A statement I'm using in FB debates about the current Brexit impasse.
This so called agreement that May has just withdrawn is nothing of the sort, it is just a statement of intent to do something after we leave on 29 March. Austerity has been the international ruling class way of making the workers pay for the financial crisis. There are also structural problems pushing in this direction in relation to the rate of profit. Climate change is directly related to the outbreak of a new imperial struggle between the power blocs that dominate our world - see what happened at the G20 and the climate change conference in Poland. The problems we face are of a global order and at the very least have to start to be tackled at a European level.
The EU provides a terrain of struggle for us to organise and fight with the working class across Europe on collective issues, including fighting the right and fascism. By just leaving we are turning our back on those struggles and creating an illusion that socialism in one country is possible. The only way out of this current situation as it stands is a general election or another referendum. Of course the possibility of a wider uprising via workers across the EU starting from France may also put a serious international challenge to capital and the institutions that support it. So I suppose there are three options.
Even with a general election referendum the probable key to which way a vote will go will be the Labour Party. I would largely support the Another Europe Is Possible position - which Corbyn once held - of remain and reform of it you like overthrow. If the Corbyn led LP argued to remain on the basis of a programme to oppose austerity and for the the democratic and social(ist) transformation of the EU it would put them at the head of the movement against the right and neo-liberalism both in the UK and across Europe. For example, it is possible to argue that we should remain and support the removal of the debt repayments of Greece; that we defend being European citizens and freedom of movement as a human right and on this basis start to remove the external border controls around the EU and work to support social and economic development of countries where people are desperate to leave.
As I final point I cannot accept the position where a socialist can support the argument that 'the means justifies the end'. Supporting leave means leaving over 3m citizens in the UK and 2m UK citizens in a legal nightmare land of limbo. This is a direct consequence of a leave position and I notice that few socialists who support leave ever mention people in this situation. Are they just collateral damage?
I wrote this last year and it explains my position in a more rounded way.
https://lenarthur01.blogspot.com/2017/10/workers-europe-not-workers-brexit-draft.html
Addition in response to a FB discussion 21.12.2018.
I find arguing as a socialist that a capitalist state or institution prevents you from doing something therefore it can't be done, defeatist to the core. The original MS article and a number of comments are presented within the terms that Brexit is a national issue. On the contrary it is a class issue and should be considered within the terms of the international working class. So if the EU prevents policies from a socialist government going forward that is challenged on cross border class basis. Instead of walking away from the way the class issues across the EU we should be confronting them on that basis and wider. So for an example Corbyn could be leading a fight across the EU against austerity with demands that relate both to the UK and other EU countries such as Greece with proposals such as state debt derived from the financial crisis being written off. Of course that would require us remaining.
The EU should be seen as a terrain of struggle. A more specific problem with the Lexit argument is where do you actually want your independent UK to end up? Not an insignificant or abstract issue as we will leave on 29.3.2019 if the process is not stopped. Currently with no deal it means the WTO which is as restrictive on state enterprises as the EU! Or it could be nothing, which means virtually over night the UK economy would grind to a halt with drastically rising inflation and job losses. Don't forget even Trotsky had to negotiate with Germany at Brest Litovsk, it was not possible just to walk away from the international situation. Is that what you advocate?
Finally: freedom of movement across the EU for all EU citizens will end on 29.3.2019 without an agreement. This, among other things, is throwing 3.7m EU citizens in the UK into a legal limbo land in the country that many have come to call home. Are they just collateral damage? This is an even more pressing issue as the Corbyn led LP has abandoned the defence of FoM. Personally I wish to retain my European Citizenship as it provides a real basis to me being an international worker and relating to issues on that basis. Moreover, I believe arguing that ends justifies means is not an acceptable position for a socialist to take: it is in fact the hallmark of Stalinism, which of course brings the argument back to the MS:)
Together with Craig Lewis I recently wrote this piece about the economic implications of Brexit: http://leftunity.org/socialists-should-still-oppose-brexit-a-reply-to-costas-lapavitsas/
11.01.2018
Another comment from a FB discussion:
Corbyn before the referendum had this principled internationalist position on remain and reform as set out in his speech in April 2016: "There is a strong socialist case for staying in the European Union. Just as there is also a powerful socialist casefor reform and progressive change in Europe" If there is going to be a chance of winning the next election or defeating Brexit he and the LP need to return to this position and argue the case.
The debate since the referendum has revealed that those who support leave are extensively divided over what they want and what leave means. This is the problem with now trying to read the referendum result as 17m said this etc. Just by adding another version as Corbyn does in this speech seriously risks losing the support of the 16m who voted to remain and many the 17m who appear to want to leave without an agreement, whatever that actually means. His speech also avoids the question that article 50 would have to be suspended to allow for an election. Without that we leave on 29 March.
As socialists we can only tackle the power and exploitation of capital internationally as Corbyn suggests in his earlier position. Socialism in one country is even less possible than in the conditions of the 1920s and 1930s. Even then it was forced upon the Soviet Union by the failures of revolutions elsewhere and was seen at least by Lenin and the Left Opposition as a temporary measure not something to strive for, that came with Stalin's rise to power.
The EU should be seen by international socialist as a terrain of struggle through uniting workers across boundaries not seeing the 3.7m EU citizens in the UK as collateral damage. The one thing we don't do as socialists is to support a demand or course of action that makes life worse for workers: that really is 'ends justifying means' Stalinism.
23.3.2019 comment on Tyrone O'Sullivan's post.
The democracy argument really needs unpacking and is not straightforward. First, of course we had one referendum in 1975 which was for remain. So having another in 2016 opens up the legitimacy for having another on the same issue. Circumstances changed between 1975 and 2016 you may argue, yes and of course they and consequences of leaving have changed since 2016 including the now doubtful legal validity of the 2016 vote. Second, it is fundamental to our democracy that we elect a government for a maximum number of years before, by law, having another election. We also have an official opposition which legitimately opposes the elected government and holds it to account immediately after the election. These principles of democracy and accountability must apply to referendums otherwise we start to move from democracy to dictatorship. Remember Hitler always referred back to having a 'mandate' that he hoped would last a 1000 years! Thirdly, we don't have a written constitution unfortunately, leaving it up to governments to make the rules up as they go along, subject only to Parliament. Due to the complication of squaring a referendum to the democratic principles that apply to elections, most written constitutions have checks within them such as 50% of those able to vote voting in favour or a certain percentage vote having to be reached such as two thirds. None of these checks applied to the 2016 referendum. Fourth, the 2016 referendum was not binding but consultative so it is perfectly legitimate for Parliament or the prime minister to now say it is time to decide to remain. In fact Theresa May voted against accepting the outcome of the referendum to set up the Welsh Assembly on these grounds so knows the form. Finally, over 3m EU citizens - and we all are EU citizens in the UK something I personally value a great deal - were excluded from voting in the 2016 referendum because their national citizenship was in another country, even though they have the right to vote in all UK Parliament and local elections. This alone makes the vote illegitimate in my view and if there is another referendum both these fellow citizens and people 16 and over should have the vote. So it is a liitle bit more complicated isn't it than 'you lost' and 'get on with it' which, based on the above I would say are unconstitutional, undemocratic and tending to the dictatorial type statements 'I have a mandate arguments'.
25.6.2019
My delay in responding is as a result of travelling back from visiting daughter and family in Brussels! You raise and conflate many issues. First, the nature of the EU like that British state is an emanation of the class that dominates that state: in both cases capitalists - those who own the means of production. Both states are protectionist and have imperial tendendencies. Both however have had to develop democratic and legal processses under pressure from below to try to retain and legitimate their power. These processes leave opportunities for us as workers to challenge their power and legitimacy. And as Lenin argued about the Duma in Russia all these opportunities should be used. Which leads to the second point about being 'unreformable'. This is a totally defeatist argument which could also be applied to the British state. There is a long socialist argument about reform v revolution however I think the idea of transitional demands and action (the former possibly best developed by Trotsky). I've appended a link to a paper of mine which takes this argument further forward. You will probably consider it 'abstract'. Certainly both leave and remain have dominant voices. The Lexit voice is an insignificant minority in the leave case and the Another Europe Is Possible which Left Unity supports is possibly in the same situation but we are working hard to change that with action taking place o 6 July. However you underestimate the power of the extreme right, nationalist and I will say racist case that dominates the leave camp. I spent days combating these arguments during the referendum finding myself in the bizarre situation of at the same being under attack from those who support Lexit who seemed to me at the time to be spending more time attacking us on the left than the right. That situation has changed a bit but elements are still there. I've also written about the situation of Ford's as part of an analysis about how international capital destroys communities in its search for profit maximisation. And how in fact we need to fight and argue the international case for controlling the power of these corporations - an EU transitional demand if you like. Lapavitsas of course does not share you view of a soft Brexit but sees nothing wrong with the WTO situation, shared with some interesting people. I would argue the Another Europe is Possible case that Corbyn should return to the interntionalist remain and reform position he held in 2016 - only now I think it should be strong as remain and transform! https://lenarthur01.blogspot.com/2017/07/transitional-demands-and-action.html
No comments:
Post a Comment