04.04.1996

For a workers’ Europe

SLP debates Europe

An event of epochal importance occurred last week - Friday, to be exact. Passed you by? Not surprising, as it turned out be a rather lame event. In fact, we saw the beginning of the 1996 European Union inter-governmental conference, or ‘Maastricht II’.

Still, the EU leaders have talked about the “historic mission” of the conference - which is to embrace new members in central Europe and the Mediterranean, and to move towards greater integration. As it turned out the IGC in Turin was eclipsed by the beef scandal, and has even become a slight source of ridicule in the bourgeois press.

Nevertheless, this is a fundamental issue for the left and needs to be treated seriously. The increasing, albeit stumbling, moves to financial and economic union which Maastricht I and II represent pose basic questions for communists - namely, workers’ organisation across national frontiers and the nature of internationalism.

In this light, the discussion document issued by the SLP for the March 2 policy conference, titled Europe and the left - the great illusion makes very interesting reading. The document was drafted by a member of the initial steering committee and therefore bears the ‘little England’ birthmark we normally associate with the Labour left - which is, in essence, a blinkered ‘national socialist’ outlook.

The document boasts about the “socialist traditionalists who are sticking with the traditional Labour policy of opposition to the Common Market and its successors” (my italics). Translated: the national chauvinist project of a distinctly British, parliamentary road to socialism must be retained.

Ostrich-like, the document blithely informs us that the “current moves towards economic and monetary union are purely and simply mechanisms designed to further the capitalist cause” (my italics). Instead of viewing globalisation as an objective process which is to be welcomed - in so far as it erodes the nation state and brings peoples together - the SLP leaders treat increasing union as something to be feared. For them such moves might interfere with their project of British ‘socialism’, which can be built in glorious isolation.

“The SLP should be against the European Union, its existing institutions and its plans for the future.” With such a parochial and narrow vision the SLP could never become a party which aims to liberate all of humanity - by providing organisation and answers.

Thankfully, the discussion group rejected this document and issued its own call for a ‘United Socialist States of Europe’, Trotsky’s oft-quoted slogan. This is a healthy initiative and clearly indicates that the majority are well to the left of Scargill. However, it still suffers somewhat from a slightly abstract approach. To the extent that the bourgeoisie create, or call for, a European Union, so must we call for a European Union, or Federation, of Socialist States.

This immediately raises the need for a Party of the European Union, which can unite all revolutionaries and working class partisans on a European scale and make our call a reality. This is the perspective the SLP must take. Rather than a disabling reflex ‘no’ to the bosses’ Europe we must begin now in a proactive way to put a workers’ Europe on the agenda. That demands both industrial organisation in the trade unions but, fundamentally, political organisation.

The positive first steps to forming independent working class organisations should not be caged within the boundaries of Britain but taken out towards Europe-wide workers’ organisation.

Paul Greenaway

The rejected SLP discussion document: ‘Europe and the left - the great illusion’

Many on the left - and notably much of the official leadership of the British labour movement - are now firmly in the ‘pro-European’ camp. They claim that this makes them more modern and less nationalist than socialist traditionalists who are sticking with the traditional Labour policy of opposition to the Common Market and its successors.

In fact, New Labour’s pro-Europeans are making a colossal mistake. They have fallen victim to the Great Illusion. They believe - or would have us believe - that the good things which may be found in this or that other European country (better social welfare, republican constitutions, sane transport policies, a more advanced attitude to environmental issues, etc) were brought about by the Common Market/EEC/European Union.

In fact these advances were in all cases the result of social and democratic action within the individual countries concerned. One obvious example is the Swedish welfare state. This (now somewhat tarnished) model was built up completely outside the ‘European’ framework. Similarly, republican government and modern constitutions, widespread in Europe, are the product of great social upheavals (in France starting as far back as 1789, Germany after the First World War, Italy after the Second, etc).

And herein lies the great danger of the ‘pro-European’ position. Basically, we are being asked to wait, lay down our arms, not to fight for our economic, social and democratic rights, but trust in nice Mr Blair to lead us into the promised land of Europe. But, of course, neither Tony Blair, Europe or anything or anybody else can hand us our rights on a plate; they have to be fought for here and now, in the country where we are.

And this applies to the battle against racism and exclusive nationalism too. While idiotic anti-French or anti-German attitudes certainly exist, a perhaps even more serious danger is ‘white’ European racism directed at ‘non-Europeans’. Being ‘European’ is not a defence against racism or fascism; these have to be directly tackled wherever they raise their head.

But, it could be argued, these are not reasons to be against ‘European integration’.

Why not be neutral? In fact, the answer to that is already contained in the above paragraphs. Why did it have to be the ultra-rightwing, pro-capitalist New Labour leadership of Blair which led the movement in its decisive ‘pro-European’ turn? It’s because the Europe in question and in particular the current moves towards economic and monetary union are purely and simply mechanisms designed to further the capitalist cause, both within our countries and in world affairs. Blair is on the Maastricht wavelength.

There is, it is true, the social chapter and trade union participation. But these just show that, for the time being, the EU’s capitalist classes have to take into account the historic strength of European labour. When France’s unions did their job at the end of last year, with the magnificent wave of strikes against attacks on welfare rights, everybody viewed their action as a challenge to Maastricht, to ‘Europe’. And suddenly Euro-enthusiasts were eager to stress the purported job-creating and social benefits of their schemes!

The SLP should be against the European Union, its existing institutions and its plans for the future. It should take this position not out of narrow nationalism, but because it sees that racism, fascism and war breed in the soil of the capitalist system defended by the European Union. We are tough on racism and exclusive nationalism and we are tough on their causes, including the policies embodied in the European Union.

And, of course, in our anti-capitalist fight we seek allies throughout Europe and beyond, to break down borders and strike at the roots of racial and national hatred.