10.07.2002

Marxism 2002 - The Fringe: Withdrawal from reality

Our second CPGB-AWL-RDG fringe meeting featured a debate between advocates of an active boycott of the forthcoming referendum on the euro, reports Peter Manson

Our second CPGB-AWL-RDG fringe meeting featured a debate between advocates of an active boycott of the forthcoming referendum on the euro and those who favour voting 'no', whose case was put by Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group. The organisers had also invited John Palmer, who believes that socialists should be in favour of entry into the single currency, but unfortunately he had to pull out at the last moment. Although one comrade did voice such sentiments from the floor, overwhelmingly those at the meeting believed that independent working class politics could only be served by an active boycott. Comrade Thornett was the lone partisan of the 'no' position. The first speaker was Jack Conrad of the CPGB, who emphasised that the need for working class independence did not mean that we decide our stance simply on the basis of "a fear of association with obnoxious elements"ï¿½ such as the Tories or the BNP - who would of course, along with most of the reformist left, also be calling for a 'no' vote. However, comrade Conrad said that in one sense he "sympathised with the 'no' position"ï¿½. It was true, after all, that the euro was a weapon in the class war, and its protagonists intended to force through a whole range of anti-working class policies. But the same could equally be said of the defenders of the pound. This meant that the referendum question was "not one we want to ask or answer"ï¿½ - it was a "trick of the ruling class"ï¿½. Instead we want to promote our own agenda - that is why we are calling for an active boycott. The Europe we envisaged was one of working class power, he concluded. In response comrade Thornett - somewhat incredibly, you might think - said that he "didn't recognise any class analysis of what the euro or the EU is"ï¿½ in what he had just heard. He characterised his opponents as not wanting to openly call for a 'yes' vote, so they advocate an "abstention"ï¿½ instead. How, he asked, can you be "neutral"ï¿½ in the face of the European bourgeoisie's "well organised, long-planned assault on the working class? - it leaves me flabbergasted,"ï¿½ he spluttered. He insisted that the left would run an "anti-nationalist, internationalistic campaign"ï¿½ against the euro, which would make an impact by cutting across the right's xenophobia. By contrast the "abstention campaign"ï¿½ would be irrelevant. Sacha Ismael of the AWL was willing to concede that the euro was "the bosses' project"ï¿½. But that did not mean that we should simply oppose it, full stop. While socialists are always against the bourgeoisie's aims and methods, we also recognise their progressive implications. For example, the development of capitalism, its globalisation, gave rise to many horrors, but it also brought into being the international proletariat. Similarly new technology is also wielded as a weapon against workers, while comrade Thornett's position was akin to being "for the old machines"ï¿½. To vote either 'yes' or 'no' was to take sides with one wing or another of the bourgeoisie, he said. In that sense we were "neutral"ï¿½ when it came to the pound or the euro. Comrade Ismael recalled the militant slogan employed during the referendum campaign on Britain's entry into the 'Common Market': 'Bosses' Britain, bosses' Europe - the struggle goes on.' Several speakers from the floor mocked comrade Thornett's characterisation of our position as "passive"ï¿½. Mark Fischer of the CPGB asked him to imagine this scenario: "There is a general strike with demonstrations in every city. Workers march to the polling booths and set the ballot boxes on fire. How passive is that?"ï¿½ Comrade Thornett, presented with the kind of campaign that we would aim to achieve, at least conceded that this could indeed be described as "active"ï¿½. However, it was a case of 'this far and no further'. He insisted that the CPGB and AWL were refusing to fight the EU bosses' attacks on wages, hours and conditions by refusing to vote 'no'. He did not seem to realise that by the same token he could be accused of refusing to fight the anti-EU British bosses' attacks. But for comrade Thornett it was a case of preferring the lesser evil, it seems - or, more accurately, the smaller evil. Answering a question from the floor on his position on Britain's membership of the EU itself, he replied: "If there's a bosses' club, you shouldn't be in it."ï¿½ Clearly comrade Thornett should call for a working class withdrawal from the United Kingdom too. But he covered himself by adding: "Withdrawal is not a viable option at the present time."ï¿½ Opportunism or what?