Re-establishing the socialist tradition
"SOCIALISM has become a rather refined intellectual thing. And what you have to do is root the debate on Europe in peoples' real experiences.
International Viewpoint #246 June 1993
Would you see your ideas, as
DOSSIER
That's the road to go down."
Tony Benn has, alongside the miners' leader Arthur Scargill, been the central figurehead of the British left for well over a decade. Most recently he has spearheaded the left's critique of Maastricht, clearly differentiating himself from the essentially nationalist opposition of those such as former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.
We republish here, extracts from two interviews conducted in the last
12 months about Benn's Commonwealth of Europe Bill and the campaign against Masstricht. The latter interview was conducted prior to the second Danish referendum.*
INTERVIEW
AN YOU outline the
C main features of your
Commonwealth of
Europe Bill?
It is a Bill to replace the Treaty of
Rome, to extend the framework of European co-operation beyond the countries of the European Community to the whole of
Europe, including all the Eastern European countries and former USSR.
The principles 1 put down here for the foundation of an association of the peoples of Europe — the Commonwealth
- are not anything to do with the free movement of capital and labour.
It must be based on mutual respect, the fully self-governing status of member countries, working for co-operation, committed to uphold the Charter of the UN, believing that the different identities of the member states must be preserved, resolving to work for these ends with good-will, and a spirit of tolerance and understanding. I also include a Charter of Rights, incorporating social and economic rights that would require a very active political role. The reason I've done it is that this idea that you're either pro-or anti-Europe is a complete illusion. The question is what sort of Europe do we
What the proponents of Maastricht are trying to do is to say that there's only one type of Europe (and) that you have to be for or against.
set down in the Bill, as a socialist alternative for Europe?
It isn't explicitly socialist. It would provide that if a state wanted to vote for a different system it could. It is an enabling bill for socialism, which under the Treaty of Rome is impossible — it would be excluded by the constitution, by the judges. What my Bill does is remove some of the obstacles for socialism rather than create it
But of course, when you set out a Charter of Rights then you are beginning to set out the constitutional changes that contain a political objective. And these are socialist objectives.
But isn't a socialist alternative implicit in the Bill, for example in posing a guarantee of full employment?
There are some fairly radical proposals. But it's presented within the framework of you've got to have the power to do it. For example, we could demand all these things in practice, but in theory we couldn't achieve them. It would be illegal to do it.
Your Bill is not going to get passed by Parliament, what are you intending to use it for?
Of course it won't get passed but these things can have an educational role. I've sent it around a little bit. I've been working on this for about ten years one way or another. I think there are a lot of people who may be open to this alternative.
(...) The future of socialism has to be
ВЕЩЬ
18 thought through very carefully now. The collapse of the centralised Stalinist system showed that without the vital ingrediant of democracy that project was an absolute dead end.
What the Common Market is about is the liberation of capital and the enslaving of labour. We have to have a programme for the control of capital and the liberation of labour — and that must be done on an international basis. *
* The interviews were originally published in Socialist Outlook, a fortnightly paper supported by Fourth Internationalists in Britain. SO 22, May 1992 and SO 39, March 1993
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
BRITAIN
International Viewpoint #246 June 1993
S OME people on the left
suspect that campaigning against Maastricht gives cover to rightwing nationalism, and that only the rightwing benefits from such a campaign.
That is simply untrue. In Britain it was the left that was against the Treaty of Rome, the Tories (Conservative Party) were all in favour of it; it was the Tories who took us into the Eurpean Community (EC), using the Royal Perogative, without consulting anyone. It was the Labour Party which came out in favour of a referendum on the issue.
The reason why the Tory opponents of Maastricht are getting all the publicity is because only they have the power to defeat the government on the issue; if there was a Labour government in Britain it would be the left critique of Maastricht getting all the publicity.
The proponents of Maastricht want to present the anti-Maastricht campaign in a way which alienates liberal opinion, so they say, well it's led by Le Pen and Thatcher, but it's not the case at all.
What will happen if the Danish vote against Maastricht in the coming referendum?
By voting against Maastricht last time the Danish put themselves at the heart of Europe, not as Major says outside Europe. If they vote 'no' again, then Britain wont go in. Kohl has said that they might have to go ahead with a 'core' ten countries. But it wont work, and there will have to be a big rethink. Then I think proposals like my Commonwealth of Europe Bill will come into their own. But it has to be said that the near unanimity of the political leaders in Denmark in favour of Maastricht makes another no' vote
Do you think that the Maastricht Treaty will be realised?
It's much more difficult now, to create the kind of capitalst economic and political unity they are looking for, becasue of the depth of the economic crisis. Harmonisation is very difficult when there are such disparities between states, and the interests of different groups of capitalists conflict. But my worry is that a failure of Maastricht, because of the way it has been done, could lead to a rise of reactionary nationalism. The French will blame the British for Hoover, the British will blame the French for subsidising agriculture, the Americans will blame the Europeans for subsidising the Airbus.
So we've got to find a way of building a substructure of working class links in Europe, and not only in Europe, to prepare an alternative to the rise of reactionary and rightwing forces. That's why I'm in favour of building a Fifth International, a common association of working people worldwide to confront the power of capital.
What do you think is the real meaning of 'Fortress Europe?
The real intention of the people who founded the EC, like the people who founded the North Atlantic Treay Organisation (NATO), was to prevent socialism spreading. That's what it's all about. They aimed to rejuvinate European capitalism with the aid of the Marshall plan, that's what the EC was all about, and to defend capitalism, that's what NATO was all about.
Now that the cold war is over NATO is extending into what is called an 'outer area role'; and for capitalist Europe this is an attempt to restore the dominant position it had in relation to the colonies it lost during the two world wars.
What we're witnessing is 'Euro-nationalism' preparing to challenge the United States and Japan for world dominance. And this Euro-nationalism is not internationalism at all, it's the opposite.
If the EC is about defending capitalism, then why have the main social democratic parties in Europe all adopted such enthusiastic pro-EC policies?
It's well worth reflecting on this question. In my opinion it's because of the collapse of socialist confidence, and a collapse of understanding about what socialism means. Look at Yeltsin; he was the secretary of the Moscow Communist Party, and now he's so far to the right of Thatcher he makes her look like a progressive. The socialist parties became career structures. You joined a socialist party and got into power; you became a minister. Then you expelled dissidents, distanced yourself from struggle and hoped the establishment would accept you as one of the two ruling parties.
Nobody in these parties discusses capitalism any more, let alone socialism. I can understand the Labour leadership in Britain not discussing socialism, since they don't have the remotest idea what it is; but you would think that they'd discuss capitalism and its crisis. But all they discuss is Major, Lamont and Heseltine.!
So there is this huge vacuum. Socialism is about building a society on a moral basis, about internationalism and about democracy. And those three ideas have a universal validity throughout human history. But these values have been totally neglected, so there's a gap which is filled by trying to strengthen capitalism, whilst calling it a more humane society. It isn't at all. It's the same as it always has been, throwing workers on the floor and allowing the privileged and rich elite to run things.
What can be done to turn around the present difficult situation for the working class and socialism?
The first thing is to re-establish the socialist tradition of debate, argument and education. The media in Britain have obliterated serious discussion, it's all in terms of personal abuse and sound bites. The first thing to do is to get people asking basic questions again — why are we poor, why are we unemployed, why does every family spend money on weapons before the rent? Why? Once you ask these basic questions, you're half way to a socialist analysis, and that's how real socialism started in the first place — as a critique of the existing order.
Now everyone knows the working class has changed in Britain, and internationally. But the definiton of working class hasn't changed: do you own things or do you work? By that definition the working class is very much alive.
But the situation of the working class is difficult today because the debt chains have been added to unemployment. Becoming unemployed can be a real personal catasrophe because, unlike the 1930s, you can lose your house and savings. So people are worried about challenging the boss. There's a real groundswell of anger, but its partly fro zen by fear. And it's denied an outlet, because the leaderships of the socialist parties have stopped talking about any alternative.
But still, coming back to Maastricht, isn't there a problem about outlining a socialist alternative to it? The left can criticise the Maastricht process, but what do we propose?
That's right. A negative criticism on its own is inadequate, because I don't want a capitalist Britain living outside a capitalist Europe, I want a socialist Britain in a socialist Europe. That means that you've got to have a much stronger socialist association across Europe and the world, and that is precisely why I'm fighting for this idea of a Fifth International. *
1. This is a reference to John Major, the current Conservative Prime Minister; Norman Lamont, the recently dismissed Chief Finance Minister; and Michael Heseltine, the current Chief Trade and Industry Minister.
19