their position on immigration
control here in their Brit-ish Perspectives 2013:
“We staunchly oppose racism. We defend the right to asylum, and
argue for the end of repressive measures like detention centres. At
the same time, given the outlook of the majority of the working
class, we cannot put forward a bald slogan of ‘open borders’ or ‘no
immigration controls’, which would be a barrier to convincing
workers of a socialist programme, both on immigration and other
issues. Such a demand would alienate the
vast majority of the working class, including many more
long-standing immigrants, who would see it as a threat to
jobs, wages and living conditions. Nor can we make the mis-
take of dismissing workers who express concerns about immigration
as ‘racists’. While racism and nationalism are clearly elements in
anti-immigrant feeling, there are many consciously anti-racist
workers who are concerned about the scale of immigration.”
[19]
It really does not take a very bright spark to work out where Owen
Jones gets his views from. And what is the source of the
labour movement support for EU exit. It is all there in that 1951
British Road to Socialism inspired by Joe Stalin himself. All the
more reason to oppose it and vote Yes.
On a final theoretical point. The imperialist nation state is not
counterposed to
the interests of multinational corporations as many are claiming or
at least implyingin relation to TTIP. This argument is a reflection
of Karl Kautsky’s theory of impe- rialism that said that these
monopoly corporation would grow so large as to elimi- nate
competition. In fact every large corporation has a home in one of
the imperial- ist powers and that government acts on its behalf in
diplomacy and in war when necessary. This argument appeared before
WWII and every multinational found its home and its champion as
soon as the war began. TTIP is the means used by the imperialist
powers of the US and Europe to exploit the working classes of
the
world and the semi-colonial nations.
Roger McKenzie Assistant General Secretary of Unison said at the
Labour CND Conference on 30-1-16 that he opposed TTIP because the
nation state was margin- alised by global corporations. Michael
Calderbank says in this pamphlet that TTIP: “allows multinational
corporations to bring legal actions in offshore courts against the
governments of nation states for loss of potential profits.” Alex
Gordon said
when President of the RMT a few years ago that: “all nation
states must have dem- ocratic control over their own immigration
policy and have the right to apply na- tional legislation in
defence of migrant and indigenous workers” and Graham
Durham says in this pamphlet: “For what else are the TTIP measures
but an en-codement of the process by which corporations assert
their dominance over nation- al governments and trade
blocs.”
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
14/32
14
No, the imperialist governments are the executive committees of
finance capital and the transnational corporations representing
Wall Street, the City of London, Paris, Hamburg and Tokyo. The
great corporations and their governments (executive com- mittees)
can only be defeated when we understand and fight them from the
perspec-
tive of the world revolution like Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks
did in 1917. Notes
[1] Leon Trotsky, Disarmament and the United States of
Europe , 4 October 1929, https://www.marxists.org/archive/
trotsky/1929/10/disarm.htm
[2] Socialist Fight No. 2 Summer 2009, p 10, No support for
these chauvinist, xenophobic strikes, https://
suacs.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/socialist-fight-no-2.pdf
[3] Economics Help, Relative decline in UK manufacturing ,
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7617/economics/
economic-growth-during-great-moderation/
[4] Wikipedia, Economy of the United Kingdom,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
[5] Wikipedia, Economy of Germany ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany
[6] Trade Unionists against the EU, Social Europe is a
con ,http://www.no2eu.com/?page_id=263
[7] Karl Marx London, 1870, Letter of Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and
August Vogt In New York, https://
www.marxist s. org/archive/marx/works/ 1870/
letters/70_04_09.htm
[8] The Morning Star , Socialists should lead the bid to leave
the EU, the case for why Britain must exit the neoliberal
empire of the EU . http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-5c07-
Soc i a l i s t s - shou ld - l e ad - the -b id - to - l e ave -
the - EU#.VhvMCyupfSo
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Owen Jones, The left must put Britain’s EU withdrawal on the
agenda , http://www.theguardian.com/
commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece- eurosceptic
[12] Owen Jones, The Guardian 16 September, If Jeremy Corbyn’s
Labour is going to work, it has to communicate, http://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/
jeremy-corbyn-labour-twitter-media
[14] Ibid.
[15] “The RCIT maintains that authentic Marxists must refuse to
support either of these two, equally reactionary, imperialist
camps. The most important task now is to fight for the political
independence of the working class and the oppressed vis-à-vis
either of these imperialist camps. There is no lesser evil for the
working class.”
http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/british-left-and-eu-referendum/part-1/
[16] Owen Jones, The Guardian, 16 July, British progressives and
the European Union: should we stay or should we go? http://
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/16/british-progressives-and-the-european-union-should-we-stay-or-should-
we-go
[17] Joseph Choonara, EU referendum: Should we stay or should
we go? August 2015, http://socialistreview.org.uk/404/eu-
referendum-should-we-stay-or-should-we-go
hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/the-british-left-and-immigration-controls.
[18] Peter Manson, Playing a fool’s game , Weekly Worker,
Issue 1014, 12.06.2014, http://weeklyworker.co.uk/
worker/1014/playing-a-fools-game/
[19] British Perspectives 2013: a Socialist Party congress
document , 28 March 2013, http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/
campaign/Anti-racism/Immigration/16413
The SPEW still bad on immigration controls: “At the same
time, given the outlook of the majority of the working class, we
cannot put forward a bald slogan of ‘open borders’ or ‘no
immigration controls’, which would be a barri- er to convincing
workers of a socialist pro-
gramme, both on immigration and other is-sues.”
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
15/32
15
S ocialists should not advocate sup- port for either the Yes or
No
camp in the coming EU referendum. Both sides of the debate
represent dif- ferent strands of imperialism. Neither strand
represents a democratic gain, even in a deformed sense, for
the
working class or other sections of the
oppressed. Neither socialism, nor even significant social reform,
is on offer from either of the contending camps. And indeed
both the ‘No’ and the
‘Yes’ side of the debate, in bourgeois terms, are quite capable of
inflicting major, crippling defeats on the working class. Both are
variants of neo- liberalism in terms of not just ultimate aims, but
immediate, straightforward pol- icy. The dispute over the European
Union is a dispute between two different sections of the ruling
class, about which is the best way to promote the interests of
British imperialism and to shore up its declining position in the
world.
Socialists do not necessarily refuse to take sides in
intra-bourgeois political dis- putes. If the issues involved
substantially impinge on questions that are essential to working
class interests, and if the victory of one side over the other
would make a qualitative difference to some essential working class
interest, then it
would be correct to take a side.
The problem is that the victory of either side in the coming
referendum prom- ises to damage working class interests
substantially. If the ‘Yes’ side in Camer- on’s referendum is
victorious, the population would have voted not only for the
current undemocratic, neo-liberal EU, but also whatever Cameron is
able to achieve in diluting and doing away with some of the EU’s
social democratic pro- tections for some basic workers’ rights. It
will also be a signal the implementa- tion of whatever
‘concessions’ Cameron is able to extract in terms of diluting the
EU’s laws guaranteeing the free movement of labour across the EU,
attacks on benefits for migrants and others, etc. It could even
signal further derogations from human rights laws which also
sometimes provide a level of protection for some from the most
blatant UK government abuses.
The EU referendum and class
independence
the EU Social Charter of yesteryear, and no
doubt other similar concessions that have at
times cut against the grain of the British
Tories’ particular brand of neo-liberalism
would be for the chop – and a ‘Yes’
victory
would be the signal for that to be done.”
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
16/32
16
Such minimal but important protections as the EU Social Charter of
yester- year, and no doubt other similar concessions that have at
times cut against the grain of the British Tories’ particular brand
of neo-liberalism would be for the chop – and a
‘Yes’ victory would be the signal for that to be done. As
indeed
would also be true for whatever attacks on workers’ rights
– including those of migrant
workers – that Cameron is able to garner.
EU: Neoliberal agency vs. Thatcherite nationalist right As
such varied phenomena as the Greek austerity in defence of the
Euro, and the advent of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) show, the EU is not only not a barrier to
neo-liberalism, but also a locus of its deepening. TTIP is the
joint US-EU proposal for a transatlantic free trade zone that
contains a further ratcheting up of neo-liberalism and further
attacks on the rights of national governments to institute or
defend gains such as free
public healthcare, as with Britain’s NHS. Thus one important view
of the right- wing of the British trade union bureaucracy in
recent times, that the EU was some kind of shield against
privatisation and attacks on workers’ rights, has gone up in
smoke.
A ‘No’ vote would not improve things. On the contrary it
would be certain to also lead to intensified neo-liberalism in a
different, basically English nation- alist form. The driving force
of the ‘No’ campaign from the Tory right and UKIP is hostility to
workers’ rights (including the right to free movement of
workers), residual social democratic ‘interference’ in the
free market, and ‘human rights’ laws. If the left were to join in
the current ‘No’ campaign, with a reactionary Tory government in
power pressured further right by its own anti- EU wing and their
sometime UKIP allies, it would be cutting its own throat. It
would also further entrench the nationalist division between
English and Scot- tish workers epitomised by the wipe-out of Labour
by the SNP in last year’s General Election, as Scotland would
likely vote to separate rather than be dragged into a Little
Britain dominated by the anti-Scottish English right. The
victory of the anti-European right would mean further attacks on
mi-
grant rights, the destruction of limitations on exploitation such
as the working time directive, compulsory holidays, the rights of
agency workers, not to men- tion a possible exit from the Council
of Europe and thus from the European Convention on Human Rights.
And no doubt, as the British ruling class are lackeys of the US
ruling class to a considerable extent, such projects as TTIP
would not be halted one iota. So there are plenty of reasons
why it would be wrong for the left to actively
support either side. We should be for an active boycott by the
workers move- ment of Cameron’s referendum, which is not, contrary
to the fraudulent and deeply reactionary campaigns of UKIP and the
Tory right, anything to do with national self-determination. This
is about reactionary nationalism opting out of
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
17/32
17
particular imperialist configuration in favour of another, not any
assertion of national rights.
Counterposed left positions On the left, we see two strands of
argument that justify taking sides in this intra-bourgeois dispute.
A case, argued in Marxist terms, for a ‘Yes’
vote is put forward by comrade Ger- ry Downing in his article
“ EU referen- dum: Vote Yes; Fight for the Socialist
United States of Europe ”. Comrade Gerry’s article is very
strong in attack- ing the Stalinist and other left-
nationalist delusions of those who believe in the British Road to
Social- ism – the idea that socialism can exist in
a single country. That is correct.
What is not correct is what is heavily implied in drawing
such a direct connec- tion between saying yes to the EU and
fighting for a ‘Socialist United States of Europe’ – the
idea that the EU is in some way a step towards that Socialist uni-
fication.
If it were such a step forward, such a position would make sense.
But the con- crete evolution of the EU shows that it is unable to
unify the productive forces and economies of its component parts.
One element of the EU that the British Eurosceptics are able to
point to as a failure and an irrationality is the Euro.
The Euro is the highest expression so far of
the pseudo-unification of Europe in economic terms.
But as is starkly visible from the Greek crisis, as well as similar
phenomena involving other countries on the Eurozone periphery, the
Euro has not only not unified the economies of the
European states, it has become an instrument for
crucifying the poorer economies involved and massively transferring
their re- sources to the richest imperialist countries in the EU,
particularly Germany.
This is the result of a currency that is not associated with
a single state power, taxation and fiscal system, that depends
instead on manipulation of relations between separate, widely
divergent capitalist economies and states to stay afloat.
Such is the irrationality of the Euro as a measure that, in
hindsight, as an ele- mentary matter of self-defence of the working
class, it was indeed correct for socialists to have called for a no
vote to the Euro.
Migrant rights are workers rights The European Union does
contain as part of its economic ethos one thing that is of net
benefit to the working class on a continental
level – the right of free
“As such varied phenomena as the Greek
austerity in defence of the Euro, and the
advent of the Transatlantic Trade and In-
vestment Partnership (TTIP) show, the EU is not only not a
barrier to neo-liberalism,
but also a locus of its deepening.”
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
18/32
18
movement of labour within the EU. This is not a product of altruism
or a pro- gressive, internationalist intention on behalf of the
rulers of the EU – far from it. Their aim is to
wider the sphere of the exploitation of labour, and to under- cut
so-called ‘labour monopolies’ particularly in the richer
imperialist countries.
This often means attacks on established gains of unionised
workers in these
countries. There is a balance to be struck here, and it is not
always easy to see where the line is to be drawn. It is said that
there is only one thing worse than being ex- ploited under
capitalism, and that is not being exploited under capitalism. That
is, being thrown on the scrap heap as a worker. This applies just
as much to a
worker from Poland or Romania as it does to a worker from
Britain. The right to migrate in search of work is just as much a
right that must be defended for all workers as the right to strike
and picket for better pay, or to defend exist-
ing gains of the working class. All such rights must be defended
tooth and nail. The effects of migration are contradic-
tory and in local situations do indeed lead to established sections
of the work- ing class being undercut by migrants
who are not in a position to demand the kind of terms and
conditions more es-
tablished sections of the class have pre- viously been able to
demand. That is the negative side. The positive
side, however, is the creation of a more internationalised working
class, with the potential to enhance its power and breadth in the
future. Not least through overcoming local chauvinisms that often
are steeped in class collaboration with sections of local
employers, at least implicitly against ‘foreign’ workers. That is
always the effect of labour mobility under capitalism, through
assembling
workers from diverse origins and uniting them under the cosh
of exploitation,
it creates its own collective gravedigger for the future.
This is again another good reason why it would be
fundamentally wrong to
support either side in the bourgeois referendum debate over the EU.
Capital- ism creates its gravedigger in the proletariat, but we do
not thereby support capitalism. We are opposed to the exploitation
of migrant workers, and their use to undercut previous working
class gains. And we cannot endorse the capi- talist institutions
that are responsible for promoting this, which obviously in- cludes
very centrally the EU. We oppose all attacks on gains of the
working
class inherited from the past.But we also oppose reactionary,
chauvinistic opposition to these capitalist phenomena. We oppose
any opposition to them that seeks to exclude workers
Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway
have both reversed their positions in re- cent times in opposite
directions.
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
19/32
19
from poorer EU countries from migrating to seek a better life.
These are also the rights of part of the working class under
capitalism. We are not defenders of any national section of the
working class against other national sections. We seek to represent
the interest of all workers, to unite the working class.
Any opposition to capital that seeks to exclude foreign workers is
in fact helping
capital to poison all sections of the working class
against each other, with the kind of chauvinism that in the past
produced its logical consequences with
workers killing each other in two World Wars. The more
consistent ‘left- wing’ opponents of the EU in times past,
such as
No2EU in Britain, no matter how many working class demands they
raised that were supportable, always had as their fundamental
weakness a hostility to mi- grant workers, even if expressed in a
cryptic and embarrassed manner. This is the dangerous political
logic to this kind of opposition to the EU, it is
damaging
as is the logic of those who seek to promote internationalism by
support for the EU.
Class independence and Marxism: fight both camps! Both of these
false positions represent at least an implicit break with class
inde- pendence, and see a bloc with different bourgeois factions as
the way forward. Neither of these bourgeois factions is being
pushed by independent working class forces into taking positions
that in some way contradict the interests of capital. Both are
pursuing anti-working class aims, albeit different ones, with
considerable determination and clarity. For the purposes of class
independence, socialists must counterpose themselves to both
camps.
Such is the complexity and problematic nature of this question that
the most advanced elements of British social democracy have tended
to flip-flop from one position to another on the basis of empirical
events.
For instance Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway have both reversed
their positions in recent times in opposite directions: Galloway,
who was in the past an outspoken critic of No2EU for its exitism,
under the impact of the EU’s
humiliation of SYRIZA in Greece, shifted to supporting British
exit. Corbyn,on the other hand, appears to have shifted from an
anti-EU position at the be- ginning of his campaign for the Labour
leadership to a pro-EU position now, partly under pressure from the
PLP mainstream (i.e. the remnants of New La- bour) and partly
through worry about the nationalist consequences of a British
exit.
Such flip flopping really is pretty subjective, shallow and
empirical and repre- sents an inability to formulate a coherent
class alternative to both bourgeois camps. It is not surprising
that even the best elements of left Labourism have
been so empirical; what left Labourism lacks above all is a
coherent socialist worldview. Only Marxism can provide
that.
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
20/32
20
“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth.
Period. It’s not even close” (Barack Obama, 12 January
2016)
A s US President Obama prepares to leavethe scene, the first black
man allowed to
act as the key spokesperson of those oppress- ing the world working
-class and militarily im- posing neo-liberal political and economic
cha- os across the planet, there can be little doubt he is right
about the dominant military and economic clout of the US.
It is a dominance which daily wreaks havoc on all parts of the
globe: from the war refugees washing up drowned in the seas
of Europe, to the daily oppression of Palestinians and all others
who refuse to accept US-backed Israeli dominance, to the exploited
poor of America and the so-called first world hounded into inse-
curity and denied welfare and health, to the opponents of clerical
regimes from Saudi to Iran who face torture and execution and, of
course, to the poorest bonded labourers and street beggars of the
world without trade unions or rights and to the robbed and
exploited peasants and farmers. The list could run on but it
is important to begin a debate about Europe with
this recognition that US imperialism, in its relentless drive for
corporate profit requiring increased exploitation of workers and
resources, which is responsible for the human misery of the
oppressed around the planet.. However whilst proxy wars for
US dominance are being fought in Syria, Libya and elsewhere
including on the European mainland in the attempt to crush the
Donetsk republics, the world situation has changed
dramatically over 75 years when US dominance was confirmed. Most
strikingly the ability of capital itself to act internationally
with- out restriction has developed to a new and unprecedented
level. The debate on the EU referendum should therefore take
account of the in-
creased international nature of capital as predicted by Marx and
Lenin and recog- nised by nearly all modern bourgeois and ‘Marxist’
analysts. As the Guardian
VOTE NO
ANY CONTINENT
COUNTRY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
21/32
economics editor, Larry Elliott, put it (21 January 2016):
“Economies are far more integrated than they were half a century
ago, when capital controls, trade barriers and extensive public
ownership shielded national economies.
Today changes in political philosophy and technology mean
that there are far fewer impediments to the free movement of goods
- and virtually none at all to the free
movement of money”
For what else are the TTIP measures but an encodement of the
process by which corporations assert their dominance over national
governments and trade blocs. Capitalism is international and
dominates all the world, even where, as in China and Vietnam for
example, so-called Communist Parties are in government presid- ing
over the free market (we can exclude only Cuba which continues to
defend the social gains of the 1959 revolution from this total US
dominance).
In this sense, and allowing for the rivalries and tensions between
competing and
growing economies such as China, the shrinking economic power that
is the EU cannot be even a capitalist rival for the US and
increasingly China. To try to tie the interest of workers
internationally to the EU is an absurdity. Ask the redundant steel
workers of Teesside or Port Talbot how they were defended by the EU
or the British government against the cheaper labour extracted in
China which cut the profits of steel corporations and led to
ruthless closures and redundancies. In the 21st century only an
international planning of all world resources through workers’
governments across the planet can achieve solutions to the problems
facing the oppressed in all nations.
Only with this internationalist perspective of the world struggle
of the working- class can we address the pro-EU Yes voters in the
labour movement. These broad- ly fall into two camps - the
pro-Europe social democrats such as Hilary Benn and the ‘ orthodox
Trotskyist’ Yes voters such as comrade Gerry Downing in this pam-
phlet. In Downings’ case this orthodoxy on Europe mainly consists
of examining the writings of Trotsky. Before the Stalinists
murdered him in 1940 the then trium- phant Nazis were engaged in
world war; Downing is desperately trying to restate Trotsky’s
formulations in the stubborn face of the facts that capitalism has
become
a worldwide system able to operate across continental borders with
ease. We return to these errors later.
First to deal with Hilary Benn and co, who may have captured Jeremy
Corbyn in recent weeks, and many trade union leaders, with the idea
that the EU is a glorious defender of workers; interests. The ‘Stay
in Europe’ campaign for example (backed by Billy Hayes and Caroline
Lucas amongst others) argues that although there are faults in the
EU, British citizens stand to lose amongst others: the right to
study in Europe, workplace rights, human rights and environmental
agreements.
Putting aside for now the fact that the European Convention on
Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, these arguments are an
uncomfortable mix of pure European workers’ privileges at the
expense of the rest of the world and abandon-
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
22/32
22
ment of the working-class as a force in history. The privileged
free movement of labour and study rights of European workers
are, of course, an argument for ongoing European chauvinism aimed
at
bolstering the standing (of the mainly white) European
workers at the ex- pense of the workers (mainly of former colonies)
of the rest of the world. This chauvinism is exhibited daily in the
in- difference of leading sections of the trade union and labour
movement to the human misery of refugees in the heart of
Europe and dying on its borders. For us, who claim to be
Marxists and socialists, these are our brothers and sisters and we
demand free movement for them in their hour of need as they flee
the terrifying consequences of the Blair/Bush wars and ongoing
terror bombing.
For these right and ‘left’ social democrats in the Yes campaigns,
who often seek to ditch the discredited social democrat label with
its connotations of 1914-1918 imperialist slaughter and dub
themselves ‘reality based socialists’, the working - class is
a past and dying force which once had the capacity to achieve
social gains such as trade union rights but are now neither capable
nor to be trusted and must leave the defence of workers’ rights
achieved to date to the clever manoeuvres of the trade union
bureaucrats in Brussels and the Labour MEPs. This defensive
combination of European privilege protection and
working-class
passivity embraces not just those such as Hilary Benn and Alan
Johnson, open supporters of US/UK bombing of Syria, but also many
who, whilst opposing this bombing as such, have either never had or
have lost hope in independent work- ing-class action.
Other streams active in the labour movement are those, such as The
Morning Star, who demand a No2EU vote as protection for
British workers against the alleged evils of EU trade agreements.
This is a reactionary national chauvinism which tries to pose
not a European superiority but a British one in which British
workers and their needs are given prominence against workers
of Europe and the world. This current is strong in the
British trade union movement and leaders of UNITE and the GMB can
be found defending the arming of imperialist NATO through
recommissioned Trident nuclear submarines on the grounds that these
are British workers’ jobs. The same narrow national chauvinism is
found in the demand for subsidies to defend the British steel
industry, hopeless demands that ignore the core truth that as long
as workers’ wages can be driven down in other
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
23/32
23
parts of the world then capitalism will take production there. So
we are left with parts of the ‘Marxist left’ who claim to share the
same interna-
tionalist principles and campaign for a Yes to the EU vote. Here we
will examine the defence of this position by comrade Gerry Downing
in this pamphlet. Downing argues for a Yes vote as:
1. Concessions to nationalistic demands such as import controls
will strengthen the right This is correct as far as it goes -
but an internationalist opposition to the EU based on the interests
of workers worldwide would not support the EU market cartels or any
import controls aimed at the rest of the world. The EU is in fact a
continuance of European colonialism by another name aimed at
increasing the profits of Euro- pean capitalists and sharing some
crumbs with the European working-class. The attempt by the Danish
government to seize refugee assets and the demands by Cameron and
other EU leaders to close borders are deeply reactionary, anti-
working-class and designed, as ever, to split workers on the
basis of false national or continental common interests and ally
the working-class with their bosses.
2. A Euro exit will strengthen the hold of US imperialism The
crushing by the EU and the European Central Bank allied to the IMF
and World Bank of the attempts by Syriza to resist, at least
in a token way, austerity shows clearly that the EU is a
reactionary force allied to the US against the interests
of European workers. The weakening of the capitalist EU cartel
could strengthenthe ability of the US to impose its will unless
there is a mobilisation of the workers worldwide against US
imperialism. Our task is to build international working-class
solidarity against European and US imperialism. That is the true
legacy of Bolshe- vism and Trotskyism.
3. The No camp is full of social patriots Actually both camps
are full of social patriots. Whether it is Hilary Benn arguing for
British interests and a Yes vote or the Morning Star and
Communist Party of Britain
arguing for British interests and a NO vote both start from a
narrow nationalistchauvinism. It is true that UKIP and other far
right forces support an exit but only in the in-
terests of an imaginary British capitalist class. Equally true is
the support of world imperialism for a Yes vote to strengthen
neo-liberalism.
4. European workers are in struggle, we cannot abandon them
Interestingly Downing focuses on the strikes by German workers and
ignores the struggles in Egypt, China, Syria etc. by workers
internationally. Here he falls into
European continental chauvinism which makes no sense in a
neo-liberal world.Other ‘Marxists’ who fall into this trap quote
the rise of Podemos in Spain and oth- er parties of the left
calling for European solidarity. Of course solidarity with
all
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
24/32
24
worker struggles worldwide from the fighters against EU/CIA
imposed austerity in Ukraine and the strug- gles of workers in
India and in Kurdistan require solidarity from all works. The
saddest manifestation of the illusions peddled
in the EU by some socialist currents was the appear- ance of some
Ukrainian socialists in the pro-capitalist Maidan protests carrying
banners proclaiming ‘For Socialism, For The EU’. This was both a
farce as the Ukrainian nationalist movement, supported by fas-
cists, was aimed at the full restoration of capitalist power in
Ukraine and a tragedy as those areas refus- ing to surrender to
imperialism where merciless at-
tacked by Ukrainian troops and their US/UK advis-ers.
5. Socialism in a single country is not possi- ble Again a
correct position falsely applied. Neo- liberalism is a world
phenomenon; it cannot be fought in Europe or Britain alone. We must
rebuild the international forces to achieve this through
inter-
national workers organisations.
6. We need a Socialist United States of Eu- rope Capitalism has
developed into a world system and is significantly less constrained
by national governments and market cartels than in 1940. Posing the
interests of European workers unity against the workers of the rest
of the world is no longer a sustainable position in a globalised
world. We have nothing in common with the bosses of Europe and
everything in common with the
workers of the world.
7. The (hoped for) British revolution will be better defended if
the working-class are joined together in the EU In this
referendum in Britain, socialists who support an independent
working-class should understand that their international duty Is
not to abstain or side with the interests of US and British
imperialism but to campaign for the destruction of the capitalist
protection racket that is the EU. In campaigning for a NO vote, we
reject all national and continental chauvinism. Building struggles
against neo-liberalism worldwide is the only means forward
for our class
Workers of ALL Countries Unite
“Other streams active in the
labour movement are those,such as the Morning Star, who
demand a No2EU vote as pro-
tection for British workers
tionary national chauvinism
pean superiority but a British
one in which British workers
and their needs are given promi-
nence against workers of Europe
and the world.”
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
25/32
25
I want to see the election of a Labour government: I want to
see an end to austerity, key services like
our railways back into public ownership, and theNHS protected from
privatisation. But Britain’s membership of the European Union
threatens the ability of a democratically elected government to do
any of this.
The EU we are being asked to remain a member of is no longer
the advocate of a “Social Europe”. Where the Europe of
Jacques Delors appeared to offer some defence against the
Thatcherite onslaught witnessed here in Britain, today’s EU
is a key agent and driver of that neoliberalism. Those real social
gains which remain in EU law from this period are under threat. It
is no coincidence that the big battal- ions of capital in Britain
– the CBI, the Financial Times, the City of
London – all stand squarely in favour of staying
“In”.
Take the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Part- nership
(TTIP) - a trade deal between the USA and EU
– negotiated in secret, and with frightening im-
plications for the future of democracy. It aims to introduce a new
‘Investment Court System’, which
allows multinational corporations to bring legal ac- tions in
offshore courts against the governments of TTIPs for loss of
potential profits incurred where services are run in the public
sector rather than being privatised or outsourced. This is a
thinly-veiled ver- sion of the Investor-State Dispute Settlements
(ISDS) already contained within other bi-lateral trea- ties signed
by the EU. This led to energy company
Vattenfall suing the German government for billions of
dollars over its decision to phase out nuclear pow-
er plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. If
applied here, such a system could well mean that, for example, our
National Health Service is ruled unlawful by foreign courts able to
dictate to a British government that healthcare must be run for
private profit.
UKIP’s fear-mongering on immigration might make some Labour
supporters cling to the pro-EU side in response. But sadly
politicians on both sides of the referendum question will be
appealing to pop- ular prejudices. Already, the cross party
“Britain in Europe” Group have stressed that the European
Arrest Warrant is “necessary” to kick out foreign rapists and
murders from UK shores, again reinforc- ing xenophobia.
Plus whilst socialists oppose racist immigration controls, the
European Union – at the same time as protecting
free movement of labour within EU states – has
been pursuing a “Fortress Europe” policy when it comes to
policing external borders, leaving refugees to drown in the
sea.
It is totally false to portray all advocates of with- drawal from
the EU as “little Englanders”. In reality, we will need to
develop closer solidarity ties amongst social movements across
Europe’s borders in order to fight off the imposition of austerity.
British with- drawal from the EU would deliver a significant blow
for accountability and popular sovereignty, not only in Britain but
for all the peoples of Europe.
I f the British establishment is divided, the groups, factions and
sects of the left – Labour and non-
Labour alike – have proved utterly incapable of
providing anything like a serious alternative. In fact, the
reformist and national socialist left adheres either to the most
gullible or the most chauvinist positions on the EU.
Instinctively the national socialists recognise that
European integration makes a mockery of their utopian British road
to socialism. Take the No2EU election bloc –
uniting the Socialist Party in Eng-
land and Wales and the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain.
It is virtually indistinguishable from the Tory right, Ukip and the
British National Party. No2EU wants to save the pound sterling,
restore British sovereignty and re-establish immigration controls
to bar European incomers.
Naturally, when it comes to the likes of Peter Taaffe, Robert
Griffiths, Bob Crow and Brian Den-
ny, this is all done in the name of socialism … but it is the
socialism of fools. The best that these advo- cates of “workers’
rights” could achieve is a British
If you want an end to austerity, here
Labour Party Marxists
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
26/32
26
version of Stalinism – i.e., state slavery
– and that im- posed onto a capitalistically
advanced country fully inte- grated into the world econo- my. What
costs the lives of
millions in the 1930s could only but be repeated as a still greater
tragedy.
Civilisation would not be advanced, but barbarically thrown back.
And, unfortu- nately, where the CPB and SPEW have led, Socialist
Resistance, Respect, the Alli- ance for Green Socialism,
Scottish Socialist Party, Soli-darity, etc., have followed
– to the point of a horribly self- defeating
common sense.
Of course, for Marxists, proletarian socialism –
as the first stage or phase of communism – is
inter- national or it is nothing. There can be no socialism in one
country, because capital, as a social relation- ship, exists not
within the nation-state, but interna- tionally, at the level of the
global economy. Bureau- cratic or national socialism just brings
back all the old crap, albeit in different, highly contradictory
forms. That is why as long ago as 1845 Marx and Engels emphatically
rejected all localist schemes and insisted, on the contrary, that:
“Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the domi-
nant peoples ‘all at once’ and simultaneously.”
Now, in the name of “kicking the debate off”, we have Michael
Calderbank of Brent CLP. Writing in Labour Briefing, he rightly
takes to task those who have illusions in the progressive nature of
the EU
when it comes to labour legislation, social rights, etc. …
All are being “eroded and undermined”, he feigningly laments. Of
course, what comrade Cald- erbank wants the LRC to do is to vote
‘no’ in Cam- eron’s referendum and bank everything on a British
withdrawal.
Inevitably, comrade Calderbank gives his en- dorsement of the ‘no’
campaign a socialistic colora- tion. Instead of “populist
scapegoating” of mi- grants, he makes a seemingly bold call for
“taking
back power” and “taking control of our servicesand economies, on a
local and national scale.” Does his formula amount to a
post-referendum
establishment of a workers’ state and the abolition of capitalism?
Unlikely. Or is it an empty plea for the resto- ration of Keynesian
econom- ics and the politics of welfar-
ism? Either way, the com- rade says that “our member- ship of the
EU” impedes his agenda, so “calling for a withdrawal from an
interna- tional left perspective would be perfectly consistent”.
When it comes to the LRC’s old position, the comrade
dishonestly rejects any pro-
gramme of fighting for a workers’ Europe as akin to banking on
“adequately re-
forming” the “existing institutions” of the EU. An obvious non
sequitur. Nevertheless, on the basis of this crude falsification,
comrade Calderbank feels he can tell us what we all know. The EU is
not very democratic … and he thinks it “extremely hard” to see how
this can be changed.
The lack of imagination is as sad as it is palpable.
Why those of us who want to take as our strategic point of
departure not Britain, but the EU are supposed to believe in the
reformability of the whole array of existing EU institutions
remains to be established.
Apply his methodological approach to the British state. Over
the last 30 years or so it has surely “eroded and undermined” the
post-World War II consensus. Indeed, it is fair to say, successive
Brit- ish governments – Tory, Labour and Con-Dem
– have been at the forefront of the neoliberal
offen-
sive both at home and in the EU. Should we there- fore conclude
with a call for the “dissolution” of Britain, as Welsh and Scottish
nationalists do, or even a working class “withdrawal” from
it?
Pitiably, comrade Calderbank unintentionally shows a naive faith in
the institutions of the UK state: the monarchy, the House of
Commons, the House of Lords, the judiciary, the presidential prime
minister, MI5, the Church of England, the standing army, etc. Can
they all be “adequately”
reformed so as to pave the way for a workers’ Brit-ain? The
implication in comrade Calderbank’s po- lemic is, yes, they
can.
Michael Calderbank: “It is totally false to portray all advocates
of with-
drawal from the EU as ‘little Englanders’.”
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
27/32
27
1. Socialists have to explain that it is in the interest of the
working class and the oppressed of Britain to oppose any form of
imperialist state. They should refuse to be dragged into giving
their support as gullible voters to either of these alternative
forms of imperialism. Consequently, the Revolutionary Com- munist
International Tendency (RCIT) and its sup- porters in Britain call
upon workers and oppressed to vote neither YES or NO to UK
membership in the EU. Instead, they should write on the
ballot:
“Neither Brussels, nor Downing Street! For interna- tional Unity of
the Workers and Oppressed”, i.e., effectively casting a vote of
abstention.
3. The huge majority of Britain’s ruling class wants to
stay in the European Union as this is con- sistent with their
political and economic interests. In contrast to its role in the
19th and early 20th centuries, British imperialism is far too weak
to have any global influence as an isolated state. Its only real
options are acting as a junior partner to US
imperialism or to a European Union led by Germa- ny and France.
While the British bourgeoisie have and will to continue to maintain
special relations with Washington (especially militarily),
its economic interests are closely aligned with the EU. 51.2% of
UK’s Outward Foreign Direct Investments are concentrated in the EU
(2010), compared with only 17.5% for the US. (49% of the UK’s
Inward FDI originates in the EU while the source of 30% of these
investments is the US.) Similarly, the EU is by far Britain’s
biggest trading partner: In 2013, 44.5% of UK exports went to other
EU countries, while the EU contributed 52.2% of total imports to
the UK. (The US accounts for only 17.6% of UK ex- ports and 9% of
its imports.)
4. Characteristically, the pro-Zionist and social- imperialist
centrist, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL) also supports a
pro-EU vote, claiming that this would be a vote for more
“democracy” and against racism. This is a rather bizarre position
of for this so-called “Trotskyist” group, given the fact
that the EU doesn’t even have an elected govern- ment and in light
of the EU’s standing aside while thousands of migrants drown in the
Mediterranean
Sea every year. (We note with regret, too, that Workers Power
recently dropped its former revolu- tionary position of abstention
in such referendums and humiliated itself by calling for a YES vote
in a referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU.) In short, the
pro-EU camp is dominated by the big imperialist bourgeoisie,
trailing in its wake the social -imperialist labour
bureaucracy.
5. The main social basis of the NO-camp i.e., those who
advocate Britain’s exiting the EU, is the
backward sector of the bourgeoisie (represented in the “Business
for Britain” campaign) and the mid- dle class, who are in danger of
going to the dogs in an increasingly unstable social and economic
order in which the big fish are devouring the little fish.
This is the same camp which hopes to garner sup- port from
among the labour aristocracy and the backward sectors of the white
working class by whipping up a racist campaign of hatred
against migrants and ethnic minorities. This camp’s main
political forces are Nigel Farage’s UKIP and the right-wing of the
Tories which also receive support from the fascist BNP as well as
the English Demo- crats. As a secondary force, the anti-EU camp is
also supported by the “Little England” remnants of British
Stalinism (the Communist Party of Britain, etc.) as well as the
main centrist groups (the Cliffite SWP/IST and Peter Taffee’s
SPEW/CWI). This is hardly surprising given the fact that the SPEW
played a leading role in the reactionary “British Jobs for British
Workers” strike at the Lindsey Oil Refin- ery in 2009. In short,
the anti-EU camp is dominat- ed by the most reactionary, backward
sectors of the (middle and petit) bourgeoisie and the country’s
middle layers, while left-reformists and centrists serve as their
“left- wing” fig leaf.
6. The RCIT maintains that authentic Marxists must refuse to
support either of these two, equally reactionary, imperialist
camps. The most important task now is to fight for the political
independence of the working class and the oppressed vis-à-vis
either of these imperialist camps. There is no lesser evil for the
working class: On one side are those British imperialists who
advocate membership in
Boycott Cameron s Trap: Neither Brussels, nor Down-
ing Street For Abstention in Britain s
EU Referendum
For international Unity and Struggle of the Workers and Oppressed
Fight
against both British as well as European Imperialism Forward to the
Unit-
ed Socialist States of Europe. Statement of the Revolutionary
Communist
International Tendency (RCIT) and the RCIT Britain, 2 August
2015
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
28/32
28
the war-mongering EU which universally imposes austerity, the
plunder of Greece being the most recent and prominent example, and
wages colonial wars in North Africa and Iraq, in addition to
waging its policy
of aggressive expansion in East- ern Europe at the door of Rus-
sia. On the other side are those British imperialists who advo-
cate the country’s exit from the EU in order to effectively be-
come the little poodle of the world’s greatest imperialist
pow- er, the US, and who call for a chauvinistic hunting down
of
migrants and ethnic minorities.7. A particularly important
issue for the current situation in Britain and an internationalist
campaign against Cameron's referendum trap is the struggle for the
rights of migrants and refugees. As the RCIT has stated numerous
times in the past, we oppose immigration control and stand for open
borders, equal wages for native and migrant workers,
and equal rights for all. Recent develop- ments confirm the need
for socialists to equally op- pose both British and European
imperialism. The Eurosceptic right-wing racists oppose the EU pre-
cisely because the latter is ostensibly responsible for "too many
migrants" in Britain. The EU itself how- ever is no better. British
and French police terrorize refugees at the Chunnel crossings. The
EU is cur- rently building a wall – like that of
US imperialism
along its border with Mexico or Israel in the West
Bank – along the Hungarian border with Serbia. And
the EU is trying its best to stop refugees crossing the
Mediterranean Sea and, in these efforts, recently adopted a plan
for military attacks against refugee boats along the North African
coast. The struggle for the rights of migrants and refugees must
reject all variations of imperialist fortresses
– be they British or European! Such a perspective
is incompatible with voting for either of the two imperialist
alterna-
tives that will be offered in the referendum.9. At the same
time the RCIT advocates the per- spective of the European
Revolution, i.e., the armed insurrection of the workers and
oppressed in each
country with the goal of expro- priating the local bourgeoisie and
nationalizing the core in- dustries and banks and placing them
under workers’ control. The aim is to foment revolution
throughout the entire continent
(and beyond) in order to found the United Socialist States of
Europe. This is the only viable alternative to both British and EU
imperialism. The continent can only prosper and provide
wealth for all if it is united on the basis of a planned
economy and the democratic rule of the working class and the
oppressed
who will organize themselves inmass action councils and
popular militia. 10. In Europe’s semi-colonial countries, i.e.,
those countries which are dominated and super- exploited by
imperialist monopo- lies and great powers, the RCIT combines such
an internationalist perspective of class struggle with the tactic
of calling for an exit from the European Union. We
do so because we support every small step which weakens the
grip of the imperialists on such coun- tries. However such a tactic
is only applicable to semi -colonial countries like Ireland,
Greece, Cyprus, and the countries of Eastern European. It is not
relevant for imperialist states like Britain, France, Germany, the
Benelux countries, Austria, Sweden, Finland, etc.
11. The RCIT bases its revolutionary, international- ist
tactic on the programmatic tradition of the Marx-
ist classics. Lenin famously stated that “a United States of
Europe, under capitalism, is either impossi- ble or reactionary”.
Likewise he stated that in the imperialist countries “the national
movement is a thing of an irrevocable past, and it would be an ab-
surd reactionary utopia to try to revive it.” Later, Trotsky
developed the slogan of a European-wide struggle for workers’ power
and the United Socialist States of Europe, a slogan which was
adopted by the Communist International in 1923 (only to be
dropped by the Stalinist bureaucracy in 1928). ThisMarxist
tradition is the only possible alternative in conflicts between two
imperialist bourgeois camps.
Michael Pröbsting, RCIT leader:“The RCIT and its supporters in
Britain call upon workers and oppressed to vote neither YES or NO
to UK membership in the EU. Instead, they should write on the
ballot: “Neither Brussels, nor Downing Street! For international
Unity of the Workers and Op- pressed”, i.e., effectively
casting a vote of abstention.”
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives
29/32
29
1. For revolutionary socialists the task of the day is to create a
campaign of effective opposition to the
racist and chauvinist No campaigners but equally to the
pro-capitalist/neoliberal Yes campaigners, espe- cially at a time
when Greece is being martyred by the capitalists and politicians of
the EU. Within the ranks of the workers’ movement we need to expose
and oppose both the campaigners for a pro- capitalist Labour ‘Yes’
and