The big question of course is “what does Socialist Resistance say about no2eu”?  Here’s the answer.Bob Crowe by grumwsmith.

In our national aggregate of March 21st and our statement on March 31st we welcomed the launching of no2eu-Yes To Democracy campaign. We repeat that here. The scale of the economic and environmental crisis, and the need for a working class response at both the industrial and the political level, makes tackling the crisis of working class representation ever more urgent.

What the no2eu platform represents is the involvement a militant national trade union in an electoral initiative against Labour. This is a significant development. It is evidence that some sections of the working class are looking for a political alternative to Labour’s neo-liberalism and has the potential to contribute to a realignment on the left in Britain.

As the success of Die Linke in Germany has demonstrated radical sections of the trade union movement can play a crucial part in the development of a broad political alternative. In fact it is difficult to build broad left parties without the involvement of the trade union left — particularly in Britain where the organised left is chronically divided and lacks social weight.

From this point of view it would be a mistake not to recognise the importance of the RMT’s involvement in no2eu yes to democracy. Britain is now well behind many other parts of western Europe when it comes to the development of such parties.

Now that it is clear that Respect will not be standing in the European elections in London or anywhere else on June 4th we will be building support for no2eu in England and Wales where Respect is not endorsing any other candidate. We will get involved in the campaign and work to maximise its vote. How many votes no2eu-yes to democracy will attract is difficult to predict, of course. It has a very small budget on which to fight a European election in all constituencies.

The size of its vote, however, is not the main thing to be taken into account when its longer-term significance is assessed. What will also be important is: how it conducts itself politically during the campaign; how the coalition around it develops; what relations it establishes with other sections of the left; how the campaign is taken into the rank and file of the RMT.

The emergence of no2eu has raised some important issues for Respect. We in SR, and more broadly in Respect, have long held the view that Respect must actively seek to be part of a broader recomposition of the left. In fact we have argued that such a recomposition is essential if a genuinely broad working class party is to be constructed. If no2eu represents even half step in that direction then Respect has to develop a relationship with it.

One debate in Respect has been around whether it would be wrong in principle for Respect to stand against no2eu once it was launched. There was rightly a debate over the resources for the campaign which was a big problem (both for Respect and for no2eu), but the overriding issue for some was whether Respect should automatically stand aside in favour of no2eu or not. We in SR held the view that it would have been perfectly legitimate for Respect to stand if it had so wished and that in principle it should have stood in London if it could have gathered the resources for a credible campaign together.

If Respect is to maximise its chances in the general election, where it may be the only radical alternative, it needed where possible to keep its name on the ballot paper and in the public eye in the interim. Respect, despite its weaknesses, is an established left party with a high profile MP and a number of successful councillors. It is the party of the left with the highest public recognition and best electoral record for many years. It has important bases amongst Asian communities in South Birmingham and East London and plans to stand in several Parliamentary seats in the general election next year. It has just been central to Viva Palestina, the hugely successful aid convoy to Gaza, which has enhanced its reputation. Jerry Hicks, as a high profile leader of Respect, has just achieved a remarkable result in the Amicus elections.

It is not reasonable, or sensible, therefore, to expect such a party to automatically step aside for a new and unproven initiative. This is especially true when we consider that no2eu has brought together a strikingly diverse range of organisations and yet did not make any approach to Respect, thre SWP’s Left Alternative or the Scottish Socialist Party (Organisations involved so far are the RMT, the CPB, the Socialist Party, the Indian Workers Association, The Alliance for Green Socialism (AGS), Solidarity (Scotland), and the Liberal Party — a libertarian-liberal group which split from the original Liberal Party after the Liberal Democrat party was formed).

It is important that Respect defends and develops the gains it has already made — which are actually gains for the whole of the left — as well as looking for new opportunities. If it loses these gains, the left will have far less to bring to any future broad party which might emerge.

Nor is it at all clear that the RMT, or any other of the main players in no2eu, ever regarded it as a problem if Respect had stood in a couple of constituencies — particularly since the voting overlap would have been very small.  Otherwise they would have approached Respect at an early stage and sought to bring Respect on board.

The politics of no2eu

In supporting and getting involved in the no2eu campaign we will be taking up some of the political problems, which in our view, have emerged since it was launched. It is important that these are debated, and openly debated, if, as we would hope, no2eu is going to have longer-term significance. T

he most significant of these is its top-down structure and method of organising. There are signs that this is breaking down in some regions and that is all to the good. But all of its policy making decisions were taken at invitation-only meetings and our information is that what are termed ‘ultra-left’ groups are not welcome in it. We also understand that support for the Lindsey dispute was made a criterion of inclusion.

This top-down approach needs to change otherwise no2eu will be campaigning to democratise the EU when it lacks democratic legitimacy itself. Any organisation which wants to be represent a diverse range of opinion which rejects New Labour and wants to fight for the interests of working people has to allow a plurality of views and offer the space to put them forward.

For Socialist Resistance this is important, for while there is much in the list of demands that no2eu makes that we enthusiastically support such as rejection of the Lisbon Treaty; opposition to EU directives that privatise public services and the repeal of anti-trade union ECJ rulings there are aspects which are concerning. One example is the rejection of “the so-called ‘free movement’ of labour”. We support the right of any worker to work anywhere, with the same rights, with equal access to jobs, and to hold the uni
on leaders to account for not defending wages, pensions and working conditions.

An important political task which faces any left-wing campaign against the EU is to clearly separate itself from the much bigger right-wing nationalist campaign against the EU — led by the Tories, UKIP and the BNP. Otherwise things can go badly wrong. Respect did this very well in 2004 making sure that it projected a high profile left-wing agenda. In fact in 2004 Respect did not focus its campaign mainly on the EU as an institution, as no2eu does, but made the election a referendum on Tony Blair and the invasion of Iraq.

No2eu has been weak on this aspect. There is nothing in the large print on its leaflet which defines it as a left-wing campaign — and first impressions are important. Most worrying was the decision of a key RMT organiser within the no2eu campaign recently to speak on a Campaign Against Euro federalism platform along with former Tory MP Teddy Taylor. This is a bad sign and needs to be corrected quickly. No2eu has to make very clear that it is a campaign in favour of the rights of working people and has nothing in common with Tory or UKIP style euroscepticism.

It also needs to be much stronger on the environmental issues. It is a real step-back in today’s conditions to find that the environment is hardly mentioned, especially considering the RMT’s campaigns for environmentally sustainable transport. One of the organisations involved, the AGS, which regards itself as ecosocialist must be in a very uncomfortable position. No2eu would greatly strengthen its appeal if this weakness could be corrected.

The other problem with no2eu is its decision not to take a seat if it wins one. The press pack distributed at its press launch said the following: “No2eu is an electoral platform and not a party and our candidates will not sit in the European Parliament in the event of winning any seats”. There have been some debate around this and some signs of a more flexible position. This debate, however, was addressed directly by Alex Gordon of the RMT executive (and a no2eu candidate), in the Morning Star on Saturday April 18 and he didn’t give any ground on it. He argued that since the European Parliament is ‘not a proper parliament’ and is riddled with corruption it would be wrong in principle to attend it. No2eu would, therefore, he says, nominally hold the seat if it won one but would refuse to attend the Parliament even if censured as a result.

The model Alex Gordon puts forward for this is the refusal of Sinn Fein to sit in Westminster. But Sinn Fein is a very different matter. It is understandable to its supporters that whilst leading a national struggle its leaders would not be prepared to swear allegiance to the imperialist power. It would be far less understandable to no2eu supporters as to why they would not be represented in the European Parliament if they voted for someone who was elected. How can you tackle the crisis of working class representation by refusing to represent your voters if you are elected?

Of course it is hard to compete with the European Parliament when it comes to the gravy train and the democratic deficit. But illusions in national Parliaments should be also avoided. The difference is only a matter of degree. Many, even most, of the arguments Alex Gordon makes again the European Parliament could apply to Westminster — which is not so great in the democratic legitimacy stakes either, and is up to its armpits in sleaze and corruption. Most people who consider the European Parliament irrelevant won’t vote in this election whilst those who think it does have an effect on their lives will want to be represented if the party they voted for wins a seat.

What potential voters want in this situation is not that politicians of the left to abstain from such an institution. They want them to demonstrate, consistently in practice, that they are different, and on the basis of that use these institutions as a platform to defend the interests of, the working class and the oppressed.

  • We welcome the emergence of no2eu.
  • Where Respect is not endorsing other candidates in England and Wales Socialist Resistance will encourage its supporters to vote for no2eu.
  • We will get involved in the campaign
  • We will argue inside Respect and no2eu that they actively seek to develop a working relationship with other forces seeking to build a working-class and green alternative to New Labour.

59 responses to “NO2EU – the big question answered”

  1. Yes, a union deciding to get involved in the electoral process is important – but it is primarily directed at linking euroscepticism with workers’ rights on the one hand ,and on the other, splitting the fascist vote. Recall the RMT didn’t break with Labour – it was thrown out. Though bold, the No2EU initiative is a pragmatic move. (On abstentionism: the point here probably to contrast with UKIP and eurosceptic Tories.)

    Though I must say, on the refusal of “ultra-left” groups, if the intention was to get involved in eurosceptic pro-worker politics without getting involved in intense theoretical arguments about Trotsky and Stalin, would it not have been better for the RMT, the SP, and the CPB to get help in the Greens’ bid to re-elect their pro-union and anti-capitalist MEPs? If SR is looking for ecosocialism, you’ll probably find it in the Green Party…

    Like

  2. I am skeptical. It looks like the old CP line on Europe. What we are witnessing is the rivival of the CPB. After the failure of the SWP to be genuine in the SA and Respect we now have the SP cosying up to the CPB and its allied Trade Unionists ( I should say Trade Union officials.. There is a myth about the CPB and in Ireland, the CPI, and its links in the unions.
    This is top down and in my opinion incapable of reform.
    Concentrate on the Greens and Respect where it is viable.In Scotland stay with the SSP.

    On a footnote there is/was a Trade Union front in Ireland, mainly CP. Trade Unionists for Irish Unity and Independence, (TUIUI) Membership restricted to TU officials current or retired. It does and has done nothing. But it gives an opportunity to elderly CP types to talk about how republcan they are.

    Like this, this brainchild is by invitation only. They will never let in democracy. They will use the excuse that this is to stop nuisances like the Sparts/Workers Powere annoying everyone at meetings.

    Like

  3. This statement is factually wrong on a number of points:

    1) The SSP were approached by No2EU. John McAllion was approached. He told them to go through official channels. And so the Convenor of the SSP, Colin Fox, was then approached. Given the predictable response of the SSP rump (“Tommy Sheridan’s tackle is the chief dividing line in world politics”) No2EU probably shouldn’t have bothered, but still they did.

    I suspect that Respect and the SWP weren’t contacted because of the extremely hostile and arrogant reception the then united Respect gave Crow the last time he mooted standing RMT backed candidates.

    2) The No2EU speaker did not appear on a CAEF platform. He withdrew after being made aware of the people he’d be speaking alongside.

    3) The formal position of No2EU is not abstentionist, but against the Euro gravy train. Should someone get elected, there will be a convention to decide what precisely to do with it. This is a bit like arguing over how many angels we can fit on the head of a pin though, as it is highly unlikely that such a situation will arise.

    4) There is a lot in the “large print” of the No2Eu campaign which marks it out as left wing.

    On Charlie’s comment:

    The Green Party are a liberal capitalist party. As long as they stay irrelevant they can keep pretending to be radical to the left as well as liberal to the liberals, but the experience of every Green Party in the world which got a sniff of power is exactly the same. Even in Britain, despite their general irrelevance when given the opportunity they’ve been only too happy to jump into coalition with the Tories in local government.

    It is entirely irrelevant whether or not a couple of Green MEPs are elected. The European Parliament is a nearly powerless talking shop, even aside from the uselessness of the Greens. What matters at the moment is taking a small step towards independent working class representation – a goal the Greens have no contribution to make in reaching.

    Like

  4. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Correction to Mark P.

    1) The No2EU coordinator withdrew from the CBI meeting (not CAEF) after they invited a German reactionary. He agreed to speak originally knowing that CBI was supported by Tories like ex-MP Teddy Taylor and had links to the Freedom Association. On the other hand he was speaking alongside the Irish campaign against the Treaty and he was not formally speaking for No2EU – he was billed as representative of a shadowy trade union bureaucrats group. Nevertheless it was a worrying indication.

    2) No2EU are abstentionist. The SP are trying to water that down by saying that if someone gets elected there will be a convention to discuss how they play it, but the starting position is that they do not take their seat and this is being repeated at No2EU meetings – it remains to be seen how it will be presented in the election broadcast currently being prepared.

    There is clearly good and bad in No2EU. It is a matter of interpretation as to which outweighs the other, but there’s no need for either side to distort the facts.

    Like

  5. Prinkipo Exile:

    Apart from me using the wrong acronym, those are not corrections.

    1) No2EU is not abstentionist – it has been agreed that there will be regional conventions should anyone be elected. You are wrong on this.

    2) As I said before, the No2EU member did decide not to speak at that meeting after being told of the composition of the platform.

    I can in turn offer a futher correction to you and point out that the “People’s Movement” is not “the Irish Campaign against the Treaty” but is instead one of the affiliates of one of the campaigns against the Lisbon Treaty.

    Like

  6. “Reject the EU -gravy train
    Our candidates will nominally hold the title MEP but will not board the notorious EU gravy train by taking their seats.”

    It’s a matter of interpretation of course and unlikely to make any difference to the result but the above quote from the front page of the website could be contorted to imply abstentionism as a public position.

    Like

  7. defendeducation Avatar
    defendeducation

    I’m mystified by the attempts of some lefties to dress this up as anything good.Take the section on the “economic crisis”. Who does it blame? Capitalism by any chance? The City of London? The neo-conservatives Blair and Brown?
    No.
    It blames the EU. Demands the reconstruction of a strong British manufacturing capitalism and protectionism;


    The economic crisis and the EU
    In efforts to resolve the finanical crisis a recapitalisation of banks has taken place in EU Member States using taxpayers’ money. The Hungarian government has been helped out by the IMF to the tune of £11.2 billion.

    EU member states in eastern and central Europe are in dire economic circumstances. Latvia now has an IMF loan of £1.7 billion. Ireland, Greece, Portugal and other member states have economic problems and in all these eurozone countries there is growing unemployment and related social problems.

    All this is opposite to the criteria and rules of the EU Growth and Stability Pact. Hungary and Latvia were not helped by the euro. All this shows that the Pact has been shredded and the euro system has failed.

    The euro is controlled by the European Central Bank (ECB) which dictates interest and exchange rates. These are two key levers which should instead be used by national governments to control their economies. Britain is in the penultimate stage to join the euro and has also carried out the criteria.

    By obeying the strict criteria of the euro considerable damage has been done to the public sector. Control of economies in the eurozone is exercised by the EU Commission, Council of Ministers and ECB directly over national interests. The crisis is being used as an excuse to press for complete ratification of the Lisbon Treaty which would impose the euro on all member states.

    Leading Europhiles like Denis MacShane and others claim that Britain should join the euro to help resolve the fiscal crisis. Ireland is being pressed to ratify the EU Constitution.
    Cuts in public sector spending and the forcing down of wages continues and will worsen in any recession and be used to resolve the problems of bankers whilst workers are asked to tighten their belts.

    “Nation states with the right to self-determination and their governments are the only institutions that can control the movement of big capital and clip the wings of the trans-national corporations and banks. …To return to an economy based on manufacturing requires massive investment and where appropriate protection of home industries.”

    There’s nothing remotely left wing about it. And those Left groups who have attempted to dress it up as such – principally the SP and SR – will get burnt by the whole thing.

    Like

  8. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Sorry Mark P, my mistake again, I should have said CIB, not CBI. But the meeting was advertised for some weeks before Denny pulled out and then only because Nitzsche was included. I should have also said “a campaigner” against the Treaty instead of “the campaign”, such is life.

    But I still think the political issue – that it is worrying that it took quite a while for the withdrawal from the meeting – is right especially when the newsletter advertising it is quite odious.

    Click to access freebritainmarch2009-5.pdf

    I am not wrong on abstention. “not taking seats” is clearly being pushed by No2EU representatives from the CPB and RMT, and remains the official position on the website. There is no formal statement from the campaign concerning the regional conventions. In any case who would be entitled to attend, and what would be the basis of a decision anyway? Could an elected No2EU member refuse to implement a subsequent ‘decision’ to take seats on the grounds it was not in the platform or the basis of the campaign? This is a major achilles heel and unless it is formally reversed before the election, No2EU remains held back by this position. More importantly the political basis for the abstentionism – that the European Parliament is not a real parliament – remains a fundamentally dangerous position.

    Like

  9. Mark P says of the Greens: “As long as they stay irrelevant they can keep pretending to be radical to the left as well as liberal to the liberals, but the experience of every Green Party in the world which got a sniff of power is exactly the same. Even in Britain, despite their general irrelevance when given the opportunity they’ve been only too happy to jump into coalition with the Tories in local government.”

    True – but in the north west region, there’s a good chance voting green could stop Nick Griffin becoming a MEP – now, there’d be some wonderful irony if it happened (Griffin sent abroad to work with foreigners!) but I don’t want to see it happen. No2EU isn’t a step towards independent working class representation, it’s a move to block the fascists and ensure the EU issue isn’t dominated by anti-worker parties like BNP, Ukip and Tories.

    Like

  10. “No2EU isn’t a step towards independent working class representation, it’s a move to block the fascists and ensure the EU issue isn’t dominated by anti-worker parties like BNP, Ukip and Tories.”

    This statement is self-contradictory, since what it describes is a (minimal, but real) step towards independent working class representation, in order to block ‘anti-worker’ parties. If it didn’t have that element of working class representation about it, it wouldn’t be able to ‘block’ these anti-worker parties or anything else. This is traditional left social-democratic politics on the EU, in a European election, so why the big surprise that traditional left social-democratic views on the EU are being put forward?

    Like

  11. My apologies – what I meant to say was: No2EU isn’t a step towards establishing a new workers party. It’s a platform, not a party. I reckon that more effective anti-fascist campaigning could be done by the RMT, comrades in the SP & CPB, if they backed the greens – thus preventing parties like bnp and ukip from winning seats.

    Like

  12. “No2EU isn’t a step towards establishing a new workers party. It’s a platform, not a party.”

    I think that is too mechanical. A platform could be a step towards a party. It depends what kind of a movement it generates behind it .. if it does reasonably well, it could be seen as a step towards something more permanent.

    “I reckon that more effective anti-fascist campaigning could be done by the RMT, comrades in the SP & CPB, if they backed the greens – thus preventing parties like bnp and ukip from winning seats.”

    Well, that could be true technically IF the Greens were best placed to beat the BNP, or deprive them of the margin of victory, or whatever. But that is a very narrow way of looking at things – and really does bear a resemblance to popular frontism.

    In class terms, the Greens do not constitute independent working class representation, but are seen as a middle-class radical party. They do not appeal on a working class basis and are therefore incapable of politically undermining the fascists’ attempt to exploit working class alienation at the results of Labour’s attack on the working class. So in political terms, insofar as there is a class axis to No2EU – and I would argue that there is (though not without some elements that could contradict that) then it is qualitatively more useful politically for defeating fascism than the Greens could ever be.

    Like

  13. Mark P said “the experience of every Green Party in the world which got a sniff of power is exactly the same.”

    That’s not actually factually accurate.

    In France and Germany the Greens certainly went into coalition with neoliberal (social democratic) parties and in Ireland they made a ridiculous pact with the right but that isn’t the universal experience.

    In Finland the Greens have been part of a coalition gov. and are universally seen as an “anti-capitalist” party by the right wing press who witch hunt and attack them, trying to stitch them up over arson of government buildings for instance – not something you see in Germany.

    In Italy the Greens in the Prodi government were consistent left critics, far more consistent than the PRC for example and when the government collapsed they stood with the PRC on the ballot paper rather than the centre left. Again hardly the experience of some of the other sister parties.

    We’ve yet to see what the Greens do in Iceland although I hope they will serve as a pull to the left for the new ruling coalition and the indications are that in difficult circumstances this will be their general direction.

    So to say its exactly the same world over isn’t true and is essentially just an attempt not to have to think when you can simply stick a silly label on all Greeens everywhere (in your case a “liberal capitalist ” party).

    Like all parties that are able to sustain themselves over decades they have a number of interlinking and contradictory elements that can push them in a number of different directions.

    In Britain the overwhelming competing tendencies in the Greens are either left social democratic or anti-capitalist – two quite different ways of criticising capitalism but both 100% to the left of neoliberal capitalist parties.

    However, as a decentralised and stable coalition it does contain some minority elements, like some of those in Leeds who thought it was ok to go into coalition with the Tories – to universal condemnation of the rest of the party.

    So the description of those events as “Even in Britain,… when given the opportunity they’ve been only too happy to jump into coalition with the Tories in local government.” looks a bit silly really, when no one outside of leeds was “happy” about this.

    I would suggest that if you’re involved in an organisation that has never had anyone make drastic mistakes then you’re probably involved in an organisation that has never done anything worth while.

    I suspect this is more about knee jerk point scoring than a genuine and thought through analysis.

    Like

  14. We also understand that support for the Lindsey dispute was made a criterion of inclusion.

    Genuine question, where is this from?

    I’ve only seen it reported in the ‘Weekly Worker’ so its accuracy may be questionable…

    Like

  15. My source is someone in the SWP who has always pretty straight. However sometimes it’s nice to be wrong.

    Like

  16. In Lewisham the Greens are voting to privatise primary schools in partnership with New Labour.

    Like

  17. Bill can you give me a link to more info on this?
    Our local (Midleands) Greens are talking up their own Anti-Academy credentials!

    Rob

    Like

  18. Sure

    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2669

    There are 6 Green councillors in Lewisham, including a supporter of the Green “Left”. All of whom have voted for the privatisation proposal every step of the way.
    And one of whom Sue Luxton is doing her best to encourage the protestors to give up the fight. More here, though not particularly on the Greens but the campaign as a whole

    http://defendeducationlewisham.wordpress.com/

    Like

  19. I take all the points on the Greens and on the No2EU initiative. But, like Jim says the two competing tendencies within the greens are social democrat and anti-capitalist – not a bad party for unions to be supporting. Perhaps if more of us were members of the green party its words would be deeds when opposing neoliberal policies.

    Like

  20. Here is an interesting analysis of the contradictions within the Green Platform in France- between the pro-capitalists like Danny C-B, and the anti-capitalists like Jose Bove- who isn’t a member of the Greens but on their list.
    Sorry its in French- and a bit long to translate on a May Day, have a demo to attend

    http://www.frontdegauche.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=352:europe-ecologie-les-verts-passent-au-ni-droite-ni-gauche-&catid=83:notes-de-campagne&Itemid=120

    Pete

    Like

  21. Jose Bove is little better than a scab for standing on that pittiful list of Tankies and Liberals against the NPA.

    Like

  22. what list are the greens on in france?

    ps or pcf / pdg or some other list?

    Like

  23. Went to a really terrible meeting of No2EU yesterday. The definite high point was after the Socialist Party member had tried to explain how while the platform appeared xenophobic and nationalist in reality it was principled and socialist.
    Only to be interrupted by the Stalinist chair who explained that it was indeed xenophobic and nationalist, did indeed support British jobs for British workers, did advocate immigration controls and protectionism and was entirely in favour of British manufacturing, the British parliament and the British nation over them European foreigners.

    Like

  24. Ks. Green are standing their own list, with a few ‘personalities’ thrown in like Bove from Confed Paysan.

    Bove often stands with the Greens as they are closer to his rural based position as opposed to the NPA which is very Paris and urban orientated.

    “The Bunk”- what are you talking about-? what list with Tankies and Liberals?

    Like

  25. On this French blog is you scroll down to the 27th April entry you have the two latest polls for the Euroepan elections.

    http://www.ipolitique.fr/elections-europeennes/

    Like

  26. A comment on this I put on the SR site.

    Socialist Resistance has decided to support the NO2EU electoral front. You should ask yourselves, what are the politics the N2EU campaign is pursuing in the working class? It certainly isn’t internationalist politics. Nor is it even socialist politics (the campaign does not mention the word socialism).

    Go to its website, read its leaflets, you find the old CPB politics – reformist, anti-EU, pro-British industrial capitalism nestling alongside a protectionist economic programme. This is the politics that the NO2EU is trying to convince the working class of – and Socialist Resistance are helping them do it.

    Just to give a couple of examples. Your campaign wants to “Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain.” We don’t. Socialists want to expropriate them from the bosses and place them under the control of the workers – we want to abolish the scourge of unemployment and produce for need not profit. In contrast your campaign wants to “revitalise the economy, Britain must return to creating wealth based (economy?) especially in manufacturing, hi-tech and trade across the world”, ie forward with British imperialism!

    Your campaign tells us that “Nation states … and their governments are the only institutions that can control the movement of big capital and clip the wings of the trans-national corporations and banks.” Really? Us socialists always thought it was the working class that could do this, unless of course you believe the British Parliament can do it for us?

    Your campaign wants “protection of home industries”. In the context of capitalism, protectionism means exporting unemployment to other countries, supporting “our industries” against foreign competitors and stoking up economic nationalism. The NO2EU campaign comes dangerously close to extending this economic nationalism to campaigning against foreign workers. It attacks the EU “for promoting the social dumping of exploited foreign workers” and also seems to oppose the free movement of labour across Europe.

    How does Socialist Resistance swallow this when you could not even bring yourselves to support the Lindsey workers in their struggle against the posted workers directive?

    Stuart from PR

    Like

  27. Stuart, you’ll be voting Labour instead, I take it? I’ve commented on your comment at http://is.gd/xZcq

    Like

  28. Poor Duncan always first up to defend the indefensible.

    But what “voice” is this campaign giving trade unions Duncan? – a rather nasty nationalistic, anti-EU voice. Do you really support referring to workers from Europe who come to work here as “social dumping”? Are you, like your campaign apparently is, opposed to the free movement of labour in Europe?

    And surely you know nationalisation in the context of a capitalist state is a capitalistic measure, a reformist one. Which is why Gordon Brown has taken most of the banks into “public ownership” – at our expense! (see our article at: http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2688)

    I don’t know whether we will call for a vote for Labour on June 4th but I do know that the Party of European Socialism, the 33 socialist, social democratic and labour parties common manifesto, puts forward a 6 point programme of progressive promises as equally vapid and reformist as the NO2EU campaign’s. But it does call itself socialist (unlike your campaign) and it is less nationalistic and little-Englander than yours.

    Isn’t THAT an indictment of the campaign you are supporting?

    Like

  29. If anyone was in any doubt about the nature of this campaign have a look at who SPEW members have been canvassing on Facebook. Would it be the far right, xenophobes and nationalists?

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

    Like

  30. Permanent Revolution – you go ahead and vote for New Labour then. Nobody’s stopping you. If your radical conscience can stomach that then fine. But don’t think any of your lectures will be listened to among those who fight to make use of any opportunity to build a mass-based alternative to New Labour, based on class struggle.

    It sort of reminds me of your precedessors in Workers Power in the Socialist Labour Party a decade ago. Outside, WP were calling for a vote to New Labour against the SLP. Inside the SLP, their entrist supporters were shrilly condemning its reformism. The impression is once again given of a dishonest, duplicitious sect.

    CPGB: how’s the Campaign for a Marxist Party coming on? Oh, its collapsed. What a surprise! It never had any life in it to start with!

    Incidentally, I don’t see how the activity of one particular SP member on facebook groups proves anything about the nature of the No2EU campaign. Other people will have many other interpretations of how to campaign. Its how things are in any living movement, and the SP’s methods of dealing with backward ideas have in the past sometimes involved making concessions to them. That’s not news – it happens – it needs to be criticised and overcome as something politically stronger is built.

    But the allegation that one person’s flawed cyber-activities prove anything about the No2EU campaign in the real world is a smear not only against traditional left-social democracy in this country – which is not politically promiximate to the far right – this assetion owes more to Manuilsky than Marx – but is also a smear against good socialists involved in No2EU.

    All it shows it that you are, again, a dishonest group interested in smearing people, not in political debate. But then there is nothing new about that.

    If you’re so good, go and build your own better and more principled alternative in the wider world. But you can’t, because you are politically impotent and have the reverse Midas touch, as the Campaign for a Marxist Party showed.

    Like

  31. Ian Dononvan, the activity of a particular SP member is perfectly in line with what the campaign is about. Keeping foreigners out, BJ4BW and little England politics in trade union clothes. Ballard’s activities are indicative of the kind of politics No2EU is putting forward.

    I have no problem with criticising good “socialists” involved in No2EU, what kind of socialist dumps internationalism, working class solidarity etc to jump into bed with a bunch of Stalinists, reactionaries and bureaucrats?

    It is not dishonest to point out that trying to win nationalists, racists and xenophobes through their own slogans and Left nationalism is completely unprincipled.

    The CMP was terrible, granted. How is life sucking up to George Galloway and the opportunists that run Respect?

    Like

  32. Third-period Stalinophobia from Chris S. The same method, ironically, that the Stalinists themselves applied to social democracy when they denounced them as no better than the Nazis in the early 1930s. One of life’s ironies that Stalinophobes like the CPGB have the same methodology as the worst Stalinists they despise. Though I suppose they have some common origins.

    Yes, the CMP was terrible. You build it, no one else did.

    I have never ‘sucked up’ to George Galloway or anyone else and I guess it would be news to him that I am doing so now.

    But you lot don’t have a clue what is prinicpled or unprincipled regarding GG or anyone else. Given the fact that your sect not only aided the witchhunt against GG in 2003 over ‘Iraqi gold’ – but also falsely denounced the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir for terrorism and calling for beheadings when in fact they condemned such calls in the national media – I guess your idea of principled politics is what I would call aiding the class enemy in witchhunts with racist implications.

    I remember during the campaign against Muslims over the Danish cartoons your organisation tailed after the ruling class campaign – so much so that you thought the main issue was ‘free speech’ for the reactionary cartoonists. Not the hate campaign against Muslims initiated by a far right bourgeois rag who knew exactly what they were doing.

    The only reason you didn’t go the whole hog like the AWL and print the reactionary cartoons in the Weekly Worker was you were too squeamish. But basically, you agreed that the main issue was ‘free speech’ to abuse Muslims.

    But now it has become a line of attack for various liberal types to see the working class as ‘racist’ for what are in fact defensive economic struggles in a deep recession against employer divide and rule methods, you are quick to brand a labour movement initiative like No2EU – which is a political result of those struggles – as reactionary to the core.

    You are very soft on ruling class campaigns against minorities, but merciless in your condemnation of anything that even slightly reflects diffuse and contradictory national sentiment from the Labour movement in the face of cynical employer exploitation of EU rules.

    Islamophobia and Stalinophobia have a common thread – ideological subservience to the ruling class’s agenda. You are AWL-lite. And we don’t need your advice any more than we need the advice of the original.

    Like

  33. I am not a Stalinophobe, my fear/hatred of Stalinism is rational, surely the 20th century should give you plenty of reasons to be a “Stalinophobe”. We are not denouncing social democrats as Nazis, where have we ever wrote that? We have written that it is a nationalist platform based on the BRS and the strategy that the Stalinists have followed for over half a century, this strategy and these politics deserve nothing but contempt. Any of this wrong?

    It is perfectly principled to criticise GG even when he is taking a hammering in the mainstream press. His affiliations are not ones you should be defending, the fact that he works for the Iranian regimes Press TV should worry you amongst other things. We were right to denounce Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, what are you doing defending these bunch of misogynist idiots? You have the nerve to talk to us about principles, where is your condemnation of GG backing immigration controls? Islamist organisations? Iran? taking more than the average wage of a skilled worker? Etc.

    Criticism of Islam and Islamist organisations do not make us Islamophobic, surely the umpteen articles against attacks on Muslims would of shown you that.

    The idea that No2EU should be supported because it came out of the “labour movement” is ridiculous. Why don’t we support the Labour party instead, that came out of the labour movement and has more of a link with the “labour movement” than No2EU does.No2EU came from the bureaucracy and was cooked up with Stalinists, maybe that is fine for you Ian, but socialists usually have problems with such things.

    We have never been soft on “ruling class campaigns against minorities” and we will never be soft on backward elements within the movement. That you think we are somehow ideological subservient to the ruling class’s agenda when it is you who is pushing nationalist and anti immigrant politics is laughable. How far you have fallen comrade.

    Like

  34. Chris S

    “I am not a Stalinophobe, my fear/hatred of Stalinism is rational, surely the 20th century should give you plenty of reasons to be a “Stalinophobe”.”

    That statement is itself Stalinophobic. ‘Stalinism’ as a political movement died in 1989-91. There is no danger to the working class from Stalinism as distinct from any other kind of reformism today, the very fact that people focus of the ‘Stalinism’ of the CPB is a sign of Stalinophobia.

    “We are not denouncing social democrats as Nazis, where have we ever wrote that?”

    No, you are effectively equating ‘Stalinists’ with Nazis as a danger to the working class. Your comment quoted above bears that out. You see fear of Stalinism as rational. I see it as dead and the CPB etc thereby as remnants of something dead.

    “It is perfectly principled to criticise GG even when he is taking a hammering in the mainstream press. ”

    And say that Galloway was probably guilty of what the ruling class said, and that “the left should lead the condemnation”.? You think that principled?

    You obviously dont know the facts about this. Go and read through the WW archive for April 2003 onwards.

    “We were right to denounce Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, what are you doing defending these bunch of misogynist idiots? ”

    Evidently you are not a Marxist. Ever heard of the Dreyfus case? Yes, I defend the right of Hizb ut-Tahrir against state repression for their political beliefs. I also defend them against misrepresentation and lies about them, including in the Weekly Worker. I suggest, once again, you search the WW archive.

    Being ignorant is not a crime. Being arrogant and abusing others on the basis of that ignorance however is not so smart.

    New Labour has very little to do with the trade unions. The RMT, SP and CPB however are quite clearly working class organisations and their stepping jointly into the political arena to oppose Labour is a good thing, flaws nothwithstanding. As far as I can see if you don’t welcome this and put your criticism within this framework, you are not a socialist but a worthless sectarian.

    That’s a good juxtaposition of quotes:

    “We have never been soft on “ruling class campaigns against minorities”

    and

    “We were right to denounce Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, what are you doing defending these bunch of misogynist idiots?”

    So what about the ruling class campaign, supported by Cameron and also mooted by Jacqui Smith, to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir for ‘terrorism’ when it is clear they are a non-violent group?

    Why did the Weekly Worker falsely accuse them of advocating beheadings, and then have to backtrack when it was shown that they had condemned such calls (which actually came from a tiny jihadist nut group) in the Guardian?

    And why did the WW say that the main issue in the furore over the Danish cartoons was ‘free speech’ for the cartoonists?

    You really are a member of a messianic sect – you don’t actually understand that there are people out there who disagree with your sacred nostrums, not because of any corruption or opportunism, but from conviction and experience. I’ve been a member of your group, and lets just say that its claims to be uniquely socialist and democratic are a long way from the truth.

    Like

  35. Oh, and one point I forgot to reply to:

    Chris S on George Galloway

    “His affiliations are not ones you should be defending, the fact that he works for the Iranian regimes Press TV should worry you amongst other things.”

    Actually, I would defend him on this. Why is this worse than working for TalkSport? Or why is it worse that Paul Foot writing for the Daily Mirror?

    As I said, AWL lite.

    Like

  36. We say in the statement that there are several aspects of No2eu which are problematical. For example: ” We support the right of any worker to work anywhere, with the same rights, with equal access to jobs, and to hold the union leaders to account for not defending wages, pensions and working conditions. ” That’s at variance with what No2eu says at the moment.

    The only useful way to view this development is as one stage of the realignment of the left outside the Labour Party. More significant than the initial statements will be what emerges from a process involving the leadership of a militant union and two reasonably sized left organisations. It may be nothing or it may be significant. That depends on the election results – though abstentionism seems a pretty good way of minimising your vote- it also depends on what real forces subsequently engage with the project. If I learned anything from Respect it was that bureaucratic manipulative politics can kill an orgnanisation and that is worth bearing in mind for future projects.

    Assuming anything does develop it is just ultra left to step aside from it. If it is a real organisation its own internal life it offers a space to argue for one’s own politics. The fact that the BNP is going to do well in the Euro election while the electoral challenge mounted by the left has rapidly declined since 2001 should give us all pause for thought.

    Like

  37. From the No2EU website:

    “The so-called ‘free movement’ of labour is part of the development of a deeply racist Fortress Europe which would increasingly exclude people from outside the EU and undermine wages and working conditions inside the bloc.”

    I read this as a criticism of the EU for excluding workers from outside the EU from the right to work in the EU zone. I read the criticism of ‘social dumping’ as an attack, not on ‘foriegn’ workers, but rather on the cynical use of such workers to undermine wages and conditions previously won within national frameworks.

    There’s nothing chauvinist about this, or about attacking ‘social dumping’ – which is about ‘dumping’ labour power as a devauled commodity to undermine the price of labour power across the board. As analogous to the ‘dumping’ of any commodity – its aim is to drive competitors out of the market – or in the case of the sellers of labour power, force workers with better wages and conditions to accept them being lowered under threat of being out of a job.

    There is nothing about this that contradicts the duty of workers here to solidarise with immigrant workers, and workers overseas. It is an attack on transnational capital, not foriegn workers. the emphasis on the EU as distinct from Britain, the question of ‘soverignty’, etc is slightly problematic in my view about No2EU. But this is not chauvinism – this is a class issue.

    Like

  38. Which just goes to show if you try hard enough you can read anything as anything.
    The passages ID quotes are a not very veiled attempt to justify immigration controls to keep out “foreign” labour. That’s not surprising they were written by Stalinists who believe just that.
    Socialists should not abstain from No2EU they should oppose it for its nationalism, xenophobia and generally reactionary programme.
    Never mind the fact that its half baked, totally undemocratic and is going to do terribly before it disappears forever (in about 4 weeks).

    Like

  39. No, that is how it reads to anyone familiar with basic Marxism and working class politics.

    But you can fulminate about alleged chauvinism all the way to the polling booth as you vote for the New Labour government – complete with its detention centres for immigrants and asylum seekers.

    Like

  40. What’s alleged got to do with it? Its authors advocate immigration controls as part of their opposition to “social dumping”. Of course you’re welcome to claim that its authors didn’t know what they’re on about. But that hasn’t got anything to do with Marxism its plain just ridiculous.
    As for voting Labour its hardly a new position for the left. And I won’t bother to repeat why socialists can do it here.

    Like

  41. A vote for New Labour is a vote for its record in office. Since it doesn’t even claim to stand for the interests of working people, and is standing on its record of imperialism, war, corruption, privatisation and bailing out bankers, you are welcome to vote for it.

    The No2EU people’s position on immigration controls is the same as the Labour left has always advocated. No better, no worse. That didn’t stop them being left-reformists then, and it doesn’t stop them being so now.

    In voting New Labour against left reformism, you are attacking the left reformists from the right.

    Like

  42. A vote for No2EU is an endorsement of its programme, one which is as you have pointed out nationalist and in support of immigration controls. That’s not surprising for, inspite of your claims, it was written by people who are nationalists and who support immigration controls.
    It unlike the Labour Party, has no mass base. And as we will find out in June, no base or support whatsoever.
    So you don’t understand the tactic of critical support. What’s new?

    Like

  43. There are big problems with the NO2EU program. It’s not surely always the case that a vote for a formation is an endorsement of its program, however. You can vote for Socialist Alliance, Labour or a working class militant standing against Labour whilst criticising limitations or even being stridently opposed to aspects of the program.

    The big problem with NO2EU is the nationalism- its suggestion for example that foregin workers are a problem rather than bosses e.g. when it proclaims
    “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 Lindsey 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. However, there were pronblems with some of the nationalisatic slogans enthusiastically taken up by sections f the bourgois media and pandered to by sections of the union bureaucracy.

    Of course 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.

    N02EU is not a rank and file initiative and it does pander to nationalism so it is unworthy of support on that basis.

    Like

  44. Bill J

    “A vote for No2EU is an endorsement of its programme, one which is as you have pointed out nationalist and in support of immigration controls.”

    In the real world, a vote for New Labour is a vote for its programme. Including invading Iraq and putting asylum seekers in detention camps.

    Oh no, you protest, this isn’t true because Trotsky, in a different political context three quarters of a century ago, said something different about a completely different Labour Party with a completely different political thrust. That logic is so tortured it has more in common with the exegis of the Jesuits than with Marxism. For Marxists, the truth is concrete, here and now.

    Why should I or anyone else take the slightest notice of your feeble rationalisations for your advocacy of support for the party of privatisation, imperialist war, Islamophobia, rampant racism and corruption? Its all anti-Marxist gibberish, doesn’t make logical sense.

    A vote for No2EU is a vote for resistance to neo-liberalism by working class organisations. You don’t have to agree with every aspect of its programme to see that – just the progressive thrust of it against New Labour.

    A vote for New Labour is a vote for Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, and ultimately for Margaret Thatcher, who is the real ideological inspirer of New Labour, which as she notably said, was her ‘greatest acheivement’.

    That is what these positions mean in the real world, as opposed to the world of Trot sectariana that is totally divorced from the lives of ordinary people.

    Like

  45. Take what notice you like. The facts are however, that you advocate supporting an alliance with a xenophobic and nationalist programme which supports immigration controls.
    ~ As I pointed out before there’s a good reason for that – those are the positions its authors believe in.
    Sure – rant on about Labour all you like, anyone who can use the expression “Trot sectariana” is not well placed to lecture anyone – even me – about “the real world.”

    Like

  46. ID says we should vote for working class resistance to Labour. For sure we should support any such candidates of struggle and support and try to organise where possible such resistance in the unions, on the estates.

    None of this- on a socialist website- is controversial. Not sure how this relates to a cmapign to say no to the EU

    Of course the EU is run by the bosses- we should support working class resistance not be for saying British bosses are better than the EU or thta workers should argue for Britian withdrawing from the EU or any other such formulation

    Like

  47. “Take what notice you like.”

    That’s none whatsoever.

    I’m supporting resistance to neo-liberalism and New Labour. You are supporting New Labour against that, and hence supporting neo-liberalism.

    On this basis, your attacks on No2EU are from the right.

    Rant on about No2EU as much as you like. You’re still voting for Thatcherism against working class opposition.

    Like

  48. Labour’s crap- a party that has betrayed any working class hope, that viciously attacks the working class and poor whether here in the Middle East or Africa.

    What’s controversial about that?

    There is still an issue whether to vote for Labour against the BNP for example – I certainly would in the absence of any working class campaign/ candidate of struggle.

    Tbh if someone was saying vote NO2EU as a vote against the BNP I wouldn’t waste any time sayong no vote Labour instead- I would though say NO2EU is thourouglhy inadequate, not build up from the grassroots, dodges fundamental questions and actually panders to a kind of little England nationalism that plays into the hands of the right.

    We need to be building a very different kind of resistance form a bureacracy inspired lukewarm reformism mixed with anti European chauvinism and hostility to foreign workers.

    Like

  49. I am talking about the idiotic and reactionary position that says that socialists should support Brown/Blair’s party against No2EU. That’s what Bill J is arguing. Do you support that reactionary position, Jason?

    I see no hostility to foreign workers. At worst, I see the same utopian nationally-limited left-reformism that always characterised the Labour Left, and is now characteristic of left-reformism, of both the formerly Labour and CP variety, tending to move outside the Labour Party.

    That movement away from subservience to the ‘broad church’ of the Labour Party – now that it is dominated by Thatcherites – is to be encouraged, not belittled and slandered. Don’t you agree?

    The association of this with hostility to foriegn workers is third-period bullshit – it in effect elides left-reformism, which is on the left fringe of the political mainstream, with the far right. However, it is third-period Stalinophobia, not third-period Stalinism.

    Third period Stalinism equated social-democracy with the far right. This kind of third-periodism equates left reformism that is influenced by Stalinism with the far right, and in PR’s case regards neo-liberal social democracy as the lesser evil.

    People who are so warped as to advocate a vote to the party of Peter Mandelson against a left-dominated slate that includes Lindsay and Visteon strikers, among others, obviously don’t know their arse from their elbow where class principle is concerned. What a joke to be lectured on class principles by people who will be out on the knocker for the New Labour government against workers involved in struggle against that government!

    Do you support this right-wing sectarian bullshit, Jason?

    Like

  50. Very clever. Can you refute what I say. More to the point, what does Jason have to say about my questions?

    Like

  51. I’ve only just got in from work but glad ID so eagerly seeks my opinion.

    The debate initiated here by Liam is around whether NO2EU is a positive development.

    In my opinion there are positives but more negatives. First the positives-
    prominent members of a national trade union with some militancy being candidates and other union militants being involved in such issues is to be welcomed

    we should go to such meetings, argue for concrete action to co-ordinate class struggle and suggest workers’ primaries for future elections to decide candidates and policies.

    The negatives: the main one is making opposition to the EU the over-riding issue affecting workers in Britain today.

    It isn’t. The issues are many and complex but mainly about a small elite holding power and making ordinary working class communities suffer- through job losses, privatisation, attacks- whilst the rich are bailed out and continue to thrive.

    Saying that opposition to the EU is the main issue does pander to some nationalism. This does at all mean that NO2EU is far right or anything else absurd. It means that it panders to natioanlism.

    On foreign workers it says on the website
    ““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, to my reading, 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.

    Perhaps NO2EU don’t mean foreign workers are a problem but if they made this clear by arguing it explicitly it would be a move forward.

    Finally, should we vote Labour in the absence of workers’ candidates? That is a seperate debate- but quickly I think yes. Far better would be to get to a position of being abke to feiled candidates against Labour- e.g. local militants, campaigners against school closure, privatisation or whatever where we had sufficient strength to use a cmapaign to build class struglge locally and win people to campaigns. Is NO2EU such a campaign? i’m far fom convinced becuase of the limitations outlined.

    But I am for working together in campaigns e.g. against closures, for occupations aginst job cuts and for workers’ mass meetings/ primaries to discuss fileing candidates.

    Hope ID’s thirst for my opinion is suitably satisfied! Always a pleasure,
    Jason

    Like

  52. ‘fielding’ not ‘fileing’- my haste to answer ID got the better of my spelling!

    Like

  53. “This suggests, to my reading, that foreign labour is a problem.”

    It suggests to me that the bosses using lower paid labour as a tool to drive down wages and conditions is a problem – whereever it is from. It is.

    Its nonsense to say that any objection to such things reflects hostility to migrant labour. However, if the workers movement does not take up such questions then it may result in such hostility. That is the lesson of the Lindsay dispute.

    “should we vote Labour in the absence of workers’ candidates?”

    That’s not what I asked. Bill J is calling for votes to Labour against No2EU candidates. Many of these candidates are workers who have been involved in struggles against Labour in government – including Lindsay and Visteon. Is Jason in favour of voting Labour against these worker candidates for a trade union initated electoral initiative?

    Like

  54. The Lindsay dispute was fully worthy of support on the basis of being against job cuts and for all workers to be on equal rights. Bosses dividing workers and using some to undercut others is of course a problem.

    While supporting the strike we should resolutely oppose the slogan British jobs for British workers. The NO2EU position doesn’t sink that low but saying “to ferry workers across Europe to carry out jobs that local workers can be trained ot is an environmental, economic and social nonsense” is not far off.

    A trade union rank and file inititiated campaign would be good. As far as I am aware NO2EU nowhere has been like that- no mass meeting sof ordinary RMT members or others to determine policies.

    Like

  55. Can I refute what you say? To your satisfaction of course not. You after all claim that there’s something progressive about No2EU. Given that there is no evidence for this whatsoever, it would be just as easy to prove the existence of god.
    But that can wait for next time.

    Like

  56. Presumably, you would condemn Abjol Miah’s recent speech alongside Bob Crow at the Olympic site, which basically said the same thing as this passage. He was talking about the tiny percentage of local East End workers employed on the Olympics sites. Is this also a reactionary point to make? Is it wrong for criticising employers for doing this?

    In his case, and in the passage you quote, the fire is directed at the employer for using workers from elsewhere in this way, not against the workers themselves.

    Or as you put it ‘Bosses dividing workers and using some to undercut others is of course a problem.’ Seems to me that is exactly what the passage above says. It doesn’t attack ‘forieign’ workers at all – just the practices of the employers.

    Can I take it from your non-reply to my question on voting for Labour against No2EU that you are not too keen on that idea either? If so, that’s a step in the right direction.

    Like

  57. One more point:

    “A trade union rank and file inititiated campaign would be good. ”

    Yes, it would be excellent if we hadn’t just lived through 30 odd years of defeats, neo-liberalism and anti-union repression, and rank-and-file movements were springing up all over the place. Pity that’s not the situation we actually live in, and such movements are rarer than hen’s teeth in Britain today.

    Keep calling on workers to vote Labour till a fully-formed political initiative comes along based on the norms of quasi-soviet democracy. You’d be in for a long wait if that was really the way things work.

    Actually, the precondition for such future developments is a political break from New Labour. Without that break – which your grouping is acting against by calling for votes to New Labour against initiatives that don’t meet your exacting standards of purity – then such developments become much less likely. All you are doing by pushing support for Labour against such partial developments is helping the BNP politically.

    Like

Leave a reply to Chris S Cancel reply

Trending