Why socialists should vote yes in the EU referendum

The EU debate: for a yes vote and internationalism

Len Arthur – LU South Wales branch

The Left Unity conference will be discussing the position to take in the European referendum. This is a contribution to that debate, arguing that we should support a yes vote. It builds upon the points made by Felicity Dowling and Luke Cooper on this website a few months ago.

A considerable discussion has started across the left on this issue and two of the better contributions have been made in the International Socialism Journal issue 148 as a debate between John Palmer the European editor of the Guardian and Alex Callinicos editor of ISJ.

Both articles provide a detailed historical background on the evolution of the EU and are worth consulting for this alone. The article by Callinicos has the following key statement, making the proposal that the struggle at the national level should be prioritised, it is that position this contribution seeks to challenge:

“Strategically the problem is that since the 1980s, but more especially as a result of the eurozone crisis, a Europe-wide neoliberal regime is being constructed. Breaking that is most likely to happen at national level. To make successful resistance dependent on a coordinated movement at the EU level is to postpone that resistance indefinitely. The process of uneven and combined development implies that struggles are most likely to succeed at national level but can then be generalised.

Dialectically, then, for internationalism to advance there have to be breakthroughs at the national level.”

There is a general level of agreement among socialists that the problems posed by capitalism require an international level solution, the debate, it seems is how best to get to the position to make that challenge and carrying through transformation.

The EU terrain of struggle

Historically the EU has been a post 1945 project primarily for the interests of capital. In the previous 60 or 70 years before that date capital, faced with increasing international competition, often sought to ally with nation states to secure its competitive interests: securing home markets and worker compliance, whilst supporting imperial policies to secure markets beyond the reach of the particular nation state. State capitalism remains a useful way of describing this process and period.

The Second World War confirmed the emergence of world domination by the US economy, ?a trend which was strengthened by the outcome of the First World War. Faced with state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe - with a different historical root to those in the west - and US domination, European capital realised that the size of western European states, weakened economies and blocked imperial expansion required a different form of state capitalism: one based on a closer cooperation across state boundaries. Surprisingly, given their political backgrounds John Palmer and Alex Callinicos in their different ways, describe this history by avoiding using the idea of state capitalism.

As all of us on the left seem to agree, the EU is a capitalist and even imperial project. However, as with all expansions of capital, which still does require the cooperation of workers who produce the wealth, there is a unifying social flipside which potentially provides the source of an internationally challenging contradiction. It is this feature which is widely ignored by many socialist commentaries.

First, possibly due to the need to have social and Christian democrat cooperation in the European parliament and at the council of ministers to make the EU work, a range of measures and reforms have been adopted that seek to ameliorate the social consequences of some market forces. The Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the EU, its incorporation of the European convention of human rights and legal back up through the work of the court of justice of the European union as well as development through the European parliament, is one outcome, as are the various financial support programmes for regions, areas of deprivation, support for certain economic sectors and the huge £77 billion research fund. These measures have specific benefits at workplace and local level such as on working hours, agency workers and freedom of movement; on basic investment in places such as Wales and in over £7 billion that comes to UK higher education.

Of course these measures are under pressure from the dominant neo liberal pressure of EU policy but, nevertheless, they are international reforms socialists should defend as we defend other reforms on a national basis. They provide a basis for mobilisation.

Second, as socialists, we recognise that the problems of capitalism are international and can only have international solutions. The existence of the EU means that as its policies operate across national boundaries so the challenges faced by the working class constantly have international dimensions which provide opportunities for solidarity and action on this basis. The fight against austerity in Greece, and now Portugal, is much more obviously our fight as being part of the EU than if we were outside. Similarly the politics of right wing governments in Hungary and Poland require to be challenged as much as our own UK government for the same reason.

The European Left: the socialist organisation that no one mentions

Left Article after left article on the EU makes reference to the need for an international struggle, often with vague reference to possibilities such as in the recent Red Pepper article by Leigh Phillips.

Hello, smell the coffee! A socialist organisation that is linking campaigning and politics across the EU and wider, does actually exist: the European Left (EL). Here is a policy statement agreed at the EL conference last year stating why it is central for there to be an international opposition to neo liberalism and austerity, together with a programme of campaigning demands and including alternatives.

The EL is composed of 21 European parties and through the European United Left / Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) has 51 MEPs. With the Green MEPs with whom they regularly cooperate, they are the third largest section in the European Parliament. Left Unity now has observed membership of the EL.

The last EL congress policy statement, referred to above, covers the ground that most socialists could support. This is not so much the case with some specific decisions such as the lack of criticism of the final deal reached by Syriza. However, centrally it argues that another radical and democratic Europe is possible and thus provides an international basis for socialists to debate and agree what this means and how we can act to make it happen.

The existence of the EL adds an absolutely key dimension to the referendum debate, particularly in challenge the right. UKIP, and the like, attempt to frame the debate in terms of the UK and people taking back power almost as a form of liberation. This becomes the peg on which to hang populist policies such as scapegoating migrants and refugees for causing all the problems experienced by workers: low wages, housing, NHS queues, unemployment - even motorway traffic jams.

Of course, as with all populist arguments they are opportunist and hypocritical, as the taking back of power the UK right are really after is the freedom to dump all the social charter and introduce even more attacks on workers, exacerbating all the problems they seek to champion.

Having an internationalist alternative programme and strategy which addresses how these problems are related to the failures of capitalism and their neo liberal policies, backed up with a real international political organisation, provides a direct and internationally based challenge to the right and their nationalistic populism. Ignoring this possibility, as many on the left are doing, at best weakens the internationalist case and, at worst, plays into the hands of nationalist populism.

And at the very worse, if Brexit happened and the neo liberal right have the free reign they are after, socialist who argued the exit case will be saddled with that responsibility. Hair splitting over nuances of difference and meaning will be a very poor fig leaf.

Personal plea

The history of the UK is inextricably linked to world history and in particular, Europe. The development of capitalism and the various forms of imperialism over the last 400 years have accelerated this process. The last 100 years have seen two European wars of utter annihilation, which are of also part of a world conflict. Like nearly every other family I know, mine and that of my partner’s have been scarred by the deaths and experiences of these conflicts. The consequential wars have continued since 1945. Working class support for these wars was justified and won in nationalist terms, weakening the solidarity and international links that may have prevented them and challenged capitalism at the same time. This was, let us not forget, the key failure of the second international. That nationalism continues to undermine us, with potential fatal co consequences.

Conclusion

It is not dealing with this reality to argue that a UK or perhaps just an English answer to the problems posed by capitalism and imperialism exists. Just as states cannot abstract themselves from the world, neither can we as socialists and as a working class: we have to engage on an international basis within the terrain of struggle we find ourselves: unlike Callinicos, as socialist we need to organise and fight on both national and international fronts, not prioritise one against the other.

Not to do so when the chance actually exists could set back the socialist case in the UK for a generation. We have to argue for a yes vote to continue with the internationalist struggle; to argue that another Europe is indeed possible and to point to the programme and existence of the EL to show how it could happen.

In defence of the Left Unity project

I have drafted a defence of the Left Unity project for the 21 November conference.

It needs proof reading.

Here is the work so far: https://docs.google.com/document/d/131WIWHysVz80Mk-UCCIn6AekCQ5et4N0pEJKwfGYCVc/edit?usp=sharing

Here is the edited version so far:

In defence of the Left Unity project

The Left Unity conference on 21 November will take a critical decision about the survival of the whole party project. Motion 48 is for us to continue, though reviewing our electoral strategy. Motion 23 is about becoming a network as opposed to a party: http://leftunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/motions-for-ballot.pdf.

This contribution is a defence of our party project at this time, albeit with a changed strategy.

The Corbynista change

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party is an historic game changer. It places the Labour leadership in almost the same political position and space we aimed to occupy but, critically, not entirely. Consequently this will have huge implications for our political strategy and practice, but, in that hackneyed phrase, ‘we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater’. We have achieved a great deal as Left Unity in a very short period of time. These achievements should be recognised and built upon whilst coming to terms with a dynamic and fast moving political context.

Such an argument depends on there being a membership in the first place, If large numbers leave and we are left with say, a hundred or so enthusiasts, then a party structure becomes questionable: we should not become the sect that some fear. Based upon my experience in Wales and what I believe is the current UK membership position I would suggest we are not yet down to this rock bottom situation.

One final caveat, this contribution will suggest that as Left Unity we have actually taken forward socialist political practice in a way that remains relevant beyond the life of our current structures. At this moment we do not sufficiently recognise this and should take it into account.

The achievements of Left Unity so far

Socialist vision - our founding statements, agreed in November 2013, emphasised the importance and interconnection between the major challenges to our society and the need for socialism. This represents an important advance for the left in the UK as these challenges are not seen as ‘add ons’ but central to the project of international social transformation: http://leftunity.org/founding-conference-decisions-1/

Constitution and democracy - as will be argued later, despite its faults it is possibly unique among socialist organisations in the UK in its openness to all and its internal processes of democracy and accountability:  http://leftunity.org/left-unity-constitution-final-agreed-30-november-founding-conference/

Policy and manifesto - the detailed policies agreed in 2014 and their translation into a manifesto was another major achievement for a new socialist organisation in the UK, especially one drawing upon a wide range of left traditions. The manifesto remains as a major campaigning document in the new period but needs Left Unity to continue as a party to be effectively updated: http://leftunity.org/manifesto/

Working alliance of left traditions - as has been alluded to, it is nothing short of a political miracle that Left Unity has produced, in practice, unity across the left as an organisation. The left - possibly as all political movements do - find it difficult to work together effectively. It has been an historical achievement for Left Unity to survive and develop whilst drawing upon a rich history of UK radical and socialist politics. We should be very wary of failing to recognise and sustain this achievement.

Over 2000 members, supporters and genuine contacts - not bad going in just two years. Although we hoped for more, given the circumstances and left movements in other parties, we’ve done well to arrive at this point, with branches in most of the main urban areas. Clearly, whether people stay as members is critical. It is argued here that they should as the best way of taking forward our socialist vision and practice. Based upon our social network support and local email connections it is clear that we have around another 4-5000 people who wish to keep in touch.

How this is relevant to the new situation.

We have an agreed position on many of Corbyn's aspirations and policies. We know what areas we can support but can also consequently and constructively propose priorities and additions that take the agenda of a socialist alternative forward. We have a democracy in place not just to discuss and suggest but also take decisions on how demands, actions, policy and strategy should develop.

We can intervene locally and nationally in political debates in all these areas without being members of the Labour Party as well as working across the left. Momentum could be one organisational model and the People’s Assembly provides another example. In Wales we have related to these debates through a critique of Welsh Labour’s draft manifesto http://chwithunedigcymru.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/wales-labour-ignores-corbyns-politics.html. Being able to intervene independently and across the organisational boundaries and bureaucratic conventions of the Labour Party without fear of future expulsion has many benefits.

Being able to relate across the left will require building trust and confidence in engagement and relationships and our current electoral policy will get in the way. It is essential at this stage of Corbyn's leadership that focus should be on defending his policies and actions where they overlap with ours; proposing and arguing for others when we think they take the case of the socialist and anti austerity case forward; working with those many new and old members of the Labour Party who wish to challenge the policies and actions of the right who tend to dominate the party machine. It is important that this challenge is not about seizing positions by ‘good eggs’ but a policy challenge, such as defying cuts budgets at all levels and opposing new wars.

Remaining as a party enables us to act independently and collectively. Our constitution provides an agreed way of working together supporting debate and decision making so that coordinated action can take place. It is not clear what the network proposal means in this regard but it will mean a step back from linking decisions with action, particularly as the constitution is effectively wound up.

Transitional demands and actions

Consciously or not much of our manifesto can be seen as a transitional programme for the current context.

The debate around transitional demands has a fraught and ossified history on the left, see Trotsky: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#mt. What is proposed here is the key importance of placing an emphasis on the process of developing transitional demands that relate to the changing contexts and balance of class forces, not particular demands as proposed by people such as Trotsky in entirely different historical situations. This process, of course also relates back to the importance of being able to make collective decisions constitutionally, as mentioned above.

Agreeing transitional demands as a political process was one of the outcomes of the third and fourth conferences of the third international https://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/strategy.htm and https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/transprog/wa01.htm. The initial post WW1 revolutionary potential was seen to be waning yet taking state power internationally remained central to the socialist and communist project. It was recognised that state power could not be taken without the active and democratic support of the majority of the working class. In the interim the problem to be addressed was how to bridge the gap between the revolutionary step of taking state power and the current situation where this may not be possible. Delegates to the conferences were also aware of the chance of slipping back into reformism, when the third international was a clear break from that second international tradition that had failed so miserably to act internationally and challenge the start of WW1.

Transitional demands were seen as a way of winning workers to the parties of the third international. First, by relating to the issues of most concern by showing how these were, at source, derived from the attempts of capital to save themselves at the cost of workers, and second, developing demands that workers could accept were legitimate, yet at the same time directly challenged the aims of capital. Thus, by so doing, start to lay the foundation of the need to take state power directly challenging the way capital works through a socialist programme.

It can be seen that many of the policies we have developed can be seen as transitional demands within this tradition. So, for example, our opposition to austerity is legitimately about social justice and inequality but also about challenging the attempt of capital to solve the problems of their financial crisis at the expense of workers’ social and real wages. The demand that councillors and members of devolved governments vote against cuts budgets is about defending gains already made, whilst at the same time challenging state power. Moreover, arguing for such a challenge opens up meaningfully, in terms of daily experience, a political challenge to the neo-liberal rationale behind austerity that, in turn, poses the question of an alternative. This we would argue has to be socialist and requires the state taking back control over key parts of the economy such as essential public services and utilities.

It feels that this is a statement of the bleeding obvious: isn't this just what has happened with the People’s Assembly and now the election of Corbyn? Well it is a good demonstration of how the process works - in part. The critical issue is to engage with the process of developing transitional demands consciously as a political party; developing them in a way that is rooted in legitimate problems and grievances and, at the same time, ensuring that the demands challenge the aims of capital, pointing to the need for a socialist alternative. Hence, the People's Assembly is limited by emphasising opposition to austerity by just saying ‘no’ and, whilst much in our manifesto points to an alternative society that overlaps with Corbyn’s vision, we make the argument that a real challenge to the power of capital is required, if the problems are to be solved not just patched up: so our demands, quite defensibly go further.

Perhaps the most contentious area is the idea of ‘transitional actions’. It will not be possible to find references to this in the literature as it is a term I’ve developed myself! Basically the intention was to further develop the idea of ‘building the future in the present’ into the political practice of challenging capital and developing a socialist alternative: more technically known as, I believe, ‘prefigurative’ politics. It is about demonstrating that socialism is possible by recognising that elements of it do exist in our society currently and this experience can be built upon. Of course the argument that they are ‘islands in a sea of capitalism’ and will inevitably fail, is usually thrown up and this is not really the place to go into a detailed defence.

However, as Left Unity, I would argue we have started to develop transitional actions. First, our constitution, despite all its problems, is at core about being completely open to the world and internally democratically accountable; thus attempting to demonstrate that it is possible to come to decisions and coordinate actions on the basis of debate and democracy: one of the key pillars of what a socialist society is about. Second, we have started to raise the question of alternative ownership and control through cooperatives in our policy discussions and manifesto. This is a small start but recognising transitional actions as part of our political practice could lay the foundation for further development.

Conclusion

Left Unity has achieved much in terms of socialist vision, demands, action, campaigning and organisationally in a remarkably short period of time. We should be very careful about losing these achievements. As an independent organisation it leaves us free to continue to act. Of course if members vote with their feet - there is little left to organise!

Corbyn’s election is a game changer for socialists in the UK and we have to both defend and help take forward this success. We can engage in this process without being members of the Labour Party in many ways and at all levels, such as through Momentum or as we have done in Wales. An overlap of members and supporters is also one of the ways as well as not standing in elections at the current time. However, if we retreat to a loose network based around a discussion journal with members joining the Labour Party, action or campaigning will inevitably be restricted by Labour Party processes endangering all that we have achieved.

Finally, it is not clear what the outcome of the tensions within the Labour Party will be and an organisation like Left Unity may still be very much needed.