Weekly Worker 573 Thursday April 21 2005

Global capital, Europe and workers’ unity

Peter Manson reports on the April 16 joint CPGB-TKP school on ‘Europe: prospects and challenges’

What is the importance of Europe for the world revolution? Is capital becoming supranational, beyond the control of the state? Is the UK ‘institutionally racist’?

These were just a few of the questions posed by the second in a series of joint schools organised by the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) on Saturday April 16. Held in the University of London Union under the heading, ‘Europe: prospects and challenges’, the school attracted around 60 people - mainly members and supporters of the two sponsoring organisations.

The morning session was addressed by comrade A Candan from the TKP, whose speech centred on the priority that communists ought to give to the demand for the free movement of labour across borders - whether those of the European Union or of its member-states.

Capital, he said, has always tried to control labour and limit its movement using such ideological tools as ‘institutionalised racism’ and xenophobia. But for us labour migration is progressive, helping to overcome prejudices and lay the ground for the unity of the proletariat.

However, whenever possible, capital uses it to divide us and to depress wages and working conditions. Today there is a demand in the advanced capitalist countries for thousands of skilled workers that cannot be met by the local labour market. Yet paradoxically the racism and xenophobia that is being whipped up is directed against migrants at the very time companies are demanding their labour.

In this context ‘Fortress Europe’ was stepping up its measures to control access to the EU from the ‘enemy to the south and east’ and since 9/11 it has been aided ideologically in this by the ‘war on terror’, which has seen the targeting of muslims in particular. In Britain multiculturalism was giving way to the ‘richness of our national culture’, said comrade Candan.

All this was occurring against the background of an impending crisis of capital. Everywhere pensions are being undermined and it is being underlined to us more and more that workers have nothing but their labour to sell. While secure employment is gradually being eclipsed by contractual working, inroads are being made into welfare provision. Unionisation is at a historically low level and collective bargaining is thereby weakened.

Communists do not respond to this situation by siding with capital through demands for ‘national sovereignty’, concluded the comrade. Instead we demand:

• equal pay for equal work in all countries, based on the highest common denominator;
• an end to the restrictions on the rights of foreign workers;
• the free movement of labour;
• the unity of workers in a single, EU-wide trade union;
• common union and labour rights across Europe.

In the debate that followed comrade Candan’s speech, several CPGB comrades stressed that, while they were in agreement with its main thrust, there were some - not unimportant - points of difference or clarification. For example, Tina Becker said that his call for common union rights was very timely, but we must go further: we need common political organisation across the EU in the shape of a Communist Party of the European Union. It was also essential that all communists and revolutionaries based in Britain should come together in a single party.

Comrades John Bridge and Mark Fischer took issue with comrade Candan’s statement that ‘institutionalised racism’ was capital’s current weapon of choice. Comrade Bridge said that capitalism was not automatically racist - in fact it regards all workers, irrespective of their ethnicity, first and foremost as wage labour to be exploited. While in the past the British state has employed racism as a divisive tool, it is not an ideology that serves its purpose today. In order to achieve stability capital requires the assimilation of permanent migrant workers. The question is, should this be imposed from the top or be driven from below under the hegemony of the working class?

Comrade Fischer pointed out that multiculturalism is not the progressive idea that comrade Candan seemed to imply - certainly not in the hands of the bourgeoisie. And multiculturalism and the ‘richness of our national culture’ were not necessarily mutually contradictory - one strand of the UK political establishment upholds a Britain of many ethnic cultures that are, nevertheless, united under the union jack, while the other prefers forced, top-down assimilation within a single shared Britishness. Both strands, however, promote an official anti-racist British chauvinism.

In response, comrade Candan insisted that ‘institutionalised racism’ did exist, even if it was unwritten. This was evidenced by the way the home office continually flouts its own rules for migrants “on racist grounds”. In my opinion this arbitrariness arises more from an all-pervasive pressure to clamp down on migration per se, irrespective of the ‘race’ of the migrant whose rights are being denied.

In his summary the comrade introduced the notion of an approaching supranational capitalism whereby the giant ‘multinational’ companies - he mentioned HSBC, Shell and Unilever - increasingly had “no real base” in a given country. He acknowledged the need for a single class party, but the question was, how to get there?

Introducing the afternoon session, John Bridge began where comrade Candan had left off - with the giant capitalist concerns. According to the comrade, you would be “hard pressed” to find one capitalist monopoly that was genuinely ‘multinational’. The vast majority are transnational, in that they all retain their national base. This is demonstrated not just in terms of their headquarters and share ownerships, but when they get into trouble. The US comes to the rescue of Chrysler, while the UK attempts to save MG Rover.

Comrade Bridge stressed capital’s dual nature - it was both national and international - but 1914 and the outbreak of World War I proved once and for all that this duality is highly contradictory. Unlike previous modes of production, where exploitation was directly carried out by the ruling class organised as the state, capitalism is different in that there is a separation between exploitation and the state. Furthermore, capital always appears as many capitals. That is why capital fights not for democracy, but for the liberty of property and the rule of law. As each capital does not have a state machine at its disposal in the form of an immediate extension of itself, capital stresses the importance of binding contracts and laws - especially when operating abroad within the borders of a foreign country.

Next comrade Bridge turned to capital’s global rivalries. Although Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder may dream of the day when the EU overtakes the US in terms of both GDP and global influence, that day was a long way off. Comrade Bridge agreed with the TKP speaker that it was criminal for ‘communists’ to uphold national sovereignty against global capital, but equally we must not promote the EU as some kind of ‘progressive’ imperialism capable of curbing US power.

Comrade Bridge pointed out that US superimperialism was in relative decline, compared to its rivals, but it was managing its decline at the same time as it was attempting to manage a declining system. Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky were correct to say that capitalism was moribund as a system and today this is even more pronounced. Everywhere we look, organisation plays a greater and greater role. Take money - a quintessentially capitalist form. Today money is and is not money. It serves as a universal equivalent but has become increasingly detached from value. Money is no longer based on gold - another reason why the state or quasi-state institutions are required to intervene in money markets over and over again. Privatisation hardly represents the return to the blind hand of the market - privatised industries in Britain are presided over by an array of state-appointed regulators.

Our job, said comrade Bridge, was to take over capital on a global level, since socialism can only but be international. All the more reason to unite across borders - particularly those in the EU, which more and more is taking on state forms. Although he very much doubted whether the world revolution would be sparked from within the EU, Europe was nevertheless of central strategic importance for communists. A united socialist Europe would be capable of withstanding US power and turning the tide decisively in favour of the international proletariat.

Comrade Bridge concluded with a call not only for working class unity within Britain - ‘one state, one party’ should be our bottom line - but for a common programme for Europe with, at its centre, a Communist Party of the European Union.

Mike Macnair of the CPGB pointed out during the debate that unity was not just a question of political will, but of its necessary institutional form - what was required was a party of the Marxists. For him the question of revolution versus reform was more correctly posed as loyalty to the international working class versus loyalty to our ‘own’ state. Only episodic unity in the form of temporary alliances was permissible with those who uphold the national state.

All in all, the school provided an excellent forum not only for confirming the many areas of common ground shared by the CPGB and TKP, but also for airing our differences. This is the way to achieve genuine, long-lasting unity.