The IMT statement on Brexit attempts to justify the abstentionist position of Socialist Appeal during the recent referendum campaign. “In order to decide our tactics in Britain”, the statement says, “it was necessary for the British comrades to determine the precise balance of forces and the different tendencies involved in the referendum campaign.” This is absolutely true. But the statement glosses over and confuses what the true balance of forces was and what stance was taken by the majority of organised workers.
To say the divisions in the campaign were “not on class lines, nor on left-right lines” is simply not true and is contradicted anyway by other statements. What is true, is that the issues were complex and there were contradictory and conflicting cross-currents. It is also true that there was a huge amount of indifference and confusion at the beginning of the campaign, but this was not the case “from start to finish” as the IMT statement suggests. As the campaign wore on, it became increasingly clear that the overwhelming majority of the best activists, albeit coming from a confused position, were in the Remain camp.
In the end, two thirds of Labour voters voted to Remain, while the majority of Tory voters voted Leave. The overwhelming majority of trade union organisations and trade union activists in the workplace voted Remain, as did the majority of youth. As the IMT statement makes clear, “…most of those in work voted to remain, including London and the other big cities (Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool). Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain as did the majority in Northern Ireland. The Black and Asian population voted massively to remain, as did 74 percent of the youth and 80 percent of the students.”
On the other hand, the IMT statement says, “The campaign of the Leave camp was 100 percent reactionary, appealing to the basest prejudices of the most backward layers of society and manipulating proletarian feeling against the establishment and austerity.” Indeed, one of the reasons for the opposition of organised workers and youth to the Brexit campaign was their justified revulsion at its reactionary and chauvinistic basis, frequently straying into outright racism and xenophobia. Strange it was therefore, that in these “given circumstances”, the Socialist Appeal, “having carefully weighed up all these factors”, decided that “it was not possible to support either side in the referendum”. So, a “one hundred per cent reactionary” Leave campaign, is set against the big majority of the organised labour movement – albeit full of confused and contradictory illusions – and the IMT policy became: “it doesn’t matter which way you vote”.
As the Socialist Appeal website has argued correctly, to a large extent the Leave vote was a distorted protest against austerity and the political Establishment. As against those who argued that the EU brought “benefits”, many in the most depressed parts of the country – who ought to be natural Labour voters – were asking ‘what benefits have we had?’.The IMT statement makes the point: “Many poor unemployed workers in the north of England and Wales voted to leave, largely as a protest against austerity, poverty and a desire to kick the Establishment.” For Marxists, the tone should be set by what appeals most directly to the organised workers. Even the statement points out, that “our main audience was not the unemployed workers of the north east but the youth, the overwhelming majority of whom supported Remain for all kinds of confused reasons.”
Yet despite this, the Socialist Appeal position was at odds with the feelings among youth, the “overwhelming majority of whom supported Remain…” The fact that there was no “negative response” to the SA message speaks more about the narrowness of the audience to whom Socialist Appeal makes its appeal, and a deaf ear turned to criticisms made by comrades at the time, rather than the sentiments of organised workers.
The position of Socialist Appeal, flying in the face of the overwhelming majority of labour and trade union organisations, is all the more puzzling, given that the IMT statement quotes the balance of forces in 1975 precisely as the starting point for the tactics of the Marxists in that earlier referendum. At that time, the statement says, “… the entire left (the Labour left, the Communist Party and the Trade Unions) were opposed to what was then called the European Economic Community. That determined the tactics of our tendency, which gave critical support to the No vote, which Ted Grant clearly characterised as a tactical vote”. Ted Grant’s advocacy of a “No vote” wasn’t opportunism or bald opposition to the EU, but the starting point of a position that was very critical of the labour and trade union leaders and which, unlike them, offered a Marxist alternative. But what “determined the tactics” of the Marxists in 1975, was completely disregarded in 2016.
Should Marxists, then, have advocated a simple ‘Remain’ vote? Not at all. But Marxists, in mirror image of the 1975 referendum, could have taken the position of the labour movement to Remain as a starting point for a tactical Remain vote. Marxists correctly argued against the myths and lies perpetrated by the Remain camp. Trade union leaders were arguing nonsense about workers’ rights being due to EU regulations, as if maternity pay, sick pay and all the other benefits that workers enjoy weren’t won by the struggles of the labour movement in previous years. It was absolutely correct to point out that the whole monstrous, bureaucratic apparatus of the EU was set up in the interests of international banks and monopolies, secretly wheeling and dealing and dodging taxes in the interests of the European kleptocracy. It was also correct to point out that the EU was itself riven with divisions between the different interests of different national capitalist classes, something likely to lead to the disintegration of the EU rather than its consolidation into a unitary state. So we sow no illusions in the EU and no illusions in Brexit.
As an aside, even the Momentum National Committee had a critical ‘Remain’ position. It passed a resolution, including the following: “The EU promotes neoliberal policies in the interests of capitalism – but so does the UK. The British ruling class and government will press ahead with attacks in or out…” It called for “cross-European working class and social movement struggles against austerity and for levelling up wages, conditions, services and rights, funded by taxing the rich and public ownership of finance”. The Momentum NC committed itself to using the slogans “Another Europe is possible”, “For a workers Europe” and “For a socialist Europe” and on the basis of the defence of migrants, anti-austerity and international solidarity agreed to campaign nationally for “in”. The resolution was fundamentally left-reformist in tone and lacking important elements, but it was one that Marxists could critically support.
Following the referendum result, Alan Woods wrote, “The predictions of the Remain camp of a severe economic crisis are based on fact. A crisis in Britain is now being prepared that will hit the working class hard.” We have to ask, in view of the Socialist Appeal position to abstain, is a post-Brexit economic crisis a matter of indifference to Marxists? Should the Marxists, having anticipated such a crisis, treat it as immaterial? This smacks of the same shoulder-shrugging as the analysis of the General Election defeat in 2015, when the British EC argued that it made no fundamental difference who had won the election. “If Miliband had entered Number Ten instead of Cameron,” the EC wrote, “what difference would that have made?”
In fact, Marxists never revel in or gloat over economic crisis, or wish these ills on working people, even if they are an inevitable feature of capitalism. Economic crises lower workers’ living standards and although they occasionally provoke struggle and resistance, they are just as likely to create demoralisation and despair. Should Marxists simply fold their arms when we are aware that a certain policy will lead to the working class being “hit hard”? We cannot, on the one hand predict that the workers will be “hit hard” and, on the other hand, argue that it makes no difference.
As a result of leaving the EU, disinvestment could well create mass unemployment and the break-up of what few industrial communities still survive in Britain; and the devaluation of the pound will create inflation, causing a further rise in poverty, hunger and panic. What effect will this have on the class struggle? De-industrialisation may further weaken the cohesion and combativity of the working class and growing poverty can only dislocate communities and contribute to a mood of despair. Anticipating an economic crisis was an important argument against the many illusions peddled by the Brexit campaign, which, among other things, implied that the British economy would boom once it was out of the clutches of the EU.
In relation to the new climate of xenophobia after the referendum, Alan Woods writes, “There is nothing new about the veiled racist message peddled by Ukip, of course. But there is something new about the way in which this poison, which was hitherto regarded as unacceptable by the mainstream political parties, has now become acceptable. A poisonous atmosphere has been introduced into British politics.” Once again, we have to ask, seeing this scenario unfold – and it was entirely foreseeable– are we content to fold our arms, when the overwhelming majority of labour and trade union activists saw it coming and warned against it?
Alan Woods argued that “…it makes little difference to the working class whether Britain remains in the EU or not.” In the long run this is true, as it made no difference in the long run who won the General Election of 2015. But the long run isn’t everything in politics. There is also the short term and the medium term and the changes in consciousness of workers week by week and day by day and the lessons learnt day by day. We cannot on the one hand accept that racism “has now become acceptable” and that an economic crisis has been triggered that will “hit the working class hard” – and then just shrug our shoulders and say “we abstained, because, you see, in the long run, all of this would have happened anyway”. This is sectarianism, the policy of haughty Marxists, pure and aloof and standing in splendid isolation from the real, living, experiences of the best activists and the working class.
The main issue in the referendum was the National question and British (or, more correctly, English) nationalism. In the context where the predominant tone of the Brexit camp was racist and xenophobic, where illusions were being peddled about the supposed economic benefits of leaving – and who can forget the promised extra £350m a week for the NHS? – it was the duty of Marxists to stand alongside the overwhelming majority of the labour movement, while at the same time offering our own analysis and our own programme. We are currently IN the EU and there was no benefit in leaving, in creating new borders and more protectionist measures. It was a case of telling workers we are holding our noses and voting ‘Remain’. As a ‘No’ vote was in 1975, it was a ‘Remain’ vote, but a tactical vote, without illusions. We cannot say to workers that “it makes no difference, so don’t bother voting” and then, afterwards, say “now the workers will suffer from racist attacks and economic hardship” – as if we hadn’t seen it coming.
The EU referendum was not about free trade or protectionism; although those issues were implicit, they were really peripheral in the discussion. But the position of Socialist Appeal in the referendum has been partly explained by the view of Marx on the Free Trade Controversy in nineteenth century Britain. In his article following the EU referendum, Alan Woods wrote, “In the 19th century Karl Marx faced a similar situation when there was a split in the British ruling class on the question of protectionism or free trade. Marx considered the question and came to the conclusion that although in principle free trade was more progressive than protection; he nevertheless recommended that the workers should abstain from supporting either side in this dispute.”
Putting the address of Marx in context, there had been a Free Trade Congress organised in Brussels by British manufacturers, to promote the idea of Free Trade on continental Europe. The British capitalists, with an overwhelming predominance in technique and manufacturing capacity, wanted to offload their produce onto European markets, without tariffs or trade barriers. Marx had put his name down to speak at the convention, but it closed before he could speak and so his address was delivered instead to the Democratic Association of Brussels.
Marx outlined the hypocrisy of the British capitalists – and indeed, the capitalist class of other countries – who used protectionist or free trade measures according to what was best for their interests at any one particular time. There were no sacred ‘principles’ involved at all. By 1847, British manufacturers were banging the drum for free trade because they had such a huge advantage in productive capacity and technique that they could mass produce goods at lower cost than all the European manufacturers and push them out of the market.
Among the proponents of free trade, Marx explained, were those who pretended that free trade was in the interests of the working class. “…generally speaking,” he argued, “all those who advocate Free Trade do so in the interests of the working class.” But it was sheer hypocrisy, he pointed out, for these people to pretend to have the best interests of the workers at heart, when the very same manufacturers were vigorously opposing the attempts to limit the working day even to ten hours!
Marx utterly demolished the idea that the ‘Free Trade movement’ was in any way in the interests of workers. But he also explained that those arguing for protectionist measures were equally doing so in their own class interests and not at all in the interests of working people. Marx came down on the side of free trade, but only from a revolutionary perspective, because it helped to develop capitalism and therefore hasten the day when it would reach its limits and be replaced. He summed up his view as follows: “In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the social revolution. In this Revolutionary Sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favour of Free Trade.”
In his preface to the publication of Marx’s address, Engels repeated the same idea forty years later: “The question of Free Trade or Protection moves entirely within the bounds of the present system of capitalist production, and has, therefore, no direct interest for us Socialists who want to do away with that system. Indirectly, however, it interests us, inasmuch as we must desire the present system of production to develop and expand as freely and as quickly as possible”
But the question we need to ask is this: to what extent is this view of Marx – nearly 170 years ago – relevant to the discussion on the European Union today?
Reading the address of Marx, and Engels’ preface, it is clear that the suggestion of Alan Woods that Marx “recommended that the workers should abstain from supporting either side in this dispute” is somewhat disingenuous. The issue was never posed by Marx in that way and he made no such recommendation. And why would he? – it would have been pointless, given that workers had no vote. The labour movement was in its infancy even in industrial Britain and although the Chartists were campaigning for universal suffrage, only 8 per cent of the adult population had a vote. This narrow franchise was so heavily biased towards the middle-class, tenant farmers, shop-keepers and professionals that workers simply had no say in the question. There was therefore no question of workers and activists in the movement asking, ‘which way should I vote?’ as there was in the EU referendum campaign.
In a much more modern context of war and revolution in Europe in 1917, Trotsky wrote in his Programme for Peace, on the slogan of a United Socialist States of Europe. “If the capitalist states of Europe succeeded in merging into an imperialist trust, this would be a step forward as compared with the existing situation, for it would first of all create a unified, all-European material base for the working class movement. The proletariat would in this case have to fight not for the return to “autonomous” national states, but for the conversion of the imperialist state trust into a European Republican Federation.”
Any citation from Marx, Engels or Trotsky has to be put in some kind of context and there is not a single instance when there is an exact “fit” to modern circumstances. The precise application of this or that political lesson or argument needs to be discussed, not simply wheeled out as rote. But it is certainly arguable that this comment of Trotsky’s has far more bearing on the EU referendum than that of Marx’s on Free Trade, made seventy years earlier. It certainly does not mean that Trotsky had any illusions in the possibility of there being a European ‘unity’ on a capitalist basis, but it does argue – as the IMT has argued many times in the past – that the erection of new or enhanced barriers between nations is a reactionary step. Those arguing for Brexit – a one hundred per cent reactionary campaign, according to the IMT – were fostering illusions in a British Government and British economy being ‘independent’ of the EU and in the final analysis, when workers asked Marxists how to vote, Marxists ought to have said, “Remain”, while at the same time putting forward their view and their analysis, distinguishing them from the labour and trade union leaders with so many illusions in the EU
The question of the EU referendum is one of many important issues – we would include the disastrous tactic of political work in the SSP sect in Scotland (now dubbed “an experiment”), Perspectives for the Labour Party (a “dead” Party only a year ago) and Perspectives for Momentum (which have turned 180 degrees) – that ought to have been actively and closely scrutinised by the membership of the IMT in Britain. Unfortunately, documents and commentary written in opposition to the line of the leadership have not been made available to members and there has been no attempt to discuss differences at local or regional level. The IMT leadership in Britain has adopted for itself a Papal Infallibility and even when it turns partly to a correct direction, as in the case of the Labour Party, it is done without an honest appraisal of its false positions of the past. This is not the method of Marxism and it is not an approach that will build a solid and substantial basis for Marxist ideas among workers or youth.
John Pickard
Darrall Cozens
August 10 2016
