12.11.2009

Nationalist common sense

Nick Rogers attended the No2EU session at SPEW’s Socialism event

Opposing capitalist attempts to integrate Europe is part of the common sense of the bulk of the British left. At the November 8 Socialism session entitled ‘Why do socialists say No2EU?’ Clive Heemskerk advanced a more thoughtful line of argument than is usual in defence of this position. His introduction served as a defence of the decision of the Socialist Party in England and Wales to participate in the ‘No to the EU, Yes to Democracy’ electoral coalition in the European elections, but also sought to set out some of the theoretical underpinnings of SPEW’s stance towards the European Union.

Comrade Heemskerk began by assuring the fairly sparse audience that SPEW was in favour of a united Europe, which would be a genuine step forward. But European unity could not be imposed from above - which was precisely the problem with the EU. In fact capitalism could not unite Europe. Only the working class could achieve that aim. The correct slogan was for a united socialist Europe.

The EU was in substance simply a treaty between individual nation-states to create the largest possible market for European capitalists. The Lisbon treaty was only the latest initiative to deepen the ongoing process of creating an internal market in which competition is free and undistorted. This was a process that was forcing the pace of marketisation in the health and education services, and had produced the posted workers’ directive - a direct threat to the jobs of the Lindsey workers.

Comrade Heemskerk’s most novel point was his argument that in the absence of a European army and police force, the EU was not a state. Control of the capitalists’ ‘armed bodies of men’ was retained at the level of the member-countries. There were good reasons why the capitalist classes of Europe could not overcome the nation-state. Those states were rooted in language, culture and history and would not fall in a mechanical manner in the face of economic forces alone.

It was useless to attempt to lobby at the European level - the EU’s decisions were ultimately made by its component states. It was inevitable that the latter would be the main terrain of working class struggle.

Turning to No2EU, comrade Heemskerk adopted a defensive tone. No2EU had been an alliance and therefore the SPEW had not been able to get its whole programme onto the platform. Nevertheless, in its own literature distributed during the campaign SPEW had raised both the slogans of ‘No to a bosses’ Europe’ and ‘Yes to a united socialist Europe’.

Entering the debate during contributions from the floor, I argued that the most pressing challenge facing the organisations of the working class was how to build a united working class movement in Europe and across the world that transcended the nation-state. The struggles of the working class had to be rooted in the material conditions created by capitalism. We were agreed that the European capitalist class was coordinating its attacks on workers across Europe. What was demanded was a European-wide response by the working class.

To the extent that the EU created a terrain of class struggle at a European level it presented progressive features. And to the extent that the capitalists created the foundations of a proto-European state - whether or not the capitalist class was able to complete this process - it also had progressive content.

To present European integration in itself as the problem - which No2EU had done - was a nationalist response. Even SPEW’s own slogan of ‘No to a bosses’ Europe’ implied that the bosses somehow held less sway in the individual nation-states than within the EU. It was particularly bizarre for British socialists to raise the spectre of the EU as the main enemy when successive British governments have implemented the most neoliberal policies in Europe and the New Labour government was manoeuvring within EU institutions to impose a neoliberal course on other countries.

Comrade James Turley - also of the CPGB - agreed with comrade Heemskerk that the capitalist class cannot unite Europe. He pointed out that there was a division between those states favouring deeper integration and those wanting to slow down the process. Britain was in the latter camp and in effect served as the US’s ‘mole’ in the EU.

Responding to a point comrade Heemskerk had made about the involvement of militant trade unionists - Lindsey, Visteon and the RMT - in No2EU, comrade Turley said that there were some workers’ leaders, such as Bob Crow, who socialists should fight alongside but, given their Stalinist politics, should not take a political lead from.

SPEW contributers from the floor spoke of the value of the No2EU campaign. A comrade from Derby referred to the opportunity No2EU had provided SPEW to leaflet estates where the BNP has been making headway. A Dundee comrade spoke of the privilege it had been for her to be on the No2EU list in Scotland.

Interestingly, some SPEW comrades also expressed reservations about No2EU, suggesting that ‘No to a bosses’ Europe’ should have been part of the platform. The Derby comrade explained that SPEW had won some of the argument in No2EU, but lost others. The election broadcast in particular had conveyed nationalist undertones. There should have been a call to unite workers from across Europe.

Responding to the debate, comrade Heemskerk focused on the arguments advanced by CPGB comrades. He agreed that it was necessary to confront the class struggle as it develops. Vestas workers had demanded the nationalisation of their factory. There was no European institution that could implement nationalisation. It was only possible to demand such policies at the level of the nation-state, where the EU’s competition rules would seek to frustrate them.

Given that SPEW comrades presumably recognise that an attempt to build socialism in a single country is doomed, this argument begs the question of how a socialist Europe is to emerge in the absence of the European-wide class struggle that not only challenges the policies pursued by Europe’s capitalists, but articulates demands that unite workers across Europe.

Comrade Heemskerk’s concluding argument was his weakest. It followed the usual SPEW template about the way to head off a swing towards nationalist politics within the working class as being “clear and unambiguous” in what can only be described as aping the politics of the nationalists. Hence in Scotland SPEW’s Committee for a Workers’ International claims to be opposed to Scottish nationalism, but expresses this by saying that it would call for a ‘yes’ vote in a referendum on independence.

When it comes to Europe, the dangers of inter-imperialist divisions re-emerging on the continent and workers blaming workers of a different nationality for their problems is to be combated by advocating withdrawal from the EU. Apparently, this will pre-empt a swing to the nationalist right. The size of the UK Independence Party and British National Party vote in the European elections indicates that No2EU failed to siphon off much support from these formations back in June. SPEW comrades need to learn the lesson that the last thing the British working class needs is a renewed attempt to build a leftwing Ukip.