Brexit
and the left
The vote to leave the
European Union has disoriented many on the left. Recoiling at the racism
and nationalism whipped up by both Leave and Remain campaigns – and
seized on by the far-right – many toe the establishment line and support
the EU. The only way to counter that right-wing pressure, explains
HANNAH SELL, is with a clear anti-austerity and pro-working class
internationalist programme.
The root cause of the scale
of the working class vote for Brexit, in the face of all the
scaremongering by the capitalist establishment, was a revolt against all
the suffering of recent decades. Unfortunately, however, that has not
translated into an increase in the confidence and cohesion of the
working class. This was in no way preordained. Back in June 2015,
left-wing journalist Seamas Milne, now Jeremy Corbyn’s strategy
director, made clear why a left, pro-working class campaign for Brexit
was needed: "If radical progressive change were on the cards in Britain
– or any other state for that matter – the EU treaties enforcing free
markets, privatisation and corporate privilege would be a serious
obstacle". Therefore, he wrote: "It’s essential that the case for
radical change in Europe – and a break with its anti-democratic,
corporate-controlled structures – is not abandoned to the right".
Unhappily, this is exactly
what happened. A handful of trade unions – the RMT, ASLEF and the
Bakers’ Union, and NIPSA in Northern Ireland – together with the
Socialist Party and others, argued the case for a pro-working class,
internationalist Brexit. On a mass level, however, we were drowned out
by the official pro-capitalist, nationalist Brexit campaigns. The
majority of trade union leaders, who acted as uncritical cheerleaders
for a capitalist Remain, bear much responsibility for this. Also
culpable are Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor
John McDonnell who, under pressure from the Blairites, unfortunately
abandoned their historical opposition to the EU in order to reluctantly
campaign for Remain.
The result is a confused
political situation in Britain. The Tories have temporarily managed to
create a thin veneer of unity over their deep divisions, although this
is already cracking. The pro-EU wing of the Tory party, representing the
interests of the majority of the capitalist class, is marshalling its
forces for the battles to come, still hoping to step back or reverse
Brexit. Tory members of the House of Lords are already openly attacking
the Brexiteers. No doubt former chancellor George Osborne will use the
pages of the London Evening Standard (as its new editor) to do the same.
The Blairites are working in cahoots with them with the same goal. At
the same time, the populist right have been unable to consolidate their
position; the UK Independence Party is in turmoil.
Despite the weakness of the
right, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left have so far been completely
unable to build on his landslide re-election as leader to establish mass
popular support for an anti-austerity Labour Party. The fundamental
reason for this is their endless attempts to seek unity with the
pro-capitalist Labour right wing that still dominates the party machine
and remains determined to defeat Corbyn. As a result, Corbyn suffers all
the attacks that the capitalist press – backed to the hilt by most of
the Parliamentary Labour Party – would inevitably throw at any left-wing
anti-austerity leader, but without actually putting forward a clear
anti-austerity programme or leading an anti-austerity party!
In this situation there is
widespread confusion among many who were initially enthused by Jeremy
Corbyn. This is aided by a tendency by many forces who claim to be on
the left to become cheerleaders for the pro-EU majority of the
capitalist class on the grounds that they are more ‘progressive’ than
the Brexiteers. There is a certain comparison with how, historically,
different left forces capitulated to the drumbeat of war being sounded
by their national capitalist classes. This time, however, the drumbeat
is for the capitalist bloc of the EU. Polly Toynbee declared in the
Guardian (21 March) that we should, "just for the duration, hold back
the vitriol" against Osborne, "if he can indeed stiffen the backbone of
the majority of Remain Tory MPs to take back control from the Brexit
extremists". This is lesser-evilism writ large! How is Osborne, who
presided over the most vicious austerity since the 1930s, a lesser evil
than the Tory supporters of Brexit?
Wide sections of the
population are opposed to the Brexiteers because of the racism and
nationalism they have whipped up. This is very positive and, if it was
organised around a programme of workers’ unity to fight for jobs, homes
and services for all, could successfully push back racism. The
pro-Remain capitalist establishment, however, is cynically attempting to
misdirect this sentiment as a means to mobilise support for undermining
Brexit. It should not be forgotten that it was pro-EU New Labour
politicians, now hypocritically bleating about the increase of racism
post-Brexit, who demanded that David Cameron announce new anti-migration
proposals just 24 hours before the referendum, in the hope that doing so
would have allowed the Remain campaign to sneak victory. This is a
reflection of the fact that all wings of the capitalist class are
prepared, when they consider it necessary, to whip up nationalism in
defence of their interests.
In the EU’s nature
The worst thing socialists
can do in this situation is to forget what they know and allow
themselves to be buffeted by temporary moods. The EU’s neoliberal core
remains pro-market and anti-working class. It compels the privatisation
of public services, prohibits nationalisation, and makes it easier for
employers to exploit workers in numerous ways. The EU is, in essence, an
agreement between the different national capitalist classes of Europe
with the aim of creating the largest possible arena to conduct their
hunts for profit. It should be opposed on a socialist and
internationalist basis.
Amidst a general tendency on
the left to fall into support for the EU, one small left group, the
Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), can at least claim the dubious
honour of having consistently argued that the EU is progressive and
should be supported. In the issue of its newspaper produced for the
referendum, it argued: "The basic Marxist assessment of capitalist
European integration, based around capitalist concentration, the
interpenetration of capitalism and its states, pointed towards at least
a position of not opposing the process but building working class
international solidarity out of it". This is based on the erroneous idea
that capitalism can successfully carry through the task of the
unification of Europe and that this would be ‘progressive’.
The AWL has no concept of the
limits to capitalism’s ability to overcome the barrier of the nation
state. Yes, the urge to unify Europe flows from the needs of the
productive forces which have massively outgrown the limits of the nation
state and even of continents. This is demonstrated by the development of
huge trading blocs like NAFTA and the EU. Nonetheless, historically,
capitalism developed within the framework of the nation state and every
capitalist class remains rooted in its own nation state, where its
wealth and power are based. In addition, the nation states have produced
deep-rooted national consciousness which cannot be overcome within the
framework of capitalism. On the basis of economic upswing the process of
integration can be carried very far, as in the case of the EU in the
first part of the 21st century. This allowed some sections of the
capitalists, and unfortunately some Marxists, to dream that capitalism
could actually overcome national limits and proceed towards a unified
European capitalist state.
However, the EU always
remained a collection of nation states huddling together for their
capitalist classes’ mutual advantage rather than a European nation. Even
in a period of economic growth there were real limits to how far the EU
could develop. Measures like a banking union or a European defence
force, much mooted as necessary steps to further integration, have never
come into being despite decades of discussion. And once capitalism
entered crisis the national centrifugal forces came to the fore. Brexit
is only one symptom of the growing national tensions in the EU. There
are many others, from the renewed crisis in Greece, to the poll lead of
Marine Le Pen in France, to the governmental crisis in Italy.
Missing the Marx
Incredibly, the AWL justifies
its position by quoting Marx from the Communist Manifesto. Arguing
against an editorial in The Socialist, it stated (15 February): "The
Socialist Party’s negative view of capitalism’s desire to ‘create the
largest possible market based on the freedom of movement of goods,
services, capital and labour’ is in stark contrast to Marx’s positive
view of this same process. Marx says that the capitalist class ‘keeps
more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of
the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated
population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated
property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political
centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with
separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became
lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws,
one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff’. Can
it be the case that not a single member of their editorial board has
read the Communist Manifesto?"
In the passage of the
manifesto quoted here, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were describing
the historic role of capitalism in bringing nation states into being.
They also outlined how capitalism was driving the development of a world
market: "The need of a constantly expanding market for its products
chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must
nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere".
Nowhere, however, does the
Communist Manifesto suggest that capitalism will be able to overcome
what Marx described as one of the fundamental contradictions of
capitalism: the contradiction between the world market and the nation
state. In fact, the manifesto makes clear that the working classes’
struggle for power will inevitably have to begin, although cannot
remain, on a national plane: "Since the proletariat must first of all
acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the
nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself
national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word".
Immediately after the
publication of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels experienced the
defeat of the revolutions of 1848. Due, as Engels put it, to the
‘astonishing cowardice’ of the German bourgeoisie, this revolutionary
wave did not see the establishment of a united Germany from the feudal
principalities and city states which then existed. The German
capitalists’ cowardice was not accidental. As Marx and Engels explained,
it was a result of their fear of the growing strength of the working
class. This pushed them towards alliances with the remnants of
feudalism. Yet this was in a period when capitalism was still in the
ascendency, and when there was no doubt that a German ‘national
consciousness’ existed. It is incredible that now, over 150 years later,
when capitalism is a system in profound crisis, the AWL can glibly
suggest that it is capable of unifying the EU!

Class issues are key
Events are clearly showing
that this is not the case. On the contrary, the capitalist crisis –
accompanied by the EU’s neoliberal treaties – is leading to a backlash
against all the capitalist elites and the institutions of the EU which
have imposed terrible austerity on the countries of the ‘periphery’. In
Ireland, a mass movement against water charges, led by the Socialist
Party, succeeded in defeating this draconian tax. As the government
retreated in the face of a mass, democratic movement, however, the
European Commission intervened to demand that it continued to implement
the water charges!
As anger at the consequences
of the capitalist crisis bursts out in different forms in different
countries, and with the constant danger of a new stage of the economic
crisis in the eurozone, the EU, far from becoming a nation, will face
ever greater centrifugal forces. Clearly, there is a danger that
workers’ anger at austerity is channelled in a nationalist direction.
But to vacate the field to the populist right by supporting the EU is to
guarantee this outcome. The way to counter it is to fight for the
working class to have its own independent position: not the bosses’ EU
but a socialist Europe.
In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn
still has an opportunity to spearhead such a campaign. He can do this by
fighting for a workers’ Brexit and appealing to workers across Europe to
support his campaign. He could start by fighting for a different kind of
Repeal Bill to that proposed by prime minister
Theresa May – one that
annulled all EU regulations which go against working class interests,
like the rules restricting state aid and nationalisation, or the posted
workers’ directive which drives down wages. Such a bill could call for
the repeal of anti-trade union legislation, including the Tories’ latest
Trade Union Act, and enforce collective agreements. It would mean
bringing about real working class control via democratic public
ownership.
These class issues are
central to any campaign for a socialist Brexit and must include an
independent working class position on the question of the EU and
immigration. The right-wing capitalist campaigns for Brexit put this
issue centre stage, as did the official Remain campaigns. This has had
an effect on ‘public opinion’ which the workers’ movement urgently needs
to counter. Nonetheless, it is not true that migration was the main
issue for exit voters.
Nor is that the case now. A
recent opinion poll by Opinium, published in the right-wing Daily
Express, asked people to rate out of ten the most important issues for
them in the Brexit negotiations. The highest at 8.31 was ‘ensuring the
UK’s public services are well-funded’, followed by ‘ensuring jobs are
available in the UK’ at 8.28. ‘Reducing the number of people immigrating
to the UK’ scored 6.88 – so it was an issue. Nonetheless, it was 13th
out of the 22 issues listed, and only one place ahead of ‘ensuring that
EU citizens already in the UK are able to stay’ on 6.78.
EU ‘freedoms’
Inevitably, given the free
run that right-wing nationalist ideas had in the referendum campaign,
there has been an increase in racism in its aftermath. In addition,
millions of workers from other EU countries feel justifiably worried
about their right to remain and work in Britain. Clearly, socialists
have to organise against racism. We also have to be at the forefront, as
Jeremy Corbyn has been, of campaigns to demand the immediate granting of
full rights – now and in the future – of all EU nationals currently
residing in Britain. Beyond that we have to fight for the right to
asylum for all those fleeing war, disaster and dictatorship. We have to
argue for the end of repressive measures against those seeking asylum,
including the closure of detention centres and allowing asylum seekers
to work. At the same time, we have to fight against capitalism’s ‘race
to the bottom’ by demanding the rate for the job for all workers,
regardless of their country of origin.
Unfortunately, many on the
left have swallowed hook, line and sinker the argument of the pro-EU
wing of the capitalist class that to fight for this programme means
fighting for membership of the single market. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The single market came into being following a treaty
signed by Margaret Thatcher in 1986. It is based on the so-called ‘four
freedoms’ – the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour –
and is policed by the European Commission. This is the framework
underpinning the neoliberal, pro-austerity and anti-worker character of
EU directives and rulings.
This does not mean that EU
regulations are an insurmountable obstacle. Far from it. Determined
workers’ action can defeat the employers despite the panoply of EU laws
aiding the latter. And a determined socialist government, backed up by a
mass movement of the working class, could not be prevented by EU laws
from implementing its programme. Even so, argue some on the left, the
single market is progressive because it ensures ‘freedom of movement’.
This ignores the experience of those trying to reach Europe from Asia,
the Middle East or Africa – the antithesis of being allowed to move
freely – who are forced to risk life and limb to try and enter Fortress
Europe.
We are fighting for a
socialist world with real free movement – without borders, never mind
walls and detention centres. Since its inception, however, the workers’
movement has not automatically supported capitalist ‘free movement’,
including of labour, which can undermine and drive down workers’
conditions and, consequently, aggravates racism and nationalism. Rather,
it has fought to maximise workers’ control of conditions at work, the
highest form of which would be a democratic socialist society with a
planned economy. It is why, for example, trade unions have historically
fought for the closed shop, whereby only union members can be employed
in a particular workplace.
United workers’ struggles
It is correct to argue,
therefore, as Unite general secretary Len McCluskey has, that employers
should be covered by a proper trade union agreement or by sectoral
collective bargaining before they can recruit labour abroad. This is
arguing for an increase in democratic workers’ control over hiring, and
a decrease in the control of big business. Incredibly, the Socialist
Workers’ Party and some other left groups have used Len McCluskey’s
stance on this issue as their primary reason for refusing to give him
critical support in the Unite leadership election. This is despite the
capitalist class, as voiced in a Financial Times editorial, clearly
backing Gerard Coyne (who takes an openly reactionary position on
immigration), the right-wing challenger to McCluskey. The capitalists
and Blairites see that defeating McCluskey would open the road to
defeating Corbyn.
Of course, the trade union
movement’s approach to fighting for the approach outlined by Len
McCluskey has to be to win workers from other countries to the trade
union movement and demand they are employed at the rate and conditions
for the job. That would cut across attempts by employers to use them as
a tool to lower wages for all. This has already been done successfully
on a number of occasions, most recently led by Unite at Fawley oil
refinery. It is entirely possible to win the big majority of the working
class to a socialist and internationalist position on immigration. This
will never be achieved, however, by denying the way in which the
capitalist class has used immigration as one tool in its arsenal for
undermining workers’ pay and conditions.
Over the last decade, workers
in Britain have suffered the worst fall in pay since the Victorian era.
This assault has employed many different means, above all by taking
advantage of the disorientation and disorganisation of the working class
following the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in 1989-91, and the
transformation of Labour into a capitalist party under Tony Blair.
The increased pool of labour,
particularly from EU countries, has also been used, along with moving
production to cheaper labour economies, employing young people on worse
terms and conditions, the use of agency workers and so on. To state the
obvious, this is not the fault of the workers being super-exploited –
young, agency, migrant, or all three! – but of the employers. The only
way to push back is for a united struggle of all workers. Without doubt,
the militant traditions that many migrant workers bring to Britain can
enrich that struggle.
International solidarity
Unfortunately, the attitude
of many on the left is simply to ignore the reality of how capitalism
uses migrant workers. The AWL, for example, in an article on 4 January –
Three Arguments against Free Movement, and Three Responses – correctly
pointed out that the First International, under the leadership of Marx,
"set as part of its aim resistance to attempts by employers to ‘play
off’ workers from one country against those of another".
Incredibly, the article then
went on to dismiss any comparison with today: "But two key differences
with the contemporary situation are missed out. Firstly, the disputes to
which the First International was responding were ones in which
employers who faced strikes in Country A attempted to directly hire
workers from Country B, in order to break the strike in Country A.
Almost no migrant labour in Britain today is directly recruited abroad,
and none of it on the conscious, explicit basis of doing the work of
striking workers in Britain.
"And secondly, the methods of
the First International were solidaristic, linking workers’
organisations across borders to appeal directly to workers not to allow
their labour be used to undermine the struggles of their brothers and
sisters abroad. This approach has nothing in common with the hostile
attitude to migrants and immigration implied by the policies of today’s
anti-free-movement left".
This is nonsense from
beginning to end. Jeremy Corbyn has correctly raised that all jobs
should be advertised locally precisely because it is common practice for
employers to only advertise jobs in other countries. It is also
commonplace to use groups of workers from other countries to undermine
collective agreements with trade unions, aided by EU directives. Openly
recruiting migrant workers to break strikes also takes place, slightly
more covertly only because of the current legal limits on employers
doing so. Road sweepers and drivers for Wandsworth Council, employed by
contractors Continental Landscapes, are currently taking strike action
over poverty pay. Continental Landscapes are blatantly attempting to use
workers from Portugal to break the strike.
Furthermore, just as in the
days of the First International, cutting across such attempts by the
employers to divide and rule requires an internationalist ‘solidaristic’
approach. This was exactly what the Socialist Party successfully fought
for, for example, in the Lindsey oil refinery strikes in 2009. In that
case, it was workers from Italy who were used by the employers to
undermine the national agreement for the industry. Assisted by the
Socialist Party, the strikers produced leaflets in Italian to appeal to
those workers, and successfully won their right to join the union and
receive the same terms and conditions as the workers from Britain.
The struggle was recognised
for what it was by the workers’ movement in Italy – unlike the AWL and
others in Britain. Giorgio Cremaschi, a left-wing leader of the metal
workers’ union, Fiom, explained: "If the Italian workers are being paid
less than the British workers and their conditions are worse, this
strike is a just one. We have to fight for equal conditions". It is with
this approach – recognising how capitalism uses the ‘freedoms’ of the
single market to maximise its freedom to exploit working class people,
and then fighting for a united workers’ struggle in defence of working
class interests – that it will be possible to win mass support for a
socialist and internationalist approach to immigration and the whole
process of Brexit.