THE EEeIN OR OU

THEFIGHTGOES ON· 5p

CONTENTS

editorial ( W F 80 )

What I. the EECan,.., (W F eo)Why It I••• ·t our •• Ine.. (W F 11 )

A letter and two replies

EDITORIAL'YES' OR "NO'· 11DOESN'T MATTER

Page 1

P.,3

PageS

Page.

NO AMOUNT ofreferences to "the historicmeeting" or "the long andserious debate" willconvince the majority ofworkers that March 11th'sCommon Market renegot-iation meeting in Dublinwas anything but a trivial,ritual bit ofwhee!er-dealing.

What were its results? Itwas agreed that Britain didnot have to harmonise itsVAT rulings with the rest ofthe Market - an agreemen~which had been reached inall its details bar thesignatures several monthsago. but was left until nowso that the impact would begreater.

SummitThe Summit also agreed

to pay back some ofBritain's Common Marketbudget contribution. if itproved to be too high. Andit agreed that Common-wealth countries would haveaccess to the EEC withoutbeing bound to return thefavour. '

And that was it.The capitalist press.

which is generally in favourof entry. has been trying to.dress up this irrelevant smalltalk as if it were a hardfought and crucial politicalvictory. "Despite heavypolitical pressures". recordsthe Financial Times, "Mr.Wilsoll,failed to secure that

cheese would be included inthe current review of theNew Zealand arrangement.... But the other countriesfinally agreed that cheese'would be given 'due~attention' with appropriate,urgency·...•• And they havebeen trvinl! to conVince lbthat the o-utcome of thesetalks plays some part inWiI50n'sthinking! As if his

.thinking isn't strictlydetermined by the generalwill of the capitalists.

But what ought plainly tobe seen as farce by the left;has been seen as 'tragedy' by:many who call themselves:socialists. The Morning'Star, newspaper of the,Communist Party. whichtypifies the approach of the4left" on the question of theEEC. headlined its report of'the Dublin meeting~Surrender of UK interestsby Wilson". Not the slight-est pretence was made to,look at the agreement _'seeingas they thought it wasimportant -'- in terms ofhow it affects the workingclass.

LitanyInstead what we have is a

litany of references to "acomplete surrender of·British interests" and othersuch nationalist clap-trap.The only interests British

WOI kers should beconsidering are the interestsaf the working class and it§potential allies. the working;:Iassof other countries. Forthe workers of a developed,imperialist nation, consider-ation of so-called "national.interest" can only be consid-eratjon of the interests. of theprinces. profiteers andparasites of industry andfinance.

'rhe omission of any refer-ence to the working c1as.'iisnot ,accidental. The whrJie.tired debate is after all of IlQrelevance to tite action of theworking class. The workingclass has nothing to· gainfrom a capitalist CommonMarket -a bosses' bigbusiness club. as it has beendescribed. But likewise ithas nothing to gain from the:only alternative being·offered: ~ capitalist Britain,This is no less a bosses' club'- just a bosses' club with'alien'i excluded' written onthe door.

The entire issue of theEEC has been adiversioowhere ithas been taken up atall- from the real problemsof the working class. And ithas been one element in thestrengthening of nationalistcurrents within the workingclass and within the left ofthe labour movement ..

The 'Get Britain Out'campaign has been fought inthe way it was bound to be'

. - . ~

WHAT ISTHEEECANYWAY?

fought: boosting illusions in them make it. Wichever way, trimmed their sails to thethe importance of parliam- ,it goes our class wil\ he 'prevailing wind.ent, boosting insular fighting to rid itself of So much so, that toc:hivnational pride and boosting capitalist exploitation and it the common idea is that'the kind of patriotic pride win be doing that in "Out" is the slogan of the~l1at would normally have cooperation with our left.brought hoots of laughter brothers and sisters abroad. We unequivocally recom-from III left wing audience, That was the position of mend DON'T VOTE,' A

WORKERS FIGHT many other groups daimingvote one way or the other is ',alone has said from the to be revolution~ry "" until a vote for one or anotherbeginning: the choice is not the tide started to turn the solution for capitalism,a choice for workers; it is a other way. Oneaflerchoice for the bosses --- let lnother these groul"

r

WORKERS were suspicious fron.the start about Britain's attemptsto join the Common Market.Uthebosses were so keen to go in, surelyit must be in our interests to stayout?

Unfortunately, it isn't as simpleas that.

As Leon Trotsky put theproblem in 1938, "The policy ofthe proletariat is not at allautomatically derived from thepolicy of the hourgeoisie, bearingonly the opposite sign ,,- thiswould make everv sectarian amaster strategis't: no, therevolutionary party must eachtime orient itself independently ...arrivin'g at those decisions whichcorrespond hest to the interests ofthe proletariat.", So we must look at thefundamental nature of the EEC,and on that basis we can develop a

,rea, cmderstanding of what it isand what to do ahout it.

Task

n4[3.N'1..,. .. ·:,:d I

.',.: ..~

Eftoch·Powen •••• ; predictably, Immigrants. .tumedOut .to be the star turn on' Some ofthese M~ ltave now Aid••••ny.GetBritaln Out Camp.ign they won't sharelitifllitUonn with

, plitUonn •. And those t.abour MPs Powell: that is; .n actu.1 physicalwho thought It might be possible to plaUorm; they continue to supporthave it "broad" .campaign· without the same Get Bri,t.lnOut campaign,

,.makingeomlnOi1 cause with racism Others are unrepentant. One,were rudely brought lace to face named. Michael "GUSH,with realilywhen Powell, .in the defended his position to speak withmidst of the Get Britain Out Powell.campaigning, took, a night out ,to, As did Ctlve Jenkin., Ie.der o'hold forth em his other favourite ASTMS, 1!fhose members will no

• SUbject -" •••• out of Britain" or, as ' doubt haY' some strong words toit is polltel. 8lIlUed, repatriation ,0' say about th.t:.. .. ' .

At the end of the second WorldWar. the USA emerged as thedominant imperialist power, on aworld seale. In Eastern Europe,the Soviet Union _extendedD itspower, and' later, bY.Jnilitary-bureaucratic \ meth

: ,1

WHY IT. ISN'TOUR BUSINESS

by SIMONTEMPl.~

FREE TRADE and thebreakdown oC national Crontiershave generally been supported bysocialists in the past, as helping todevelop the productive Corces.This is what the Common Marketclaims to stand Cor. So why notsupport it? .. The problem was outlined in lastweek's article: capitalism ·is nolonger able to do this to any realextent. and the EEC will 'not helpunite the working class as did, forexample. the unification of·Germany in the 18708.

Indeed. although .the worldeconomy has· become far moreintegrated over the· last hundredyears. nationalism has beenstrengthened rather thanweakened. The ba!>ic reason forthis has been the ability' of thecapitalists il)the advanced states tobuy off their workers.· with th.eproceeds of the ruthlessexploitation of the rest of theworld. They made it appear that,say. Briti~h worke~ .had.. acommon mterest WIth Bntlshbosses against the people of Africa- and also against the people ofFrance. as a whole. lest theyshould threaten Britain's share ofthe loot.

AbstainThis process long ago affected

large sections of the British I~ft.Since the anti-Market campaIgngot going. it has come to thesurface and infected not only theLabour left around Tribune andthe Communist Party. but also

revolutionary groups such as theInternational Marxist Group.

But before dealing with them. itis perhaps best to re!>tateWorkersFight's position.

We say that it will mean nofundamental advantage ·to theworking class whether Britain is inor out of the Common Market.The choice between the LittleEngland of the bosse.s and theirattempt at unity is not a real one.We believe that workers shouldabstain in the referendum.

Many of those who advocatevoting 'No'. say t\1at they are for aUnited Socialist Europe. But thisisn't what weare being asked in thereferendum: it i!>n'tasking whatsort of Europe we want. but wh~tBritish capit;i~hm should do mrelation to a capitalist Europeanorganisation.

The only way to fight for aUnited Soda list States of Europeis to abstain in the referendum andto fight against the effect~ on !~eworking e1as!>of economIc cnslsand capitalist rationalisation,whether they happen 'within theEEC or out of it. The key to this isthe building of stronger .linksbetween workers throughoutEurope (in!>ide and outside theCommon Market). through inter-national combine committees, aidfor !>trikes of workers in othercountries and the calling of aEuropean Congre!>!>of Labour.

scale oT wages tied (0 a workingclass cost of living index. Wherepossible. we mu!>tfight for parityon a European !>cale,.demanding,for ..instance. German wages.Italian holidavs and French familyallowances.' However inter·· .nationali!>t the intentions of thecampaigners for withdrawal maybe. the whole logic of theircampail!n is 10 divert from thate1a!>sstrul!!de.

What. then. are thc argumentsof the anti-marketcers'! Thecampaign of the CommunistParty, together with the 'left' in theLabour Purtv and in the tradeunion leadership. is .based on twomain argnments. Firstly, that theCommon. Market has led...to amassive growth of imports fromEurope. and a decline ininvestment in Britain: This is noteven accurate -. it ignores all theother factors controlling invest-ment and the fact that an isolatedBritain would be !lven lessattractive . to capitalists. Moreimportantly. this argument isbased on the iIIu!>ionthat there is anational interest above all classes.linking workers and bosses - allof us sharing an interest inincreasing inve!>tment andreducing imports!

The other arl!ument is that thegrowth of Community instit,,!tionswill . weaken the 'NationalSovereignty' of the Britishparliament. Indeed they argue that"what is at stake is nothing lessthat the right and possibility of theBritish working people to contrqlthe country's affairs~. (MorningStar 25th Februarv. empnasis inorigina I). . .

But ·we will never be able tocontrol !>ociety throughParliament. The real power lieswith the civil !>ervice.the banksand big bu!>iness- and the bossesare certainlv not going to !>tandbyand watch themselves beinglegislated out of existence by parl-iament. If it were to try, it wouldface bigger and more . violentobstacles nearer home than

The real problems, for us, whichsrround EEC entry must beanswered with real, livingsolutions. Thus. to ri!>ingprices wereply with the demand for a rising

" Bmssells!11'1 any case. the material basis

does' not exist to constructsocialism . in one country in Jt...hostile capitalist world.Ultimatelv. we can only succeed aspart of an international move-ment. To. eampaign for Britishwithdrawal is to turn one's back onsuch a movement;

Of course. opposition to theEEC is very useful to trade unionbureaucrats and to Labour lefts inand out of the 20vernment. If allour troubles are due to theCommon Market. then asuccessful campaign to get out willsolve them. This·is a perfect excuseto dodge a fight against unemploy-ment .and falling 'living.standan:ls.The Get Out campaign has alsoallowed people actually involvedin ma,king workers~ problemsworse (by championing the SocialContract for in!>tance)to pose asmilitant!>.

Despite a dellse 'revolutionary'smokescreen. the position of the·lnternatioOlII Marxist Group(IMG) bears some remarkablesimilarities to that of thereformists. Thev areue that IhcCommunity wiil help impose a'stron~ state'. which will wcukenthe workinl! duss and that it must.therefore. he opposed.

Certain Iv. increased co-ordination 'ilmonl! the capiWlistswill create rather differenlproblems for till' working· class.tllolll!ll not neccssarik worse (11lC~

.SiJrel'your answer must be to'join·with European workers instrengthening ourselves, bothpolitically and organisationally .. ItIS certainly no answer to get backto our own private hell and fight itout with 'our own' capitalists.

In fact. all this has d~plyreactionary implications.including the pernicious one thatthe workers of Europe are bad,lyorganised and reactionary, whilethe British working class is

stronglj'organised and politicallyad,,:nced:"':his'!ould be a viciouslynationalistic View, even were 'ittrue. In fact, of course, we have asmuch, or more, to learn fromcontinental workef'll as. they havefromUl.

The IMG also ~ppose theCommon Market as part' of thenetwork of imperialist alliaoeesaimed at the Soviet UnioJ:l.

Play-acting ,Fundamentally, the

approach of the IMG on thisquestion can be described as"Stalinism without the SovietUnion". The IMG leadership,sitting, i~ a dusty back room inCaledonian 'Road, set themselvesto "defending the Soviet Union"by forging new diplomatic/tradealliances on a world scale, Britainallying with Comecon rather thanthe EEe. To their "super-powerpolitics" they sacrifice internat-loalist propagan

capitalist atta.:ks -WIll be dilferent:depending on whether Britain is inror oot of the EEe. This or that'section of workers may find things

, slightly smoother outside the EEC;another section will face greaterdifficulties. But when you've dOoneall the sums, worked through thecalculations, and considered all thepossibilities, there is no basis forany definite st.atement that workerswill find easier conditions withBritain outside the EEe. One percent here, one per cent there - whocan say for certain?

SumsAnd in 'doing all those sums, in

all the careful juggling with theplans of the capitalist classes, youwill lose sight of one importantfactor: the activity of the workingclass. There are real capitalistattacks going on, and a lot of themare linked to Common Marketentry. But those attacks can befought against - as long as wedon't get caught up in the emptybluster and fury of the CommonMarket withdrawal campaign.

The important thing is that aneffective fight should be waged -on issues like a sliding scale of.wages to cover price rises; forshorter hours with no loss of payand for less intense workingconditions; for Europe-wide tradeunion unity to tackle commonstruggles, and so on. The policy ofWorkers Fight, "In or out, th~struggle goes. on~', points towards

_ that fight.- But John Latham accuses WF 01

~tanding aside from the struggle'.What strugl!le? I-n-the 'struggle' forCommon Market -Withdrawalcurrently being waged by a chorusof almost the whole trade unionbureaucracy (not to mentionvarious right wing Tories, EnochPowell, the National Front, etc),we find not the slightest element ofworking class action to advancedefinite working class interests, butplenty of the most vile chauvinistpropaganda.

We will lose our national

sovereignty and our democracy,they cry. In other words: Heavenforbid that foreigners shouldmeddle with the sacredproceedings of 'our' British state.

This chauvinism is not justsurface corruption on a basicallyhealthy class campaign. It is thesubstance and life-blood of the

.c&mpaign. To 'bring clarity to theconfusion' would not be wiping offa little mildew, but draining a riverdry. Does WF'stand aside from thestruggle'? No - we take part in thisstruggle - on the other side:against the chauvinist. campaignersfor withdrawal.

We have no reason to beanything but bitterly hostile topeople like Roy Jenkins, who paintup the botched capitalist union ofthe EEC as 'socialistinternationalism', and call onworkers to renounce theirimmediate interests for the sake ofthat sham 'socialist inter-nationalism'. But we are equallyhostile to those whose backward:looking "little England" campaignserves only to disarm the workingclass in face li' "t-le Europe-wideand world-wide interlinking ofmonopoly capitalism. And whileJenkins' talk cuts little ice withworkers, the "little England" let'sget out campaign is a dangerouslypopular diversion., Of course it is true that the mostimportant, sections of the Britishcapitalist class want Brita.in to stayin the EEC (though that couldchange with an upsurge ofprotectionism in the trough of aworld crisis). But should Marxistsalways choose our policyaccording to what is worst lor tilecapitalist class? We might do, if wethought socialism would comethrough capitalism simplycollapsing under the weight of itsown crisis. But capitalism willalways continue to drag itselfthrough the chaos, heaping theworst miseries qn the workingclass, until that class organisesitself and acts, consciously, torepl~ce capitalism with a workers'

The real issue as the "Morning Star' sees.it: big businesstrampJin~ on "our" flag.

state. .The',. growth of monopolies .IS

certainly wanted by the. _bigcapitalists. Should soclahst~'op~ose thIS and demand a return tosmall scale industry'!

Our fundamental task asrevolutionary socialists is to "tellwhat is", to- explain and educateand help to make the real strugglemore conscious and more effective.We cannot abandon that t~k fOfthe slijee of speculations (specuf.ations, in this case" with a largedose of delusions of grandeur) as tohow we can best throw a spannerinto th~ works of the bourgeoisie.

We should "condemn the EECas - a monopoly capitalismconsortium" says ComradeLatham. Very well. Hut what is the

British state if not _... anothermonopoly ca'pitalist consortium!,

Lurking under John I.athaqr sconcern to lIt;(end dcm~lcratlerijJhts (correct enough, In tl:Je-ab:"ract) IS a strange.misconception of what the EEC is.Somehow the EEC IS a"consortium" of a worSe sort thanindividual capitalist states; sonicsort of, foul conspiracy by thesinister bO~lIesof European capitalto disrupt the relatively cosydemocratic arrangements we havewith our oWn familiar Britishexploiters. •

In fact, the fEC is no sort ofconspi'racy, but a logical product of .·the trend to the international('on~entr.atio..n_anct«c;mralisation of.

cap,ital. .leaving aside Tribune'spathetic complaints that EECregulations would forbid theBritish parliament voting for socialrevolution, the main content of thecomplaints about democraticrights comesdown to the assertionthat such-and-such a question ofeconomic policy is decided bybureaucrats in Brussels.

DiversionCertainly we should seekto deny

power to thosebureaucrats.and toassert the maximum possiblescrutiny and control overeconomic policies for 'workers. Buta campaign for withdrawal fromthe EEC is no way to pursue thataim.

Most of these matters of,economic policy are largely outsidebourgeois democratic· scrutiny inthe individual capitalist state.More generally. the idea that you

'best defend democratic rights by•campaigning to get out of the EECfalls down when you ask thequestion: does being out of the''EEC grant any security ofIdemocratic rights? like Spain. for·example?

To the effective struggle todefend democratic rights, asto the:struggle to safeguard livingstandards, the Common Market·withdrawal campaign constitutesonly diversion and confusion. Forthe sakeof fighting that confusion,it is perhapsworthwhile putting upwith the complaints of those whosee'sectarianism' as just once in ':1Iwhilc refusing to line up hehindeither alternative when thecapitalist class offers liS :1referendum.'

THE L061COFVOTING 'NO'

cannOf 'today be the ideal ofrestoring free competition - whichhas now become a reactionaryideal but the completeelimination of competition by theabolition of capitalism.'

"Kautsky brOke with Marxism byadvocating in the epoch of financecapital 'a reactiortary idflal','peaceful democracy',. 'the. mereoperation of economic factors', forobjectiVely (Lenin's emphasis) thisideal drags us back from monopolycapitalism to non-monopo.lycapitalism and is a reformIstswindle." '(Lenin: Imperialism, theHighest Stage of Capitalism, p.108RussianEdition.)

The thing that John LathammisSes in his article is that theVes/No argument to the Comm.onMarket is essentially a chOicebetweellotwo forms of Imperialism'~ old sick British imperialism or'new sick European imperialism.And objectively saying' 'No' to the'Common Market must mean thatwe are in favour of old sick Britishimperialism, in spite of anyarguments for 'fully rounded class.positions" because that is. what itmeansfrom a historical viewpoint.It is no surprise that smallshopkeepers and farmers shoul.dopt.for this mirage of bourgeOIsdemocracy and free trade whenthere is no revolutionary party toexpose the contradictions ofcapitalism. But when people whocall themselves Marxists, such asthe IMG and IS - and the CP, too,of course, though with lessconviction - pande" to suchattitudes,it isa.stounding.

The logical outcome'of such anattitudewill beto hail a massive'~o'vote as a 'victory for the workingclass'. Of course it would benoullng of thekind.

John Latham conjures up a sort,of 'permanent. revolution . inreverse': instead of the revolutIon'breaking the bonds of feudalism, ,ithen bourgeois democracy and'through to socialism, he sees the·revolution breaking the bonds. of'authoritarianism', then smashIng,throu!1h bourgeois 'democracy tosocialismI .

This vain hope of gOlOgbackwardsto socialism through an

I idealised bourgeois democracy istruly Ob8CUr~lntistand can only,mislead'.",Iv.n Wels,Nottingham.

Comrades - John Latham in hisleiter on the Common Market(WF84) uses two words which Ithink make an obscure argumenteven more obscL:~e.He says that:.•...toavoid the dangeroUaliing intothe kind of chauviniSm which theCommunis! Party intermittantlystumbles mto .., a fully roundedClass position would ... reqarddefenseof Parliamentas importantin terms of defending bourgeoisdemocracy against the trendtowards authoritarianism, this timein institutionalised form, whichHobson and Lenin had exposed ascharacteristic of capitalism in theimperialist phase."

John Latham is thus saying thatthe CP 'intermittantly' stumblesinto chauvinism - without sayingthat chauvinism is the basis of thewhole argument and is thereforealwaysthere. .

And he saysthat we must defendbourgeois democracy against'authoritarianism'. And what is thenature of this 'authoritarianism' as'Counterposed to bourgeoisdemocracy?

By arguing in such a manner,ComradeLathamhasmadehimselfa trapdoor through which h~ .c~nfall into the same ChaUVinistiCreformism.

To back himself up, hesummons Lenin and Hobson tohis aid. But unfortunately for him,they do not help his argument. Infact, Lenin attacks precisely that·opinion, and quotes Hilferdin~fsFinance Capital (1912) whilearguing against Kautsky's counter-

t position of 'peaceful democracy' tQthe 'unnecessary' violentimperialism:

.• 'It is not the business of theproletariat', writes Hilferding .'tocontrast the more progressIVecapitalist policy with that of the nowbygone era of free trade and ofhostility towards the state. Thereply of the: pr~le~ariat to ~he1economic polley of fmance capItalcannot be free trade but socialism.The aim of proletarian policy