09.03.2006
Charter of platitudes
The Friday before the EPA saw meetings of the 10 or so ESF networks. Potentially the most important is the one that is has been drafting the 'Charter of principles for another Europe'
As usual, this was by far the most interesting session of the weekend. It was a relief to hear a number of political, rather than technical, interventions from the 50 or so participants.
The four-hour session was introduced by comrade Franco Russo (Rifondazione Comunista), who has been playing an extremely important role in trying to make the charter a reality. He highlighted the obvious need for a "project" of some kind for the European elections in 2009, which gave the debate a much needed focus.
Clearly, producing a common document that could sum up our vision(s) for a Europe from below is extremely important. However, we are quite a long way from achieving such a common text. There are three serious problems with the way in which the charter was drafted and these in turn have resulted in political weaknesses.
Firstly, comrade Russo took it upon himself to instruct a dozen individuals to draft initial documents on subjects like 'peace and war' and 'social rights'. Some of these comrades (like Red Pepper's Hilary Wainwright, who drafted the section on 'democracy') are well-meaning individuals. Others, like Pierro Bernocchi (Cobas) and Raffaela Bollini (Arci), are leading members of trade unions and other organisations, and their texts reflect their rather particular point of view.
In our opinion, it would have been more constructive to charge representatives of political parties to draw up documents based on the collective study they have already undertaken. The result might not necessarily have been much better - but at least it would have been more serious. As it is, some of the contributions are quite eccentric, to put it mildly, and some are so confused and nebulous that we are still struggling to decipher their content.
Secondly, the charter is supposed to contain only "principles", not demands. Concretely, that means the section on 'peace and war', for example, contains bland formulations like "We are for a Europe of peace", but it says nothing on how that should be achieved (or what exactly it is supposed to mean).
Thirdly, at a well-attended and constructive conference in November 2005, the various drafts were discussed over a whole weekend and a wide range of different ideas and controversies emerged (see Weekly Worker November 17 2005). Unfortunately, it was again left to those who initially drafted their documents to update them, having been informed by the debate.
Some writers like Raffaela Bollini (in her section on 'peace and war') made a real effort to include all controversial issues at the end of her document. Others did not, clearly because they felt that their own opinion on the matter was superior - some even said so.
However, all the controversial points that did make it into the draft charter (for example, in comrade Bollini's document there were differences of opinion on the role of the UN, on terrorism v resistance and on the question of class war) have now suddenly disappeared. This was pointed out by a number of comrades in the network meeting, but we could not clarify if this was done by mistake or on purpose.
We will certainly be arguing for the re-insertion of those controversial points into the draft charter when it gets printed for the ESF in Athens. Some of the points deleted were amongst the strongest of the whole document.
What kind of 'other Europe'?
The draft charter is to be presented at the ESF for further discussion at a number of seminars and so-called 'controversy tables'. And our small network meeting in Frankfurt again emphasised how many issues there are still to be discussed (we are way off even starting to 'resolve' them).
The current draft, instead of focussing on a radical set of programmatic demands for the European working class, is marred by liberal platitudes and talk of "citizens" respecting the "peaceful and democratic international order" and this or that UN resolution.
Pierro Bernocchi argued that the document looks too much like an attempt to reform existing structures and therefore resembles an alternative constitution for the EU in its current form. He cited the draft charter's support for the EU penal court, respect for UN treaties and support for "UN peacekeeping interventions" as key examples for this.
It cannot be denied that the EU could easily eat up and absorb this 'programme', and in this sense comrade Bernocchi is completely correct. Yet what is needed amongst the European left is precisely the drafting of an alternative constitution, which stamps upon it the radical imprint of the organised working class in its struggles for socialism. Most comrades responsible for the drafting were, however, content to issue a set of platitudes - even if many of them are contradictory, some utterly meaningless and a few outright reactionary.
Sven Giegold from Attac Germany represented a very liberal, petty bourgeois outlook on the European Union. He placed a lot of emphasis on achieving high-sounding "common social standards" across Europe, but, when it came to concrete demands, he argued against the call for a common European minimum wage, for example. He thought this was simply "not practical" and "unrealistic".
Yet who defines what is "practical" and what is not? It is, of course, the system of capital which Attac bows down to so subserviently. Such a vision of Europe paints a utopian picture of the poorer countries "rising up" socially in a "long process".
Comrade Martin from the German sister organisation of Workers Power, Arbeitermacht, put forward a highly economistic perspective. For him the charter ought not to be so much about political demands as looking to "unite our [trade union-type] struggles". He said that "EU capitalism cannot be reformed" and we should not attempt to divert the revolutionary political struggle of the working class into the structures of the existing, anti-democratic bureaucracy of the European Union. While quite rightly condemning the draft's support for UN charters and 'human rights' declarations as essentially using the "tools of our enemy", he went on from there to rubbish any attempt to draw up constitutional proposals for a different Europe in the here and now.
Tina Becker from the CPGB criticised this outlook. She said that communists take up every political question and fight for constitutions - which do, after all, offer no more than a snapshot of the existing balance of class forces - that bear the imprint of the working class struggle against oppression and exploitation. We cannot simply turn our back on the EU, as every day the reality of political struggle on a European level is becoming more apparent.
She also pointed to the main weakness of the document: its lack of direction and purpose. "Should we not use our charter to openly say what are we fighting for - ie, socialism? And should we not spell out clearly how this would be achieved - ie, through class struggle?" After all, the overwhelming majority of the participants in this network are socialists, she said.
However, Marco Berlinguer from Rifondazione Comunista (who 'officially' represents the network, Transform, at ESF meetings) rejected all talk of class struggle and socialism, saying that "this will not get us anywhere". Comrade Berlinguer's approach is one that prefers "broad consensus" and it is precisely this lowest-common-denominator mindset that gets us nowhere. It is a bizarre form of 'communist leadership' that simply puts across social democratic, soft liberal politics.
Comrade Berlinguer also became rather animated (the sceptic might say overdramatic) on the issue of the Iraqi resistance, defending the pacifism of Rifondazione against the position of comrade Pierro Bernocchi, who supports the Iraqi resistance and refuses to call any of them terrorists. "I will not accept a charter that does not clearly speak out against terrorism," comrade Berlinguer repeatedly raged - without ever defining what acts of terrorism or which terrorists he actually meant.
He backs the formulation in our draft charter that wants us to give support to those fighting against "any form of military, social, economic oppression using peaceful means and excluding by principle the use of military force" (our emphasis).
This utopianism has more to do with christian morality than political reality. We must support the right of the people of Iraq to resist the occupying forces using all tactics at their disposal, including "military force" - although that does not mean we are obliged to support every reactionary anti-imperialist group, let alone approve of every tactic.
Clearly, the draft charter in its current state is very far from the kind of principled final document that is needed.