discussion of this article

Chris S said…

If we needed more proof we only have to look at what their members are up to on facebook...

http://communiststudents.org.uk/2009/05/no-2-eu-looks-to-far-right-for-votes/

Sun 10, May 2009 @ 02:33

Arthur Bough said…

I agree entirely with this post. I've given a fuller critique of the reactionary Nationalist Programme of No2EU in my blog http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/cancer-of-nationalism-in-workers.html.

Sun 10, May 2009 @ 18:31

stuart king said…

A member of Socialist Resistance, who support NO2EU, took issue with the above article on their website (http://socialistresistance.org). As it clarifies some issues I am putting the exchange here.

Comment by Patrick Scott on 10 May 2009:

As regards Scotland, Stuart you are wrong. Socialist Resistance (SR) is calling for a vote for the SSP list in the coming European election. All SR supporters in Scotland are SSP members and the SSP list itself includes one SR supporter, namely Raphie de Santos.

Regarding NO2EU. Of course many though by no means all of the criticisms of the NO2EU platform by Permanent Revolution (PR) are valid. Nevertheless we recognise that for all its political deficiences and shortcomings the NO2EU campaign represents a step forward insofar as it has mobilised and brought together a layer of activists on the left of the labour movement. But PR seems to condemn NO2EU because it fails to present a fully rounded revolutionary Marxist platform, would that life were that simple.

But what is the final response of PR? The concluding sentence of the PR statement on NO2EU says that “No internationalist or socialist should “lend their vote” to this campaign even for a moment.” From this I can only conclude that PR will be ‘voting with the class’ by calling for a vote for New Labour in the Euro elections. An eclectic combination of ultraleft bluster with an opportunist political practise I think.

Would Stuart or anyone else in PR care to respond?

Tue 12, May 2009 @ 13:02

stuart king said…

Thank you for clarifying that Patrick because the Socialist Resistance statement of 27 April made no mention of your position in Scotland or indeed of Scotland at all. What the SSP might describe as the mistake of a “London-based group”?

So in England and Wales, SR thinks the NO2EU campaign represents a “step forward” for the left, whereas in Scotland SR members, to quote the SSP website on NO2EU, think that it represents “’Little Britain’ politics”. The SSP castigate the campaign for having a “right wing concept of ‘British Sovereignty’”, of appealing to anti-EU sentiments and being organised in a “bureaucratic and top down way”.

Maybe this is why the position of Scottish SR/SSP members was diplomatically left out of SR’s statement of support for NO2EU?

No Patrick, we don’t condemn NO2EU because it “fails to present a fully rounded revolutionary Marxist platform” but because, as the SSP says, it panders to a “little Britain”, anti-EU and nationalist trend within the working class. Part of this is its playing with anti-foreign worker sentiments – ie referring to EU workers coming here as ”social dumping”.

SR in England and Wales has trapped itself in the worst of all political positions. It has absolutely no influence on the political content of this campaign but will help in the spreading of these poisonous ideas inside the Labour movement.

I am surprised that you (and Duncan on another thread) find a critical vote for Labour such an outrageous position. ISG/SR and its predecessor political organisations called for a vote for Labour as far as I recall throughout the 1980s right up to calling for a vote for Tony Blair’s New Labour in 1997. Are you now saying this was wrong?

As far as I know you don’t think, like the SP, that the LP is now a “bourgeois party”, and no doubt you will be calling for a vote for Labour in the vast majority of constituencies in the 2010 general election where “left of Labour” candidates (however you define them) are not standing.

As you know in circumstances where it is possible to build a mass class struggle alternative to Labour we not only advocate it, but fight to build it, as we did alongside you in the Socialist Alliance. But the politics and democratic structures of such attempts matter. On both counts the NO2EU campaign fails. Which is why the SSP is right on this issue and you are wrong.

Tue 12, May 2009 @ 13:04

Jason said…

Stuart is right on this I think though the issue does deserve wider discussion and clarification.

It is not entirely surprising (perhaps I have a hint of disagreement here with Stuart!) that sections of the far left or indeed some class militants may in the absence of anything else be drawn to flirting with this campaign. After all, the idea of trade union militants standing against Labour’s attacks has been something advocated by many on the left for many a year: also sadly has been the tendency to substitute for this something else, cheer led by sections of the left.

The big and decisive problem with NO2EU is the pandering to nationalism: for example on migrant labour claiming “to ferry workers across Europe to carry out jobs that local workers can be trained ot is an environmental, economic and social nonsense.”

This suggests, wrongly, that foreign labour is a problem. Bosses try to divide worker against worker- along craft lines, using sexism, racism, nationalism and other forms of chauvinism- but the problem isn’t foreign workers. The problem is bosses. The answer is to organise together.

The Lyndsey workers quite rightly demanded the right to work and used strike action against job losses and demanded all workers to be on equal pay and conditions. The Socialist Party militants played a creditable role on the whole.

Patrick is of course right that if groups of workers came together to fight class politics through united action and also standing candidates in elections this could be a step forward. If grassroots meetings were held with rank and file democracy it is unlikely that a revolutionary program would be adopted. Socialists of course should fight for demands that mobilise the class and link this to the need for workers’ power and socialism- revolution- but we would not win the fight immediately. Of course not. And it may well be that a fighting reformist program that emerged in this manner would be worthy of enthusiastic critical support- pointing out where it should go further but endorsing candidates.

However, if formulations that pander to nationalism could not be defeated it would mean carrying on the argument in the context of united action but not calling for a vote.

NO2EU fails on both counts. It was not built by the rank and file in a participatory manner and it does make unprincipled concessions to nationalism.

However, we should be very patient and open in engaging workers in discussion proposing concrete action such as workers’ strikes and occupation against pay cuts, job losses and organising all workers irrespective of either immigration status or national origin in a united fight. To that end this discussion is fruitful and refreshing

Tue 12, May 2009 @ 19:20

David Walters said…

Folks, look, this is a bit circular it seems to me, albeit it's one of the better discussions going on.

No2Europe could easily dispense with the charges of immigrant bashing it the platform/candidates took clear, pro-immigrant rights perspective.

But the underlying issues around Europe are being avoided here. The EU IS anti-democratic. All these appeals to "international workers" and so forth are at best misleading, at worst, a caving into what "Europe" is. EVERY single gain, EVER, in any European country was won on a *national* basis, by constituent working class or *particular* countries within the frame work of *national labor codes* fought for by the working class.

"Europe" cuts across these gains and it needs to be opposed on this basis along. But there is more. Article 49 specifically allows for the undercutting of *established national contracts* if these contracts interfere in a contractors ability to use workers under *substandard* labor conditions from countries with weaker labor traditions. This is not national chauvinism but plain ol' truth. If *enforcing* national contracts means *in effect* that foreign contractors will have to employ *whomever* under the higher prevailing contractual conditions then GOOD, that is the whole point of national contracts in and unions in the first place!

If it means, as a consequence, workers from other countries can't be brought in to a particular country because there *is no economic incentive for the bosses to do this* then that is an issue for development of workers institutions in those countries and the need to further the class struggle.

I support, right now, the campaign because they understand that without a clear perspective of *smashing Europe* then everything gets subordinated to making what is obviously a "CAPITALIST" Europe somehow an pinkish version of the United Socialist States of Europe, in other words, a pipe dram. Without understanding what "Europe" is all the citicisms of No2Europe will make no headway.

D. Walters

Tue 12, May 2009 @ 21:05

bill j said…

The campaign doesn't really exist Dave, it was cooked up by a secret cabal of Stalinists who developed its xenophobic, nationialist and anti-immigrant programme. The reason it can't issue a statement in favour of migrants is because its against them.

At a meeting I went to designed to launch it in the North West following the attempt of an SP member to dress it up as pro migrant, against the slogan of British Jobs for British workers, British industry, protectionism etc. he was very abruptly interrupted by the Chair (CPB) who purple faced demanded to know what he was on about as No2EU did indeed support the demand British jobs for British workers, did in fact support immigration controls and wanted import controls to strengthen British manufacturing.

What's more after June it won't exist at all.

I console myself that at least after its disappears into disgrace it can't be accused of dragging the banner of socialism through the dirt, which, it fortunately doesn't mention anywhere in its platform.

Wed 13, May 2009 @ 16:51

David Walters said…

That's all too bad. Seems the heart of the SP is in the right place but the British nationalism is all to strong. Part of that, however, is the inability of the various left currents to come up with something I articulated above about clarity on Europe. Clearly, reading here, the Weekly Worker, etc., it's all very confusing with a very large group on the left in Britain and elsewhere even associating anti-EU sentiment as "chauvinist". They've bought into the "alter-Globalizing" vision of imperialism with a human face.

There is no neutral position on capitalist Europe. Either you are for it or against it. Trying, as the various "Euro-left" oriented groups do too make a "better" or "workers" Europe is like trying to democratize the concentration camp. All well and good but you are still locked up ready to be toast.

David

Wed 13, May 2009 @ 20:45

Duncan said…

"The campaign doesn't really exist Dave"

Um.. yes it does Bill. RMT, SP and CPB members all across the country are currently fighting the campaign. For reports of what's going in Stoke have a look at Phil's 'A Very Public Sociologist' blog.

"The reason it can't issue a statement in favour of migrants is because its against them."

Total nonsense. You have connected opposition to the undermining of national contracts with xenophobia because bosses in the UK are using EU legislation and migrant labour to undermine them.

If NO2EU opposes migrants so much then why does the campaign state it it opposed the racist fortress Europe which excludes people from outside the EU?

I also notice that nowhere in this article does Permanent Revolution outline a position on the European Union but several demands hint that you think it's both possible and desirable to 'reform' the capitalist EU such as:

"we should be uniting with them to smash the EU directives that undermine trade union rights throughout Europe"

And:

"Why not call for a European constituent assembly to introduce a new EU constitution, a fully democratic and socialist one?"

Ridiculous. I'd echo what David Walters has said above that some people have bought into the notion that the capitalist European Union is just a different version of a socialist European Union and with a few serious tweaks, like getting the EU to introduce a new constitution, one can be transformed into the other. This is a totally wrong perspective.

There is also serious bit of confusion running through this article. A lot of the criticisms revolve around the campaign focusing on the EU rather than NATO or the UK parliament. Think for a moment why this might be the case. Perhaps because it's the European elections they're standing in?

Thu 14, May 2009 @ 15:03

bill j said…

I was going off my experience in Manchester. 3 supporters turned up for its launch meeting. It had one box of black and white leaflets.

Call me old fashioned but I'd say if that's your election campaign three weeks before the ballot then you don't really exist.

Any confusion will be removed by the second week in June when it really won't exist even in its supporters imagination.

There are good reasons for thinking that No2EU supports "British jobs for British workers" and other nationalist and xenophobic slogans as its authors, various Stalinists in the RMT, say they do.

As indeed they support immigration controls, fortress Britain and protectionism.

Thu 14, May 2009 @ 22:10

David Walters said…

Immigration controls are a deal breaker for me. If it means the oppose *in effect* Article 39 of the EU constitution, then the campaign cannot be supported by any socialist or labour activist.

Davd

Fri 15, May 2009 @ 16:11

vngelis said…

One cannot pretend to be against the EU and stand in the Euroelections.

Both extremes of 'left and right' do so, pretending that to stand in these elections whose aim are the abolition of national parliaments, as representing a progressive alterantive. Abstention from the Euro-elections is the only consistent policy anything else is a cover for the EU expansionist project of globalising imperialism which aims to reach as far as the Ukraine and Turkey and not limit itself to there but go even further eventually encompassing in Afghanistan and even India.

Sat 16, May 2009 @ 16:17

David Walters said…

The point made by anti-immigrant blogger Vngelis is correct, despite his right-wing views on the question. I haven't thought at all, from afar, about the legitimacy of even running in Euro elections at all, I was focusing on the issue of Europe, per se.

There are other scenarios too that are also in keeping with socialist tactics. For example, Marxists refuse to recognized British ownership/colonization of Ireland, yet Bernadette Devlin ran there, and WON on a nationalist line, but refused to take her seat. That's one way to.

The Vietnamese Trotskyists ran in the 1945 (and previous) French colonial elections and won, hugely, and did take their seats while no one, at all, considered this a capitulation to the French colonial political structure. The same is true among Indian Trotskyists in the same period.

david

Sat 16, May 2009 @ 18:13

Jason said…

Duncan, you point to the fact that some of the candidates are union militants. I agree that could potentially be a good thing for union militants to stand in elections under a fighting program if by doing so they could either win adherents to socialism or to fighting class politics or otherwise mobilise the class in a significant fightback. Of course you'd agree I'm sure but probably rightly point out that under current conditions it's exceedingly difficult ot pull off and that anything that's a step in that direction is good. OK- I agree.

Where we disagree though is whether NO2EU is a step in that direction. It won't identify and mobilise a militant class fightback because it makes no demands along those lines but iinstead focuses on being against the EU.

I understand that of course the authors of NO2EU are not in all probability anti-migrant but anti the way migrants have been used under the posted workers directive to undercut wages and conditions. Of course. However, by failing to make this very explicit I think they risk pandering to an audience who do feel anti immigrant- and I suspect that this evasisveness may be partly deliberate. But deliberate or not it is a huge flaw.

Of course it is understandable why some workers who said British jobs for British workers and indeed why some may be anti immigrant but it needs all the more to be challenged and explicity. If a campaign could be launched that combined strike action, occupations and an electoral element to smash the posted workers' directive that would be a very good thing- workers' direct action to win reforms is not all synonymous with saying the EU can be reformed from within. It is to say workers' militancy can win reforms- revolutionaries argue that we should take this further into a fight for power, for workers' revolution.

N02EU is a mistaken step in the wrong direction. It does not deserve support because it does not mobilise a signficant proportion of workers in class struggle- it has no organic link in that sense.

What may be worth pursuing is the idea of meetings to put forward a genuine workers' cnadidates in open meetings with policies elected and discussed in mass meetings. If THAT took off then even if it came up with a platform inadequate in some ways- it almost certainly would- it may nevertheless be worthy of support. It is however wishful thinking to beleive NO2EU is remotely like that.

Sat 16, May 2009 @ 19:33

steven durrant said…

It's all very well for Permanent Revolution comrades to slag off No2EU, and not exactly difficult work.

But is this the same PR whose members endorse the reactionary, neoliberal, corrupt and authoritarian Labour Party?

By jings it just happens to be so. How "revolutionary" is that?

I know comrades may not appreciate biblical quotes, but Matthew Chapter 7 Verse 5 is most apt in this case.

Apart from everything else, a vote for Labour is a vote for ID cards and the NIR. Any so-called "socialist" or "communist" who does that is the enemy within AFAIC. Sorry, but there it is. I really enjoy the company of PR individuals, and appreciate their massive efforts in a whole range of campaigns. Those I know are more classically leftist orthodox than me, at least I thought so. But then there they are trooping out to support oligarch-loving traitor vermin like Labour. This position is a disgusting joke. There is no need for PR to endorse any party, and quite a few are more worthy of it than Labour. For pitys sake sort it out, and quickly. I know this post is ranty, but this PR position is offensive and bizzare.

Thu 21, May 2009 @ 01:35

vngelis said…

I understand that of course the authors of NO2EU are not in all probability anti-migrant but anti the way migrants have been used under the posted workers directive to undercut wages and conditions. Of course. However, by failing to make this very explicit I think they risk pandering to an audience who do feel anti immigrant- and I suspect that this evasisveness may be partly deliberate. But deliberate or not it is a huge flaw.

Jason

The NO2EU campaigns speaks of a Fortress Europe, when millions of cheap labourers have made it in they also speak of the abolition of immigration controls. So they do not differ in essence from those who ...oppose them.

These issues were grappled with the creation of the First International and Britain had an honourable tradition in fighting the undercutting of labour rates with the use of foreign labour. This has now been lost by most in their mad dash to globalism.

Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose

“Capital looks upon the worker as a mere instrument of production; the last lock-out of the London basketmakers affords a striking example of this. Here are the facts. The London employers told the basketmakers that the latter were to dissolve their union and to accept a reduction in wages. If these terms were not agreed to within three days, a lock-out would be declared. Faced by this ruthless proclamation, the workers rebelled, refusing the terms. The employers had anticipated such a refusal, for agents had already been sent to Belgium, and returned bringing Belgian workmen ... The newcomers were herded under the railway arches of Bermondsey. Here they had to work, feed, and sleep, for they were not allowed to go out lest they should come into contact with the British workers. But the General Council was able to force the barrier established by the employers. By a trick, access was gained to the isolated Belgians. Next day the latter, having realised their duty, returned to their native land, and were compensated for their loss of time by the London Basketmakers’ Society. Just as they were leaving, there arrived another shipload of Belgian workers, but this time we met the newcomers, who went home by the next boat. After that, the employers found it impossible to get any more workers, and in the end they had to go back to the old conditions.”[113]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/steklov/history-first-international/ch07.htm

Thu 21, May 2009 @ 11:09

bill j said…

We don't endorse New Labour Steve. But yes we do vote for them and the reasons are simple.

In the end none of the other choices offer a way forward for the working class, the Liberals and Tories for obvious reasons and the Greens, although supported by many good activists have shown whenever they are in power even locally that they're really no different from the Liberals and Tories.

Witness the ongoing struggle around Lewisham Bridge Primary School where there are six Green councillors. Five of whom fully support and fight for the privatisation of the school, forced bussing of local children, and the destruction of a listed building.

The Green Left councillor to her credit abstained on the vote for the privatisation of the school but aside from that has done little else to support the campaign.

This is no isolated incident either but pretty typical of the Greens wherever they've been in power.

So supporting them is really no different than supporting the Liberals or the Tories.

We don't support no2eu as its a reactionary and xenophobic campaign which barely exists and has almost no support so it boils down to vote Labour or abstain.

We think its better to vote Labour as the LP show up their reactionary colours in office and remain tied to the working class movement through the unions, tradition working class affiliation etc.

People ask but how long will you vote for them haven't they been exposed enough?

And sure they have been exposed, but the trouble is workers don't just spontaneously join a progressive left socialist alternative such an organisation has to be built.

Trouble is there, the left have pretty well given up on that idea, hence No2EU.

Thu 21, May 2009 @ 21:10

Jason said…

The main point is, as Bill says, NO2EU has no base. It was created from above with no involvement from working class rank and file activists and little active support.

Its politics are thoroughly inadequate- a mix of weak ineffectual reformism and pandering to a kind of anti EU feeling (not quite xenophobic but certainly pandering to a kind of little Englander nationalism- in the name at least and osme of th epublicity though the Socialist Party produced leaflets are better- they're more anti- capitalist though still completely reformist). BUT if a significant section of workers supported it, if the campaign mobilised and organised worker activists who had illusions in it, a critical vote for NO2EU might not be out of the question- whilst of course sharply criticisng the limitations of its politics and trying to win workers to active class struggle methods of fighting and support for revolutionary socialism. However, the campaigns of NO2EU bear no resemblance to this as they have no base and no organic link to working class struggle or working class support.

For over a decade we have argued for worker candidates to stand against Labour, for active steps towards a workers' party. NO2EU is not such a step. What is needed is militant workers' campaigns such as the Visteon occupations, the Lindsey strike, the Lewish Bridge occupation but on a mass level with a working class movement connecting the disparate struggles. As part of such a campaign elecions may well have their place but a more important step is to form a party to organise and co-ordinate struggle and ultimately the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

Sat 23, May 2009 @ 19:44

bill j said…

Big ifs Jason.

The whole point is that no mass of workers support it. Indeed how could they given that it was set up in secret by a cabal of Stalinists who decided its programme without any consultation.

Plus I think you're soft on its platform. If you look at the section on workers rights it clearly argues against migration and the free movement of labour. It supports protectionism and British industry. It is xenophobic. The fact that the SP try and pretend its something that its not is certainly not to their credit.

Sun 24, May 2009 @ 10:50

Jason said…

Indded, Bill. It was precisely my point that none of these criteria are met, that no significant sections of workers have illusions in or a rleationship with NO2EU and that is the crucial point more than the crap politics.

However, th epolitics are extremely crass and at least border on pandering to racism on the website anyway- I agree. Of course we should be absolutely sharp on our criticism of the politics. The main criterion of whether to critically support a fomration or not though is down mainly to the relationship or otherwise to the working class. NO2EU has no such relationship so is not worthy of support at all.

Sun 24, May 2009 @ 14:23

Dan said…

In terms of xenophobia/nationalism their stance on the environment is appalling.

i) They obviously do not take the question of the environment seriously. Given it one of the biggest crises that the human race has ever faced this is a massive omission.

ii) One of the few things they do have to say is:

"To ferry workers across Europe to carry out jobs that local workers can be trained to perform is an environmental, economic and social nonsense.

If ‘food-miles’ represent an unacceptably large carbon footprint, then ‘labour-miles’ and shunting human beings around Europe in the pursuit of profit is even more damaging."

To blame immigration for the environmental problems we face firstly is complete bollox in terms of the science of what is causing the problems and secondly does pander to xenophobic arguments.

Sun 24, May 2009 @ 16:53