Letters
‘Bolivarian’ EU
I was favourably impressed by James Turley’s article on Europe, which went against the all too common nationalism that has bedevilled the labour movement’s approach to the European Union since the 1970s at least (‘New vision for Europe wanted’, October 8).
The EU is a project of the European propertied classes, but that is the case of all states. The left in the UK was traditionally opposed to the EU, but, as the process has continued, this has generated a real dilemma. As power moves from national capitals to Brussels, the old form of politics centred around nation-states begins to break down and, as the economy becomes more and more interdependent on a European level, then the project of achieving a socialist economy within any one of these states - or even achieving significant social democratic reforms within the compass of one of them - becomes impossible.
The political structure of the EU was drawn up initially as a purely trade organisation, which has slowly acquired competence in social affairs. This has led to a change in the attitude of the trade unions, which now see the need to organise at an all-Europe level and to lobby for social measures in the EU parliament. The scope for this, however, is very limited because the EU is even less democratic than most of the nation-states.
Since a socialist project based on the politics of the nation-state has become impossible, what have we left? My take on it is that we have to adapt the views of the RSDLP in Russia in the early years of the 20th century, when they were in a multinational and undemocratic state structure (one much more undemocratic than the present one), and make the achievement of a democratic state the first political objective. To paraphrase Marx, we can make history, but we have to do it under circumstances that are not of our own choice. The process of capitalist development is reaching the stage of continental rather than national states.
If we oppose the formation of continental states in Europe and in Latin America, on what basis can we currently do it? If we oppose it from the standpoint of the nation-state, then we are aligning ourselves with the traditional parties of the right. We could in principle oppose it from the standpoint of a future world government. Undoubtedly the EU is historically reactionary compared to a future world government, but the latter is at the moment only an idea.
Once we become convinced that there is no real alternative state terrain for politics in the coming period, we have to ask what form of bourgeois state is most favourable to the development of social democratic politics (in the early 20th century sense of that term). Lenin, Kautsky, Plekhanov, etc are adamant that the most democratic form of bourgeois state is most favourable to the working class movement. We should apply that conclusion to the EU.
Europe is among the two most highly developed continents, and has already seen considerable progress towards unification, but the form of this unification is inimical to further social progress. There are no progressive governments, as in South America, and there is also a lack of a progressive unifying movement to compare with the Bolivarian project.
The split in authority and economic power between the EU and the nation-states has at least partially blocked the road to the old social democratic, Keynesian means of dealing with recessions. Constraints on budgetary policy and lack of control over the currency and capital flows prevent nation-states from following classic Keynesian policies. At the same time the EU itself lacks the budget or the power to substitute for the nation-states in this situation.
In consequence there is no political form in which the labour movement of Europe can express itself in classical social democratic politics and therefore no clear constitution of a European worker class, since a class cannot be constituted outside of a political party in the broad sense of the word. Therefore the labour movements of Europe need to take on board their own version of the ‘Bolivarian project’ as the basis to form a new unity.
A key aim must be the democratisation of the EU and, as a follow-on goal, its strengthening in economic, financial and defence terms. This has to be a follow-on, since the people of the nation-states will only accept a strengthened union if it is democratic.
The democratisation project must consist of a return in Europe to the original principles of democracy in ancient Greece, seeking to eliminate the Roman republican elements, which were instituted after the French revolution. At its heart must be the principle of popular sovereignty and genuinely representative democracy.
Popular sovereignty must be enshrined in the right of initiative and referendum on a Europe-wide basis on any issue for which a sufficient quorum of signatures, spread across enough countries, can be obtained. This direct participation in binding votes as European citizens rather than citizens of the nations would constitute the union as a real focus of politics. The right of initiative would encourage the formation of union-wide campaigns and movements. It could be exploited immediately by the trade union movement of Europe and would give them an impetus to unite in practice.
We should argue that the EU parliament must be a citizens’ body, not a body of highly paid elite politicians. At the very least we should argue for annual parliaments (the old Chartist demand) and for the limitation of office to a maximum of two years to prevent the formation of a class of professional politicians divorced from the population. Ideally we should argue for at least part of the parliament to be chosen by lot rather than elected as present on a party list system. This again aims to increase citizen participation across all classes and genders.
Paul Cockshott
email
Bubbling
The Tories have been inspired by Australia’s workfare programme (‘Work longer for less’, October 8).
I know that this scheme is low-wage conscripted labour shit, but recently I’ve read material on Hyman Minsky and his lesser known economic ideas. Like Marx, he’s known to the politically correct mainstream mainly as a crisis economist, but the labour analysis is played down, if not ignored.
For some reason, Minsky’s ideas on the employment front sound similar to the more mainstream workfare schemes. However, he argued for a ‘bubble-up’ approach, sending money to the poor and unskilled first. The government - or what he liked to call ‘big government’ - should become the ‘employer of last resort’, offering a job to anyone who wanted one at a set minimum wage. It would be paid to workers who would supply childcare, clean streets and provide services that give taxpayers a visible return on their dollars.
In being available to everyone, it would be even more ambitious than the New Deal, sharply reducing the welfare rolls by guaranteeing a job for anyone who was able to work. Such a programme would not only help the poor and unskilled, he believed, but would put a floor beneath everyone else’s wages too, preventing salaries of more skilled workers from falling too precipitously and sending benefits up the socioeconomic ladder.
On the other hand, the job wouldn’t be compulsory and the wage compensation Minsky had in mind was more along the lines of a ‘living wage’ than today’s minimum wage levels.
Could the economic ideas of Minsky and the so-called ‘post-Keynesians’ be used in a class struggle action programme or a minimum programme for workers’ power as some sort of demand on the threshold?
Jacob Richter
email
Sex tests
I was broadly in agreement with the arguments put forward in SKS’s first letter on the age of consent issue (September 17).
But I’m far from convinced by the consent criteria he proposes in his second letter (October 1), which would sub-divide people into four different categories whose membership would be based on “psychological and physical examination” rather than their age.
I mean, who would undertake these examinations? What would trigger them? Would people have to submit to such an examination before having sex, after having it, or only when someone else found out that they had it? What if someone didn’t want to be examined in this way? Would the conclusions be recorded and maintained by some sort of sexual health bureaucracy whose records could be checked by authorised personnel (or potential partners) throughout the country? After all, someone who has sex in Brighton one day might want to have it in Aberdeen the next day - or indeed in another country altogether.
There’s also a danger that such an intimate examination, in whatever circumstances it was conducted, might itself feel like a violation to those subjected to it.
And wouldn’t SKS’s formulation make the law rather complicated? If you’re going to have sex with someone, you need to check some fairly basic things - eg, that they consent, that they are above a certain age, that your professional relationship with them would not make it unlawful or inappropriate - rather than the “scientific examination of a given criteria” that SKS suggests and which only a small proportion of the population is going to have the qualifications to assess.
Having an age of consent, wherever you set it, does at least offer the benefit of simplicity - as, I suppose, does having no age of consent at all. I can see a case for graduating different levels of consent so that, for example, 14 to 15-year-olds could have sex with each other but not with people who are far outside that age range. But that too would complicate the law and add to the difficulties that people would face in trying to behave lawfully.
While there’s an argument to be had about which ages are used, age still seems to be the best way of identifying the dividing lines because you know when you’re 14, 15, 16 or whatever and, if need be, you can get documentation to prove it. Better that than having to submit to intrusive and labour-intensive examinations in order to establish which consent category you’re in.
Steve Cooke
Stockton-on-Tees
Militant
John Masters (Letters, October 1) admitted he was wrong to exclude former Militant MPs Dave Nellist and the late Terry Fields from his analysis of the 1992 general election (‘Battle of the ballot box’, September 3), and that including them would have led to an average of 1,370 for leftwing candidates, exceeding the 1,000 mark he said had not been reached since 1966.
However, his analysis is still flawed, because, according to Wikipedia, the 20 non-Militant far-left candidates in that election were of tiny sects - the Workers Party, Revolutionary Communist Party and CPGB (PCC). It is frankly ridiculous to equate such electoral forays with that of Militant (which obtained over 5,900 for all three candidates) or the far more important left unity projects which stood in later elections - specifically the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party and Respect. These projects largely arose due to the successes of Militant (including Scottish Militant Labour’s Tommy Sheridan, who Masters did count) in that election.
Militant did so well in the 1992 general election due to its role in leading the mass non-payment campaign which had by then defeated the poll tax. I joined Militant during that campaign, in 1990, when it was proving itself serious rather than just urging people not to pay. I left the Socialist Party in England and Wales (which it had become) in 1998, due to its shift towards sectarianism and to expose infiltration, which I believed was behind its failure to support the establishment of the SSP.
Masters’ pessimism about opportunities in the upcoming general election is not justified either. Mainstream politicians are more unpopular than ever due to the expenses scandal (which is in the headlines again); the credit crunch has exposed the flaws in the capitalist economic system (which would make socialism popular if argued for skilfully); and the main parties promise a future of massive cuts hitting the living standards of ordinary working and middle class people.
Whatever programmes socialists put forward at the next general election, we must say where the money will come from to be seen as credible. And I say, use the money left from the massive bank bailouts - by nationalising all banks, only compensating pension schemes! And more power should be in the hands of borrowers and savers than workers (but the trade unions and government should have representatives on the boards).
But be warned - David Cameron, in his speech at the Tory conference, has prepared the ground for a big attack on welfare, particularly single parents, by highlighting the case of a single mother with two children earning £150 a week who would only receive an extra 4p with a £1 pay rise. Also, elements within the BBC are encouraging fascism by allowing BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP on Question time and providing biased coverage of the English Defence League.
Steve Wallis
email
