Workers’ Liberty Reason in revolt Vol 3 No 54 June 2016 Published with Solidarity 409

Europe: the Stalinist roots of the “left-exit” myth

By Paul Hampton ployed today stem from these two sources. Britain’s participation in the EEC would over 67% of voters supported the Labour The Schuman Plan for a European Coal mean “the end of Britain as an independent government’s campaign to stay in the EEC, The revolutionary left once had reputable and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European state, the end of a thousand years despite opposition from most trade unions, politics towards Europe, an inheritance Pleven Plan for a European Defence Com - of history”. Britain’s application was vetoed the CPGB and most of the revolutionary left. from Trotsky that was not finally dis - munity (EDC) were launched in 1950. Al - by French president Charles De Gaulle in Under pressure from wider bourgeois pensed with until the early 1970s. The though the EDC was rejected, steps towards January 1963. The Labour government politics, and from the Labour left, the Com - story of how the British revolutionary left bourgeois economic and political integra - (1964-70) headed by Harold Wilson applied munist Party and forces in the unions, the went from an independent working class tion made progress. On 25 March 1957 the for membership and was denied again by revolutionary left flipped over to opposition stance to accommodation with chauvin - Treaty of Rome was signed by the govern - De Gaulle in November 1967. De Gaulle to the EEC, mostly in the summer of 1971. ism and Stalinist “socialist-in-one-coun - ments of West Germany, France, Italy, the would resign the French presidency in April Most would-be Marxists opposed entry in try” deserves to be better known. Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, cre - 1969. 1973 and campaigned to get out in 1975. Throughout the twenty five years be - ating the European Economic Community When the Tories unexpected won the gen - They were criminally wrong, conceding tween the beginnings of European bour - (EEC), known as the Common Market, fore - eral election in June 1970, prime minister ground to the nationalists and Stalinists – ef - runner of today’s EU. British governments Edward Heath took up the issue of EEC fectively cutting their own throats. geois union in 1950 and the UK referendum The EEC debate played a key role in in the 1950s stayed out of these develop - membership once more. In June 1971 the of 1975, there were umpteen vicissitudes the unravelling of the revolutionary left ments, largely on the grounds of trade with Heath government published a white paper across the left. The one constant was the out - as a serious Marxist force in the British the Commonwealth states that had previ - advocating membership. On 1 January 1973 right opposition to European integration labour movement. Reviewing the argu - ously been colonies and part of the British the UK joined the EEC. To steer his course from the Stalinists, organised domestically ments of the main protagonists from the Empire. through labour movement objections, Wil - in the Communist Party of Great Britain earlier period will help to orientate the On 10 August 1961, the Tory government son promised a referendum on EEC mem - (CPGB). The specific crystallisation of op - healthy elements of the revolutionary left applied to join the EEC. In a speech to bership. When he became prime minister in positionism that swallowed most of the rev - after the referendum on UK membership Labour Party conference in October 1962, October 1974, he agreed to hold the referen - olutionary left took hold in the summer of of the EU. 1971. Almost all the “left” arguments de - Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell claimed that dum, which took place on 6 June 1975. Just 2 THE STALINIST ROOTS OF THE “LEFT-EXIT” MYTH More online at www.workersliberty.org How the Stalinists shaped the debate on Europe

The hostile attitude towards European cept full employment as one of its objectives. unity on the ostensibly revolutionary left 6. Common Market rules would hamper a derived ultimately from the poisoned well British Government in dea ling with the bal - of Stalinism. ance o f payments crises to which the econ - Internationally, the USSR under Stalin em - omy is particularly prone. braced the nationalistic “socialism in one 7. The British Government and Parliament country” doctrine in the mid-1920s, as it side - would be compelled to accept the decisions lined the perspective of international socialist of the Common Market bodies as to how our revolution and workers’ democracy. After the social services should be “harmonised” with bureaucratic ruling class had established it - those of the continent. (Ainley, 1962) self as the sole master of the surplus product The first reason was explicitly chauvinist by 1928 and expelled the Trotskyist opposi - and hostile to migrant workers, while the sec - tion, Russian foreign policy dictated visceral ond defended spurious British independence opposition both to bourgeois efforts to unify on nationalist grounds. The third champi - Europe (whether by consent or by force) and oned post-Empire imperialism, while the re - hostility to pan-European labour movement maining reasons repeat objections by the unity. most backward bourgeois defenders of the This was well summed up on the cusp of British state. The whole narrative used the World War Two in April 1940, when the Stal - pronoun “our” to mean British people, not inist Comintern issued a May Day manifesto. workers — either in Britain or across Europe. It stated: “Under the flag of ‘Federated Eu - The chauvinism is most pronounced through rope’ and ‘A new organisation of the world’, its anti-Germanism, arguing that because the imperialists are preparing to dismember “the Germany of Adenauer and Krupp” was big states and annex small countries, still fur - Signing of the Treaty of Rome (1957) at the centre of the Common Market, the ther to intensify colonial oppression and to scheme looked “very much like an attempt enslave the peoples of Europe.” (Jane Degras, on the part of the German ruling class to The Schuman and Pleven plans (1950) control over Western Europe The Communist International 1919-1943, Vol - achieve by subtlety what both the Kaiser and were perceived by the Soviet Foreign min - • Preparation for an aggressive war against ume III ). Hitler failed to achieve by their two world istry as ploys to legalise, “under the cloak of the Soviet Union Months earlier, the Stalinist functionary wars — German domination of Europe” (ibid ‘European integration’, the creation of a US- • An instrument of capital Georgi Dimitrov recorded noted in his pri - 1962: 7). controlled military force and arsenal in Eu - • Designed to curtail national sovereignty vate journal: “On 7 November 1939 Stalin However elsewhere in the text, Ainley rope”. In 1951, the planned coal and steel Although under the impact of EEC mem - said: The slogan of ‘the United States of Eu - spelt out the deeper reasons for the CPGB’s community was denounced as a “hyper-mo - bership, some leaders of the two largest West - rope’ was mistaken. Lenin caught himself in hostility, namely: the opposition of the USSR. time and struck that slogan” ( The Diary of nopolistic association”, created by US mo - ern European parties, the Partito Comunista nopolies in order to “revive the military Italiano (PCI) and Parti Communiste Français The aim of the Common Market was “to Georgi Dimitrov, 1933-1949 ). bring about political unification of the mem - This attitude persisted even as Russian for - industry of West Germany, to exploit the (PCF) began to soften their approach in the economies of the participating countries for 1960s, these influences were barely dis - ber states”. This political union aimed to eign policy turned from the defeat of Nazi strengthen “the hold of the monopolists, to Germany towards the shape of post-war Eu - carrying out their aggressive plans for a third cernible in Britain. The CPGB for its part put World War, and to create an economic basis out a steady stream of propaganda opposing frustrate the advance of Socialism in Europe rope. Moscow wanted to re-establish weak and to consolidate the military power of the states so Russia would be the single domi - for the aggressive North Atlantic Bloc in the EEC, every time the issue became promi - Western Europe under American hegemony” nent nationally. so-called Western Alliance against the Social - nating power on the continent. A memoran - ist countries”. dum by the Stalinist functionaries Maisky (Mueller, 2009). The party published a series of pamphlets: This attitude, laid down under Stalin’s The Alternative to the Common Market (1961) The US government was interested in and Litvinov in January 1944 argued that “it Britain joining the Common Market because is not in the interests of the USSR, at least in tutelage, persisted after his death. The Russ - by Dave Bowman; Say “No” to the Common it aimed to lead “a solid bloc of capitalist the first period after the war, to foster the cre - ian assessment of the founding of the EEC in Market (1962) by Ted Ainley; Common Market: states throughout the world in its war on ation of various kinds of federations — a 1957 regarded the Treaty of Rome as a “tem - The Truth (1962); The Common Market: Why communism, to prevent the rise of socialism Danubian, Balkan, Central-European, Scan - porary” alliance being used to temper the Britain Should Not Join (1969) by John Gollan; anywhere and provide an even more prof - dinavian, etc.” (Vladislav Zubok, ‘The Soviet competition between capitalist states that Common Market: The Tory White Paper Exposed itable field for the investment of American Union and European Integration from Stalin had come under pressure as a consequence (1971) by Ron Bellamy; Common Market: For dollars”. To the CPGB, the Common Market to Gorbachev’, Journal of European Integration of the successes of socialism and the inde - And Against (1971); The Common Market Fraud was “the political counterpart of NATO”. The History , 1996). pendence movements in the Third World. In (1975) by Gerry Pocock and Out of the Com - It was Stalin’s opposition to the US’s Mar - view of “massive contradictions” between, mon Market (1975). Other organisations influ - “socialism” the Stalinists were taking about shall Plan from June 1947 that fully crys - on the one hand, “revisionist” West Germany enced by the CPGB, such as the Trade Unions was the USSR and its bloc. They recognised tallised Russian hostility to European and “protectionist” France, and, on the other, against the Common Market, the British that it was not enough to say “No” to the integration. The USSR set out to persecute between the EEC, Britain, and the United Peace Committee and the Labour Research Common Market; an alternative had to be of - and “purge” any trace of the all-European States, the USSR government predicted the Department, also published prolifically. fered. And Ainley spelt out that the alterna - idea, calling it a “manifestation of bourgeois failure of the Economic Community. Ted Ainley’s pamphlet Say “No” to the Com - tive was “the socialist countries, the newly cosmopolitism”, as well as to denounce West The USSR juxtaposed the Comecon bloc of mon Market (1962) sets out the Stalinist case independent nations and the old Domin - European integrationists as “lackeys of US Stalinist states as the alternative to the EEC. in simple but well contrived terms. It is also ions”. In particular, the “socialist countries colonialism”. Soviet Cold-War propaganda Pravda (11 March 1957) denounced the Com - of interest because it was published at the be - will, for many years to come, want the prod - denounced West European integration as im - mon Market as a “ploy of US leading circles ginning of the UK government’s efforts to ucts of British industries, if the political bar - perialistic, reactionary, doomed to failure, for deepening the division of Europe and join, but at a time when many of the trade riers to trade are lifted, in exchange for their and a harbinger of the final crisis of capital - Germany and for subjecting Western Europe union militants had yet to come down on the own products” (ibid, 1962). ism (Wolfgang Mueller, ‘The Soviet Union to the rule of West German monopolies and side of chauvinism and the revolutionary left Ainley also articulated an argument, and Early West European Integration, 1947- militarists”. On 13 March 1957 the CPSU Pre - largely retained its internationalist position. slightly circular given the prominence of the 1957: From the Brussels Treaty to the ECSC sidium approved a note to all EEC member He argued that “the people of Britain” should CPGB in the unions, which would be used and the EEC’, Journal of European Integration states condemning the Rome Treaties as a reject membership of the Common Market again and again when the crunch came in the History , 2009). “threat” to all-European cooperation and for the following reasons: early 1970s — namely the attitude of others Three common elements — “US control peace (Mueller, 2009). 1. It would have a disastrous effect on our on the left. He noted that “many prominent over Western Europe”, “remilitarisation of The overarching aim of Russian policy to - wage prospects and living standards by mak - Labour men and women trade union leaders West Germany” and “preparation of a new wards West European integration was to ing British workers compete with lower paid are strongly opposed to Britain’s entry into war” — remained the leitmotivs of the Stal - hamper the process or obstruct it altogether, continental workers both in the home and the Market; but the top right-wing leaders, inist assessment of the early integration through propagandistic demonisation and overseas markets. though they continue to say they have not process. The birth of the Council of Europe in diplomatic pressure. As well as the consider - 2. It would undermine British independ - made up their minds, are clearly looking for 1949 was greeted by Pravda as “an auxiliary able apparatus of the Russian state itself, the ence. The British Government and Parlia - an excuse to come out in favour and dragoon tool of the aggressive North Atlantic Pact” Stalinists also had at their disposal large and ment would be bound by political and the Labour movement behind them”. The CPGB set itself the task in 1962 that [i.e. NATO] and its pan-European agenda re - often mass western European Communist military decisions made by a European ma - it would largely fulfil a decade later, for garded as “demagogy”. The true aim of the parties able to articulate this hostility towards jority. “every trade union” to “record its opposi - Council of Europe was “camouflaging the bourgeois political and economic integration. 3. It would hit hard at Britain’s trade with tion to Britain’s entry into the Common imperialist colonisation of Western Europe From the early 1950s these Communist par - its biggest and oldest markets in the Com - Market”. They recognised that “the result by the United States and the destruction of ties pumped out propaganda with the tropes monwealth. of such action would be rejection of the national sovereignty among independent Eu - originating in Moscow. European integration 4. British agriculture would have to adapt Tory proposal by both the TUC and Labour ropean states in order to implement their was: itself to Common Market methods… Party conferences” (ibid, 1962). plans of global domination”. • Imperialist – designed to strengthen US 5. The Common Market has refused to ac - Workers’ Liberty @workersliberty 3

American propaganda” (‘The European class movement of Europe.” (‘Crisis in the Working Class and America’, The Militant , 17 Common Market’, 1963) July 1950: 2). Mandel recognised that the European The most specific article on early European working class could not “limit itself to a integration was entitled, ‘Our Alternative to strictly defensive posture before European the Schuman Plan’ ( The Militant , 24 July big business” and that it should “counterpose 1950). Mandel noted that in the wider Euro - its plans for a socialist Europe to the imperi - pean labour movement there had been “no alist plans”. However he soiled this stance by real working class answer to the Schuman suggesting that “the Soviet Union and the Plan, defending the common interests of the other workers’ states would be able to play a European workers against the conspiracy of very positive role in this respect”. He pro - the European industrialists”. The Schuman posed that they “convoke a congress of all the Plan, he said, was “based on a ‘cartel’ of Eu - unions and parties of Western Europe” and ropean industry under capitalist ownership “could place at its disposal the experience, and capitalist management”. To this he coun - technical personnel and offices of their plan - terposed, “the central slogan of all European ning commissions, charge them with drafting Fourth Internationalists — the Socialist the outline of a plan for the economic, social United States of Europe”. This was the pro - and cultural development of a Europe uni - gramme of “collective ownership and work - fied on a socialist basis”. Puffing up the “bril - ing class management of European liant perspectives of such a plan”, he omitted industry”. the fact that such an arrangement under Mandel’s stance was adequate, if some - USSR control would have been the death of what abstract. He did not oppose bourgeois the European working class movement as an European integration in principle, but criti - independent force. It was indicative of how cised the form it took with the Schuman Plan. the mistaken analysis of Stalinism would Mandel understood that both the major im - begin to infect the stance towards Europe. perialist powers of the USA and the USSR In June 1965, Mandel’s “United Secretariat had their own designs for Europe, but rather of the Fourth International” held its 8th than embrace a bourgeois “third force” he World Congress. The conference debated a looked to a united European working class, resolution on ‘The Evolution of Capitalism in fighting around demands for public owner - Western Europe’, later published in Interna - ship and workers’ control, to find a way out. tional Socialist Review , Spring 1966. The as - This was a core position that would persist sessment was consistent with Mandel’s 1963 into the 1960s. position, suggesting that although European Mandel’s most significant analysis of Eu - integration was unfinished and may collapse ropean integration up to that point, ‘Crisis in into protectionism, it could also lead to a the Common Market’, was published in the “strengthened European executive and a Eu - American SWP’s theoretical journal Interna - ropean currency”, which would “constitute a tional Socialist Review , Spring 1963. He con - decisive stage in reaching the point of no re - ceived of bourgeois economic integration as turn for the Common Market”. part of a plan by the European bourgeoisies The Fourth International resolved to strug - to form their own bloc, opposed to both the gle “against the imperialist and capitalist fu - USSR and the USA. Mandel argued that the sion that is being effected in the present stage Ernest Mandel US government had initially supported Eu - both inside and outside the Common Mar - ropean integration through the Marshall Plan ket” by agitating for “a united front of all the “for political and military purposes: to create trade-union organisations within the Com - a counter-weight to the power of the Soviet mon Market without excluding anyone” and Union and the other workers’ states on the fighting for “the convocation of a big Euro - The revolutionary left European continent”. pean Congress of Labour”. As against a cap - Responding to the creation of the EEC in italist United States, which could be born in 1957, “Washington’s reply to the purely eco - part of Europe, it is necessary to stress prop - nomic challenge to American imperialism aganda favouring a socialist United States of before 1970 posed by the Common Market consists in ad - Europe. Significantly, although the resolution vocating the dilution, as quickly as possible, did call for “withdrawal from NATO and The attitude of the revolutionary left in by Ernest Mandel. Often writing under the of the Common Market into an ‘Atlantic from all imperialist military pacts”, it did not Britain towards Europe before 1970 was pseudonym “Ernest Germain”, Mandel for - Zone of free exchange’, embracing the United call for withdrawal from the EEC. almost unanimously internationalist, a mulated the dominant political line on Eu - States and Canada, in addition to Western Mandel’s last substantial contribution to legacy of Trotsky’s consistent support for rope. During 1950 Mandel wrote a column in Europe. Britain’s application for entry into the European integration debate was his a United States of Europe. The revolution - the American SWP paper The Militant, enti - the Common Market, followed by Denmark, book, Europe versus America , written in 1968 ary left began the post-war period mostly tled ‘European Notebook’. These articles Norway, Portugal and perhaps Austria and and published in English by New Left Books united within the Revolutionary Commu - were mostly straight reportage and were Switzerland “would have been the first step in 1970. While much of the book consisted of nist Party, formed in 1944. It was part of rather thin on analysis. Mandel noted that in the realisation of this American plan” rehashed economic statistics on trade, the the orthodox Fourth International, led by “authoritative spokesmen of the European (Mandel 1963). Although in retrospect this most interesting passages concern the impact Ernest Mandel and took much of its poli - capitalist class” had “started publishing arti - claim looks dubious – although perhaps there of possible future integration on the fight for tics from that source. cles expressing an equal distaste toward the is an insight into the current TTIP discussion socialism. Although this is speculative, it is By the early 1950s the RCP had split into USSR and the USA” (‘European Capitalists — he was clear that the working class had no also revealing, suggesting an internationalist, three main constituents that would dominate and the American Empire’, The Militant, 26 interest in supporting either camp. permanent revolutionary perspective that is for the next two generations. The Club, led June 1950: 2). He rejected the prominent no - Mandel wrote: “For revolutionary Marx - highly relevant to today’s conditions. by Gerry Healy, would become the Socialist tion of “neutrality” as the “passive with - ists, this, conflict is a typical inter-imperialist Mandel argued that strategically, with the Labour League (SLL) and later the Workers’ drawal from world politics” Instead he put competitive struggle in which the working formation of the EEC and the stage it had Revolutionary Party (WRP); it would be the forward the almost Third Camp formulation: class has no reason for supporting one side reached — namely that it was not a super - biggest force until the mid-70s, but shatter “To this conservative idea of neutrality, based against the other. To the policies of both sides, state — there was “no reason why the work - and collapse in 1985. A group that would be - on the status quo and class collaboration, the they must counterpose the struggle for a So - ing class should abandon the classic political come the Revolutionary Socialist League and Fourth International counterposes the revo - cialist United States of Europe, for a really goal it has sought for so long, the seizure of later Militant, led by Ted Grant, was the fore - lutionary idea of working class politics inde - unified Europe which could effectively sur - power nationally, for the chimerical seizure runner of today’s Socialist Party and Socialist pendent from Wall Street and the Kremlin” mount the antagonisms bred by capitalist of power in all member states of the Com - Appeal. The Socialist Review group, later the (‘The Demand for “Neutrality” in Europe’, competition; that could only be a Europe munity at once, or, even more utopian, for the International Socialists (IS) and after that the The Militant, 3 July 1950). which has abolished both capitalist property ‘socialisation’ of Europe by the votes of a Eu - Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), was led by This rejection of both Washington and and the bourgeois state… ropean parliament elected by universal suf - Tony Cliff. Whatever their differences over Moscow appeared to extend to the Western It would be pure suicide for the working frage”. A successful socialist revolution in capitalism, Stalinism, imperialism, the European working class movement. Mandel class to solidarise itself, either with its own one member state “could not live cheek in Labour Party and other secondary matters, noted that European workers had “given the bourgeoisie or with that of the opposing jowl with a capitalist economy in the rest of over Europe their stance was much the same Stalinist peace campaign a much cooler re - camp. Its only effective reply can be to affirm the EEC”. But equally “the conquest of power and largely coherent. It was not until 1971 sponse” (‘The Stalinist “Peace” Campaign in its basic class solidarity: “Workers of all Eu - by the proletariat of one state would fan the that they lurched towards chauvinism. Europe’, The Militant , 10 July 1950). At the ropean countries unite against the Europe of flames of revolution in neighbouring states”. Much of the left in Britain was influenced same time European Trotskyists had the task the monopolies, whether it raises the slogans Mandel speculated that “once the interpene - by the politics of the Fourth International, as of “struggling against the deceit and of the Europe of ‘fatherlands,’ the ‘open’ Eu - tration of capital between the members of the reconstituted after World War Two and led hypocrisy of the Social Democratic pro- rope, or the European ‘community’.” This Six leads to their actual economic integration, should be the line of action for the working or to a European Community with more 4 THE STALINIST ROOTS OF THE “LEFT-EXIT” MYTH More online at www.workersliberty.org member states, once the supranational insti - mon Market — No answer to the prob - conceive of their best interests in their strug - magazine Encounter . It was most recently tutions evolve an adequately powerful form lems...’). gle against the working class” (‘British Capi - reprinted in a collection of his articles edited of state power”, then “the chances of the pro - Six months later Grant returned to the is - tal and the Common Market’, Marxist , 5, 2, by Blackledge and Davidson (2008). MacIn - letariat taking power at a national level will sues. He condemned the arguments of the 1967: 26-27). tyre denounced the Labour Party stance as probably be insurmountably blocked” (Man - anti-marketeers in the labour movement, “the party of the English-speaking Empire”, del, 1970). which he said “have had no more substance International Socialists (IS) and that “Socialism in One Country” was “a In the circumstances of 1970, Mandel was than those of the pro-marketeers them - The other revolutionary left group influ - sad slogan for a Gaitskell to inherit from a clear about the orientation of the labour selves”. They had “adopted a narrow nation - enced by Trotskyism during the 1960s was Stalin”. He criticised “those socialists who are movement across Europe. He argued that alistic outlook, appealing against the loss of the International Socialists, led by Tony against Franco-German capitalism, but some - “the reader should not deduce from all this British ‘sovereignty’”. He also captured the Cliff. how prefer British capitalism” and said he that it is in the interests of the European essence of an independent approach when he It would have its own debates on Europe, detested “the anti-German chauvinism of the working class to put a brake on the interpen - wrote: “Neither entry nor non-entry can often openly in the pages of its magazine In - anti-Common Marketeers”. Although the etration of European capital on the grounds solve the problems of British capitalism. Nei - ternational Socialism. The majority held itself “last intention of the founders of the Com - that the gradual disappearance of the possi - ther nationalism nor pseudo-Europeanism is broadly within the same internationalist ar - mon Market” was “to pave the way for a bility of political power being conquered by a solution in the interests of the working guments as the rest of the Trotskyist left. United Socialist States of Europe”, MacIntyre the working class on a national level”. In the class” (‘Common Market — impasse of In 1961, an editorial entitled ‘Britain and said he was for taking them by the hand as a first place, “it would anyway be utopian to British imperialism’, Militant , No. 27, June Europe’ adopted a critical approach to the preliminary to taking them by the throat. attempt to prevent economic changes which 1967). EEC, but one at pains to distance itself from (‘Going into Europe’, Encounter 22, 2, Febru - themselves correspond to a given develop - Grant correctly paraphrased Trotsky, argu - opposition on the grounds of nationalism or ary 1963). ment of the forces of production; the work - ing that the EEC represented “the groping at - reformism. In fact the magazine was cau - Ian Birchall wrote a detailed, critical as - ing class, after all, was never intended to tempts to expand beyond the frontiers of tiously optimistic about European integra - sessment of the debate at the end of 1966. He prop up small-scale capitalism or to prevent European and world trade are expressions of tion. The editorial stated: “If, in the long run, noted that “in the period 1961-62, when the capital concentration”. In the second place, the outmoded character of the nation state Europeanisation hastens this process, as it entry of Britain into the European Common “the historical role of the labour movement and of private ownership of the means of surely will, cartel Europe will have laid, as Market was last on the agenda, this journal in late capitalism and in highly industrialised producing wealth”. However added his own surely, the basis for the United States of So - adopted a position of neither ‘for’ nor countries can never consist in allowing itself peculiar reformist twist, arguing for taking cialist Europe. For revolutionary socialists in ‘against’”, a position denounced by social de - to be reduced to the status of auxiliary to one over the top 380 monopolies through an ‘En - Britain there is no greater aim. We should be mocrats of both a chauvinist and “interna - or other interest group of the bourgeoisie – abling Act’ in the Westminster parliament the first to clasp hands across La Manche”. It tionalist” bias. He argued that there was “still either in support of the international inter - with the mobilisation of the trade unions. added: “For us the move to Europe extends a long way to go before we can speak of a penetration of capital or to uphold the bour - This underplayed the likely resistance from the scope of class struggle in which we are di - working-class strategy for Europe”. The two geois forces clinging to the nation state”. The the bourgeois state, whether on a national or rectly involved; it worsens its conditions for main questions that had to be answered role of the labour movement is “to place its international level. the present. But it makes ultimate victory were: “first, what sort of demands can be own socialist aims on the agenda. The alter - more secure” (‘Britain and Europe’, Interna - made on a European scale and, second, how native to the interpenetration of European tional Socialism , No.6, Autumn 1961: 3). can workers’ organisations achieve a greater capital must be a united socialist Europe, not Socialist Labour League The first visible sign of dissent came from degree of co-ordination and unity?” He ob - If Militant provided a pale shadow of Man - a return to bourgeois economic nationalism”. John Fairhead in a subsequent issue of the served that some European trade unions had del’s arguments, then the Socialist Labour In short, “the only successful defence of the magazine. He denounced the majority posi - argued for such an approach since the 1950s, League (SLL), for all its windy rhetoric, working class confronted by growing inter - tion as the manifestation of Kautsky’s ultra- raised the issue of migrant workers and crit - provided a mostly abstract, arid reprint. nationalisation of capital is to resort to its imperialism, which Lenin had polemicised icised the approach of the Communist Par - own action and organisation” (Mandel, The Healy organisation had split from the against during World War One. He also ar - ties. In the circumstances, he suggesting “a 1970). orthodox Fourth International, along with gued that “if the struggle against the Euro - united Left in the present situation cannot be This was the right starting point to orien - the American SWP and French OCI, in 1953. pean Common Market is waged only by a revolutionary Left; but a non-revolutionary tate the workers’ movement across Europe, However it retained most of the premises of Tribune and the Communist Party within the united left serves only to obscure the issues” not only in Britain. It had no truck with the the Mandelite version, despite shrill denun - working-class movement, the most backward (‘The Common Market and the Working nationalist chauvinism of the Stalinists and ciations of Mandel himself. The American chauvinist trends will receive encourage - Class: An Introduction’, International Social - the reformists in the British labour move - SWP would reunite with Mandel’s organisa - ment”. Instead, he argued for the chimera of ism , No.27, Winter 1966-67). ment. It did not turn the labour movement tion in 1963 and the OCI depart the rump an “internationalist” campaign again the EEC When Wilson once more proposed British into the tail of one or other faction of the Fourth International in the late 1960s, leaving (‘Polemic: The Common Market’, Interna - membership of the EEC, dissent within IS bourgeoisie. This was mostly independent the SLL to its own brand of unthinking con - tional Socialism , No.7, Winter 1961). was once more visible. An editorial once working class politics in answer to the bour - formity. The next issue responded with the right in - again denounced on the one hand the geois camps. Tom Kemp wrote a basic position piece, ternationalist argument: to push through “phoney internationalist chorus” of business ‘Socialism and the European Common Mar - bourgeois economic and political integration and on the other the chauvinist, Stalinist ket’, published in The Newsletter , 24 June by seeking to unite workers across borders. “left”, who presented “a common illusory Militant 1961. He argued that it was “scarcely neces - The editorial stated: “Only a sustained cam - British road to socialism, or, more accurately, The attitude taken by Militant was a pale sary for the labour movement to get involved paign carried out throughout the labour the road to British state capitalism” (Editorial reflection of Mandel. in a detailed and necessarily inconclusive dis - movement by socialists will increase con - Board Majority, ‘Europe’, International Social - Until 1965, the RSL led by Grant was a sec - cussion about the pros and cons of the Com - sciousness sufficiently for the initiative to be ism , No.28, Spring 1967). The minority tion of the USFI and on Europe its position mon Market”, which could not “inspire the taken in exposing ‘Europeanist’ capitalism, in around Sedgwick argued that “opposition to was a bland version of the same politics. Ted rank and file or build its strength”. Consis - establishing direct links with European the Common Market (which in this country Grant published a position piece, ‘Common tent socialists “should be unequivocally in workers for coordinated action and in build - implies opposition to British entry) remains Market — No answer to the problems: favour of breaking down national barriers, ing a Socialist Europe”. In short, “what busi - the only possible stance for socialists” (Edi - Labour must press for United Socialist States not under the auspices of the trusts seeking ness is doing now, the leaders of the labour torial Board Minority, ‘A Note of Dissent’, In - of Europe’, in Militant , No. 22, December to exploit labour power more methodically movement should be doing for the European ternational Socialism , No.28, Spring 1967). 1966-January 1967. and play one section off against another more working-class” (‘Labour and the Common As late as the beginning of 1971, Ian Bir - Grant pointed out that when the EEC was successfully, but by working for a workers’ Market’, International Socialism , No.8, Spring chall could write that “the Common Market raised by the Conservatives in the early 1960s government which alone can do the job in a 1962). By the end of the year, the magazine has probably caused more confusion in the to promote the interests of the giant monop - genuinely internationalist way”. In short, published a letter of dissent from Peter Sedg - British Labour movement than any other olies, “Wilson and the other Labour leaders “taking sides for or against the Tories joining wick arguing for opposition to Britain’s entry question. For the most part, the discussion offered vehement opposition”. The Labour the Common Market means arguing about to the Common Market and another from now is little more advanced than it was ten leadership pointed out that it would “raise just how Europe’s workers should be ex - John Fairhead resigning over the matter (‘Let - years ago”. The argument still centred the cost of living enormously, crush the agri - ploited. Instead, the working class movement ter to Readers’, International Socialism , No.11, around the wrong question — whether we cultural industry and lead to a lowering of must unite around a programme for the so - Winter 1962). The response — rightly — was should be for or against British entry. The real the standards of living of the working class”. cialist planning of European industry”. to open the journal to debate. question, that of a revolutionary strategy, was In short, “they opposed it from a ‘nationalist’ A similar line was taken by the SLL until at The best contribution was written by John still largely neglected. Reviewing a number and ‘commonwealth’ point of view”. least 1967. For example Geoff Pilling, writing Palmer, who argued that “In or out of the of books including Mandel’s Europe versus Grant wrongly dismissed Britain’s as Peter Jeffries in higher education student Common Market, the problems facing the America , Birchall argued that “strategy can - prospects of joining the EEC and speculated magazine Marxist , argued that capitalists all British Labour movement are likely to be not precede analysis” and “as yet we have no erroneously that the Common Market over Europe faced “the threat of a united and very much the same. Indeed the point is that adequate analysis of what the Common Mar - showed “signs of disintegrating at any severe powerful working class”. The European the issues facing us are more similar to those ket is, of how the social, political and eco - economic difficulties”. However he did grasp labour movement, in unity with the power - facing European and American workers than nomic factors interact on each other”. the essential stance for the British labour ful British working class movement, was “the at any time in the past 40 years”. Instead of He mocked Mandel for unfurling “the movement in the situation. He wrote: “for the force which instils fear into the European opposition he argued for a common pro - old banner of the ‘United Socialist States working class neither entry nor non-entry bourgeoisie”. For socialists the main task was gramme of trade union demands across Eu - of Europe’”, observing that while British would solve their problems or lead to an in - “to turn to this force”. He argued “We have rope (‘The Common Market’, International entry to the Common Market was not in - creased standard of living.” The first task for nothing to gain from a futile debate about the Socialism , No.12, Spring 1963). evitable, “none of the alternatives have the British workers “would be to achieve a merits or demerits of entry. Merits and ad - Around the same time, IS member Alasdair anything better to offer the working class” socialist Britain and then launch an appeal to vantages for whom? These are questions MacIntyre published a short piece called (‘The Common Market’, International So - the workers of Europe and the world” (‘Com - which the capitalist class can decide, as they ‘Going into Europe’, in the anti-communist cialism , No.46, February-March 1971). Workers’ Liberty @workersliberty 5 How the left fell in behind the Stalinists in 1971

The SLL had the doubtful honour of pio - substantial representation at the highest lev - neering the stampede of the so-called els of the AUEW and NUM, with members revolutionary left towards the camp of the among prominent general secretaries such as chauvinists. In an orgy of general high- Ken Gill (John McIlroy, Notes on the Commu - pitched denunciation of Labour, in 1967, it nist Party and Industrial Politics , 1999). denounced EEC entry by way of denounc - The shift of the unions towards opposition ing the Labour Government’s attempt to to British entry — propelled by the trade join. union bureaucracy and backed by the CPGB Yet at the beginning of 1971, most of the — was the backdrop against which the revo - revolutionary left still had a rudimentary po - lutionary left’s lurch in the summer of 1971 litical economy of the EEC and basically ad - took place. equate internationalist orientation. Despite The revolutionary left on the cusp of the the nuances and contradictions, this was a 1970s was significantly larger than it had stance shared across the revolutionary left on been since the mid-1920s, when the CPGB the back of longstanding assessment and po - was a real revolutionary force with around litical theory. But soon this left came to aban - 10,000 members. In 1964 the SLL had an esti - don that position and accommodate to mated 500 members, IS around 200 members chauvinism. and Militant about 40 members. After 1968 all Before 1971 almost the entire revolutionary groups grew, and so by the time of these left held an abstentionist position on the Common Market debates the SLL had Common Market: in or out, it was about cap - around 2,000, IS a similar number, the IMG italist integration and not a matter for work - around 400 and Militant maybe 250 members ers to choose a side to support. Although this (John McIlroy, ‘Always Outnumbered, Always left several key questions begging, it at least Outgunned’: the Trotskyists and the Trade had the virtue of maintaining a consistent in - Unions , 1999). ternationalist position, having no truck with The lurch in 1971 was almost simultaneous chauvinism and championing cross-Europe across the biggest groups on the revolution - worker solidarity in the face of bourgeois in - ary left. The SLL had already made its switch tegration. Why in the space of a year did so A shift in the unions — towards hostility to the EEC — was key. The election of former earlier, but the IMG, Militant and IS would much of the left flip over into a hardened op - Communist Party member Hugh Scanlon as President of the engineers’ union, AUEW, was part of follow suit rapidly by the end of 1971. They position to the EEC, one that saw this left add that shift. fell in behind the reformist and Stalinist left, its voice to the chorus of Labour lefts, Tory who espoused narrow British nationalism. rightists and far-right fascists calling for Most of the revolutionary left bent under its Britain to remain outside of the Common President Pompidou, who signalled that the on Conservative terms, in 1972 for opposition pressure and the fear of isolation from the Market? veto would be lifted and that a third applica - to entry in principle and in 1973 opposition workers influenced by the nationalist left. The simple explanation is that the revolu - tion would be successful. But Heath had a to membership plus support for a boycott of They used slogans like “the Socialist United tionary collapsed into the “common sense” bigger problem, to win a parliamentary ma - EU institutions (Mullen, 2005). States of Europe” as a deodorant to cover the that began to dominate the labour movement jority. Although the Tories had a majority of The TGWU was Britain’s biggest union in nationalist smell. This would carry on right and the wider public. Within the labour 30 MPs, some fifteen led by Enoch Powell 1971 with around two million members. In through the referendum in 1975 and re - movement there was a growing nationalist- would vote against Europe whatever the cir - 1961 its biennial delegate conference voted to mained frozen comatose in most cases to this chauvinist response, fuelled by Stalinist so - cumstances. With only six Liberals, Heath oppose the Treaty of Rome. During the 1960s day. cialism-in-one-country which began to grip would need the support of the Labour Party. it was opposed to Britain’s entry without many of the best industrial militants. In the But Labour was also divided over Europe. safeguards, a position it moved from 1967 Socialist Labour League political context of the time, where an un - After fleeting opposition to entry in 1961, within the Labour Party and the TUC. The The SLL pioneered the left’s shift to op - popular Labour government promoted EEC Labour had switched to conditional support election of Jack Jones as general secretary in posing EEC entry some years before the membership just as it promoted efforts to in 1962, allowing Wilson to seek entry in gov - 1969 hardened this position of opposition. rest, denouncing the Labour govern - curb the power of trade unions; followed by ernment. However within the labour move - The TGWU unsuccessfully promoted its pol - ment’s attempt to join the Common Mar - a Tory government elected in 1970 commit - ment, alongside the disappointment with the icy at the 1970 Labour Conference, one of the ket from 1967. ted to the same agenda of Common Market Labour government and with its unexpected closest votes in Labour Party history. Its 1971 In the June 1970 general election, it made membership and the Industrial Relations Act, defeat in 1970, the tide was turning against biennial delegate conference carried a motion “No to the European Common Market! For the labour movement lurched towards oppo - entry. declaring that the Tories’ entry terms were the Socialist United States of Europe!” one of sition and the revolutionary left simply ca - In January 1971, Labour MP John Silkin put economically and politically damaging. its key slogans. Other literature argued that pitulated to the dominant mood around down an early day motion on behalf of the The AUEW engineers’ union was Britain’s not to vote Labour was “to betray not only them. soft-left Tribune newspaper, stating that the second biggest union, around one million the British workers but the European work - The wider context of British politics helps Tories’ entry terms were not in the national members in 1970. Until 1968, the union sup - ers and the entire struggle against the Com - to explain why the revolutionary left accom - interest. This motion obtained the support of ported Labour’s applications for entry. The mon Market and for the Socialist United modated itself to this option. At the time the 103 Labour MPs (Mullen 2005). In May 1971, election of Hugh Scanlon as President saw States of Europe” ( Fourth International , 1970- Treaty of Rome was signed, around two- James Callaghan, pitching for the leadership the union become more sceptical towards the 71). This arid mangling of the issues reflected thirds (64%) of the British population was in of the Labour Party, made a speech in Man - EEC. At the 1970 Labour Conference, the the growing political insanity of the SLL, favour of efforts towards West European chester attacking the Tories’ approach to Eu - AUEW voted to support the TGWU-spon - which would fully flower as it became the unity, with 12% opposed and almost a quar - rope. He said it would mean a complete sored resolution that was opposed to entry. WRP in 1973. ter (24%) undecided. At the time of the rupture of British identity and that monetary Similarly, the NUM, another of the largest The SLL claimed that the European Com - British government’s first application to join, union would lead to unemployment. He also unions with around half a million members, mon Market was “a counter-revolutionary nearly half (47%) was in favour of West Eu - responded to Pompidou’s comment that voted at its 1971 conference for the with - coalition aimed at the working class and in - ropean unity, with the rest evenly split be - French was the language of Europe (not Eng - drawal of Britain’s application on the basis tended to create conditions in which Euro - tween those opposed and those undecided. lish), by stating: “Non, merci beaucoup”. that it posed a threat to living standards and pean capitalism can find a basis for survival Gallup polls asking specifically about EEC Callaghan caught the mood: in July 1971 national sovereignty (Mullen, 2005). in conflict with the United States and Japan”. membership throughout 1965, 1966 and the Labour’s special conference debated entry, A key catalyst for transmitting opposition Revolutionary socialists should oppose “the early part of 1967 found a clear majority with opinion mostly against. In August the to the EU through the major unions were the sinister ‘new order’ represented by the Euro - (ranging from 43% to 71%) in favour of entry. Labour NEC pushed for opposition to the militants and union bureaucrats associated pean Common Market, which constitutes the However, in the late 1960s, public support Tory terms of entry and the October 1971 with the Communist Party. Around the time main counter-revolutionary strategy of Euro - began to decline and by November 1970 it Labour conference voted for opposition to of Britain’s first application for membership, pean capital against the working class, aim - stood at 16%, with 66% against (Andy Tory plans. the CPGB had 34,000 members and 265 ing to destroy its conquests” (‘Manifesto Mullen, The British Left’s ‘Great Debate’ on Eu - If the mood among Labour MPs was workplace branches. It organised a cross- from the 4th Congress of the ICFI, Fourth In - rope , 2005). plainly changing, then it was in the unions union rank and file organisation, the Liaison ternational , Summer 1972). When the Tories unexpectedly got back that the most significant shift was occurring. Committee for the Defence of the Trade The SLL dressed its apocalyptic scenario- into government after the general election on In the late 1940s and early 50s, the TUC Con - Unions, which in 1969 could organise a con - mongering in the perspective of the United 18 June 1970, they immediately set about con - gress supported demands for a united Eu - ference of 1,700 delegates from many of the Socialist States of Europe. In 1973, it would tinuing the Wilson government’s efforts. The rope, backing both the Schuman plan and the most militant workplaces across the UK. It reprint Lenin’s conjunctural article from 1915 Tory manifesto for that election was more EDC. After the first application to join the could get over 100 members as delegates to and a Trotsky article from 1929, claiming that cautious about Europe than Labour’s, com - EEC in 1962, its position was “wait and see”. the annual TUC Congress. It was represented “any ‘unity’ proposed by the capitalist gov - mitting solely “to negotiate, no more, no However in 1971 Congress voted for opposi - by half a dozen members and as many sym - ernments would be a fraud, a desperate act less”. In May 1971 Heath met with the French tion to Britain’s entry to the Common Market pathisers on the executive of the TGWU, with by the weakest capitalist systems of Europe 6 THE STALINIST ROOTS OF THE “LEFT-EXIT” MYTH More online at www.workersliberty.org to protect themselves from the rigours of rope”, organised by the Fourth International based on its independent interests”. He went rallying to the defence of the sovereignty of American competition and an alliance of the in Brussels. Just weeks before it began to on to outline a range of laudable practical the British bourgeois state”. Now Britain’s big monopolies against the working class”. change its position, its members had at - proposals for building international working entry was more or less an accomplished fact, In chauvinist anti-German terms, they tended a demonstration organised in Paris by class cooperation, including an “international “the campaign to take Britain out of the EEC claimed “such a ‘unity’ came to pass with the the Fourth International on 15/16 May 1971 congress of workers’ delegates” to work out looks as if it will continue along the same Third Reich. Now the capitalist nations of Eu - to commemorate the one hundredth an - a strategy. Of course the revolutionaries lines to distract and divert the Labour left rope are embarked on yet another attempt to niversary of the Paris Commune. Reports would still have to attend such a gathering and the Communist Party from the real is - find a concorde” ( Fourth International , Spring from this mobilisation had no hint of the with a line to argue. And this was the prob - sues of the class struggle. Such a campaign 1973). It would continue to fantasise about change to come. lem: Joseph had made the breach – and worse would be deeply reactionary – reactionary in Common Market plans for dictatorship into The volte-face was announced on the cover was to follow. the most literal sense of the term. A return to the 1975 referendum, as it became more and of the IMG’s paper Red Mole , 1 June 1971, The IMG returned to the issue in the after - capitalism in one country has no advantages more out of touch with reality. under the heading ‘The Common Market: math of Labour’s special conference in July for the working class. The real alternative to Capitalist Solution to Capitalist Problem: For - 1971. The Red Mole (August 1971) contained capitalist unity in the EEC is the struggle for Militant ward to a Red Europe’ and by an article in - an editorial, ‘Labour and the Common Mar - a Red Europe”. It concluded that if entry The Militant made the most rapid public side by Ben Joseph, ‘British Capitalism and ket’ and a further article by Ben Joseph, weakened the traditional political instru - conversion to the anti-EEC campaign. Europe’. Joseph made four key arguments, ‘Labour and the Common Market’. It also ments of class rule then “this will be an un - Militant supporter Ray Apps (Brighton somewhat elliptically and with a fair amount contained an article by Ernest Mandel, mitigated advantage in the task of creating an Kemptown) spoke at the Labour Party’s Spe - of hedging his bets, as to why the revolu - ‘Britain Enters the Common Market’ that independent working class politics – inde - cial Conference on the Common Market on tionary left should oppose Britain’s entry to barely registered as opposition to British pendent, that is to say, of bourgeois politics, 17 July 1971, calling for the rejection of the the EEC, which he said was “radically op - entry. The editorial warned against chauvin - above all of bourgeois politics in their parlia - EEC and in favour of a United Socialist States posed to the immediate material and the ism and the “capitalist internationalism” of mentarist and chauvinist guise”. of Europe. It was also Militant supporter Don class interests of the labour movement”. the Labour right-wing. However its key mes - This third campist stance was reinforced by Hughes (Liverpool Walton) who moved a First, Joseph argued that entry was in the sage was to welcome the ferment of discus - an article by Andrew Jenkins, ‘Labour Party resolution calling for a Socialist United States urgent interests of the British ruling class: sion on entry to the Common Market among in Perspective’, in the next issue of the paper of Europe, which was lost on a card vote, at “The British ruling class is in a hurry: as far as workers. The IMG argued that revolutionar - (18 October 1972). It denounced Gaitskell a Labour Party conference, 4 October 1971. it is concerned entry in the Common Market ies could “insert” two arguments into these decade earlier for playing “the lowest com - Their arguments were derived from a Mil - is a make or break business.” In grandiose discussions: “for working class unity against mon denominator of Labourism – national - itant special pamphlet by Ted Grant, ‘Social - terms he stated that “the specific features of capitalist unity; and for the strategy of a red ism”. The ‘populist’ ideology and patriotic ist answer to the EEC’, first published in 1971 the present stage of inter-imperialist compe - Europe against the capitalist EEC”. ranting of many of the Labour leaders such and reprinted in 1975. The pamphlet is re - tition leave British capital no choice but to This was a mealy-mouthed way of reiter - as Foot, Jay and Shore brought them close to markable because the political economy is seek a solution in the EEC if it hopes to re - ating the general and unassailable truth that Enoch Powell. Jenkins argued that while the scarcely any different from the arguments main as an independent competitor in world the EEC like every other dominant institution central debate was clearly whether or not to Grant made in the 1960s, when supporting an capitalism”. on modern society was capitalist, which withdraw from the EEC, “it was equally clear abstentionist position. The Common Market, Second, Joseph stated that “the EEC is a could in itself could not determine the line to that this is not the central issue for the work - he said, was “a glorified customs union”, al - capitalist solution to capitalist problems”. It take on British entry. More perniciously, it im - ing class”. Socialists “must be opposed to the though the formation of the EEC was “in - was “a response to the intensification of the plied that in the face of a strong capitalist capitalist Common Market, but this can only tended to be a political, diplomatic and concentration and centralisation of capital class push for entry, the only stance for work - be answered by a socialist Europe and not by economic counterweight to the crushing pre - under the rapid capitalist expansion since ing class “unity” had to be opposition. Of the twilight fantasies of chauvinism”. ponderance in all these fields of American 1945, and the increased level of capitalist pen - course this would be unity of kind, but a The IMG appears to have been stung by ar - imperialism”. The British ruling class’s sup - etration of US capital in Europe”. These were unity of British workers against other Euro - guments on the left from those such as Work - port for entry was explained by the changing abstract truisms were not sufficient to deter - pean workers — in other words around ers’ Fight (a forerunner of the AWL) for an pattern of trade, away from the Common - mine the tactical line on British entry. dreadful politics and for a reactionary cause. abstentionist position, and from Marxist in - wealth and towards Europe. The most crucial argument received only Joseph’s article was another master class in tellectuals such as Tom Nairn who favoured Grant argued that the attitude towards the one line in Joseph’s article, and a negative the art of political confusion. He denounced British entry as an antidote to chauvinism. EEC of the Labour movement “must be gov - one at that. He stated that the alignment the Labour Party conference as a “fiasco” and Quintin Hoare reviewed Nairn’s essay, ‘The erned by the same class principles as their at - within the labour movement put most of the its outcome (a strong feeling of opposition to Left against Europe’, published in New Left titude towards all the so-called right-wing Labour politicians in favour: “The British entry, but no vote on it) was “far from Review in September-October 1972 (and later ‘international”‘ institutions. Nature of EEC is pro-Common Market MPs include the most a being a victory for the ‘anti-Common Mar - as a book). In Red Mole , (11 December 1972), the issue—not the terms of entry”. But he de - powerful right wing members of the shadow ket’ forces”, but “a defeat for the working Hoare accepts Nairn’s critique of chauvinism duced from this a third camp conclusion: “As cabinet led by Jenkins, Crosland and Healey.” class”. It was undoubtedly a defeat of the but denounces his support for British entry against the blind alley of negative pro or anti- The implication – for this was not spelt out – working class in both Britain and across Eu - to the EEC as a reversion to the determinism Marketism, there must be placed the class in - was that the rest of the left were against and rope, for it signalled that wide sections of the of Second International Marxism. This was a ternationalism of the working class. The therefore the role of revolutionaries was to go labour movement would oppose entry on poor response. It was a virtue of the Marxism workers of Britain have interests in common with them. This would become a familiar Tory terms and many on principle in the of pre-1914 that it sought understand the ten - with the workers of the Common Market and trope. name of little-Englander chauvinism. dencies of capitalism and how these im - of all countries. Their interests are opposed Joseph warned of the dangers of national - But Joseph gave succour to these argu - proved the terrain for the fight for socialism. to the capitalist class of all countries includ - istic flagwaving with its talk of the interests ments. The EEC was about “building a West Where the SPD and other erred was to col - ing Britain.” of the country, and of “economism” i.e. mak - European superpower both to match the lapse behind one or other ruling bourgeois The only substantial reason offered by ing opposition solely about the cost of living. challenge of US and Japanese imperialism on faction. The revolutionary left committed a Grant against entry was tailism: get behind However he then appeared to define the role the one hand, and on the other to present a comparable error by opposing entry, implic - the Labour and trade union ‘left’ against the of the revolutionaries as entering the nation - united capitalist front to the workers’ states itly backing the most reactionary sections of right wing. He wrote that it was “significant” alist movement in order to compete with the of Eastern Europe”. From the point of view the British bourgeoisie against its more far - that “the overwhelming majority of the sup - nationalists for working class support and to of European capitalists British entry would sighted sections. porter of entry in the Parliamentary Labour divert the anger into progressive channels. strengthen this project. Domestically, “entry Party and the unions belong to the right He wrote: “If the only alternative posed into the EEC emerges as the centrepiece of International Socialists The most theatrical if belated volte-face wing”. By contrast, “the attitude of the left against the EEC is the purely nationalist so - Tory strategy”. The conclusion about opposi - over the EEC was the lurch taken by the wing of the movement is more in tune with lution offered by the labour left national prej - tion to British entry was left hanging. It was International Socialists (IS). the deep felt hatred and misgivings of the udices could be reinforced rather than assumed, with qualified support, but not ex - workers towards the Tory government”. The weakened. A struggle to democratise the or - plicitly and convincingly stated. It voted overwhelmingly at its 1970 con - active rank and file of the Labour and trade ganised labour movement in the spirit of so - There was little further coverage in the Red ference against a proposal to oppose Com - union movement especially felt “a natural cialist internationalism must in the end be the Mole in the following period, as first the mon Market entry. At Easter 1971 a class mistrust of the government of big busi - answer to equipping the working class to Labour NEC, then the TUC and finally the poorly-worded motion putting the same po - ness”. This rationalisation, jumping on the combat the supernational corporations.” Labour conference voted for opposition to sition was again overwhelmingly carried. By bandwagon behind the rest of the ‘left’, was Exactly how a small group of revolutionar - entry. Soon after Heath would garner a ma - June 1971, IS leaders began to adapt to the a miserable capitulation to the dominant, na - ies could affect such a transformation was jority for entry in the House of Commons dominant mood among the vocal militants in tionalist and reformist consciousness of the never spelt out, largely because such an op - with significant Labour support. For a year the labour movement hostile to the Common British labour movement at the time. eration was impossible and without prece - the IMG barely spoke of the issue in its paper, Market. Tony Cliff and Chris Harman wrote dent. with entry more or less a fait accompli. Theses on the Common Market to sway the IS Joseph’s first article is notable for its equiv - A front page article entitled ‘Labour, Eu - National Committee to reverse the Easter International Marxist Group ocation. Having nudged towards opposition rope and the Class Struggle’, ( Red Mole , 2 Oc - conference decision. The IMG made the most dramatic shift. he drew back almost immediately, stating tober 1972) lamented that throughout the In a strict reading, the Theses did not chal - This was the group of the closest sup - that “we neither support the bankrupt petty previous year “the main political preoccupa - lenge the abstentionist position in principle, porters in Britain of Ernest Mandel; it grew bourgeois who fear entry – that would be a tion of the Labour left was the reactionary but only made a tactical proposal to vote with to some size in the 1970s, before splitting utopian protest against the nature of capital and chauvinist campaign against British the left in some circumstances. Cliff and Har - into three fragments (all much diminished itself – nor do we back the big bourgeoisie in entry to the Common Market”. Instead of man wrote: “Our aim in union conferences since then) in 1985. the entry attempts”. The job of revolutionar - seeking ways to develop an autonomous po - and the like should be… making clear both ies was to fight “to raise the consciousness of litical mobilisation of the working class, our opposition to the Common Market, and In November 1970, some of its members the working class by advancing positions “much energy and rhetoric was expended on had attended a “Conference for a Red Eu - our separation from the confused chauvinism Workers’ Liberty @workersliberty 7

of the Tribunites, CP etc. However, if we are Market’, International Socialism (Autumn gument. He wrote: “The defeat of the Tory Market and the IS Group’. Loyalist Ian Bir - defeated on such a stand, we should then 1971). He offered three reasons for opposi - government, in the present context of grow - chall challenged Harman’s position in a “Re - vote with the Tribune-Stalinists in opposition tion: ing working class opposition to its policies, joinder” published in the same issue of to entry.” A substantial minority of the Na - “1. Entry is being used, alongside other would give a new confidence and militancy International Socialism . He restated IS’s tradi - tional Committee opposed the Theses, but measures, to hit at working class living stan - to workers”. He added that “revolutionaries tional position, unpicking Harman’s ratio - they were accepted. dards and conditions… 2. Entry is aimed to in the labour movement have to make it ab - nalisation. Birchall identified the real reason, The slide towards plain-and-simple anti- rationalise and strengthen capitalism. It is an solutely clear that they do not abstain on such responding acidly: “We have to relate to these EECism began almost immediately. Duncan attempt to solve certain of capitalism’s prob - a question. We are for the defeat of the To - forms of distorted class consciousness; we Hallas, the IS national secretary began mak - lems by capitalist methods… 3. The rational - ries…” certainly do not adapt to them.” ing propaganda in Socialist Worker (229) isation of capitalism [is] no longer Allied to the negative “defeat the Tories” Within IS, the “Trotskyist Tendency” against the group’s traditional abstentionist progressive in any sense, it also speeds up the was the prelude to the real justification: adap - (Workers’ Fight, forerunner of the AWL) chal - position, caricaturing it as remaining neutral development of intrinsically destructive tation to the milieu. Harman argued that lenged the leadership, demanding a special in the class struggle. He argued for “No to the forces…” “those trade unionists who oppose govern - conference. This required support from one- Common Market” on the grounds that it Politically, this was exceptionally weak. In ment policies on the Industrial Relations Bill, fifth of the IS branches to get a recall confer - would be a defeat for the Tories, the party of or out of the EEC, working class living stan - productivity deals, etc., also tend to be op - ence — 23 branches. Although the minority big business. The position was challenged by dards were under attack. Capitalist rational - posed to the Market”. Underlying this align - got sufficient support, there was still no con - Workers’ Fight, (the Trotskyist tendency isation had gone on since the dawn of ment was that “many rank-and-file militants ference. The IS national committee put an ar - within IS): Sean Matgamna and Phil Semp capitalism, but revolutionaries had not re - instinctively distrust the government’s entry bitrary deadline beyond which branches published a document, IS and the Common jected technological change, or defended policy. They feel that it will be used to could not declare for the recall conference. Market (24 July 1971), which set out the cri - small business against capitalist concentra - weaken their position”. The IS executive committee admitted to tique in depth ( Permanent Revolution No.3, tion. A further claim that the EEC was “re - Opposition also involved traditional IS loy - 22 branches, but denied receiving notifi - 1975). ally” about a military alliance was tenuous at alists. Nagliatti, Foot, Higgins, Pritchard, Ed - cation for the final one. Instead, the Trot - Chris Harman provided the detailed ratio - best. wards, and Carlsson. all prominent IS skyist Tendency was expelled (“defused”) nalisation in a long article, ‘The Common In fact Harman fell back on the negative ar - leaders, wrote a document, ‘The Common in December 1971.

today in Britain and in Europe and how, by Yet the IMG did not change course during basing ourselves on these trends of the class the referendum campaign. Its final paper be - struggle, can we intervene in the Common fore the vote was headlined: ‘No to the 1975 and all that Market debate and referendum in such a way Bosses’ Europe. No to Wilson’s Tory Policies’ as to help and further struggles to overthrow (Red Weekly , 29 May 1975). The front page ad - The revolutionary left grew significantly world scale”. Why this meant outright oppo - capitalism”’. In a classic case of adapting to vertised an anti-EEC demonstration on Sat - between its volte-face over the Common sition to the EEC was never articulated. The the milieu, he argued “all the big organisa - urday 31 May 1975, assembling at Hyde Park Market in 1971, Britain’s accession to the most important objection was that “the fight tions of the employing class in Britain and Corner. The demo was called by the Militant- EEC on 1 January 1972, and the Labour for a United Socialist States of Europe in the Europe ask you to vote ‘Yes’ in this referen - led Labour Party Young Socialists, with government’s referendum on membership abstract leaves any campaign against the dum… [and] practically without exception speakers including Labour MPs Joan Lester on 6 June 1975. Common Market in the hands of the chau - practically all the militant sectors of the and Eddie Loyden from Merseyside, as well vinists”. In an explicit re-run of the point However this growth was not accompa - British working class are against Britain stay - as Militant editor Peter Taaffe. made in 1971, the IMG argued that “the job of nied by greater political clarity, but rather ing inside the Common Market, and express A double-paged spread inside set out the revolutionaries is to intervene to transform characterised by chasing after legitimacy on in however confused and wrong a way a IMG’s case for supporting British withdrawal the actual struggle against British member - the industrial front. This accommodation was class opposition to this capitalist outfit”. He from the EEC. The article, ‘The EEC Referen - ship into a fight against the EEC itself, and in disastrous for the internationalist conscious - added that if “the ‘No’ were to win, it would dum: 1. Why “No”’ (29 May 1975) expressed this way lay the basis for a real campaign for ness among working class militants in Britain be a political disaster for the bourgeoisie”. a number of key reasons: first, the Common a United Socialist States of Europe”. This was and ultimately for the fate of the revolution - Much of the reporting in Red Weekly ex - Market represented “an attempt by the capi - fantasy: the United Socialist States of Europe ary left itself. posed the reactionary nature of the “Get talist class to solve their political and eco - was not on the referendum ballot paper, nor Britain Out Campaign”. Red Weekly reported nomic problems at the expense of the International Marxist Group was it explained how a “No” vote might gal - that at Folkstone, Clive Jenkins of ASTMS working class”; second, the aim of the EEC The IMG had leapt early though tentatively vanise the struggle for it among British work - union shared a platform with Tory racist was “to try to create a supernational Euro - in 1971, only to move back toward ab - ers, never mind the wider force of workers Enoch Powell. At Bristol, the speakers in - pean state in order to swing the balance of stentionism in 1972 when Britain’s entry across Europe. cluded both Tribunite MP Ron Thomas and forces in favour of capitalism”. Third, along was a fait accompli. Gosling and Kennedy dismissed concerns far right Monday Club Tory MP Richard with NATO, the Common Market was “an about chauvinism, claiming that “the fact Its self-doubt did not last. When the EEC Body. As for the audiences, “they have gen - integral part of imperialism’s military and that the extreme right has much to gain from referendum was announced at the beginning erally consisted of Communist Party mem - political alliance against the workers’ states”; a campaign against British membership of of 1975, the IMG’s paper Red Weekly devoted bers, Tory backwoodsmen, National Front fourth, it strengthened the capitalist class in the EEC is no reason for revolutionaries to itself to opposing entry. The front-page article supporters, and the odd, rather bewildered each of the EEC countries against its own abstain on the issue”. The rest of the piece (‘”No” to the Capitalists’ Common Market’, trade unionist” (‘Croydon Co-op members working class; and fifth a ‘No’ vote in the ref - was pure puff about building a united front 30 January 1975) stated that staying in the fight for socialist campaign’, 20 February erendum was “just one of the practical and of workers’ organisations against the EEC, Common Market was “a life-and-death ques - 1975). concrete steps necessary to oppose a central calling a Congress of European Labour to de - tion for Britain’s capitalists” and for that rea - A photo caption the following month strategy for survival of the capitalist class”. cide an alternative to the Common Market son “the working class should be opposed to stated that “rank-and-file pressure may have However the critical reason was given in and, with an added spice of poison, taking up the Common Market”. The EEC was “a cap - forced Broad Left member of the AUEW ex - another article, ‘The EEC Referendum: 2. the call by Tribune “for increased trade with italist institution, designed to strengthen the ecutive Bob Wright to back down from ap - What are the Labour leaders up to?’ (29 May COMECON (the ‘Soviet bloc’ trading organ - power of the ruling classes of the different pearing on the same platform with Enoch 1975). It stated: “Every single important body isation)”. countries within it”. The opposition was un - Powell, but that did not stop him from ap - in the labour movement is on record against These arguments were repeated in the equivocal: “No to the capitalists’ Common pearing alongside such enemies of the work - the EEC.” In short, because the bulk of the months leading to the vote in June 1975. Market — on any terms.” The article ac - ing class movement as businessman James Labour and trade union bureaucracy, as well James Duckworth argued in ‘How not to cepted that British capitalism would be Towler and Monday Club MP Richard Body as a visible section of the industrial militants, Fight the EEC’, ( Red Weekly , 30 January 1975) “worse off” out of the EEC. However the at a Get Britain Out Campaign (GBOC) rally who had never been offered a principled al - that “the collapse of the Common Market point was “there is no solution to the prob - in Manchester last Sunday” ( Red Weekly , 6 ternative, appeared to back withdrawal, the would considerably weaken world imperial - lems of the working class under capitalism”. March 1975). IMG believed it should go along with them. ism, and it is on this basis alone that social - A double-paged article in the same issue by Andrew Jenkins explained that the joint Although the IMG criticised the ‘left’ for its ists campaign for Britain’s withdrawal”. Mick Gosling and Steve Kennedy, ‘A Most chair of the Get Britain Out Campaign was nationalism, it nevertheless agreed to tail the A rather tragic intervention came from Uncommon Market’ (30 January 1975) boiled Richard Body, while a full time worker for bureaucracy, to support its conclusions and Ernest Mandel, whose political economy had the reason for advocating a Britain out posi - this campaign was Peter Clarke, previously to provide a ‘Marxiant’ rationalisation. largely spoken against opposition to the EEC. tion in the forthcoming referendum to a curi - personal secretary to Powell. The vice-chair The IMG failed to reassess and was unre - In an article ‘Against the Europe of the ous sort of lesser evilism: “anything which of the GBOC was Sir Ian MacTaggart, a mem - pentant in the face the two-to-one yes vote in Bosses! Towards a Socialist Europe!’ ( Red weakens it [the Common Market] tilts the re - ber of the rightist Society for Individual Free - June 1975. The editorial of the first Red Weekly Weekly No.102, 22 May 1975: 6), he repeated lation of class forces in favour of the working dom. The Anti-Common Market League after the vote, ‘Common Market “debate — the general points about capitalist concentra - class on both an international and national (ACML) and the Common Market Safe - Not over yet’ (12 June 1975) stated that the tion, the trend towards international inter - level”. They promised that in any campaign guards Campaign had fused, bringing to - EEC vote was “a defeat for the working penetration of capital on a European scale against the EEC that involved common ac - gether figures like Tory MP Neil Marten and class”, even though it accepted that “a ma - and inter-imperialist rivalry. But instead of tivity with the Labour left and CP, they Labour MP Douglas Jay (‘Fascists have a field jority of the working class is in favour or in - drawing from these assessments the logic of would “struggle against all such nationalist day’, Red Weekly No.94, 27 March 1975: 2). different to the EEC”. Its logic was that “a an abstentionist or “Yes” vote, Mandel toed and chauvinist positions”. Another photo the following month showed ‘No’ vote would have threatened the eco - the line with bandwagonist and tailist argu - Gosling and Kennedy explained why the banners on a workers’ demonstration pro - nomic strategy of the ruling class” and the ments. IMG could not support an abstentionist po - claiming “British textiles IN; Foreign textiles EEC was “a central instrument of world im - Mandel argued that the basic question was sition. Firstly, they argued that “the EEC is OUT; Bolton District Weavers” and “Cut Im - perialism”. It wished Britain had come out of “not ‘what are the long term economic trends not simply a weapon of European capitalists ports to Save Textile Industry. Bolton District the EEC because “the whole economy would of development of capitalism if it survives’, against their American counterparts; it is Weavers” ( Red Weekly No.95, 3 April 1975: 3). have been thrown into a most convulsive and above all an institution of imperialism on a but ‘what are the trends of the class struggle 8 THE STALINIST ROOTS OF THE “LEFT-EXIT” MYTH More online at www.workersliberty.org shattering crisis”. The IMG accepted that in the short term, “both the British and European working class get a few crumbs by staying in Europe, com - pared to any capitalist alternative outside”. It recognised that “hardly anyone” believed that British capitalism could go it alone: “Ar - guments about ‘national sovereignty’ ap - pears increasingly archaic and unreal. They were in fact the kiss of death to the anti-EEC campaign.” It therefore explained the result by recourse to the old cod “Leninist” argu - ment, namely that “the attachment of certain privileged layers of the working class to the imperialist state reflects the fact that the working class has received material benefits from the imperialist policies of its own ruling class”. The IMG never bothered to explain how support for “No” would help break these “privileged” workers from the hold of imperialism. Far from advocating participation in the in - stitutions of the EEC, the IMG’s solution was the working class movement was to maintain “an attitude of complete hostility to the Mar - ket, refusing to cooperate with or participate in any of its institutions, and seeking to re - verse the referendum at the earliest possible moment”. This was necessary, otherwise “the campaign against the Market will in future fall into the hands of the Powellites and other extreme rightists who this time round were pushed well to the sidelines”. This was a recipe for further capitulation to nationalism and a further weakening of internationalism within the British labour movement. Militant Mainstream “In” campaign in 1975 and in 2016 Militant carried the same plodding atti - tude into the 1975 referendum. years of entry and in January 1975, the IS na - Socialist Worker (1 February 1975) to lament was remotely adequate to repair the damage Grant, noted in ‘Capitalist Common Mar - tional committee unanimously decided “to that the no campaign had meant in practice: caused by abandoning an independent work - ket — No! For a Socialist United States of Eu - campaign for a NO vote around the slogans “unions forking out money to pay for meet - ing class perspective. rope’, ( Militant special, May 1975) that “all No to the Common Market, No to national ings for an open racist like Powell, and left enemies of the Labour movement and the chauvinism, Yes to the United Socialist States wingers giving the National Front and other Conclusions working class are vociferously and hysteri - of Europe” (Chris Harman, Socialist Worker , 1 extreme right wing groups an air of re - The basic Marxist assessment of capital - cally striving to ensure a ‘Yes’ vote”. By con - March 1975). spectability by working with them”. ist European integration, based around trast, “the instinctive rejection of the capitalist The line and the arguments for it were a Still the IS leadership stuck with the line capitalist concentration, the interpenetra - Common Market by all the basic forces of the pale repetition of those first aired in 1971. Chris Harman argued in Socialist Worker (1 tion of capital and its states, pointed to - Labour movement was an enormous step Hallas, the editor of International Socialism March 1975) that for IS to abstain “would be wards at least a position of not opposing forward”. He wrote “the overwhelming ma - magazine, stated in the ‘Notes of the Month’ to line up with the extreme right wing within the process but building working class in - jority of the active rank and file of the trade for February 1975 that the group’s stance was the working class movement”. This would ternational solidarity out of it. unions, Co-ops, and Constituency Labour determined by the alignment of forces: “FOR: apparently “play into the hands of the Com - This meant at least abstention in any vote; Parties are against for class reasons. Most of virtually the whole of big business, the Tory munist Party leaders, who would be able pre - it might have meant critical support for it, de - the shop stewards, the activists in the trade party, the right and centre of the Labour tend that their own disgusting chauvinism pending on the precise forms. This classic union branches and ward Labour Parties are Party, the trade union right wing and the and alliances with Powell were the only al - Trotskyist position, consistent with the atti - decisively against. They distrust a policy en - whole ‘establishment’ network; AGAINST: ternative to the Jenkinsites and the Market”. tudes and traditions of revolutionary Marx - dorsed by the bosses and their stooges”. The Labour lefts, the CP, the trade union lefts Exactly how the far smaller IS would distin - ism over decades, was coherently held by Grant went through the motions of con - and some of the centre plus the ‘populist’ guish itself from the CPGB when it agreed most of the British revolutionary left until the demning the chauvinism of the Labour and right (including the NF) and a smallish num - with its essential political conclusion was late 1960s or early 1970s. trade union “left”, while promising “we do ber of Tory dissidents and, probably, the var - never explained. Instead Socialist Worker , (8 Instead, the bulk of the revolutionary left not align ourselves with the ‘anti-foreign’ ious nationalists”. March 1975) lapsed back on negativism: “A at the time collapsed politically into the “No” ranters like Powell and Frere-Smith”. How - Hallas argued that “essentially, in the ref - NO vote, that is to say a defeat for big busi - camp, dominated by Labour reformists and ever for all the puff about an independent erendum campaign all those with an ‘estab - ness, Tory, Liberal, and right wing Labour Stalinists, behind which stood the reactionary working class campaign, the most prominent lishment’ outlook and perspective will be coalition on than in last year’s elections. The sections of the British bourgeoisie. Tailism be - event was a demonstration on 31 May 1975, lined up against all the ‘dissident’ trends in - arena for our internationalist message is in - hind these forces, garnished with abstract which involved “2,000 working class inter - cluding the far right”. However, “the heart side the NO camp. That is this issue is in our and irrelevant fig-leaves such as “Socialist nationalists who marched through the centre and muscle of the anti camp will be the left interest. We are part of the left. We can no United States of Europe” was tagged onto the of London last Saturday calling for an ongo - of the labour movement”. Just as in the Ger - more abstain in this confrontation where the “No” message. This was welded together ing campaign to build a socialist Europe” man re-armament debate (1954), “a mud - vast majority of class-conscious workers are. with a negativist “defeat the Tories/busi - (Militant , 6 June 1975). Speakers at the Trafal - dled, opportunistic and semi-nationalist left That is where we belong”. ness/Labour government” position equating gar Square rally demonstration included Mil - will find itself aligned with out and out chau - This line was repeated in another Notes of “getting out of the EEC” with the interests of itant supporter Nick Bradley, who sat on vinists and racists against the main political the Month, ‘The Common Market’, Interna - the (British) working class. It was a collapse Labour’s National Executive as the represen - forces of British capitalism”. tional Socialism (April 1975). The anti-EEC into chauvinism, disregarding relations with tative of the Young Socialists and Militant ed - After garnishing the poison with apple-pie camp consisted “very largely of the Labour other European workers in the name of ap - itor Peter Taaffe. slogans in favour of the Socialist United State left and the trade union left and centre. Its op - parently giving British capital a bloody nose. Despite the two-to-one majority in favour of Europe, socialist internationalism and position is based on muddled nationalistic Workers’ Fight — a forerunner of the AWL of staying in the EEC, Militant did not re - working class unity (presumably in Britain, and reformist arguments, although only the — fought this at the time and has fought it assess. In its history, the Rise of Militant (1995), rather than across Europe), and salutary Communist Party has descended to the since. In the forthcoming referendum the rev - Taaffe plays up its warnings about chauvin - warnings against British chauvinism and cruder forms of nationalist demagogy”. olutionary left could be a voice of sanity, ral - ism but still justifies the approach. ‘popular fronts’ with Tories, Powellites or The place of socialists was, “of course, lying the labour movement to oppose the Fascists, Hallas finished with a flourish. The firmly and unequivocally in the NO camp, Tory backwoods, while fighting for democ - International Socialists Common Market referendum, he wrote, “is a alongside the great majority of class-con - racy and social welfare across Europe. By the time of the referendum in 1975, the possible source of a ‘Bevanite’ type of left- scious workers. But, equally, it is the duty of But to play this role, it needs to learn from the past, understand the mistakes International Socialists had grown sub - wing movement led by left-reformist MPs socialists to argue the internationalist case and chart a course consistent with the stantially, probably doubling its member - and their trade union allies”. Out of a reac - within that camp”. The rest of the coverage historic and material interests of the ship since the nationalist turn over the tionary movement might come progress – rehashed the political economy of recent Eu - working class across Europe and the Common Market in 1971. hence revolutionaries had to be there to jump ropean capitalism and even found a place of on the bandwagon. It would not take long for some figures on migrant workers. None of it globe. It had not reassessed on the EEC after two