04.09.2002

Boycotts and abstentions

The forthcoming euro referendum was the subject of a lively discussion at the August meeting of Pendle Socialist Alliance. Although this north-east Lancashire borough must have one of England's smallest SA branches, what is lacking in numbers is more than compensated for in terms of enthusiasm. This was evidenced by the attendance of 10 members for the three-cornered debate, in which a local comrade argued the 'yes' position, whilst invited speakers Michael Lavallette (Preston SA and Socialist Workers Party) and myself (South Manchester SA and CPGB) put the case, respectively, for a 'no' campaign and for an active boycott of the referendum. Comrade Dave, of Pendle SA, spoke first. He asserted that the process of European economic, political and social integration is an objectively progressive one, to the extent that it creates conditions which are favourable to the struggle for socialism. He cited, in this respect, the opportunities for building trans-European socialist unity and the beginning of a development of free movement of people across national frontiers. The comrade located the development of the European Union as a process of centralisation of capital in competition with the capitalist centre of the United States. He saw this process as being inseparable from the phenomenon of neoliberalism, which was aimed at sweeping away obstacles to that centralisation and the more efficient accumulation of capital. Those obstacles include separate currencies and customs regimes, as well as national settlements within the class struggle. British separatism provides no answer to the neoliberal offensive, for socialists as well as for the advanced sections of British capital, the comrade said. Capitalism will not suddenly collapse. It can and will adapt and we, as socialists, must meet it in all of its adaptations. Dave concluded that the SA would be best served by supporting a 'yes' vote and, in doing so, by putting the widest possible gulf between ourselves and the right. I stated my agreement with comrade Dave's analysis, but my disagreement with the latter's conclusions. These laid too little emphasis on the subjective factor - in other words they failed to mark out an approach that is centred upon an independent working class agenda and aimed at making the working class a political force that can meet capital at its highest level of development and overthrow it. To support either the euro or the pound is to express a preference between two systems of capitalist exploitation. This would be the wrong message to give in terms of what the struggle for socialism is about. We need to make it clear that we are for an end to all exploitation, which can only be achieved by working class seizure of economic and political power: in other words that we are contending for power and are not just a protest movement. The 'no' camp appeared to be precisely that - a protest, an attempt to deliver a bloody nose to the incumbent bourgeois prime minister. In the attempt to do so, it seemed prepared to be part of a pincer movement against Blair - the other half of the instrument being Iain Duncan Smith's Tories and the camp of reaction. I warned the proponents of this approach to seriously consider which political forces would gain most from a 'Keep the pound' victory. It would not be the left, I suggested, citing Denmark, where a referendum vote to reject the single currency was followed by a landslide victory for the right in the general election. The active boycott tactic was a means to reject the capitalist class's framing of the questions to be posed on Europe. The basis for developing a campaign around the necessary 'real' questions already existed in the SA's 2001 general election manifesto, People before profit. This set out the principles of striving for "workers' and socialist unity across Europe" and "a democratic and federal Europe". I gave examples of what some of those real questions could be: * Building European-wide trade unions in order to generalise the best wages, working conditions and social welfare provisions of the EU. * A European minimum wage. * Building a European Socialist Alliance to unite our struggle for working class political power and socialism and, as a first step in this direction, achieving a common European socialist programme to put to the electorate in the 2004 European parliament elections. * Democratising the European Union - abolishing the unelected commission; removing power from the council of ministers; winning an annually elected parliament with members paid an average worker's wage, etc. I concluded by stressing that an active boycott was totally different from some stay-at-home abstention. As the Bolsheviks had shown in their adept use of the tactic, it meant a massive stepping up of political activity. A slogan would need to be agreed for use in spoiling ballot papers. Public meetings, street stalls, leafleting, press conferences, publicity stunts, strikes if achievable, would all be weapons in our armoury for such a campaign. This approach is the correct way to capture the enormous potential of the euro referendum to build the SA as a new working class party for socialism. Michael Lavallette began his contribution by stating that the euro issue is not the most important one around at the moment. He placed the fight against racism, the anti-war campaign and building for November's European Social Forum as higher priorities for socialists. Anticipating the question, he made it clear that he not only favoured opposition to the single currency, but advocated British withdrawal from the European Union. The EU is a capitalist project, aimed at increasing capitalist exploitation, he stated, and as such should be opposed by socialists. He attacked in particular the concept of 'fortress Europe', which sought to erect even higher barriers against foreign workers. Some people suggest that socialists in most of the rest of Europe do not oppose the euro, he remarked, but he did not believe this was true. The recent anti-capitalist demonstration in Seville had employed anti-euro slogans, for instance. A 'no' campaign by the SA would allow us to build a united front with Labour and trade union lefts such as Tony Benn and Mark Serwotka, comrade Lavallette concluded. He dismissed as pessimism all suggestions that it was not possible to mark out an independent socialist 'no' campaign in distinction from that of the chauvinistic right. A wide-ranging discussion ensued, which covered the need to combat nationalism and the continuing influence of 'national roadism' in the socialist movement in Britain; tactics for building international working class unity; and the fight to build the SA as a working class alternative to the Labour Party. Some comrades expressed worries at the prospects of the euro referendum issue splitting the Socialist Alliance. It was probably this sentiment which led to the meeting's decision - by a majority of seven votes to two - not to take an indicative vote on the three positions it had heard. I attempted to tackle the fears expressed by explaining that the SA constitution, agreed at last December's conference, required members not to disrupt agreed actions: ie, to respect as SA policy the resolutions adopted by a majority of the organisation. This did not mean, however, that any member was to be gagged. Indeed, this is essential if we are to succeed in transforming the SA into the party the working class so desperately needs. John Pearson