The Working Class & the EU

[RedKobra]

Can someone who is pro-EU (I understand no one here is pro-EU in its current form) explain in what way it could be used by the working class of Europe. What particular mechanisms of the EU they see the WC manipulating to make it work for them. How is it that an economic bloc designed to consolidate the capitalist economies and trade deals of europe could be used as a tool for revolution and then how it might be used as a tool of socialism?

[Creative Destruction]

I'm not in the EU, but it would seem to me that the Schengen countries have the greatest potential to organize across borders.

[FSL]

I'm not in the EU, but it would seem to me that the Schengen countries have the greatest potential to organize across borders.

Surely digital forms of communication exist and beat physically going from one country to the next?
Which you could do anyway, what Schengen means is that you don't need a work permit to be a permanent resident.

[Futility Personified]

To my feeble mind...

Reformism is a dead end, everyone on this website should acknowledge that as such.

From this understanding, it seems clear that the EU should be abolished in it's current form, though how it would be resurrected in a capacity coherent with socialism... is a bit lengthy for my weight on this forum. (copout!)

That said, the institutions within the EU resisting it are blatantly for reactionary ends. As I understand it, neoliberalism is the latest form of capitalism to hold dominance, going back to a social democratic framework is surely only going to result in neoliberalism once again sooner or later? I'm not saying follow the current, i'm just saying that certain things like freedom of movement should be embraced by anyone who purports to hold freedom (as much as anyone here should hate to see that abused word) dearly.

In the UK, defeat of the EU will at the moment mean the victory of reactionaries, and the isolation of the british working class with the european working class. I might have a case of lesser evilism, so if anyone can post some sublime knowledge i'd be grateful for it, but at present the idea that member states turning leftwards might lead towards the EU (as it is constituted by it's member states) turning leftwards is an appealing though probably flawed idea.

Basically, I have no idea. But fuck UKIP.

[tuwix]

In the UK, defeat of the EU will at the moment mean the victory of reactionaries, and the isolation of the british working class with the european working class.

All advocates of British leaving from the EU aren't aware that there is a trap. English people think that being outside the EU will throw out Poles and make salary higher. They're wrong. Bourgeoisie have a defense against that. You can leave the EU but you'll be still a member of the EEA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area). Then Poles still be there employed for lower salary and dream about isolated Britain with skyrocketing salaries will be over.

[ckaihatsu]

To my feeble mind...

Reformism is a dead end, everyone on this website should acknowledge that as such.

From this understanding, it seems clear that the EU should be abolished in it's current form, though how it would be resurrected in a capacity coherent with socialism... is a bit lengthy for my weight on this forum. (copout!)

That said, the institutions within the EU resisting it are blatantly for reactionary ends.


Yes.





As I understand it, neoliberalism is the latest form of capitalism to hold dominance, going back to a social democratic framework is surely only going to result in neoliberalism once again sooner or later?


Well that's the whole question right now with Greece and the Euro, and the unsustainability of its solvency (credibility).

How is credibility fortified -- by subsidizing the currency with tax monies, or by devaluing the country's labor (reducing wages) to attract business investment -- ? Both have been done now, to no effect, so both the social democratic framework (liberalism) *and* the neoliberalism framework (austerity) are functionally bankrupt, with Greece soon to follow, followed by Spain and Italy.





I'm not saying follow the current, i'm just saying that certain things like freedom of movement should be embraced by anyone who purports to hold freedom (as much as anyone here should hate to see that abused word) dearly.

In the UK, defeat of the EU will at the moment mean the victory of reactionaries, and the isolation of the british working class with the european working class. I might have a case of lesser evilism, so if anyone can post some sublime knowledge i'd be grateful for it, but at present




the idea that member states turning leftwards might lead towards the EU


This is a shining example of the worst aspects of 'the left' -- as whenever the term is used as a diatribe by revolutionary leftists.

What's the fucking *point* of 'turning leftward' (as it were), when that direction is [1] only in the realm of bourgeois policy to begin with, and [2] already proven to be a dead-end according to bourgeois (economic-health) purposes -- !





(as it is constituted by it's member states) turning leftwards is an appealing though probably flawed idea.

Basically, I have no idea. But fuck UKIP.

[RedKobra]

I'm pretty sure the left parties that want to leave the EU would defend themselves against the attack of "wanting the poles out" by making the point that they absolutely do not. What they want is to not be bound by EU (or EEA) laws that forbid member nations from making sure that "poles" or anyone else are subject to the same employment right as everyone else both as a protection for the immigrant and the resident workers who are being undercut with the cheaper foreign labour, a process that is being used as leverage by the employers to attack working conditions for workers in the UK. Its not chauvinism. I wouldn't ever support the closing of borders, or restrictions on foreign labour coming to the UK. If anything I think more fluidity and closer links between the working class across Europe would be an excellent thing.

The big question is can the EU be used by the working class to create a union wide 'bill of rights' for all workers? Where regardless of where you call home you enjoy the same minimum wage, the same health and safety, the same lunch & toilet breaks, the same sick pay, the same holiday entitlement.etc I would argue not.

First of all the EU is an explicitly neo-liberal project, secondly it suffers from the same failings as every other electoralist approach to genuine social change, i.e - it's inherently conservative, designed to consolidate not deviate. Thirdly because of imperialism some economies within Europe have substantially less job opportunities for their workers than other places. The answer though is not to allow workers from one impoverished nation to impoverish workers from a richer nation (that isn't to imply that the workers from the rich nation are well off, often far from it). That's a race to the bottom. This is exactly what the capitalists are hoping for, pitting worker against worker, breeding resentment and racism.
The answer must be to accept that the EU is an instrument of oppression, an instrument that consolidates the power of Europe's capitals. We can't fight on the world stage if we're divided nationally within our own continent and we can't unite across the continent of Europe if we're being thrown into a cage with workers who can undercut us and told to fight to the death to see who can work for less.

On a slightly more out there note, it could be argued, although I don't do so with any over confidence, that it would be easier for the Greeks, Italians, Spaniards.etc to take control of the state if the weak national governments did not have the superstructure of the EU. Global Capital is also a superstructure but its interests are not always the interests of individual states. The EU would definitely come to the defence of the Greek bourgeoisie if they fell to revolution. Global Capital would do a cost benefit analysis in their own interest and maybe intervene, maybe not. But as I say, I'm not going to go out on a limb for that.

[ckaihatsu]

This is a shining example of the worst aspects of 'the left' -- as whenever the term is used as a diatribe by revolutionary leftists.

What's the fucking *point* of 'turning leftward' (as it were), when that direction is [1] only in the realm of bourgeois policy to begin with, and [2] already proven to be a dead-end according to bourgeois (economic-health) purposes -- !


Lest someone paint me as being 'anti-EU', I'll clarify this whole topic by explicitly saying that the working class has *no* objective interests in how the EU member states happen to formulate relations among themselves. In other words the revolutionary position is an *abstentionist* one, because to take a 'pro-' or 'anti-' stance on the Euro and the EU is the same as becoming embroiled in European and international (bourgeois) politics.

[Q]

Ok, I'll be to 'pro-EU' guy here, although I'm about as pro-EU as I'm pro-Netherlands or pro-'any capitalist state' for that matter.

The European perspective is necessary as we can't have a revolution in our own state and be done with it. History has taught us many lessons regarding such experiments: They'll be met with economic isolation, sanctions and active intervention in the form ranging from rising interest levels on state debt to military invasion.

Besides, we can't survive on our own, even if we were cut off cleanly from the world and were allowed to build our little socialist experiment. Look at North-Korea what happens. It's a shit hole precisely because it is completely isolated. Capitalism has brought us a strongly interdependent world and communists need to have a global view for that very reason.

At least on a continental scale, we stand a chance of beginning something that has a resemblance of something positive that we could call post-capitalism. First baby steps toward a society based on human need.

What is also not unimportant in this is that if we take Europe, this would mean a huge blow toward the continued existence of capitalism as a global system. Sure, we have the US to worry about, and some nuclear capable regimes beside them, but economically only the US really matters and it is deeply dependent on Europe. Continentally, we have a foothold to start making bilateral relations on our terms, should North-America not immediately follow in our revolution.

Now, several groups on the left understand this and are kinda on the fence on the subject. The CWI position is one I know quite well and I think it is symptomatic of the rest of the left. For example, during the Scottish independence referendum, they defended an "independent socialist Scotland", believing that the Scottish working class, radicalised as they would be after gaining sovereignty, would jump towards a socialist republic of Scotland. This would obviously leave the EU and later be joined by a 'confederation of socialist republics' across Europe.

One is left to guess how this exactly would occur. What kind of timespan is involved here? Could a socialist Scotland really survive for extended periods on itself should the rest of Europe not immediately join Scotland? Et cetera. Important questions like these are left unanswered by such schemes and therefore I can't them very seriously.

Now, onto your question: Can we use the EU for such change? Well, let me pose the simple counterquestion: Can we use our state, be it the UK or Spain or the German one for our purposes? The answer should be fairly obvious: Of course not. And by asking this, you're missing the point entirely, as are so many on the left sadly.

The reason why the Comintern organised Communist Parties per state was not because they denied the need for a global view, quite the contrary. They did so because the state provides a political framework which matters for the working class movement. Likewise, the EU is more and more developing into a such a political framework, a common context which matters for all European workers, which can unite the working class across the continent.

And this reason resonates with why Marx and Engels called for a unification of Germany back when it still consisted out of many little pieces of land. Not because of misguided nationalism or to build a strong German state, but because it unified the working class. Likewise, the EU is more and more uniting our class across the continent and they more and more find one common foe: International capital.

Now, this is quite often being misdirected by many on the left, including the Dutch SP (not a revolutionary party though), as to mean that we should 'fight the dictat of Brussels'. Nothing could be more wrong. The bosses coalition in Brussels after all consists of the bosses governments in The Hague, Paris, London, Berlin, Athens, Rome, Madrid and so on and so forth. It would be a step back for our class to leave the EU.

Instead we need to unite across borders, organise into continentwide trade unions (they are merely a paper reality today), form a Communist Party of the EU and, yes, fight for progressive demands across the EU. Not as a form of reformist ploy but as a rallying cry to get all workers united for a common cause.

The xenophobia ("the Poles are taking our jobs!") and isolationism ("leave the EU!") has plagued our movement for too long, we need to start actively opposing it.

[ckaihatsu]

The reason why the Comintern organised Communist Parties per state was not because they denied the need for a global view, quite the contrary. They did so because the state provides a political framework which matters for the working class movement. Likewise, the EU is more and more developing into a such a political framework, a common context which matters for all European workers, which can unite the working class across the continent.


By this argument, then, and the prevailing paradigm of the surveillance military-industrial complex, workers should recognize the 'Five Eyes' and the Western 'Walled World' geography:





The "Five Eyes", often abbreviated as "FVEY", refer to an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries are bound by the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.[1][2][3]

The origins of the FVEY can be traced back to World War II, when the Atlantic Charter was issued by the Allies to lay out their goals for a post-war world. During the course of the Cold War, the ECHELON surveillance system was initially developed by the FVEY to monitor the communications of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, although it allegedly was later used to monitor billions of private communications worldwide.[4][5]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/UKUSA_Map.svg/220px-UKUSA_Map.svg.png


And:


http://td-architects.eu/assets/projectimages/_tilezoom/walled-world-english-2009_files/thumb.jpg

[RedKobra]

Thanks Q, informative as usual.

I'd like to respond to a few of your points. In general I'm in complete agreement with what you say in the first three paragraphs so I won't cover them.


At least on a continental scale, we stand a chance of beginning something that has a resemblance of something positive that we could call post-capitalism. First baby steps toward a society based on human need. Okay, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here. It seems a bit vague. I don't see anything about the EU that conforms to Socialism or moving towards a society of human need. Actually, every single political current is pointing in the other direction.


What is also not unimportant in this is that if we take Europe, this would mean a huge blow toward the continued existence of capitalism as a global system. Sure, we have the US to worry about, and some nuclear capable regimes beside them, but economically only the US really matters and it is deeply dependent on Europe. Continentally, we have a foothold to start making bilateral relations on our terms, should North-America not immediately follow in our revolution.This doesn't really make any sense to me? Why would a Communist continent be less likely to be blockaded than a Communist nation? And the structural weakness of the European economies, especially in terms of rebuilding an almost non-existent manufacturing and agricultural base and providing our energy needs would still be pressing issues. To my mind we'd still end up facing international isolation and quite probably war. We may well be broke as well given that its just as easy for the Capitalists to take their money out of Europe as it is to take their money out of, say, Greece. Also it seems a tad far fetched to assume that even if the EU countries went Communist that the non-EU countries of Europe would follow. Money HQ - Switzerland for example. I think assuming that the EU solves the problem of SiOC is incredibly problematic.


Now, several groups on the left understand this and are kinda on the fence on the subject. The CWI position is one I know quite well and I think it is symptomatic of the rest of the left. For example, during the Scottish independence referendum, they defended an "independent socialist Scotland", believing that the Scottish working class, radicalised as they would be after gaining sovereignty, would jump towards a socialist republic of Scotland. This would obviously leave the EU and later be joined by a 'confederation of socialist republics' across Europe.

One is left to guess how this exactly would occur. What kind of timespan is involved here? Could a socialist Scotland really survive for extended periods on itself should the rest of Europe not immediately join Scotland? Et cetera. Important questions like these are left unanswered by such schemes and therefore I can't them very seriously.I admit there are problems to the Anti-EU position but the central premise is that people do not feel that they have any democratic say when it comes to EU law and there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to change that. For all the many and indeed innumerable failings of bourgeois national democracy people could see the mechanisms. You vote for a candidate and they represent you in parliament/assembly. They vote on bills and legislation is entered into law (gross over simplification, I know). I think there is a widespread desire to return to that. The EU's apparatus is labyrinthine. No one is quite clear where the laws come from, who decided on them, who voted on them, why the public never seem to be consulted. I think its not befitting of the left to criticize the working class, and it is by and large the working class and the petty-bourgeousie who want to leave the EU (big business is extremely happy with the EU as numerous surveys have shown), for wanting a simpler, more direct form of democracy.

As per the Scotland campaign. I think rather than seeing leaving the EU as a panacea or a road to socialism (in a direct sense) its more about reengaging people with politics. The Scotland campaign did radicalise people, not to the degree, as revolutionaries that we'd like but it was a start. Why were they radicalised? Because democracy suddenly became something participatory again. They actually thought that they could change things and that they could bring politics back down from the heavens and back into the streets and their homes. I don't want to come across as sentimental because that certainly isn't behind my views on this. Leaving the EU would only, and I repeat, only be a start.


The reason why the Comintern organised Communist Parties per state was not because they denied the need for a global view, quite the contrary. They did so because the state provides a political framework which matters for the working class movement. Likewise, the EU is more and more developing into a such a political framework, a common context which matters for all European workers, which can unite the working class across the continent.

And this reason resonates with why Marx and Engels called for a unification of Germany back when it still consisted out of many little pieces of land. Not because of misguided nationalism or to build a strong German state, but because it unified the working class. Likewise, the EU is more and more uniting our class across the continent and they more and more find one common foe: International capital.And I completely disagree. The EU is precisely nothing like a "state" and that is why the working class feels disenfranchised from it. I don't accept the view that its down to petty nationalism or any such nonsense. Its because the EU is a bureaucratic black hole that dictates our economic future and the working class feel powerless to affect it.

Viewing the EU as a "state" for me reveals that the pro-EU socialists are actually the ones harbouring Social Democratic leanings, not the anti-EU Socialists. The EU is a far more foreboding body of Capital than the domestic Capital in many European countries (once finance capital is subtracted). It will be far easier to topple the Capitalists in our own country than to topple the Mega-Capital of the EU.

The working class of europe are stronger together than apart, I completely agree. But the EU doesn't bring us together it makes us weaker. Why? because it ensures at home, where we work and live we are weaker, that's why. British workers are weaker and becoming weaker all the time while Britain is part of the EU. Its counter-intuitive, I admit but I believe it to be true. We can still unite across Europe, indeed we must but there's nothing stopping us doing that outside of the EU. Freedom of movement is a red herring because its a right that comes as part of a larger package that ensures we can travel anywhere but must do so as slaves.


Instead we need to unite across borders, organise into continentwide trade unions (they are merely a paper reality today), form a Communist Party of the EU and, yes, fight for progressive demands across the EU. Not as a form of reformist ploy but as a rallying cry to get all workers united for a common cause.Its strange that you bring this up because the EU is on the road to making unionisation next to impossible. At least if we left the EU the people diminishing our rights would be the people elected by us rather than faceless bureaucrats.

Again, I am not seeking to champion bourgeois national democracy, at all. It is utterly bankrupt. However as an enemy it is infinitely easier to topple our national Capital's and our national governments at home where we are powerful than across Europe where we are weak and divided not just by language but also by political and work culture. The fact is Europe has not mobilised Labour in a true sense, all it has done has enabled workers from extremely poor countries to escape their poverty and work in the developed countries. Workers from Britain aren't flooding into the continent. Workers from Germany are not hopping over to Spain & Greece. Workers, by and large still work and live in the country they were born in (if you were born in a country with a developed economy). Immigration is one way traffic in that sense.

For me the question has nothing to do with immigration. It is everything to do with dividing Capital. No, the countries of Europe can't do it on their own, we must all rise up together but I believe that would be easier to achieve if we all only had to worry about our own national governments and capital.

Other's may disagree and I genuinely look forward to some criticisms to get the debate going because this is a hugely important issue.

[Creative Destruction]

Surely digital forms of communication exist and beat physically going from one country to the next?
Which you could do anyway, what Schengen means is that you don't need a work permit to be a permanent resident.

How much organizing have you done? I haven't done much, but the little I have done showed to me that meeting people in the flesh is a much better way than doing it over digital communication. You have the opportunity to sit down with the person or persons and hash out details and lessens the possibility of talking past each other. With digital communications, you're at the will of people's schedules, inabilities to carve out time to sit down and have substantive conversations and what not, risk people talking past each other, cultivating more disagreement than agreement and what not. Things can get uncivil pretty quickly, as well, as you can't read tone in an email or a direct message much of the time, which leads to its own little set of misunderstandings. Things that are easily avoidable if you can meet with people. There's also just the human element of being there and talking to someone rather than typing at a machine.

I was under the impression that the Schengen area alleviates the need for a passport to enter another country, in addition to the permitting situation, which is a huge barrier relief for many people. If that's wrong, then I had the wrong impression.

[ckaihatsu]

How much organizing have you done? I haven't done much, but the little I have done showed to me that meeting people in the flesh is a much better way than doing it over digital communication. You have the opportunity to sit down with the person or persons and hash out details and lessens the possibility of talking past each other. With digital communications, you're at the will of people's schedules, inabilities to carve out time to sit down and have substantive conversations and what not, risk people talking past each other, cultivating more disagreement than agreement and what not. Things can get uncivil pretty quickly, as well, as you can't read tone in an email or a direct message much of the time, which leads to its own little set of misunderstandings. Things that are easily avoidable if you can meet with people. There's also just the human element of being there and talking to someone rather than typing at a machine.


I'll gladly note that online is much better for going over anything of political *substance*, such as issues, theory, news, and so on.

These discussions on RevLeft are asynchronous -- participants can take their time, go at their own pace, and cover the content thoroughly on a point-by-point basis, something that's just too unwieldy with fleeting impromptu face-to-face sessions unless perhaps people took notes during the conversation, which isn't typical, of course.

The discussion-board format allows one to select according to one's choice of *topic*, so there's nothing left to the chaotic 'marketplace of ideas' that prevails in-person, where, after summary introductions any two people soon discover that they can't find any common *interest* for a particular topic of discussion.

A little experience with the written word brings one to become *cognizant* of tone and to apply it correctly, so that it isn't left to be an ambiguous variable in one's communications.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

EU membership is a lesser evil to a nation state (in Europe) standing outside it.
Give me the common European market, "four freedoms" and the undemocratic bureaucracy over "the sovereignity of the Icelandic nation" any motherfucking day.