Of course there should be a United European Federation, with a common market and equitable living standards, a common currency, a progressive international policy and the ability to call together armed forces to defend itself.
Global questions necessitate at least continental answers. World poverty; imperialism and the international repercussions of war leading to the mass movement of whole peoples, famine, global warming, the meretricious, criminal, utterly self seeking behaviors of the super wealthy and their control of the banks, the corporations and the world's capital, all of it and more, requires at least a continental wide response.
All this is absolutely and objectively obvious but, it might be argued, fatally abstract. After all, look at the main obstacles in the way of progress towards a European Continental Federation based on meeting the concerns listed above! Front and centre is the current EU itself, its apparatus, leadership, its policy and structure and the totally compromised political and financial class that holds the stinking edifice up. Then there are the proto-reactionary nationalist movements and parties in individual European countries that recognise the weakness of the current EU but who promote the entirely utopian and reactionary view that individual nations can somehow isolate themselves from the worse effects of the predominant global social and economic system of late, rapacious capitalism. The idea that any version of the current EU structure, or, alternatively, the 'winning back' of some sort of spurious national independence from Europe can open up the possibility of the Europe that the mass of Europeans, not to say the rest of the world need, is simply absurd.
It is therefore not that the goal of a united Europe based on an alternative to the tail end of a vicious, out of date and poisonous social system that is abstract - in the classic sense that it has no connection to real life - on the contrary such a Europe was never more required. Rather it is the utterly abstract ideas that either the reform of Europe's current structure or simply that falling back into the nation state, have ever offered any sort of means to get there that are the abstractions, that are completely remote from real life. Of course there will be EU reforms and, conversely national upheavals on the way to the united Europe that is needed. But without the goal of an utterly different united Europe, committed to a social transformation, in this epoch solely nationally based efforts in that direction will all fail and all die with horrible consequences and in short order.
It is the question: should we get out or should we stay in the EU that is, today, the most dangerous abstraction. In Britain, the ruling Tory party have launched a referendum along those lines. The Tory leaders' goal is to try and re-cement the party's social and political base. And despite the new right, represented by UKIP with its 4 million votes in the last General Election, claiming that the referendum vote is the most important vote that the British will have in 'in their lifetimes', in reality either outcome will change very little. The core of the current Europe, the Eurozone, is already without Britain. And in Britain itself the economic dominance of 'the City of London' and the big international corporations remains untouched.
Most of the new left in mainland Europe are still struggling with the idea that the EU as it stands cannot be reformed. The treatment of Syriza and Greece was a sharp lesson in that regard. Even Podemos in Spain, which has argued in the past that it will win the reforms that the Spanish people need from the EU because of the larger weight of Spain, is reviewing its approach to the EU's structure. Europe's new left were already committed to an international view of their struggle, which was one reason offered why a section of the old Syriza leadership made the potentially disastrous decision not to launch their own currency when threatened over debt. It is a paradox but nevertheless an essential paradox to grasp as Greece shows, that while there is certainly no road for any single European nation to get to a socialist society on its own, the route to a socialist Europe may pass through nationally based initiatives which then can become a centre of an alternative to the existing European structures.
To get away from the abstraction, 'inside or outside the EU' and instead to begin to develop the real transitional measures towards a genuinely progressive Europe, an 'alternative' Europe has to be built. In the intense revolutionary days of 1905 and 1917 Russia, soviets or councils were directly established by soldiers, workers, peasants and their parties, which grew in their popular legitimacy and created a dual power in Russian society. Many practical steps have been taken by different sections of the new left in Europe to build initiatives that echo the idea of a popular alternative to the rigmarole of Europe's current proto-state structures. Today, with huge left surges into mainstream political life and even government in Greece, Spain and Portugal, with projected left developments in Ireland and a new mass Labour party with left leadership in the UK, there are new and much more prominent platforms to begin the construction of an alternative Europe. This might start with a European debt conference, focused initially on Greece who have called for it and which issues a new programme to the whole of Europe for fair and progressive debt relief. We shall then see how the popular legitimacy of such measures contrasts with that garnered by the decaying institutions of the current EU as the left begins its work towards a popular new European Constitution.
And the British referendum? It is not a turning point for Britain's future. It is not a new 1975 and has much more in common with a second 2011. It is a vote preeminently about local concerns and British politics. British voters afraid or appalled at the prospects of more immigrants will vote 'no'. And most left or progressively minded people (with the exception of those influenced by the politics of the 'British Road to Socialism' and the British Communist Party) will probably vote to stay in the EU in order to prevent what would, and will, be seen as a racist (and not an anti-capitalist) victory. What matters is what happens before and after the ballot.
I must say that I just do not find the assertion that the referendum vote has no meaning to be convincing. Even if the "die is caste" in the creation of a new right block and that the left across Europe are coming to terms with the impossibility of reform of the EU. Even if one throws into the mix that there is no individual national road to socialism, I am wondering what other possibility are envisage by the above article?
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see what recent history has proved to me is that there was no "Greek" road to socialism as long as Greece remained within the EU and more crucially the "Eurozone". At least on this I can agree with the article. I agree that there is no single national road to socialism but the left needs to recognise that there is even less possibility of a Europe wide road or any such thing. So from a strictly pragmatic point of view, revolutions or the beginnings of transitions to socialism have always (without exception) begun in single countries with national boundaries and national integrities. The contagion and example then tends to spread to other nations thus follows. Such an eventuality cannot take place within the EU without overcoming the obstacle of national loyalties and boundaries of either a progressive or reactionary kind. To overcome this, it is first necessary to create a European superstate and establish its own national identity - then and only then after decades of integration and assimilation of the member states into a single unitary entity is it even possible to talk of a left victory in Europe.
The EU was set up as a capitalist, corporatist club and for that reason is designed to overcome the obstacle of democratic consent and control of the disparate peoples involved.
In my view then it is therefore a question of perspective. How do we get to a socialist Europe? Do we assist in the development of the Europe wide oligarchic entity known as the EU, with the long term goal of a united states of Europe as a single nation within which the class contradictions can occur unimpeded by the national and democratic questions - or do we go for the national independence model where progressive movements if successful can advance by contagion from other national examples independent from the constraints of the EU? I think the answer is clear. The left can only gain from the dismantling of the EU.
Thanks for your comments. Discussion is always helpful. First on your second point. I was not trying to suggest that there could only be a Europe wide insurrection and everything else would fail. That WOULD be ridiculous. In my view there is no schema as to how the mass of the people, across a whole continent, become insurgent in their attitudes and actions. That applies as much to individual states as it does to continental authorities. For example an anti-capitalist wave might start from the relative disintegration of particular nations (as seems possible in the UK or Spain and even Italy.) So; no schemas - either in a continental or an existing national direction.
DeleteWhat is for sure is that homilies by Lenin and others that you cannot have socialism in one country are more true today than ever. (That is nothing to do with where things start off.) Thankfully there is a widespread European consciousness - especially among the youth - which is likely to grow rather than falter in the event of deepening radicalisation.
On the referendum vote; in 1975 Benn senior and others called the then Common Market 'a capitalist club.' That did not stop Britain's entry being a great shift in ruling class intentions away from Empire. And there certainly was an independent working class view that this would strengthen the system that they were fighting against. A Britain out of the common market would be weaker in face of the rise of the unions and the labour movement in general outside the CM. The vote no was a class vote in that sense.
Is that still true in 2016/17?
The EU is a capitalist club (still) but it turns out that Britain's most important foundation of its capitalist system is not Brussels but the City of London. Britain's departure will not effect the eurozone countries. The EU will survive and continue without the UK. The battle against austerity, whether its European or its British model, is a class battle - but the vote on in or out of the EU is not about austerity. It is a marginal question at best.
The point of this assertion is to avoid parts of the left, including in some unions, of using a vote no as a means of blinding themselves to what makes British capitalism really run (and worse, that there is any sort of meaning or case for 'British independence.)
For the new, young left, most consider a vote yes as a vote against racism and anti-immigrant fear, and they may have the right of it. And they are not confused about who the leadership of the EU represent, but they are inspired (and in touch) with many of the left developments in Europe.
So, I don't think the old shibboleths do it any more.
All the best
Just a couple of additional points that I failed to explore in my previous mailing that a feel are worthy of consideration. It is my view that both historically and is a so far unrecognised truth today, its has been elements of the hard left and hard right whose strategic interests are served best by getting out of Europe both in the 70s and today. The referendum under the Wilson Government was lead by the left wing of Labour's cabinet featuring figures like Tony Benn and Michael Foot Peter Shore amongst others and supplemented by the likes of Enoch Powell the Tory right and even the National Front. To his dying day Tony Benn maintained his position on the EU. His fear about the erosion of democracy in the service of big business has proved in the fullness of time to be absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteThe left and the right today on the out side have one thing in common and that is the argument about democracy although there are different principles that lie behind their motives. The so called "Centre ground" The Liberal Democrats, the Blairites the Government the CBI and the confused left eg "the Greens etc" speak with one voice in their support of the IN campaign The question to be asked is this, to whom in this spectrum is national democracy more important if we consider long term strategic goals? In my view democracy and self determination are some of the most basic questions that favour the poor, and the working class who to coin a phrase " have nothing to loose but their chains". For the far right national democracy ends with the nation and its independence. For the left that is where it begins.
Conclusion, the left should be in the out campaign if not leading it as Benn and Foot did in their time.