AWL contorted logic on Euro - There is no Maastricht road to socialism!
Socialist Outlook2000sThe publication's own web text.
There is no Maastricht road to socialism!
Review of new Alliance for Workers Liberty pamphlet For a Workers Europe
The Socialist Alliance is currently debating its position on the Euro in the expectation of a referendum next year. It will hold a conference on October 12th to vote on the issue. The two main planks in the debate are the "vote no" position (supported by the ISG, the SWP and others) and an abstention position supported by the AWL, the CPGB, Workers Power and the RDG.
The clearest expression of the abstention camp is the AWL – partly because they have been doing it longer. The AWL (or rather one of its predecessors Workers Fight) was the only far-left organisation to call for an abstention in the 1975 referendum on Britain’s EEC membership. Since then it has evolved in an increasingly pro-EU, and consequently pro-Euro direction.
The position of the AWL on the Euro is informed by their overall position on the EU – which is to see it as a progressive development in European capitalism, albeit with some unfortunate, and nasty, anti-working class features. The case for this supposed progressive nature of the EU is spelled out most clearly by Sean Matgamna in the new AWL pamphlet on European integration.
He argues:
"Undesirable aspects of the European unity which the bourgeoisie has created notwithstanding, it [the EU] is much better than the older Europe of separate, often hostile and sometimes warring nations... The basis exists now as never before for working class unity all across Europe: for a Europe-wide working class struggle to create a democratic and socialist United States of Europe".
Later he advocates: "... building on what the bourgeoisie has created and uniting the working class across the EU to fight the bourgeoisie for democratic and social reform and, in the course of doing that, building towards socialist transformation by working class revolution on a European scale..."
He repeats that: "The EU represents a necessary capitalist development," and goes on to call for the defence of the EU against all those who call for its break up:
"And it [the AWL position] does commit us to European unity and to opposing politically all those who advocate the break up of the EU and implicitly back the restoration of the old, long bankrupt, European bourgeois nation state system".
The AWL, therefore, see the EU as a positive and necessary historical development of European capitalism – one which they claim (remarkably) has eliminated antagonisms between its member states! The AWL seem to see European integration under the EU as some kind of necessary stage in the struggle for socialism in Europe – a sort of ‘Maastricht road to socialism’ – with the democratisation of the institutions of the EU creating the basis for simultaneous socialist revolutions across Europe, as the most likely form of socialist transformation.
Yet simultaneous social revolutions in the 15 (soon to be 25) diverse countries of the EU do not seem the most likely process of revolutionary change in Europe. It is far more likely that a revolution in one European country would fire up revolutionary situations in others – with or without the EU, inside or outside the EU.
Whatever we may wish as revolutionary socialists, the fact is that the bulk of the class struggle continues at the level of the national state – which has far from disappeared in the way Sean Matgamna claims.
This reality is reflected in the highly appropriate motto of the anti-globalisaion movement: "think globally: act locally". This recognises that although many of the attacks on the working class are co-ordinated internationally they are implemented by national governments, and by employers located at the national and local level.
The international agencies of capital, from the WTO to the World Bank and the EU are structured in such a way as to ensure that things continue to work in this way. Individual states carry out the policies and decisions handed down to them from these trans-national agencies. This means that struggles usually take place at different times in different countries, which was the case even with the battles over qualification for the single currency.
Socialists have to get the relationship between the struggle at the national and international level right. Attacks emanating from the international level certainly have the potential to generate a response at the international level, and to develop class consciousness in the process. That is why there was an increase in internationally co-ordinated struggle following the Maastricht Treaty and the introduction of the convergence criteria. Workers could see where the attack was coming from.
Neo-liberal globalisation initiates the same process on a world scale – hence the anti-globalisation movement. This does not mean that neo-liberal globalisation is a good thing, or is progressive, or that capitalism itself is progressive because it is driven to globalise.
It means there is a response to its offensive by the working class. A multi-national company has the same effect if it chooses to attack its workforce simultaneously across national boundaries. This does not make it a progressive institution. Otherwise why don’t we propose reforming an inherently progressive capitalism?
Socialists must grasp all opportunities to internationalise the struggle in order to equip the working class more effectively to fight its own ruling class. That was the role of the European Marches in the latter 1990s, and that is the role of the anti-globalisation movement today.
Attacks on the working class emanating from the EU have the potential to generate an international response: but if the attacks are successful they will strengthen the employers, and the national governments, and weaken the working class at both the national and international level.
Working class unity, nationally or internationally, is a concrete thing. It depends for its development on successful struggles, and winning a favourable balance of forces between the ruling class and the working class.
The road to workers’ unity, therefore, is not through the more effective reorganisation of European capital against the European working class, but through the mobilisation of the working class in each country against its domestic class enemy, and the co-ordination of these struggles at the international level. That is the task, whether the EU exits or not.
We don’t need the EU, or NAFTA, or the WTO, to exist in order to fight for international solidarity. We were fighting for it long before they existed, and we are fighting for it today. They just strengthen the ability of capitalism to fight back.
What does this imply as far as voting on the Euro is concerned? Well, if the EU is such a good thing, and should be defended against those who want to break it up, it is hard to see why the AWL do not call for a yes vote. The EU would certainly be damaged by a no vote in a referendum in Britain.
In fact the AWL repeatedly argues, in the debate, that a no vote would be a disaster. Indeed if you really do think that the EU is "better than the old Europe", has created the basis for "working class unity all across Europe", and the best conditions for achieving a "democratic and socialist United States of Europe" [no less!], a yes vote for its central project is logical.
In the pamphlet the AWL justify not voting yes by saying that they can’t be seen as endorsing cuts and privatisations. They put it this way:
"The Euro is not just a discreet, small measure – it is a giant step towards capitalist integration which at this time necessarily means a package of cuts and privatisations. We cannot be seen, as we would be if we say yes, to endorse those attacks".
Indeed. But surely this seems a good reason for voting no?
In an informal discussion at a meeting of the SA Executive, Martin Thomas (a leading member of the AWL) said that if he was forced to vote one way or the other he would vote for the Euro, "but there is no need to make such a choice at the present time". This is presumably because it would put the AWL out on a limb in the debate.
Another argument the AWL is advancing is that to vote either yes or no for the Euro (rather than abstain) is to choose between two capitalist strategies, and this is something socialists should never do. Capitalism is capitalism, they argue, whether it is in the form of the national state, the EU, or anything else, and the workers’ movement should not choose between them. It is up to the capitalists how they organise against the working class, and we should not concern ourselves with it.
The AWL approach (presumably) therefore means fighting the concrete effects of the capitalists’ strategy, whilst having no view on the strategy itself. How can the movement develop politically from such a position? No one learns anything!
This makes no sense. Some forms of capitalist rule, and capitalist strategies against the working class, are more effective than others. How can we be neutral on that?
The workers’ movement has to take this into account if it to be effective. Without an analysis of the politics behind the attack the movement is disarmed. If the capitalist class change their form of rule (either on a national or international level) in a way which is detrimental to the working class, how can we be neutral?
Socialists are not indifferent to various forms of bourgeois government either. We don’t just say that they are all capitalist. We were not indifferent to the significance of the Thatcher governments of the 1980s and we are not indifferent to Berlusconi in Italy today, for example.
We vote for social democratic governments as a (capitalist) alternative to the parties of the right because this puts the working class in a better situation than under governments of the right. We don’t just say that they are different forms of capitalist rule: which they are.
Military rule is a capitalist strategy used under certain conditions, as is fascism. We are not neutral towards these either. We don’t just say: well they are all capitalist, its up to them how they rule!
How would socialists vote in a referendum which proposed the suspension of liberal democracy and the imposition of some form of military rule? We would vote against it, not abstain or have an "active boycott".
The same applies to a reorganisation within an individual capitalist enterprise. If a capitalist enterprise decides to impose new and harsher working conditions, we don’t just say it’s all capitalism anyway – which it is. We are in favour of opposing the new conditions. When workers in the post office are faced with a new management plan to cut jobs we don’t just say "its all capitalism" – which it is. We campaign to get it defeated.
However the AWL go on from this contorted logic to argue that to oppose a new form of capitalist rule is to endorse the existing form of capitalist rule. To oppose the EU, they say, is to support the individual nation state, to oppose the Euro is, they say, is to support the pound.
Again, this makes no sense. To be opposed to a new, worse form of rule does NOT mean that we support or endorse the old form of rule.
If workers reject new more harsh working conditions, it does not mean they support what previously existed – which they might have been fighting to improve anyway. It means they are opposed to something worse. If we are opposed to military rule, it does not mean that we endorse liberal democracy, only that we are opposed to military rule as an alternative.
The referendum when it comes will not be a choice between the Euro and the pound, but for or against the Euro. Obviously we would still have the pound if the Euro were rejected – but that would be the case if everyone abstained, since the Euro would only come in if Blair gets a positive mandate for it. So if a vote against the Euro is a ‘vote for the pound’ – so is an abstention!
The AWL position also implies that socialists should only support socialist options. A bit like (as someone said in the e-mail debate) the ultra sectarian Socialist Party of Great Britain, who refuse to campaign over wages and will only campaign against the wages system, with a memorable slogan "Don’t work for wages!"
It would be very nice to have a socialist choice more often, but most choices the working class are faced with are capitalist options, and they have to decide which one is in their best interests. In any case revolutionary socialists are not opposed to reforms: far from it, in fact Marxists should the be most effective fighters for reforms, seeing them within the context of a revolutionary programme.
The pamphlet also advocates the strange "active boycott" argument. The AWL claim that they are not in fact calling for an abstention, but an "active boycott": something of a contradiction in terms, in such a referendum.
It is hard to be credible saying that the single currency is such a big threat to jobs and welfare that we are going to abstain! But to accept the logic of this, says Matgamna, would be defeatist.
The problem the AWL face is that if the issue is worth campaigning for it must be worth a positive vote. Whatever spin you put on it, an abstention remains an abstention in real terms. It means you have decided not to vote yes and not to vote no but, yes, to abstain: "actively" or otherwise.
They also face the problem that the Euro is a huge issue in European politics, but they have nothing to say about it in a referendum – because they are neutral between capitalist policies.
So they have decided to make a fuss abut it even if they are calling for an abstention. That’s how they wind up with the idea of an "active boycott"!
The difficulty the AWL face in this is to define what the "active" part of such a campaign can be. It is hard to be militantly in support of – well, doing nothing. An active campaign implies mobilising people around something you are saying is important and makes a difference.
If voting one way or the other makes no difference – which is what an abstention means – what is there to campaign about?
You can picket the polling stations, knock on doors, or give out leaflets, but in the end you are saying: this is such an important issue that we are here militantly campaigning – to ask you to, er, abstain! Or join our picket and urge the voters, er, not to vote.
You may as well go home and leave the campaigning to those who think that there is an important choice to be made.
Trying to square this particular circle has led the CPGP (who work with the AWL in the debate) to a number of wild proposals (even by their standards) – such as "mobilising the workers to burn the ballot boxes", and calling for strike action in the work places in favour of – yes – an abstention in the referendum!
We can look forward to seeing in which work places the CPGB even make a serious proposal along these lines. Not many, we can confidently predict.
Sean Matgamna’s own proposal in this wacky campaigning vein is that socialists should have their OWN ballot papers, and ballot boxes, and run their own completely different ballot – calling for votes in favour of workers’ rights.
Wow, that will get the bosses on the run – particularly if they manage to find out that it is happening. But this is still essentially an abstention in the actual ballot which is taking place, and on which such antics it will have absolutely no impact.
There are several other arguments which the AWL advance:
1) We will have cuts anyway – with or without the Euro.
This is a passive and complacent position to take. Yes we would still have cuts with or without the Euro. There is a neo-liberal offensive going on that does not rely on the existence of the Euro. And new Labour have their own attacks to carry out on the welfare state.
But with the Euro we will get extra cuts, organised and co-ordinated through the EU Stability Pact. Double trouble, as it could be called. Why would we want that?
On top of the cuts organised at the national level we will have more cuts organised at the European level as soon as problems arise with the Stability Pact. It is like saying to workers: don’t bother to oppose the job cuts which have just been announced at the European level, because they will still attack you at the national level anyway.
What kind of position is that?
2) Socialists can’t vote the same way as the Tory right
Why not? Why should we allow the Tory right to decide how we vote? That is completely unacceptable. They will be voting ‘no’ from a position which has nothing to do with us. Their motivation is British nationalism, ours is the defence of the interests of the working class.
There is a constituency of people who oppose the Euro from a socialist anti-nationalistic point of view, workers in the public sector unions for example. Who is going to represent them if there is no socialist non-nationalistic campaign?
In fact the existence of what will undoubtedly be a strong right-wing campaign for a no vote makes a socialist, anti-nationalistic, campaign even more important – since without it the right-wing will dominate the debate unchallenged.
This is where the abstention position plays into the hands of the Tory right. It would leave us wringing our hands on the sidelines with nothing to say, whilst the Tories held the whole stage. There would be no socialist voice in the debate – other than on the sidelines, calling for an abstention
This would be a disaster in a referendum.
3) A no vote would ‘boost nationalism’
They argue that a win for the no position would be a disaster because it would boost nationalism. What is the evidence for this?
Is is true that a referendum campaign in Britain would boost nationalism, at least to some extent. That is because of the nature of the Tory right and the tabloid press in Britain. But this could be the case whatever the result.
It is not the result, but the campaign that would do it. The thing which would the biggest boost for nationalism is not to have a non-nationalist campaign for a no vote. That would hand the whole thing over to the nationalists.
4) A no vote would result in a Tory government
This looks even more unlikely given the state of the Tory party and the depth of their split over the Euro.
But what is certain is that a ‘no’ vote would throw new Labour into crisis, whilst a ‘yes’ vote would give it a new lease of life. Is that what the AWL want?
At the same time a ‘yes’ vote would be a major boost to the European project, with an historical obstacle to its future development being removed – i.e. British capitalism’s lack of commitment to its central project.
Each of the AWL’s arguments lead the left towards a cul de sac, would isolate socialists from a major debate, and strengthen rather than weaken the nationalists and the right.
That’s why we say what is needed is a campaign against the Euro, based on the interests of the working class, and with the socialists at the centre of it.
This would be impossible on the basis of abstention.