EEC election policy

Scan page 13

KEITH White's letter on the EEC Parliament raises questions about Marxist attitudes to Parliament as well as attitudes to the EEC.

Keith presents his argument as if Marxists relate to Parliament in a country like Britain merely because it is "deeply rooted in the political culture of society" and because workers have illusions in it.

This is only part of the case: we also consider Parliament as a platform for making propaganda, elections as a means of testing the strength of independent working class organisation. Short of a revolutionary situation, general political questions of the administration of society occur at the level of governments based on Parliament. Even in countries with no Parliamentary traditions at all, ed rie demand dot onallonsisLne demane tuent Assembly', a basically Parliamentary institution.

Keith ignores these considerations in his attack on Martin Thomas's view of the European Parliament. As far as Britain is concerned the workers are so imbued with parliamentarism that we (following the Austro-Marxists!) have to find a way to "incorporate Parliamentary institutions into the higher socialist democracy". (In practice these two antagonistic forms of democracy can never both rule at the same time).

But when it comes to Europe ... the workers have no such illusions. Instead we are faced with the syndicalist conception that European workers' unity will occur through common material interests with no political reflections.

Of course it is not 'pre-ordained' that EEC institutions play a role in the development of European workers' unity. No more is it 'pre-ordained' that economic or disarmament issues wil actually create European workers'unity.

The issue is not crystal-ball gazing but what demands Marxists put forward to help bring that unity into existencé. Clearly we must put forward economic demands on a Europe-wide basis, but alone they are not enough. Any serious united struggle against multinational capital and governmental austerity plans would begin to throw up issues that can only be resolved by political action on a European scale.

Incomplete Nationalisation of a COIT ipal like Ford is incomplete on 1 a nE The EEC Parliament ional level given the interdependence of plants across Europe making different parts for Ford cars. Action to equalise working conditions and benefits, and on issues such as equal pay - let alone more clearly ""political' issues — all have legislative aspects on a European scale, as well as being the object of struggle in the workplaces.

Clearly the EEC Assembly is not the ideal institution around which to focus demands. But next year we will be faced with elections to the Assembly in which we will have to put forward a programme for the labour movement: are we to gE ditch all the political issues for fear of 'creating illusions'?

One part of this programme must be to give those institutions effective power to be able to carry out other parts of our Positive In fact, a positive position will in any case have the opposite effect. To the extent that we convince workers that they must look for political solutions on a Europe-wide basis, we begin to break down chauvinist and nationalist divisions and myths about the 'Parliamentary sovereignty' of Westminster.

2000 Send letters to Socialist Organiser 28 Middle Lane, London N8. No longer than 400 words please: longer letters are liable to be cut.

We have to say positively that we are for a United States of Europe - not just on the basis of the present EEC. This is far from creating illusions.

The national stage - including Parliament - is no longer an adequate arena for politics. The capitalists realised this many years ago, but, because of their conflicting interests, they are unable to carry that integration through. We need to make sure the labour movement realises this too. Creating a Europe-wide political arena is part of that fight.