26.03.2009

Socialist Party in denial

The left nationalism of Bob Crow's EU election platform is obvious for all to see, writes Peter Manson. But the SP pretends not to notice

The ‘No to the EU, Yes to Democracy’ platform to contest the June 4 European Union elections was officially launched on March 19 with a meeting in Westminster.

No2EU convenor and ‘party leader’ Bob Crow was joined by speakers from the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and the Socialist Party in England and Wales, the two organisations upon which the campaign will depend for foot soldiers, particularly the latter. Comrade Crow’s union, the RMT, is also backing No2EU, but will provide mainly cash and union facilities rather than a host of door-knockers.

Apart from Crow himself, there is little sign yet of the “prominent national trades unionists” that CPB national organiser Andy Goodall claimed in an internal mailing would be among the candidates.¹ The initial 140 sponsors listed on the No2EU website (www.no2eu.com) include RMT executive committee members Mick Lynch, Alex Gordon, Craig Johnston and Nick Quirk in addition to Bob Crow, who is the union’s general secretary. There is also CPB member Andy Bain, president of the TSSA. Excluding them, however, the only other union EC members are all Socialist Party comrades: Glenn Kelly and Roger Bannister (Unison), Robbie Segal (Usdaw), Jim Guild (UCU).

Most of the other initial sponsors are CPB and SP comrades, ranging from senior leaders to rank and file members, mainly listed according to their branch or regional union positions. Then there is John Hendy QC, a couple of Indian Workers Association (GB) officers and John King (author of White trash).

Two other organisations that may come on board are Respect and Solidarity, the Tommy Sheridan split from the Scottish Socialist Party. Solidarity’s national steering committee (NSC) decided on March 21 to support No2EU in principle, although the 20 or so delegates hoped that the campaign north of the border could be given more of a Scottish flavour, as one comrade put it. In other words, its anti-EUism could take the form of Scottish rather than British nationalism.

It goes without saying that at the NSC members of the Committee for a Workers’ International, the Socialist Party’s ‘international’, urged full participation in No2EU. Socialist Workers Party comrades, who put forward no clear line, went along with the consensus. Sheridan himself is an out and out CPB-type Europhobe and comrade Crow is known to be very keen that he heads the campaign’s Scottish list. I understand that comrade Sheridan was present at the March 24 meeting of the No2EU steering committee in London and that Scotland is one of the six EU electoral regions (there are 11 in all) for which the campaign has so far guaranteed funding.

So I would expect there to be plenty of room for flexibility on the possibility of opposition to the EU being given a tartan veneer in Scotland. I note that the original bullet point, “Defend and develop British manufacturing”, had been changed by the time of the launch to “Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain” - a phrasing which Scottish left nationalists could just about live with.

As for Respect, it has still not decided whether to participate and is due to discuss No2EU at the April 4 meeting of its national council. George Galloway is far from convinced that Respect should not contest in its own name, particularly in London. There was never any possibility of the organisation standing as Respect outside the capital, the North West and the West Midlands, the three areas where Respect has some kind of structure. However, members in the North West (mainly Greater Manchester) have under the influence of John Nicholson already decided not to contest - Nicholson himself is calling for a vote for the Green Party in the region.

That leaves London and the West Midlands. It has to be said that the failure to put forward even a token list of candidates in a major election would surely be seen as another step towards Respect’s final demise following the split with the SWP in 2007. It is not as though No2EU can be portrayed as a definite move towards a new broad left party, which Nick Wrack, Alan Thornett and the International Socialist Group advocate. And where would it leave Galloway at the next general election if Respect was not even on the ballot paper in June?

Leaving aside the virtually defunct Socialist Labour Party, no other political groups are likely to participate in No2EU. Although “the Socialist Party, for its part, would favour the broadest participation of all left and working class organisations”,² the CPB has decreed that “ultra-left groups” (it specifies the SWP, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and CPGB) are not “considered eligible”.³

Labour Party mark two

The SP may wish for “the broadest participation of all left and working class organisations”, but effectively it is likely to end up with just the CPB for campaigning partners in most parts of the country.

However, for the SP the backing of the RMT is the clincher. Peter Taaffe, Hannah Sell, Dave Nellist et al consider the single most important strategic task of Marxists to be the creation not of a Marxist party, but a trade-union-based Labour Party mark two.

While No2EU is adamant that it is a mere “electoral platform”, not a party or even a move towards one, the SP is clear that things are not that simple. Despite “RMT representatives … stressing, unfortunately, that they were not launching a new workers’ party”, this “does not negate its significance as the first electoral challenge to New Labour initiated by … the most militant industrial union in Britain”. The SP believes that it is also unfortunate that any No2EU candidates elected will boycott the EU parliament (Solidarity agrees), but it contends that the central point is that, while most other unions are still clinging to Labour, “The RMT, on the other hand, has moved.”

In any case, the SP states that after the elections “a convention of the forces involved in the campaign would be held to work out exactly how to proceed”. Bob Crow has confirmed this. So, yes, it is possible that there will be a move to a new broad party after June - although comrade Crow has previously cooperated with the SP, and addressed its Campaign for a New Workers’ Party, without actually committing himself to do anything to achieve such a party. And the other main No2EU force, the CPB, is badly split on the question of whether a new Labour Party is needed: one wing thinks the left should soldier on in the existing one.

The SP statement gives the example of the German WASG party, one of the components that went on to form Die Linke (the Left Party in Germany which now has some 55 MPs - paradoxically the CWI’s section in Germany boycotted it). Die Linke is meant to demonstrate that most parties do not come into the world with “a fully developed programme or democratic structures”. But WASG “broke the logjam”. And “so, potentially, could the RMT’s electoral initiative. The train is moving. The task of socialists, while not holding back from arguing for our ideas on the way out of the economic crisis, is to lend a helping hand.”

Apart from the CWI’s tactical hamfistedness in Germany, the problem with the SP’s position is twofold. Firstly, it considers a British version of Die Linke - in other words, a social democratic halfway house - as a desirable and necessary stage. While such a formation would, especially in the initial phase, provide communists with a site to struggle for what we really need - a mass-based Marxist party - it would soon become an obstacle to that struggle: the leading role of union bureaucrats would ensure that.

Secondly, in its rush to emphasise No2EU’s partyist potential, the SP blatantly and dishonestly prettifies its platform: “Most importantly, socialists could not participate in an electoral block or coalition which made concessions to racist or nationalist prejudices. But that is not the case with the proposals agreed so far around the RMT’s electoral initiative which, while its programme is limited, is at bottom a pro-worker block.”

Not nationalist?

So No2EU makes no “concessions” to “nationalist prejudices”? The very name chosen for the campaign, ‘No to the EU’, should surely alert us immediately to the contrary.

While communists are resolutely opposed to the Lisbon treaty, the EU’s proposed anti-working class constitution, its past commitment to the neoliberal growth and stability pact, its drive to privatisation, worship of the market and inbuilt anti-socialism, we equally oppose all the equivalents of these when they are advocated and put into practice by individual states (they have been and still are). The EU is no more a ‘capitalist club’ than Britain, Germany, France, etc. Put another way, would comrade Crow and the CPB ever dream of entering an election campaign under the banner of ‘No to Britain’?

Our position is not to side with the smaller capitalist state against the larger capitalist proto-state. In fact, to the extent that the EU takes state form, it facilitates the organisational unification of our class. Why should we oppose that? On the contrary, communists call for the European working class to take the lead in demanding a thoroughgoing democratisation of the EU, the sweeping away of its bureaucratic institutions, a revolution across the continent and a workers’ Europe.

However, it is not just a question of an unfortunate title whose significance has passed the SP by. No2EU’s platform reeks of nationalism. That is obvious from the bullet points, one of which I have already quoted: “Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain.” Why not across Europe, and indeed the world? (and don’t forget that in its original form this bullet point read: “Defend and develop British manufacturing).

Then there is: “Repatriate democratic powers to EU member-states.” What is wrong with democratic control that extends across national borders? For example, accountable and recallable elected representatives in an EU parliament with full democratic powers? Workers’ control at every level enforced by workers’ militia?

How about “Scrap EU rules designed to stop member-states from implementing independent economic policies”? Originally this bullet point had read: “Scrap EU rules designed to stop member-states from implementing reflationary policies.” Presumably the drafters had not noticed that it was precisely “reflationary policies” that several member-states, including Britain, had been implementing for months, until the Weekly Worker pointed this out.⁴

Again I have to ask, what is wrong with the peoples of Europe agreeing to implement a common line of march across the continent? Is there something innately superior about separate (“independent”) policies? Surely what matters is that policies are progressive and that they are democratically designed, implemented and supervised by our class. The more they are coordinated internationally, the better. Doesn’t the slogan, ‘Workers of the world, unite’ imply exactly such an approach across the globe?

Socialism in one country

In case the SP thinks I am subtly inferring meanings from the bullet points that are not really there, it should take a closer look at the full platform it has signed up to, as presented on the No2EU website. I recommend in particular the section entitled ‘The economic crisis and the EU’, which is pure, ‘official’ communist, ‘socialism in one country’ chauvinism. It is worth quoting this at length:

“Nation-states with the right to self-determination and their governments are the only institutions that can control the movement of big capital and clip the wings of the transnational corporations and banks. This means democratic control of the major banks, including the Bank of England, and full public ownership and democratic accountability of railways, postal services, NHS and the energy industry.

“To revitalise the economy, Britain must return to creating wealth based especially in manufacturing, hi-tech and trade across the world.

“An end must be made to the dependence on service industries, especially the financial sector. To return to an economy based on manufacturing requires massive investment and, where appropriate, protection of home industries. It is the only way to ensure jobs and a decent, safe future for the peoples of Britain.”

It is a total disgrace that ‘Marxists’ can put their name to such drivel. Firstly, if it were true that only “nation-states” can exercise control over capital and its institutions, does that mean we should advocate the breaking up of all multinational states, including EU member-states such as Belgium (some would say Britain)?

Secondly, powerful capitalist states like the United Kingdom have no problem whatsoever with “self-determination”. They exercise it constantly - unfortunately at present in the interests of their national capitals, including within and through the EU. (By the way, the SP’s bloc partner, the CPB, does not worry about disguising its nationalism with phrases like “the right to self-determination” for the poor, oppressed UK state. The Morning Star’s March 22 editorial praises No2EU for its opposition to “the abandonment of national sovereignty in favour of rule by an unelected Brussels commission”.)

Thirdly, the idea that the state should control capital and the transnational corporations smacks of state capitalism: the existence of wage- slavery is not even mentioned. Even with state capitalism there is a limit to what can be done to combat the effects of, for instance, the current economic crisis, let alone prevent or reverse it. The capitalist system is a global system and so are its cyclical crises and secular decline. Only the international proletariat, organised as the state, can not only ultimately control but supersede capital.

Fourthly, communists are against nationalist “protection of home industries”. British-based corporations are in competition with those in the US, Europe, Japan, China, etc. It is unprincipled to side with our ‘own’ industries by erecting barriers to keep out international rivals, just as it is unprincipled to “ensure jobs and a decent, safe future for the peoples of Britain” at the expense of the “jobs and a decent, safe future” for peoples elsewhere (who will likewise implement protectionist measures to boost their ‘own’ “home industries”, I presume). Communists do not take sides between competing capitals - we seek instead to end the competition by uniting with our fellow workers in opposition to the capitalists of all countries.

Free movement

Still not convinced? Then take a look at the section of the platform headed ‘Stand up for workers’ rights’:

“The social dumping of exploited foreign workers in Britain is being carried out under EU rules demanding the ‘free movement of capital, goods, services and labour’ within the EU. Successive EU directives and European Court of Justice decisions have also been used to attack trade union collective bargaining, the right to strike and workers’ pay and conditions.

“The single European market, created by the Tory government with the Single European Act in 1987, creates a pool of working people to be exploited and treated no better than a commodity like a tin of beans. These EU rules allow employers to escape from national collective bargaining and employment legislation and impose lower wages and worse working conditions, creating a ‘race to the bottom’ ….

“The so-called ‘free movement’ of labour is part of the development of a deeply racist Fortress Europe which would increasingly exclude people from outside the EU and undermine wages and working conditions inside the bloc.

“…. Vote No2EU - Yes to Democracy to resist the EU turning human beings into commodities to be shunted around Europe, while local workers are excluded from being able to provide for their families.”

As with the previous section, there are some correct observations and demands here mixed up with the appalling nationalist and anti-Marxist bilge. Let us start with the nonsense about “the EU turning human beings into commodities”. Workers everywhere have always been “exploited” and treated as commodities by capitalism since its inception. That is because their labour-power is a commodity - workers try to get the highest price for it, while capitalists attempt to force its price down.

What is different about the EU, compared to, say, an individual state? Only that because of uneven development it has brought together more advanced capitalist countries, whose workers tend to have won through struggle better wages and conditions, with lesser developed ones, where wages and conditions are generally worse and where workers are often prepared to sell their only available commodity more cheaply.

What is the ‘official communist’ response? Not to mount an international trade union and political campaign to equalise, protect and raise the conditions of working people everywhere in Europe and thus end this competition - between workers attempting to sell their labour-power - but to demand special “protection” for “workers in Britain” against competition from “exploited foreign workers”.

It is correct to demand the removal of EU directives and rules which “allow employers to escape from national collective bargaining and employment legislation and impose lower wages and worse working conditions”. But we need to go beyond “national collective bargaining and employment legislation”. We need to demand, as an immediate priority, common European “collective bargaining and employment legislation” in order to combat blatant undercutting, within the European Union to start with.

However, the CPB is actually against the free movement of labour.⁵ It opposes the basic right of workers to migrate to another country in favour of the right of the “nation-state” to ‘control its borders’ by keeping out those that are unwanted - ie, in practice those local capital does not require. The CPB explicitly opposes open borders in general and the ability of Polish, Italian, Portuguese, etc workers in particular to come to Britain if they so choose. That is why it is grossly hypocritical of No2EU to oppose ‘Fortress Europe’, which treats non-EU workers as the CPB would treat European workers. Or does the CPB oppose the “free movement of labour” only for EU workers?

Of course, communists do not advocate mass migration as a solution to poverty and unemployment. But we insist that workers must have the right to move, settle and work where they choose. It should be noted in any case that under capitalism it is in the long run futile to support either a Fortress Europe or Fortress Britain in the vain attempt to protect a particular group of workers from global competition.

If migrants are prevented from entering a country legally, they will enter illegally and without rights, and will therefore constitute worst paid labour, undermining the position of the unorganised sections of the working class. Maybe an unintended consequence, but inevitable under the conditions of capitalism.

What alternative?

According to the SP, “The No2EU-Yes to Democracy campaign can expose the reality of the EU’s neoliberal agenda to millions of workers, while arguing the case for a workers’ alternative to pro-market politicians - whether in Brussels or Westminster!”

But what sort of “workers’ alternative”? In reality it is that of the CPB’s utopian national socialism - which comrade Crow, once a CPB member himself, still subscribes to. In other words, it is no alternative at all.

The SP is quick to plug its own role in the recent strikes against undercutting: “… Lindsey was a victory for the working class. But it took the conscious intervention of the strike leadership, including Socialist Party members, to cut across any national or racial divisions that could have derailed the movement.”

It is true that SP comrades played a generally positive role in winning the Lindsey strikers to a progressive, internationalist set of demands, and in opposing the nationalist slogans spontaneously adopted by some, such as ‘British jobs for British workers’ (although admittedly it downplayed the use and significance of such slogans).

But instead of attempting to play the same role in relation to No2EU, it claims that the campaign itself is seeking to “cut across … national … divisions”: “The same burning need for a clear lead is true on the political plane. That’s why the RMT’s electoral initiative, despite any weaknesses it may have, is so important.”

“Any weaknesses” indeed! It is a disgrace that the SP has not only agreed to stand on this nationalist platform, but actually claims No2EU is opposed to what is there for all to see in its platform.

Notes

1. See Weekly Worker March 19.
2. SP statement: www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7070
3. See Weekly Worker March 19.
4. Weekly Worker March 12.
5. The 2007 CPB pamphlet Workers of all lands, issued under the name of its economic committee, was plugged as a counter to the demands of the “ultra-left” for open borders. See, for example, the Morning Star review: www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/culture/the_reality_of_workers_o n_the_move