I CANNOT recall ever having felt impelled to rush to Chris Harman's defence before, but frankly I thought that you dis. torted his article (Reviews, SO No.1), and I think there is an issue of journalistic standards You argue that: "Harman's view deeply underestimates the multilateral relationships that are devel. oping between capitalist classes ... he passes over tac way that vest ment moves increasingly between capitalist classes within these three areas (Japan, North America and Western Europe)."
Yet on page 7.8 of Harman's ar. ticle this is exactly what he argues:
"The largest multinationals do not invest evenly across the globe. Most trade and investment is between advanced countrics...nearly two thirds of the world is virtually written off as far as direct investment is concerned."
Harman then produces figures derived from Hirst and Thompson showing that US and Japanese multinationals are still mainly based on their home markets (US 70 per cent of manutacturing assets, Japan 97 per cent).
While European ones with smaller home markets are more "globalised", British multinationals are the least national with only 39 per cent of manufacturing assets in the UK.
The fact that British and US many other UK companies are heavily involved in Europe is behind the present split in the Tory part.
The anti-Europeans are actually not Little Englanders but Atlanticists who want to disrupt the for. mation of a powerful European The economic politics of Thatcherism have produced a condition of "weak cohesion in the British economy. 25 per cent of manufacturing in the UK is forcign owned with an equal split between the US and Europe and a lesser proportion of Japanese capital.
In this sense Harman's comment that "Talk of Europe as an economic power is ... in the realm of fantasy" is correct.
If you had then gone on to complete his quote, you would have shown that it said: "Europe is not one entity, but a squabbling coalition of rival states, whose capital ists confront one another as well as those of the US and Japan."
This is quite true.
In fact i think Alan Thornett's article "From Maastricht to Amsterdam" almost implies that a European superstate is already an agreed policy among the capitalist class. Far from it, as the divisions on this issue amongst the ruling class show.
The acuteness of these divisions OVERSEAS SUBSCRIBERS: special introductory offer extended for one SEND TO, Socialist Outlook, PO Box 1109, London 14 2UU government which does not actually have a clear policy on them, places grcat responsibility on the forces of the socialist left.
It is important to oppose the effects of Maastricht and the Dublin summit and to campaign against them at a European level. The whole left should be involved in this. However, I think it is equally important to defend the laca that inercare sorudous prive we Socialist United States of Europe Such solutions include local and industry-wide strikes against cuts, reviving the idea that energy and serv. 3CCS manufacturing should be publicis and the key sectors owned and policies directed, and nationalisation of financial institutions.
Fighting Maastricht with purely democratic demands is not going to work. If we're going to argue at that level then I think that the defenders of the British monarchy might win over those arguing for a kuropcan con stituent Assembly.
The point of your review seems te be that the SWP may be dragging it heels over supporting your "Euro March" initiative. Well, perhaps so but scoring a factional point should never be an excuse for distorting what someone has written, especially wher. you can so casily be found out by peo ple who bother to read the original ar ticle.
John Laurence Age….....
more month: 12 issues for just £15.00 (normal subscription price £20). Please send me 12 issues of Socialist Outlook. I enclose a cheque/order for