the Common Market The capitalist press is angry with Mr. Wilson: the headlines and editorials show that there is no such thing as gratitude in polities. It shouldn't be; Wilson is doing his best-be has the difficult task of trying to remain leader of the Labour Party, court electoral popularity and carry out policies devoted to the best interests of British capitalism -all at once. On top of this, he had a challenge from a wing of the Labour Party which-absurdity of absurdities wants him to be consistent and "honest". Jenkins, Brown & Co., of course, have old scores to settle, but they also have an eye to the future. Yes, Wilson has problems-no wonder he has started talking about his "principles".
The Tribunites have, of course and as usual, come to his aid. The resolution which Labour's NEC is to propose to the conference in October hes all the hallmarks of the semantic dexterity of Foot, Castle and Co. Foot certainly looks like getting the job at present held by Jenkins, deputy leader, in retum, unless, of course, be allows himself to be persuaded by Wilson to desist on the grounds that it would hurt the Interests of "party unity".
What is involved from a capitalist point of view? Firstly, Wilson has to appesr to be in opposition to the Common Market. The alternative would be a cat and dog fight within the Labour Party. This could do more than possibly lose Wilson his post-it could very well take away one of the components of the stability of British political life: a peaceful Labour Party, led from right of centre. In the coming industrial and political struggles, British capitalism needs a relatively stable Labour Party.
Secondly, whilst appeuring to be opposed to the Common Market the Labour Party will probably do nothing which will seriously hinder entry. There is a problem here: the capitalist class is split; a small sector is opposed to entry. This split has its reflection Inside the Tory Party and on its Parliamentary benches. A combination of a solid bloc of Labour votes against and some Tory abstentions and even votes against could place Mr. Heath's majority in jeopardy.
The fiasco of the Labour Party conference at the Central Hall on July 17th showed that the political crisis provoked by the drive of British capital into the Common Market is still finding its greatest reflection in the Labour movement. Two weeks before, the Tory White Paper had appeared, and spelt out, in one of the most fraudulent political documents of all time, the central strategy for the reconstruction of British capitalism out of its present chronic difficulties. But the Labour Party conference was, needless to say, unable. to take a clear and unequivocal stand against this strategy. The outcome, far from being a victory for the "antiCommon Market" forces, was a defeat for the working class. It was a betrayal of the workers who have held the line against the Tories' attacks on the wages front, and who have been looking for a political lead, particularly from the trade union leadership, on this key issue.
What did they get instead? Why was the resolution for a conference decision defeated by over half a million votes? The short answer is that the so-called "left" M.P.s and trade union leaders split, with half of them backing Wilson's manoeuvres in the party leadership hattle. We can sympathise with the bitter feelings which Scanion expressed, and particularly with the DATA delegates who walked out in disgust. They were stabbed in the back by the UPW and the NUM, and also by Jack Jones who refused to come to the platform and speak for a policy his union was committed to. Together with lan Mikardo's decisive intervention, and "scrupulous fairness" in letting the right wing have equal speaking time, this poralysed the conference.
The breakdown of the anti-market alliance at the conference reflects an even deeper confusion of policy in that camp. We will leave aside the spectacle of Michael Foot wildly applauding Douglus Jay, one of the old Gaitskellite clique, who has always opposed entry on the most reactionary nationalist grounds. The multitude of views on the so-called "left" is in itself of special interest. What they all lacked was a scrap of socialist internationalisms, or any policy for fighting against the Tories and European capitalists. Michael Foot restricted himself to attacking the burden on the balance of payments, Value Added Tax, the burden in Thirdly, there must be no danger of Labour taking Britain out of the Common Market if returned to power. This prospect would introduce such elements of instability that the whole strategy based upon entry would be meaningless Faced with these considerations, Wilson had to "come off the fence"- the leader writers should congratulate him for his rubber-spined performance. The NEC resolution meets the above requirements. It enables him to posture as the uniffer of the Labour Party od the basis of opposition to the Common Market. It carefully qualifies opposition as being on tbe present terms. The resolution specifically avoids instructing the pro-Marketeers to vote against entry. It merely invites them to take the resolution into account.
The resolution says nothing about the position of a future Labour Government after Britain has entered che BEC. Wilson, by taking the helm of apparent opposition to entry has won the right to keep his options open on that issue. Had he been "honest" a la Jenkins, he would have lost his ability to head that issue off.
As for the demand for a general election apart from noting the fact that the Labour Party has been won over to the "revolutionary" demand of the SLL-it is only necessary to say that never will a Conservative government in power call an election which it is doomed to lose. The demand is, however, purely rhetorical.
All, however is not plain sailing. The deep disquiet in the Labour movement over the Common Market is part of a generalised anti-capitalist feeling which is deepening because of the Tory government's offensive against the working class. So far, at the base the Tribunites and the Communist Party have been able to channel this feeling along chauvinistle lines. But elemental class pressures will make this operation more and more difficult.
This squalid affair shows the bankruptcy of figbting a capitalist offensive with capitalist solutions. Just as the TUC now finds the Tory government has stolen its policy of a 4Se growth rate, now the Tribunites and the C.P. find financial und price terms of the EEC'sagricultural policy, and the loss of British sovereignty. Tom Jackson's (UPW) contribution amounted to an argument about the terms"We speak, " he said, "for the people of Britain"; and Dan MeGarvey played on old fears and prejudices by pointing to the possibility of a German finger on the nuclear trigger. Anthony Judge, from Surbiton Labour Party, and editor of the Police Federation jourual, Police News, described the EEC us "an obscenity" (sic), It was left to Eric Heffer to give his camp some "theoretical" backbone of a rather familiar kind. "We have a responsibility to the British people," Heffer said, "and to the British working class above all. We believe that there is an alternative by at lust getting down to the building of a socialist Britain. " Heffer had earlier confessed that he had once mistakenly believed that *.. we could get an international socialist Europe as a first step by joining the EEC." Having been disillusioned by that prospect, he now advocates the building of socialism in one country. From Jones and Scanion came the old conference rhetoric - Wilson must make a stand, party decisions must be binding on the M.P.s, no free vote, there must be a campaign, ele. etc. As always, we hope that these fine words will materialise into acts, but we might be forgiven if we don't bank on it either.
There are two fundamental reasons that this opposition to the Common Market in the labour movement remains impotent in the face of the Tories' cumpnign and the equivocations of the Wilson leadership. Firstly the oppositionists turn their backs on fundamental class issues raised by British entry. The Tory government have made very clear the basic premises of their strategy in the White Paper. For them the security of British and even European capitalism can only be maintained by the construction of a West European superpower both to match the challenge of U.S. and Japanese • imperialism on the one hand, and on the other to present a united capitalist front to the workers' states of Eastern Europe. That is what is demunded by the economic reality of the present stage in capital accumulation and concentration-multinational corporations and eventually a suprunational European state. From the point of view of European capitalists British entry will bring strength to this project. For British big capital it seen as the only alternative to the further loss of its shrinking position in the capitalist world markets, und its long term absorption into the sphere of U.S. hegemony.
Seen from this point of view British entry into the EEC emerges as the centrepiece of Tory strategy. Many of the necessary conditions for achieving this step are familior enough to the working class-unemployment, the trade union bill, the depression of wages, the attack on civil liberties and many other repressive measures. All these policies are being pursued to prepare the way for entry, by improving the profitability and competitiveness of Wilson using their arguments about the effect of entry on the balance of payments, ete. There is one extremely positive outcome from all this: despite the phoney issues that are raised, a huge discussion on entry into the Common Market has been stimulated. Millions of workers are now discussing the many involved questions, Revolutionaries can insert into these discussions the two arguments: for working class unity against capitalist unity, and for the strategy of a red Europe aguinst the capitalist EEC.
But propaganda is not enough —action is required. We need to create living links between workers' struggles in the countries of Western Burope. We need to link up the politi. cal struggle of the vanguard for socialist policies on an allEuropean scale. In achieving this, chauvinism is a vicious enemy which must be destroyed. Against the capitalist internationalism of denkins & Co. we must counterpose revolutionary internationalism, bused upon the working class. This means building the international revolutionary vanguard AGAINST THE COMMON MARKET OF THE CAPITALISTS! FOR A WORKERS' EUROPE, A RED EUROPE!
CHAUVINISM: insular nationalism, speaking of British sovereignty. etc. -from a French saldier, Nicalas Chauvin, renowned for his devation to Napalcon and France1 industry, and by weakening the politicul resolve of the working class It is impossible to fashion a fighting policy out of Eric Heffei's "socialism in one country" and the bleatings about sovereignty from Michael Foot. They both add up to the same thing: petty bourgeois nationalism, one kind hequeathed by Stalin, and the other among the endemic qualities of British social democracy. To take up the struggle against the Common Murket means above ull to fight on un internationalist and socialist programme and against the flag. waving chuuvinists who are waiting-not least in the Tory ranks-to raise the flag of nationalist isolationism. The logic of the struggle against the Tory government demands the extension and deepening of the struggle in common cause with the European workers against the Common Market.
The second reason for the impotence of this opposition is inextricably bound up with its lack of internationalism and a clear class perspective. Over many years these politics have led to opportunism and treachery at the crucial moments in a fight. And for many yeurs these "lefts" have shrunk from the necessury fight with the right-wing leadership of the Labour Party. Today they can do nothing for the same reasons, Without the courage und political will to do battle to the bitter end with Wilson and the whole gang in the upper echelons of the Labour Party, they remain the servants of Wilson. The Common Market question has shown them to be just that.
Two months before the Labour Party conference, the Red Mole argued (Vol. 2n0. 10) that the role of Wilson was to deliver the labour movement at the appropriate moment to the bourgeoisie in support of whatever policy they decide on. We ulso pointed out that this was not so easy for him to do because the Common Market was opposed to both the immediate und long-term class interests of the labour movement. The means for achieving this deception of the working class we now becoming clearer. The Labour Party conference showed above ull that Wilson's strategy is to immobilise the labour movement on this key question by doing everything possible to deluy u clearcut commitment to any form of opposition, and by holding out the bogey of a party split to those who want to fight. The party unity that he speaks of is a unity between, on the one hand, a rotten gang of career labour aristocrats around Roy Jenkins, and the whole spectrum of career politicians in the Labour Party and trade unions, and on the other hand the mass of trade unionists who are pressing their leaders for action. Thar is a umity which holds no future for the working class, and one which must be rejected and fought against. Every action that raises the practical implications of this Tory strategy and the sell-out that Wilson is prepuring on this question, that is, the implications for the socialist and internationalist interests of the working class, prepares the ground for breaking the hegemony of this leadership over