eu referendum: three marxist perspectives

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eu-referendum-three-marxist-perspectives 1/32

Abstain: The referendum and class independence

Vote No: No support to the EU neo liberal cartel
In Defence of Trotskyism
2
Joe Stalin (enhanced by airbrush and com- plete with adoring halo!) personally over- saw the 1951 British Road to Socialism:
“There is nothing socialist let alone genu- inely communist about this ultra-patriotic bourgeois reactionary nonsense. The narrow and ignorant nationalist outlook of the bureaucrat found its expression in the programme of socialism in a single country, the corollary of peaceful co-existence with imperialism and the reformist theory of stages in the revolution, originating in the
Second International. It amounts to theindefinite postponement of the struggle for socialism, the idealistic and impossible
peaceful parliamentary road to socialism, openly embraced in 1951”
Back issues of Socialist Fight and In Defence of Trotskyism All these are available from our PO Box 59188, Lon- don, NW2 9LJ at £2.50 for Socialist Fight and £1 for
IDOT plus P+P £2. Bulk orders price available onrequest. Alternatively current issues of Socialist Fight are available from: Calton Books, 159 London Rd, G1 5BX Glasgow, Rebecca Books 131 Crwys Road, Cardiff, CF2 4NH, Connolly Books 43 East Essex Street Dublin 2, Solidarity Books, 43 Douglas Street, Cork city, Ireland. Word Power Books, 43-45 West Nicolson Street, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH8 9DB, UK, October Books, 243 Portswood Road, South- ampton, SO17 2NG, News from Nowhere, 96 Bold St, Liverpool, Merseyside L1 4HY, Bookmarks, 1 Bloomsbury St, London WC1B 3QE , Housmans 5 Caledonian Rd, London N1 9DX.Housmans also carry a set of the back issues of IDOT from No. 6.
Join Socialist Fight To join Socialist Fight or learn more about our work and revolutionary politics contact us at our email or PO Box address.
Socialist Fight is a member of the Liaison Committee for the Fourth International with the Liga Comunista of Brazil and the Tendencia Militante Bolchevique of
Argentina.
[email protected].
http://tmb1917.blogspot.co.uk/
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of IDOT or SF
Vote Yes: For the Socialist United States of Europe! By Gerry Downing…….………..p. 3
The EU referendum and class independence By Ian Donovan ……………….……….. p.15
VOTE NO! NO SUPPORT TO THE EU NEO-LIBERAL CARTEL! By Graham Durham …………………... p. 20 End austerity. vote to leave the EU By Michael Calderbank ………………..p. 25
Europe and the politics of fraud, By John Fuller Carr……………….….... p. 25 For Abstention in Britain’s EU-Referendum! By RCIT (abridged) .…...…….….……..p. 27
Vote Yes and fight for a socialist united states of Europe By Workers Power (abridged)………….p. 29
The British Road to Socialism (1951) By Gerry Downing…………...…...……. p.32
Contents
3
T rotsky explained the economic and political basis for Lenin and the Bolshevik’s interna-
tionalism in opposition to the Stalinist revisionist theory of socialism in a single country in 1929:
“The essence of our epoch lies in this, that the productive forces have definitely outgrown the framework of the national state and have assumed primarily in Ameri-
ca and Europe partly continental, partly world propor-tions. The imperialist war grew out of the contradiction between the productive forces and national boundaries. And the Versailles peace which ter- minated the war has aggravated this contradiction still further. In other words: thanks to the development of the productive forces capitalism has long ago been unable to exist in a single country. Meanwhile, socialism can and will base itself on far more developed productive forces, otherwise socialism would represent not progress but regression with respect to capitalism. In 1914 I wrote: “If the problem of socialism were compatible with the framework of a national state, it would thereby become compatible with national defence.” The formula Soviet United States of Europe is precisely the political expression of the idea that socialism is impossible in one country. Socialism cannot of course attain its full development even in the limits of a single continent. The Socialist United States of Europe represents the historical slogan which is a stage on the road to the world socialist federation.” [1]
We should call for a Yes vote in the coming in-out referendum on membership of the EU. As socialists and Trotskyists we must ask and answer the question, is it in the interests of the working class and oppressed in Britain and internationally for the UK to remain in the EU or to leave it? That is our sole criterion. We are for a Yes vote primarily because we recognise that socialism in a single country is impossible. Indeed
as Trotsky points out above capitalism has long ago become impossible to sustain and develop in a single country and socialism must be built on a far higher level of wealth and productivity. An exit from the EU would inevitably strengthen the nationalism and patriotism not only in the British ruling class but also in a big section of the Brit- ish working class. Trotsky, “If the problem of socialism were compatible with the framework of a na-
tional state, it would thereby become compatible with national defence.”
Economic Nationalism and Stalinism Economic nationalism, calling for import controls and the exclusion of immigrants and ‘foreign’ workers, would be enormously strengthened by an exit. This would
Vote Yes: For the So-
cialist United States
4
strengthen the right wing of the Tory party, the United Kingdom Independence party (Ukip) and fascist groups. It would also strengthen the aristocracy of labour, those skilled and privileged sections of workers with relatively good jobs, on whom the trade union bureaucracy essentially rests. As the spokesperson for
the trade union bureaucracy and primary ideologue of and defender of this layerof workers the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) and their mouthpiece, The Morning Star (MS) are the foremost ideological advocates of exit from Europe in the labour movement. We clearly saw this danger in the strike wave in 2009 over British jobs for Brit-
ish workers. As we wrote then:
“Socialist Fight (SF) unequivocally opposes the current ‘wildcat’ strikes because they were called on the reactionary basis of ‘British jobs for British workers’ (BJ4BW), it was on this xenophobic basis they were spread, with the assistance of the right wing
media and on this basis they were tacitly endorsed by the entire Unite and GMB leaderships. We place the blame for this situation squarely on the backs of the reactionary Labour movement leaders; Gordon Brown and the Labour party leaders for endorsing the reactionary slogan, borrowed from the BNP, the Unite, GMB and other TU leaderships for tacitly endorsing and pursuing negotiations on that basis. A major
weight of responsibility also rests on the shoulders of those left groups and organisations, the Communists Party of Britain (CPB), the Socialist Party of England and
Wales and others who have acted as left apologists for these bureaucratic misleaders of the working class. When similar demands were made on the French TU leadership
they immediately rejected them as reactionary chauvinism and insisted on the de-mands like ‘we will not pay for the bankers/capitalism’s crises.
“These are reactionary strikes for reactionary ends which can only win by driving foreign workers out of the country and setting in train the destruction of the entire
working class and its organisations and all their historical gains. Fight them now, fight the reactionary leadership of the class who are responsible for this appalling situation or it will get worse. Do not try to find the silver lining; it is not there. They do mean what they say. If they occupied the plant and forged international solidarity that would be an entirely different strike, with entirely different leaders. To pretend
otherwise is to defend the existing leaders and to prepare more defeats. This is differ- entiating the left in Britain; it goes to the core of class politics. Fight the reaction
without reservations and you will find new revolutionists who will come forward to champion the interests of the class as an international whole.” [2]
In the last referendum in 1975 the MS could boast that they were the only news- paper to support the No campaign then, gathering under their banner Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, Enoch Powell, Ian Paisley, the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Un- ionist party and the Democratic Unionist party. A truly revolutionary popular front who shared platforms without regard to class, creed or politics but which nevertheless failed in its endeavours!
8/20/2019 EU Referendum: Three Marxist Perspectives
5
As the CPB/MS are Stalinists, the ideological foundation of which is socialism in a single country, they invariable follow the very patriotic line of defending capitalism in a sin-
gle country too. In fact this is the logical theoretical basis of all who seek the parliamentary road to socialism.
Split in the Ruling Class The split in the ruling class over Eu- rope is a historic one which is based on economic factors which have existed since after WWI but have developed strongly in recent decades. The British economy, particularly since the Thatcher epoch, relies very heavily
on the City of London; its manufacturing base has shrunk dramatically since the 1970s, diminished by her assault on the working class and its historic vanguard, the miners. Economics Help tells us:
“Manufacturing as a share of real GDP has fallen from 30% in 1970 to 12% in 2010.” [3]
“The UK had the second largest stock of inward foreign direct investment and the second-largest stock of outward foreign direct investment. The UK is one of the
world’s most globalised economies… the service sector dominates the UK economy, contributing around 78% of GDP; the financial services industry is particularly important and London is the world’s largest financial centre (tied with New York).” [4]
Britain exited from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), which was preparing for monetary union, in Black Wednesday 16 September 1992 because the run on the pound showed it could not compete economically with Germany. Germany is a far different type of economy to Britain:
“In 2014, Germany recorded the highest trade surplus in the world worth $285 billion, making it the biggest capital exporter globally. Germany is the third largest exporter in the world with $1.511 trillion exported in 2014. The service sector contributes around 70% of the total GDP, industry 29.1%, and agriculture 0.9%. Exports account for 41% of national output. [5]
Britain operates as a junior partner to American imperialism, it basically takes its orders from Washington on all important matters of economy and war. Obama
wants Britain to remain in Europe as a counterweight to Germany. If Britain leaves Europe then Germany will be tempted to defy the USA more frequently and to forge alliances which they see as in their interests against the USA. On exiting Europe its manufacturing base will shrink even further, it will become even
Black Wednesday 16 September 1992: the run on the pound showed the UK could not compete economically with Germany
6
more reliant on the City of London and more of a tool of the USA and will follow it even more obediently into every war and conflict without the counter-balancing
weight of the EU. A big section of the British ruling class do not welcome this prospect. It is sig-
nificant that Britain along with Germany, France and Italy defied the USA and
joined the China-dominated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The fact that the USA and David Cameron oppose exit from the EU is not an argument for exit, they are opposed to a downward spiral towards WWIII subjectively whilst supporting the system that is driving it. We do not oppose them in order to bring that prospect closer politically.
Who leads the No Campaign? As the forces on each side line up in the coming in-out referendum there are many differences with the 1975 referendum but also many similarities. The British
ruling class itself is seriously split on the question between a section of the finance capital elite and manufactures and so is the labour movement but the MS still leads the No vote on the left and is willing to collaborate with everyone to its right to prove its patriotism yet again.
The No camp MPs includes those on the right of the Tory party (maybe up to 100 MPs if Cameron gets little by way of concessions from the EU, it is ru- moured), Labour MPs Kate Hoey, Graham Stringer, Kelvin Hopkins and Roger Godsiff and Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell. The campaign is “bankrolled by a
string of millionaire party donors, including Labour money-man John Mills, for-mer Tory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas and spread-betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler, who has pumped a fortune into Ukip”, according to The Mirror . MS – influenced TU leaders and many Stalinists influenced by its socialism-in-a-single-country ide- ology like Arthur Scargill are for exit as are both the Socialist Party (CWI) and the Socialist Workers party (although the latter is far less ‘patriotic’). Jeremy Corbyn, a long time MS columnist, has voted against the EU in the past but is now for re- maining in.
In October 2011 then RMT president Alex Gordon made the following social
patriotic statement to a conference of the Peoples Movement (Ireland) in Dublin : “ The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is demanding measures to protect particularly unskilled workers where social dumping is threatening jobs. “It is an iron law of economics that an abundant supply of labour pushes down its cost. It is insulting people’s intelligence to pretend otherwise,” it said in a statement. Across Europe, it is clear that
we are witnessing large movement of capital eastwards as labour heads west. And this is happening in accordance to the principles of the single European market, which allow the ‘free movement of goods, capital, services and labour’, regardless of the social consequences. Single market rules, therefore, truncate all forms of democracy,
including rights to fair wages, working conditions, welfare and social protection and collective bargaining. These EU policies can only mean a continuation of mass migration and, ultimately, feed the poison of racism and fascism, the last refuge of the cor-
8
left are speaking out over the issue. But why exactly should left-
wingers be campaigning and advocating for a
British exit? For methere are three main reasons. The first is that the EU is run on secre- tive decision-making.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partner- ship (TTIP) has revealed how backdoor privatisation deals can be made through totally above-board bilateral trade agreements between the EU and the US.” [8]
The TTIP is a thoroughly reactionary agreement negotiated by the EU. Howev- er Comrade Carl neglects to tell us in what way the British government, or indeed the Labour opposition up to the election of Jeremy Corbyn, has opposed the TTIP. And if Corbyn proves the champion to fight against it would he not be more likely to succeed within Europe? We have just seen an absolutely huge German demonstration in Berlin of 250,000 against it on 10 October. That is surely the united force we need to tackle this global attack. Because along with
TTIP is TiSA and TPP, this is a global offensive by global imperialism, its great finance houses and its transnationals. A global response is called for. But Pac- man demurs:
“The second reason is the existence of the EU means neoliberalism is here to stay. I recently spoke with some Greek trade union representatives who told me the best they can hope for is a social EU that tones down the neoliberal agenda. This lack of hope is tragic. In any case, it is also fantasy. The troika has effectively won its battle
with Syriza in Greece since Alexis Tsipras has backed down. The upshot for the country is more austerity with privatisation measures. The likelihood that the EU is about to go softer on neoliberal austerity measures is highly unlikely.”[9]
The likelihood that we will get a British government to opposes neo-liberalism before 2020 is small. And even if we do it will not be able to do it in Britain alone. This version of two steps back in order to go one step forward will not
work. It will be two steps back followed by two more steps back. And reason No. 3:
“Finally, the EU is inherently uninterested in creating European harmony. Contrary to the supposed original principles of a union of European nations, the EU today
has pitted richer countries against poorer countries. Countries in the EU are either creditors, such as Germany and France, or debtors, like Ireland and Greece. Loans made to Greece, underwritten by European creditors to the previous Pasok govern-
Carl Packman, author of Loan Sharks and Nigel Farage: “I
don’t care if a socialist heads up the campaign.”
9
ment, were unsustainable. The conditions for these loans — imposed austerity measures — made things even worse and the economy shrank by 25 per cent from 2007-2014.”[10]
Again telling us what a terrible thing has happened to Greece without posing anything other than a nationalist solution is worse than useless. Even more so
for Greece than for Britain, if in a very different way. An independent Greece in the midst of a raging global financial crisis that could survive without the immediate assistance of the working class of Europe and the world coming to its assistance is a fool’s illusion.
Others to have presented basically the same MS arguments are Owen Jones and George Monbiot. Jones begins his 13-7-15 Guardian article, The left must put Britain’s EU withdrawal on the agenda , thus:
“Everything good about the EU is in retreat; everything bad is on the rampage,” writes
George Monbiot, explaining his about-turn. “All my life I’ve been pro-Europe,” says Caitlin Moran, “but seeing how Germany is treating Greece, I am finding it increasingly distasteful.” Nick Cohen believes the EU is being portrayed “with some truth, as a cruel, fanatical and stupid institution”. “How can the left support what is being done?” asks Suzanne Moore. “The European ‘Union’. Not in my name.” There are senior La- bour figures in Westminster and Holyrood privately moving to an “out” position too.
“If anything, this new wave of left Euro scepticism represents a reawakening. Much of the left campaigned against entering the European Economic Community when Margaret Thatcher and the like campaigned for membership. It was German and
French banks who benefited from the bailouts, not the Greek economy. It would threaten the ability of leftwing governments to implement policies, people like my parents thought, and would forbid the sort of industrial activism needed to protect domestic industries. But then Thatcherism happened, and an increasingly battered and demoralised left began to believe that the only hope of progressive legislation
was via Brussels. The misery of the left was, in the 1980s, matched by the triumphal- ism of the free marketeers, who had transformed Britain beyond many of their wild- est ambitions, and began to balk at the restraints put on their dreams by the Europe- an project.” [11]
Having rejected the left wing politics of his parents, who were Ted Grant and Militant supporters, Jones in now busily advising Jeremy Corbyn to tack to the right, to adopt politics in defence of British capitalism and basically abandon any arguments for socialism or real leftism. He wrote the following disgraceful tract in an article on 16 September:
“That means adopting an inclusive, cheerful, positive approach: love -bombing opponents, even. Nearly 4 million people voted for Ukip at the last election. If they are dismissed as racists rather than working-class people who often have unanswered fears over jobs, housing, public services and the future of their children and grand-
children, they will be lost forever.” [12]
The puerile advice to them is that we should be “love-bombing opponents” in-
10
stead of fighting reaction and demonstrating to them how wrong they are. This is what produced Miliband’s racist immigration mug (logo, ‘controls on immigration, I’m voting Labour 7 May’) that went a long way to persuade those voters that their racist views were legitimate. Enough of the “love-bombing” nonsense, fight the capitalist class and show these backward workers the bosses are the real enemy and not
the immigrants. His arguments in Europe are from the same perspective. A sort of a right wing
version of the old Militant programme of Enabling Acts passed through parliaments with the working class as a stage army to assist the real revolutionaries and workers in uniform and defence of ‘British interests’ in foreign wars etc. so as to mollify reaction. The blueprint for The Morning Star and Owen Jones’ arguments is the bourgeois nationalist nonsense that is Joe Stalin’s 1951 British Road to Socialism and its global counterparts for almost every country approved by Joe in that period. His argu-
ments on Greece and TTIP are the rehashed The Morning Star arguments.
What is the positive case for a Yes Vote? In 1929 Trotsky explained:
“The basic task of unification (of Europe – GD) must be economic in character, not only in the commercial but also productive sense. It is necessary to have a regime that would eliminate the artificial barriers between European coal and European iron. It is necessary to enable the system of electrification to expand in consonance with natural and economic conditions, and not in accordance with the frontiers of Versailles. It is necessary to
unite Europe’s railways into a single system, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. All this, in its turn, is inconceivable without the destruction of the ancient Chinese system of cus- tom borders within Europe. This would, in its turn, mean a single, All-European customs union – against America.” [13]
But surely we must not attempt in any way to confuse the Socialist United States of Europe with the present imperialist cabal that is the European Union? The United States was established in the War of Independence and maintained in the Civil War in revolutionary struggles. France’s internal customs borders were demolished along
with the ancien regime by revolution. However both Germany and Italy were unified from the top down basically by reactionary political movements. Trotsky explains:
“It has happened more than once in history that when the revolution is not strong enough to solve in time a task that is mature historically, its solution is undertaken by reaction. Thus Bismarck unified Germany in his own manner after the failure of the 1848 revolution. Thus Stolypin tried to solve the agrarian question after the defeat of the 1905 revolution. Thus the Versailles victors solved the national question in their own way,
which all the previous bourgeois revolutions in Europe proved impotent to solve. The Germany of the Hohenzollerns tried to organize Europe in its own way, i.e. by uniting it under its helmet.
“The leadership of the Comintern, and particularly the leadership of the French Com- munist Party are exposing the hypocrisy of official pacifism… The slogan of the United
11
States of Europe is not a cunning invention of diplomacy. It springs from the immutable economic needs of Europe which emerge all the more painfully and acutely the greater is the pressure of the USA… In the person of the Opposition the vanguard of the Europe- an proletariat tells its present rulers: In order to unify Europe it is first of all necessary to
wrest power out of your hands. We will do it. We will unite Europe. We will unite it
against the hostile capitalist world. We will turn it into a mighty drill-ground of militantsocialism. We will make it the cornerstone of the World Socialist Federation.” [14]
The leadership of the Tory party, the Labour party (with the small opposition above), the Liberal Democrats (almost no opposition here), the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru (Welsh nationalists), the DUP, UUP, SDLP and Sinn Fein (the four north of Ireland parties) are in the Yes camp. The nationalist parties all hope to attract US investments by low corporate tax and large tax breaks and that vitally depends on staying in Europe, hence the big change there since 1975. Of the far left
Workers Power, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the CPGB (Weekly Worker) are for Yes. The SSP in Scotland and Left Unity in England and
Wales also support a Yes vote. Socialist Resistance are unde- cided although Alan Thornett is for Yes and has strongly
argued for it. The Revolutionary Com-
munist International Tendency (RCIT, British section) are for abstention, on the basis that this referendum is the equiva- lent of an inter-imperialist war on which Marxists must be dual defeatist. [15] Obama has urged Cameron to fight to remain in Europe and Cameron visible strengthened his stance as a consequence, the leadership of France and Germany want the UK to remain in. Opinion polls put the Yes camp in the lead by approximately 39-44%, an insignificant margin.
Of course we acknowledge that the EU is a ‘bosses’ club’ that its structures are undemocratic even in the very limited terms of bourgeois democracy, that it does not have the advantages of a federal capitalist state in terms of bourgeois democracy, that monetary union is not fiscal union so all the weaker states in the EU are at
the mercy of German imperialism in particular which exploits the size and strength of its economy to oppress all other nations. But revolution against the British State
would be in a far better position to defend and extend itself with the assistance of
A stereotypical vision of the new – from-the-old Europe?
12
the European and global working class if they are joined together in the EU.
How will it advance this historic task if we first of all succumb to
national socialism, reject alliances with the other working classes of Europe and seek national solutions to the problems facing the
working class in Britain alone, which are profoundly global in origins and whose solution is to be found only in the international arena? You may argue that that it is profoundly con-
trary to your intention to advance British chauvinism in voting No but that is what will result as sure as night follows day.
Conclusion As one comrade commented on Owen Jones’ Guardian article, British progressives and the European Union: should we stay or should we go? on 16 July:
“A question for Owen Jones: why is it that the radical left in Greece (apart from the Sta- linist KKE) is desperate to remain part of the EU despite suffering at the hands of the European bankers and rightwing politicians. The answer is that the European left are unit-
ed in wanting to see a peoples’ Europe not a bankers’ Europe. The British left walking away from this fight will only strengthen those who represent the City of London and reactionary, bigoted, backward forces in British society and culture.” Nick Long, London. [16]
Spot on there, Comrade Nick. Of course the collaboration between the Socialist Par- ty, the Socialist Workers Party, the CPB/MS and the National Union of Rail, Mari- time and Transport Workers (RMT) under late general secretary Bob Crow and now under Mick Cash in No2EU, yes to Democracy and in the Trade Union and Socialist
Coalition (TUSC) was partly on the basis of their mutual opposition to Europe andsoftness on immigration controls apart from the SWP who oppose immigration controls but manages to collaborate with the other two without any problem in TUSC.
The SWP say “Our role in the referendum is to try to carve out a space for an international-
ist No campaign” [17] The SP have a position of opposition to racist immigration controls, the traditional hypocritical position of the old CPGB. As Peter Manson explained in Weekly Worker:
“In fact the policy of the ‘official’ Communist Party of Great Britain (and, after it, the
CPB) has been one of ‘non-racist immigration controls’ for over half a century. Here I amgrateful to Dr Evan Smith and his website, Hatful of History, for having collated the state- ments of the CPGB on this question since the early 1960s. [20] For example, Evans
Nick Long, People Before Profit party, canvassing in the general election in Lewisham East.
13
quotes the Communist Party weekly, Comment, which in 1963 stated that the previous year’s Commonwealth Immigrants Act must be opposed, because it was “not an act to control immigration in general”, but constituted “colour discrimination in immigration”. [18]
The SP have not softened their position on immigration control here in their Brit-ish Perspectives 2013:
“We staunchly oppose racism. We defend the right to asylum, and argue for the end of repressive measures like detention centres. At the same time, given the outlook of the majority of the working class, we cannot put forward a bald slogan of ‘open borders’ or ‘no immigration controls’, which would be a barrier to convincing workers of a socialist programme, both on immigration and other issues. Such a demand would alienate the
vast majority of the working class, including many more long-standing immigrants, who would see it as a threat to jobs, wages and living conditions. Nor can we make the mis-
take of dismissing workers who express concerns about immigration as ‘racists’. While racism and nationalism are clearly elements in anti-immigrant feeling, there are many consciously anti-racist workers who are concerned about the scale of immigration.” [19]
It really does not take a very bright spark to work out where Owen Jones gets his views from. And what is the source of the labour movement support for EU exit. It is all there in that 1951 British Road to Socialism inspired by Joe Stalin himself. All the more reason to oppose it and vote Yes.
On a final theoretical point. The imperialist nation state is not counterposed to
the interests of multinational corporations as many are claiming or at least implyingin relation to TTIP. This argument is a reflection of Karl Kautsky’s theory of imperialism that said that these monopoly corporation would grow so large as to eliminate competition. In fact every large corporation has a home in one of the imperialist powers and that government acts on its behalf in diplomacy and in war when necessary. This argument appeared before WWII and every multinational found its home and its champion as soon as the war began. TTIP is the means used by the imperialist powers of the US and Europe to exploit the working classes of the
world and the semi-colonial nations.
Roger McKenzie Assistant General Secretary of Unison said at the Labour CND Conference on 30-1-16 that he opposed TTIP because the nation state was margin- alised by global corporations. Michael Calderbank says in this pamphlet that TTIP: “allows multinational corporations to bring legal actions in offshore courts against the governments of nation states for loss of potential profits.” Alex Gordon said
when President of the RMT a few years ago that: “all nation states must have democratic control over their own immigration policy and have the right to apply national legislation in defence of migrant and indigenous workers” and Graham
Durham says in this pamphlet: “For what else are the TTIP measures but an en-codement of the process by which corporations assert their dominance over national governments and trade blocs.”
14
No, the imperialist governments are the executive committees of finance capital and the transnational corporations representing Wall Street, the City of London, Paris, Hamburg and Tokyo. The great corporations and their governments (executive committees) can only be defeated when we understand and fight them from the perspec-
tive of the world revolution like Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks did in 1917. Notes
[1] Leon Trotsky, Disarmament and the United States of Europe , 4 October 1929, https://www.marxists.org/archive/ trotsky/1929/10/disarm.htm
[2] Socialist Fight No. 2 Summer 2009, p 10, No support for these chauvinist, xenophobic strikes, https:// suacs.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/socialist-fight-no-2.pdf
[3] Economics Help, Relative decline in UK manufacturing , http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7617/economics/ economic-growth-during-great-moderation/
[4] Wikipedia, Economy of the United Kingdom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
[5] Wikipedia, Economy of Germany , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany
[6] Trade Unionists against the EU, Social Europe is a con ,http://www.no2eu.com/?page_id=263
[7] Karl Marx London, 1870, Letter of Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York, https://
www.marxist s. org/archive/marx/works/ 1870/ letters/70_04_09.htm
[8] The Morning Star , Socialists should lead the bid to leave the EU, the case for why Britain must exit the neoliberal empire of the EU . http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-5c07- Soc i a l i s t s - shou ld - l e ad - the -b id - to - l e ave - the - EU#.VhvMCyupfSo
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Owen Jones, The left must put Britain’s EU withdrawal on the agenda , http://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece- eurosceptic
[12] Owen Jones, The Guardian 16 September, If Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour is going to work, it has to communicate, http://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/ jeremy-corbyn-labour-twitter-media
[14] Ibid.
[15] “The RCIT maintains that authentic Marxists must refuse to support either of these two, equally reactionary, imperialist camps. The most important task now is to fight for the political independence of the working class and the oppressed vis-à-vis either of these imperialist camps. There is no lesser evil for the working class.” http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/british-left-and-eu-referendum/part-1/
[16] Owen Jones, The Guardian, 16 July, British progressives and the European Union: should we stay or should we go? http:// www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/16/british-progressives-and-the-european-union-should-we-stay-or-should- we-go
[17] Joseph Choonara, EU referendum: Should we stay or should we go? August 2015, http://socialistreview.org.uk/404/eu- referendum-should-we-stay-or-should-we-go
hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/the-british-left-and-immigration-controls.
[18] Peter Manson, Playing a fool’s game , Weekly Worker, Issue 1014, 12.06.2014, http://weeklyworker.co.uk/ worker/1014/playing-a-fools-game/
[19] British Perspectives 2013: a Socialist Party congress document , 28 March 2013, http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ campaign/Anti-racism/Immigration/16413
The SPEW still bad on immigration controls: “At the same time, given the outlook of the majority of the working class, we cannot put forward a bald slogan of ‘open borders’ or ‘no immigration controls’, which would be a barrier to convincing workers of a socialist pro-
gramme, both on immigration and other is-sues.”
15
S ocialists should not advocate support for either the Yes or No
camp in the coming EU referendum. Both sides of the debate represent different strands of imperialism. Neither strand represents a democratic gain, even in a deformed sense, for the
working class or other sections of the
oppressed. Neither socialism, nor even significant social reform, is on offer from either of the contending camps. And indeed both the ‘No’ and the
‘Yes’ side of the debate, in bourgeois terms, are quite capable of inflicting major, crippling defeats on the working class. Both are variants of neo- liberalism in terms of not just ultimate aims, but immediate, straightforward policy. The dispute over the European Union is a dispute between two different sections of the ruling class, about which is the best way to promote the interests of British imperialism and to shore up its declining position in the world.
Socialists do not necessarily refuse to take sides in intra-bourgeois political dis- putes. If the issues involved substantially impinge on questions that are essential to working class interests, and if the victory of one side over the other would make a qualitative difference to some essential working class interest, then it
would be correct to take a side.
The problem is that the victory of either side in the coming referendum prom- ises to damage working class interests substantially. If the ‘Yes’ side in Camer- on’s referendum is victorious, the population would have voted not only for the current undemocratic, neo-liberal EU, but also whatever Cameron is able to achieve in diluting and doing away with some of the EU’s social democratic protections for some basic workers’ rights. It will also be a signal the implementa- tion of whatever ‘concessions’ Cameron is able to extract in terms of diluting the EU’s laws guaranteeing the free movement of labour across the EU, attacks on benefits for migrants and others, etc. It could even signal further derogations from human rights laws which also sometimes provide a level of protection for some from the most blatant UK government abuses.
The EU referendum and class
independence

the EU Social Charter of yesteryear, and no
doubt other similar concessions that have at
times cut against the grain of the British
Tories’ particular brand of neo-liberalism
would be for the chop – and a ‘Yes’ victory
would be the signal for that to be done.”
16
Such minimal but important protections as the EU Social Charter of yesteryear, and no doubt other similar concessions that have at times cut against the grain of the British Tories’ particular brand of neo-liberalism would be for the chop – and a ‘Yes’ victory would be the signal for that to be done. As indeed
would also be true for whatever attacks on workers’ rights – including those of migrant workers – that Cameron is able to garner.
EU: Neoliberal agency vs. Thatcherite nationalist right As such varied phenomena as the Greek austerity in defence of the Euro, and the advent of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) show, the EU is not only not a barrier to neo-liberalism, but also a locus of its deepening. TTIP is the joint US-EU proposal for a transatlantic free trade zone that contains a further ratcheting up of neo-liberalism and further attacks on the rights of national governments to institute or defend gains such as free
public healthcare, as with Britain’s NHS. Thus one important view of the right- wing of the British trade union bureaucracy in recent times, that the EU was some kind of shield against privatisation and attacks on workers’ rights, has gone up in smoke.
A ‘No’ vote would not improve things. On the contrary it would be certain to also lead to intensified neo-liberalism in a different, basically English nationalist form. The driving force of the ‘No’ campaign from the Tory right and UKIP is hostility to workers’ rights (including the right to free movement of
workers), residual social democratic ‘interference’ in the free market, and ‘human rights’ laws. If the left were to join in the current ‘No’ campaign, with a reactionary Tory government in power pressured further right by its own anti- EU wing and their sometime UKIP allies, it would be cutting its own throat. It
would also further entrench the nationalist division between English and Scot- tish workers epitomised by the wipe-out of Labour by the SNP in last year’s General Election, as Scotland would likely vote to separate rather than be dragged into a Little Britain dominated by the anti-Scottish English right. The victory of the anti-European right would mean further attacks on mi-
grant rights, the destruction of limitations on exploitation such as the working time directive, compulsory holidays, the rights of agency workers, not to men- tion a possible exit from the Council of Europe and thus from the European Convention on Human Rights. And no doubt, as the British ruling class are lackeys of the US ruling class to a considerable extent, such projects as TTIP
would not be halted one iota. So there are plenty of reasons why it would be wrong for the left to actively
support either side. We should be for an active boycott by the workers movement of Cameron’s referendum, which is not, contrary to the fraudulent and deeply reactionary campaigns of UKIP and the Tory right, anything to do with national self-determination. This is about reactionary nationalism opting out of
17
particular imperialist configuration in favour of another, not any assertion of national rights.
Counterposed left positions On the left, we see two strands of argument that justify taking sides in this intra-bourgeois dispute. A case, argued in Marxist terms, for a ‘Yes’
vote is put forward by comrade Ger- ry Downing in his article “ EU referendum: Vote Yes; Fight for the Socialist United States of Europe ”. Comrade Gerry’s article is very strong in attack- ing the Stalinist and other left-
nationalist delusions of those who believe in the British Road to Social- ism – the idea that socialism can exist in a single country. That is correct.
What is not correct is what is heavily implied in drawing such a direct connec- tion between saying yes to the EU and fighting for a ‘Socialist United States of Europe’ – the idea that the EU is in some way a step towards that Socialist unification.
If it were such a step forward, such a position would make sense. But the con- crete evolution of the EU shows that it is unable to unify the productive forces and economies of its component parts. One element of the EU that the British Eurosceptics are able to point to as a failure and an irrationality is the Euro.
The Euro is the highest expression so far of the pseudo-unification of Europe in economic terms.
But as is starkly visible from the Greek crisis, as well as similar phenomena involving other countries on the Eurozone periphery, the Euro has not only not unified the economies of the European states, it has become an instrument for
crucifying the poorer economies involved and massively transferring their resources to the richest imperialist countries in the EU, particularly Germany.
This is the result of a currency that is not associated with a single state power, taxation and fiscal system, that depends instead on manipulation of relations between separate, widely divergent capitalist economies and states to stay afloat.
Such is the irrationality of the Euro as a measure that, in hindsight, as an ele- mentary matter of self-defence of the working class, it was indeed correct for socialists to have called for a no vote to the Euro.
Migrant rights are workers rights The European Union does contain as part of its economic ethos one thing that is of net benefit to the working class on a continental level – the right of free
“As such varied phenomena as the Greek
austerity in defence of the Euro, and the
advent of the Transatlantic Trade and In-
vestment Partnership (TTIP) show, the EU is not only not a barrier to neo-liberalism,
but also a locus of its deepening.”
18
movement of labour within the EU. This is not a product of altruism or a progressive, internationalist intention on behalf of the rulers of the EU – far from it. Their aim is to wider the sphere of the exploitation of labour, and to undercut so-called ‘labour monopolies’ particularly in the richer imperialist countries.
This often means attacks on established gains of unionised workers in these
countries. There is a balance to be struck here, and it is not always easy to see where the line is to be drawn. It is said that there is only one thing worse than being exploited under capitalism, and that is not being exploited under capitalism. That is, being thrown on the scrap heap as a worker. This applies just as much to a
worker from Poland or Romania as it does to a worker from Britain. The right to migrate in search of work is just as much a right that must be defended for all workers as the right to strike and picket for better pay, or to defend exist-
ing gains of the working class. All such rights must be defended tooth and nail. The effects of migration are contradic-
tory and in local situations do indeed lead to established sections of the working class being undercut by migrants
who are not in a position to demand the kind of terms and conditions more es-
tablished sections of the class have pre- viously been able to demand. That is the negative side. The positive
side, however, is the creation of a more internationalised working class, with the potential to enhance its power and breadth in the future. Not least through overcoming local chauvinisms that often are steeped in class collaboration with sections of local employers, at least implicitly against ‘foreign’ workers. That is always the effect of labour mobility under capitalism, through assembling
workers from diverse origins and uniting them under the cosh of exploitation,
it creates its own collective gravedigger for the future. This is again another good reason why it would be fundamentally wrong to
support either side in the bourgeois referendum debate over the EU. Capital- ism creates its gravedigger in the proletariat, but we do not thereby support capitalism. We are opposed to the exploitation of migrant workers, and their use to undercut previous working class gains. And we cannot endorse the capitalist institutions that are responsible for promoting this, which obviously includes very centrally the EU. We oppose all attacks on gains of the working
class inherited from the past.But we also oppose reactionary, chauvinistic opposition to these capitalist phenomena. We oppose any opposition to them that seeks to exclude workers
Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway
have both reversed their positions in recent times in opposite directions.
19
from poorer EU countries from migrating to seek a better life. These are also the rights of part of the working class under capitalism. We are not defenders of any national section of the working class against other national sections. We seek to represent the interest of all workers, to unite the working class. Any opposition to capital that seeks to exclude foreign workers is in fact helping
capital to poison all sections of the working class against each other, with the kind of chauvinism that in the past produced its logical consequences with
workers killing each other in two World Wars. The more consistent ‘leftwing’ opponents of the EU in times past, such as
No2EU in Britain, no matter how many working class demands they raised that were supportable, always had as their fundamental weakness a hostility to migrant workers, even if expressed in a cryptic and embarrassed manner. This is the dangerous political logic to this kind of opposition to the EU, it is damaging
as is the logic of those who seek to promote internationalism by support for the EU.
Class independence and Marxism: fight both camps! Both of these false positions represent at least an implicit break with class independence, and see a bloc with different bourgeois factions as the way forward. Neither of these bourgeois factions is being pushed by independent working class forces into taking positions that in some way contradict the interests of capital. Both are pursuing anti-working class aims, albeit different ones, with
considerable determination and clarity. For the purposes of class independence, socialists must counterpose themselves to both camps.
Such is the complexity and problematic nature of this question that the most advanced elements of British social democracy have tended to flip-flop from one position to another on the basis of empirical events.
For instance Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway have both reversed their positions in recent times in opposite directions: Galloway, who was in the past an outspoken critic of No2EU for its exitism, under the impact of the EU’s
humiliation of SYRIZA in Greece, shifted to supporting British exit. Corbyn,on the other hand, appears to have shifted from an anti-EU position at the be- ginning of his campaign for the Labour leadership to a pro-EU position now, partly under pressure from the PLP mainstream (i.e. the remnants of New La- bour) and partly through worry about the nationalist consequences of a British exit.
Such flip flopping really is pretty subjective, shallow and empirical and represents an inability to formulate a coherent class alternative to both bourgeois camps. It is not surprising that even the best elements of left Labourism have
been so empirical; what left Labourism lacks above all is a coherent socialist worldview. Only Marxism can provide that.
20
“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close” (Barack Obama, 12 January 2016)
A s US President Obama prepares to leavethe scene, the first black man allowed to
act as the key spokesperson of those oppress- ing the world working -class and militarily im- posing neo-liberal political and economic cha- os across the planet, there can be little doubt he is right about the dominant military and economic clout of the US.
It is a dominance which daily wreaks havoc on all parts of the globe: from the war refugees washing up drowned in the seas of Europe, to the daily oppression of Palestinians and all others who refuse to accept US-backed Israeli dominance, to the exploited poor of America and the so-called first world hounded into inse- curity and denied welfare and health, to the opponents of clerical regimes from Saudi to Iran who face torture and execution and, of course, to the poorest bonded labourers and street beggars of the world without trade unions or rights and to the robbed and exploited peasants and farmers. The list could run on but it is important to begin a debate about Europe with
this recognition that US imperialism, in its relentless drive for corporate profit requiring increased exploitation of workers and resources, which is responsible for the human misery of the oppressed around the planet.. However whilst proxy wars for US dominance are being fought in Syria, Libya and elsewhere including on the European mainland in the attempt to crush the Donetsk republics, the world situation has changed dramatically over 75 years when US dominance was confirmed. Most strikingly the ability of capital itself to act internationally without restriction has developed to a new and unprecedented level. The debate on the EU referendum should therefore take account of the in-
creased international nature of capital as predicted by Marx and Lenin and recog- nised by nearly all modern bourgeois and ‘Marxist’ analysts. As the Guardian
VOTE NO

ANY CONTINENT
COUNTRY

economics editor, Larry Elliott, put it (21 January 2016):
“Economies are far more integrated than they were half a century ago, when capital controls, trade barriers and extensive public ownership shielded national economies.
Today changes in political philosophy and technology mean that there are far fewer impediments to the free movement of goods - and virtually none at all to the free
movement of money”
For what else are the TTIP measures but an encodement of the process by which corporations assert their dominance over national governments and trade blocs. Capitalism is international and dominates all the world, even where, as in China and Vietnam for example, so-called Communist Parties are in government presid- ing over the free market (we can exclude only Cuba which continues to defend the social gains of the 1959 revolution from this total US dominance).
In this sense, and allowing for the rivalries and tensions between competing and
growing economies such as China, the shrinking economic power that is the EU cannot be even a capitalist rival for the US and increasingly China. To try to tie the interest of workers internationally to the EU is an absurdity. Ask the redundant steel workers of Teesside or Port Talbot how they were defended by the EU or the British government against the cheaper labour extracted in China which cut the profits of steel corporations and led to ruthless closures and redundancies. In the 21st century only an international planning of all world resources through workers’ governments across the planet can achieve solutions to the problems facing the oppressed in all nations.
Only with this internationalist perspective of the world struggle of the working- class can we address the pro-EU Yes voters in the labour movement. These broad- ly fall into two camps - the pro-Europe social democrats such as Hilary Benn and the ‘ orthodox Trotskyist’ Yes voters such as comrade Gerry Downing in this pamphlet. In Downings’ case this orthodoxy on Europe mainly consists of examining the writings of Trotsky. Before the Stalinists murdered him in 1940 the then trium- phant Nazis were engaged in world war; Downing is desperately trying to restate Trotsky’s formulations in the stubborn face of the facts that capitalism has become
a worldwide system able to operate across continental borders with ease. We return to these errors later.
First to deal with Hilary Benn and co, who may have captured Jeremy Corbyn in recent weeks, and many trade union leaders, with the idea that the EU is a glorious defender of workers; interests. The ‘Stay in Europe’ campaign for example (backed by Billy Hayes and Caroline Lucas amongst others) argues that although there are faults in the EU, British citizens stand to lose amongst others: the right to study in Europe, workplace rights, human rights and environmental agreements.
Putting aside for now the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, these arguments are an uncomfortable mix of pure European workers’ privileges at the expense of the rest of the world and abandon-
22
ment of the working-class as a force in history. The privileged free movement of labour and study rights of European workers are, of course, an argument for ongoing European chauvinism aimed at
bolstering the standing (of the mainly white) European workers at the expense of the workers (mainly of former colonies) of the rest of the world. This chauvinism is exhibited daily in the in- difference of leading sections of the trade union and labour movement to the human misery of refugees in the heart of
Europe and dying on its borders. For us, who claim to be Marxists and socialists, these are our brothers and sisters and we demand free movement for them in their hour of need as they flee the terrifying consequences of the Blair/Bush wars and ongoing terror bombing.
For these right and ‘left’ social democrats in the Yes campaigns, who often seek to ditch the discredited social democrat label with its connotations of 1914-1918 imperialist slaughter and dub themselves ‘reality based socialists’, the working - class is a past and dying force which once had the capacity to achieve social gains such as trade union rights but are now neither capable nor to be trusted and must leave the defence of workers’ rights achieved to date to the clever manoeuvres of the trade union bureaucrats in Brussels and the Labour MEPs. This defensive combination of European privilege protection and working-class
passivity embraces not just those such as Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson, open supporters of US/UK bombing of Syria, but also many who, whilst opposing this bombing as such, have either never had or have lost hope in independent working-class action.
Other streams active in the labour movement are those, such as The Morning Star, who demand a No2EU vote as protection for British workers against the alleged evils of EU trade agreements. This is a reactionary national chauvinism which tries to pose not a European superiority but a British one in which British workers and their needs are given prominence against workers of Europe and the world. This current is strong in the British trade union movement and leaders of UNITE and the GMB can be found defending the arming of imperialist NATO through recommissioned Trident nuclear submarines on the grounds that these are British workers’ jobs. The same narrow national chauvinism is found in the demand for subsidies to defend the British steel industry, hopeless demands that ignore the core truth that as long as workers’ wages can be driven down in other
23
parts of the world then capitalism will take production there. So we are left with parts of the ‘Marxist left’ who claim to share the same interna-
tionalist principles and campaign for a Yes to the EU vote. Here we will examine the defence of this position by comrade Gerry Downing in this pamphlet. Downing argues for a Yes vote as:
1. Concessions to nationalistic demands such as import controls will strengthen the right This is correct as far as it goes - but an internationalist opposition to the EU based on the interests of workers worldwide would not support the EU market cartels or any import controls aimed at the rest of the world. The EU is in fact a continuance of European colonialism by another name aimed at increasing the profits of Euro- pean capitalists and sharing some crumbs with the European working-class. The attempt by the Danish government to seize refugee assets and the demands by Cameron and other EU leaders to close borders are deeply reactionary, anti- working-class and designed, as ever, to split workers on the basis of false national or continental common interests and ally the working-class with their bosses.
2. A Euro exit will strengthen the hold of US imperialism The crushing by the EU and the European Central Bank allied to the IMF and World Bank of the attempts by Syriza to resist, at least in a token way, austerity shows clearly that the EU is a reactionary force allied to the US against the interests
of European workers. The weakening of the capitalist EU cartel could strengthenthe ability of the US to impose its will unless there is a mobilisation of the workers worldwide against US imperialism. Our task is to build international working-class solidarity against European and US imperialism. That is the true legacy of Bolshe- vism and Trotskyism.
3. The No camp is full of social patriots Actually both camps are full of social patriots. Whether it is Hilary Benn arguing for British interests and a Yes vote or the Morning Star and Communist Party of Britain
arguing for British interests and a NO vote both start from a narrow nationalistchauvinism. It is true that UKIP and other far right forces support an exit but only in the in-
terests of an imaginary British capitalist class. Equally true is the support of world imperialism for a Yes vote to strengthen neo-liberalism.
4. European workers are in struggle, we cannot abandon them Interestingly Downing focuses on the strikes by German workers and ignores the struggles in Egypt, China, Syria etc. by workers internationally. Here he falls into
European continental chauvinism which makes no sense in a neo-liberal world.Other ‘Marxists’ who fall into this trap quote the rise of Podemos in Spain and other parties of the left calling for European solidarity. Of course solidarity with all
24
worker struggles worldwide from the fighters against EU/CIA imposed austerity in Ukraine and the struggles of workers in India and in Kurdistan require solidarity from all works. The saddest manifestation of the illusions peddled
in the EU by some socialist currents was the appear- ance of some Ukrainian socialists in the pro-capitalist Maidan protests carrying banners proclaiming ‘For Socialism, For The EU’. This was both a farce as the Ukrainian nationalist movement, supported by fas- cists, was aimed at the full restoration of capitalist power in Ukraine and a tragedy as those areas refus- ing to surrender to imperialism where merciless at-
tacked by Ukrainian troops and their US/UK advis-ers.
5. Socialism in a single country is not possible Again a correct position falsely applied. Neo- liberalism is a world phenomenon; it cannot be fought in Europe or Britain alone. We must rebuild the international forces to achieve this through inter-
national workers organisations.
6. We need a Socialist United States of Eu- rope Capitalism has developed into a world system and is significantly less constrained by national governments and market cartels than in 1940. Posing the interests of European workers unity against the workers of the rest of the world is no longer a sustainable position in a globalised world. We have nothing in common with the bosses of Europe and everything in common with the
workers of the world.
7. The (hoped for) British revolution will be better defended if the working-class are joined together in the EU In this referendum in Britain, socialists who support an independent working-class should understand that their international duty Is not to abstain or side with the interests of US and British imperialism but to campaign for the destruction of the capitalist protection racket that is the EU. In campaigning for a NO vote, we reject all national and continental chauvinism. Building struggles against neo-liberalism worldwide is the only means forward for our class
Workers of ALL Countries Unite
“Other streams active in the
labour movement are those,such as the Morning Star, who
demand a No2EU vote as pro-
tection for British workers
tionary national chauvinism
pean superiority but a British
one in which British workers
and their needs are given promi-
nence against workers of Europe
and the world.”
25
I want to see the election of a Labour government: I want to see an end to austerity, key services like
our railways back into public ownership, and theNHS protected from privatisation. But Britain’s membership of the European Union threatens the ability of a democratically elected government to do any of this.
The EU we are being asked to remain a member of is no longer the advocate of a “Social Europe”. Where the Europe of Jacques Delors appeared to offer some defence against the Thatcherite onslaught witnessed here in Britain, today’s EU is a key agent and driver of that neoliberalism. Those real social gains which remain in EU law from this period are under threat. It is no coincidence that the big battal- ions of capital in Britain – the CBI, the Financial Times, the City of London – all stand squarely in favour of staying “In”.
Take the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Part- nership (TTIP) - a trade deal between the USA and EU – negotiated in secret, and with frightening im- plications for the future of democracy. It aims to introduce a new ‘Investment Court System’, which
allows multinational corporations to bring legal actions in offshore courts against the governments of TTIPs for loss of potential profits incurred where services are run in the public sector rather than being privatised or outsourced. This is a thinly-veiled version of the Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) already contained within other bi-lateral trea- ties signed by the EU. This led to energy company
Vattenfall suing the German government for billions of dollars over its decision to phase out nuclear pow-
er plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. If applied here, such a system could well mean that, for example, our National Health Service is ruled unlawful by foreign courts able to dictate to a British government that healthcare must be run for private profit.
UKIP’s fear-mongering on immigration might make some Labour supporters cling to the pro-EU side in response. But sadly politicians on both sides of the referendum question will be appealing to popular prejudices. Already, the cross party “Britain in Europe” Group have stressed that the European Arrest Warrant is “necessary” to kick out foreign rapists and murders from UK shores, again reinforc- ing xenophobia.
Plus whilst socialists oppose racist immigration controls, the European Union – at the same time as protecting free movement of labour within EU states – has been pursuing a “Fortress Europe” policy when it comes to policing external borders, leaving refugees to drown in the sea.
It is totally false to portray all advocates of withdrawal from the EU as “little Englanders”. In reality, we will need to develop closer solidarity ties amongst social movements across Europe’s borders in order to fight off the imposition of austerity. British withdrawal from the EU would deliver a significant blow for accountability and popular sovereignty, not only in Britain but for all the peoples of Europe.
I f the British establishment is divided, the groups, factions and sects of the left – Labour and non-
Labour alike – have proved utterly incapable of providing anything like a serious alternative. In fact, the reformist and national socialist left adheres either to the most gullible or the most chauvinist positions on the EU.
Instinctively the national socialists recognise that
European integration makes a mockery of their utopian British road to socialism. Take the No2EU election bloc – uniting the Socialist Party in Eng-
land and Wales and the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain. It is virtually indistinguishable from the Tory right, Ukip and the British National Party. No2EU wants to save the pound sterling, restore British sovereignty and re-establish immigration controls to bar European incomers.
Naturally, when it comes to the likes of Peter Taaffe, Robert Griffiths, Bob Crow and Brian Den-
ny, this is all done in the name of socialism … but it is the socialism of fools. The best that these advocates of “workers’ rights” could achieve is a British
If you want an end to austerity, here

Labour Party Marxists
26
version of Stalinism – i.e., state slavery – and that imposed onto a capitalistically advanced country fully integrated into the world economy. What costs the lives of
millions in the 1930s could only but be repeated as a still greater tragedy.
Civilisation would not be advanced, but barbarically thrown back. And, unfortu- nately, where the CPB and SPEW have led, Socialist Resistance, Respect, the Alli- ance for Green Socialism,
Scottish Socialist Party, Soli-darity, etc., have followed – to the point of a horribly self- defeating common sense.
Of course, for Marxists, proletarian socialism – as the first stage or phase of communism – is international or it is nothing. There can be no socialism in one country, because capital, as a social relation- ship, exists not within the nation-state, but internationally, at the level of the global economy. Bureau- cratic or national socialism just brings back all the old crap, albeit in different, highly contradictory forms. That is why as long ago as 1845 Marx and Engels emphatically rejected all localist schemes and insisted, on the contrary, that: “Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples ‘all at once’ and simultaneously.”
Now, in the name of “kicking the debate off”, we have Michael Calderbank of Brent CLP. Writing in Labour Briefing, he rightly takes to task those who have illusions in the progressive nature of the EU
when it comes to labour legislation, social rights, etc. … All are being “eroded and undermined”, he feigningly laments. Of course, what comrade Cald- erbank wants the LRC to do is to vote ‘no’ in Cam- eron’s referendum and bank everything on a British withdrawal.
Inevitably, comrade Calderbank gives his en- dorsement of the ‘no’ campaign a socialistic colora- tion. Instead of “populist scapegoating” of migrants, he makes a seemingly bold call for “taking
back power” and “taking control of our servicesand economies, on a local and national scale.” Does his formula amount to a post-referendum
establishment of a workers’ state and the abolition of capitalism? Unlikely. Or is it an empty plea for the restoration of Keynesian economics and the politics of welfar-
ism? Either way, the comrade says that “our membership of the EU” impedes his agenda, so “calling for a withdrawal from an international left perspective would be perfectly consistent”. When it comes to the LRC’s old position, the comrade
dishonestly rejects any pro-
gramme of fighting for a workers’ Europe as akin to banking on “adequately re-
forming” the “existing institutions” of the EU. An obvious non sequitur. Nevertheless, on the basis of this crude falsification, comrade Calderbank feels he can tell us what we all know. The EU is not very democratic … and he thinks it “extremely hard” to see how this can be changed.
The lack of imagination is as sad as it is palpable. Why those of us who want to take as our strategic point of departure not Britain, but the EU are supposed to believe in the reformability of the whole array of existing EU institutions remains to be established.
Apply his methodological approach to the British state. Over the last 30 years or so it has surely “eroded and undermined” the post-World War II consensus. Indeed, it is fair to say, successive Brit- ish governments – Tory, Labour and Con-Dem – have been at the forefront of the neoliberal offen-
sive both at home and in the EU. Should we therefore conclude with a call for the “dissolution” of Britain, as Welsh and Scottish nationalists do, or even a working class “withdrawal” from it?
Pitiably, comrade Calderbank unintentionally shows a naive faith in the institutions of the UK state: the monarchy, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the judiciary, the presidential prime minister, MI5, the Church of England, the standing army, etc. Can they all be “adequately”
reformed so as to pave the way for a workers’ Brit-ain? The implication in comrade Calderbank’s po- lemic is, yes, they can.
Michael Calderbank: “It is totally false to portray all advocates of with-
drawal from the EU as ‘little Englanders’.”
27
1. Socialists have to explain that it is in the interest of the working class and the oppressed of Britain to oppose any form of imperialist state. They should refuse to be dragged into giving their support as gullible voters to either of these alternative forms of imperialism. Consequently, the Revolutionary Com- munist International Tendency (RCIT) and its supporters in Britain call upon workers and oppressed to vote neither YES or NO to UK membership in the EU. Instead, they should write on the ballot:
“Neither Brussels, nor Downing Street! For international Unity of the Workers and Oppressed”, i.e., effectively casting a vote of abstention.
3. The huge majority of Britain’s ruling class wants to stay in the European Union as this is consistent with their political and economic interests. In contrast to its role in the 19th and early 20th centuries, British imperialism is far too weak to have any global influence as an isolated state. Its only real options are acting as a junior partner to US
imperialism or to a European Union led by Germa- ny and France. While the British bourgeoisie have and will to continue to maintain special relations with Washington (especially militarily), its economic interests are closely aligned with the EU. 51.2% of UK’s Outward Foreign Direct Investments are concentrated in the EU (2010), compared with only 17.5% for the US. (49% of the UK’s Inward FDI originates in the EU while the source of 30% of these investments is the US.) Similarly, the EU is by far Britain’s biggest trading partner: In 2013, 44.5% of UK exports went to other EU countries, while the EU contributed 52.2% of total imports to the UK. (The US accounts for only 17.6% of UK exports and 9% of its imports.)
4. Characteristically, the pro-Zionist and social- imperialist centrist, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL) also supports a pro-EU vote, claiming that this would be a vote for more “democracy” and against racism. This is a rather bizarre position of for this so-called “Trotskyist” group, given the fact
that the EU doesn’t even have an elected government and in light of the EU’s standing aside while thousands of migrants drown in the Mediterranean
Sea every year. (We note with regret, too, that Workers Power recently dropped its former revolutionary position of abstention in such referendums and humiliated itself by calling for a YES vote in a referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU.) In short, the pro-EU camp is dominated by the big imperialist bourgeoisie, trailing in its wake the social -imperialist labour bureaucracy.
5. The main social basis of the NO-camp i.e., those who advocate Britain’s exiting the EU, is the
backward sector of the bourgeoisie (represented in the “Business for Britain” campaign) and the middle class, who are in danger of going to the dogs in an increasingly unstable social and economic order in which the big fish are devouring the little fish. This is the same camp which hopes to garner support from among the labour aristocracy and the backward sectors of the white working class by whipping up a racist campaign of hatred against migrants and ethnic minorities. This camp’s main
political forces are Nigel Farage’s UKIP and the right-wing of the Tories which also receive support from the fascist BNP as well as the English Demo- crats. As a secondary force, the anti-EU camp is also supported by the “Little England” remnants of British Stalinism (the Communist Party of Britain, etc.) as well as the main centrist groups (the Cliffite SWP/IST and Peter Taffee’s SPEW/CWI). This is hardly surprising given the fact that the SPEW played a leading role in the reactionary “British Jobs for British Workers” strike at the Lindsey Oil Refin- ery in 2009. In short, the anti-EU camp is dominated by the most reactionary, backward sectors of the (middle and petit) bourgeoisie and the country’s middle layers, while left-reformists and centrists serve as their “leftwing” fig leaf.
6. The RCIT maintains that authentic Marxists must refuse to support either of these two, equally reactionary, imperialist camps. The most important task now is to fight for the political independence of the working class and the oppressed vis-à-vis
either of these imperialist camps. There is no lesser evil for the working class: On one side are those British imperialists who advocate membership in
Boycott Cameron s Trap: Neither Brussels, nor Down-
ing Street For Abstention in Britain s EU Referendum
For international Unity and Struggle of the Workers and Oppressed Fight
against both British as well as European Imperialism Forward to the Unit-
ed Socialist States of Europe. Statement of the Revolutionary Communist
International Tendency (RCIT) and the RCIT Britain, 2 August 2015
28
the war-mongering EU which universally imposes austerity, the plunder of Greece being the most recent and prominent example, and wages colonial wars in North Africa and Iraq, in addition to waging its policy
of aggressive expansion in East- ern Europe at the door of Rus- sia. On the other side are those British imperialists who advocate the country’s exit from the EU in order to effectively become the little poodle of the world’s greatest imperialist power, the US, and who call for a chauvinistic hunting down of
migrants and ethnic minorities.7. A particularly important issue for the current situation in Britain and an internationalist campaign against Cameron's referendum trap is the struggle for the rights of migrants and refugees. As the RCIT has stated numerous times in the past, we oppose immigration control and stand for open borders, equal wages for native and migrant workers, and equal rights for all. Recent develop- ments confirm the need for socialists to equally oppose both British and European imperialism. The Eurosceptic right-wing racists oppose the EU precisely because the latter is ostensibly responsible for "too many migrants" in Britain. The EU itself however is no better. British and French police terrorize refugees at the Chunnel crossings. The EU is cur- rently building a wall – like that of US imperialism
along its border with Mexico or Israel in the West Bank – along the Hungarian border with Serbia. And the EU is trying its best to stop refugees crossing the Mediterranean Sea and, in these efforts, recently adopted a plan for military attacks against refugee boats along the North African coast. The struggle for the rights of migrants and refugees must reject all variations of imperialist fortresses – be they British or European! Such a perspective is incompatible with voting for either of the two imperialist alterna-
tives that will be offered in the referendum.9. At the same time the RCIT advocates the perspective of the European Revolution, i.e., the armed insurrection of the workers and oppressed in each
country with the goal of expro- priating the local bourgeoisie and nationalizing the core industries and banks and placing them under workers’ control. The aim is to foment revolution throughout the entire continent
(and beyond) in order to found the United Socialist States of Europe. This is the only viable alternative to both British and EU imperialism. The continent can only prosper and provide wealth for all if it is united on the basis of a planned economy and the democratic rule of the working class and the oppressed
who will organize themselves inmass action councils and popular militia. 10. In Europe’s semi-colonial countries, i.e., those countries which are dominated and super- exploited by imperialist monopolies and great powers, the RCIT combines such an internationalist perspective of class struggle with the tactic of calling for an exit from the European Union. We
do so because we support every small step which weakens the grip of the imperialists on such countries. However such a tactic is only applicable to semi -colonial countries like Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, and the countries of Eastern European. It is not relevant for imperialist states like Britain, France, Germany, the Benelux countries, Austria, Sweden, Finland, etc.
11. The RCIT bases its revolutionary, internationalist tactic on the programmatic tradition of the Marx-
ist classics. Lenin famously stated that “a United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary”. Likewise he stated that in the imperialist countries “the national movement is a thing of an irrevocable past, and it would be an ab- surd reactionary utopia to try to revive it.” Later, Trotsky developed the slogan of a European-wide struggle for workers’ power and the United Socialist States of Europe, a slogan which was adopted by the Communist International in 1923 (only to be
dropped by the Stalinist bureaucracy in 1928). ThisMarxist tradition is the only possible alternative in conflicts between two imperialist bourgeois camps.
Michael Pröbsting, RCIT leader:“The RCIT and its supporters in Britain call upon workers and oppressed to vote neither YES or NO to UK membership in the EU. Instead, they should write on the ballot: “Neither Brussels, nor Downing Street! For international Unity of the Workers and Op- pressed”, i.e., effectively casting a vote of abstention.”
29
1. For revolutionary socialists the task of the day is to create a campaign of effective opposition to the
racist and chauvinist No campaigners but equally to the pro-capitalist/neoliberal Yes campaigners, especially at a time when Greece is being martyred by the capitalists and politicians of the EU. Within the ranks of the workers’ movement we need to expose and oppose both the campaigners for a pro- capitalist Labour ‘Yes’ and

eu referendum: three marxist perspectives

Documents