tive of putting itself at the centre of the campaign for a no vote.
There is a problem, however. Although the SA adopted a position on the single currency for its manifesto in last year's general election, this was a line that all the SA's component organisations could accept -rather than a line that would hold water in a referendum.
The manifesto said the follOWIng:
"For a democratic and federal Europe based on solidarity and co-operation. Against the Europe of the bosses, the unelected European Central Bank, and the creation of "Fortress Europe" as a bastion of racism and exploitation. Against British nationalism and the raising of barriers between nations in Europe. No to the monetarist criteria for European Monetary Union -we neither advocate the Euro or defend the pound".
In fact the organisations involved in the SA are divided on row to vote in a reterendum - and the SA as a whole has taken no position on this question.
Whilst the SWP has an analysis which would imply a vote no in an election (as do the Socialist Party, who have walked out of the SA) the CPGB, AWL and Workers Power already advocate an abstention.
Abstainers
Strongest of the abstainers (if that is not a contradiction in terms) is the AWL. They see the EU as a mixture of progressive features with others that are unacceptable. They are strongly opposed to any call for withdrawal, and call for reform.
They argue that it is up to the capitalists how they organise themselves and we should be neutral on the issue of the tional level. introduction of the Euro - simply fighting capitalism whatever form it takes. They counterpose the EU and the Euro to international workers solidarity and caricature those who oppose the euro as supporters of the pound.
This is a strange position to take. If the capitalist class change their form of rule (either on a national or international level) in a way which is detrimental to the working class (i.e. to one that is more effective in carrying through attacks on our rights) we should oppose it.
This does not mean we support the existing form of rule - that is to the detriment of the Don't we all? working class. We have no interest in how many currencies the ruling class wants -only in how it will affect the class struggle. We oppose the single currency, not by supporting the pound but by defending the jobs and services and democracy that it puts under threat. wrong.
The AWL counterpose "workers' unity' to the EU and the Euro. But workers' unity is a concrete issue. We always strive for it, but it takes place under given conditions. We are not in favour seeing the conditions of workers worsen in order to provoke an international response - not least because that is likely in practice to have the opposite effect. point.
Struggles But there is another aspect to this. Although international solidarity is extremely important, the reality is that most struggles take place at the national level - even when the attack is international. This was the case even with the bulk of the sion on the British left. strikes and demostrations in different European countries against the introduction of the convergence criteria in the second half of the 1990s. Therefore to weaken the struggle at the national level is to weaken it at the interna- strand to the debate.
Workers Power rightly see the EU is a union of big business interests manipulated by organisations like the Round Table of European Business leaders and the European tre of it. Employers Association. They think it is a vehicle for neo-lib- the basis of abstention. It eral economics aimed at the oppressed of the third world. They think it is racist towards immigrants and refugees.
Yet they call for an abstention we are going to abstain! rather than a 'no' vote because they want Britain to stay inside cussion on thase issuas to the EU in order to call for simultaneous social revolutions in each of the EU countries and then for the formation of a Socialist United States of political dialogue.
paign of the Tory right, they are cor- John Malcolm argues that I was wrong to suggest that rect. the statement showed that If they are talking about an anti-nation- while the Socialist Party is in favour of a new mass workalistic working class campaign, organised ers party at some future date, it is opposed, in the by socialists, and based on the meantime, to the formation of a new party of the left defence of jobs, services and democ. which is not at this stage a racy, they are mass party. My article in SO 51 was a response to the statement In any case, it is a strange idea issued by the Socialist Party to suggest that those of us who Executive following that don't give a damn for the pound, and oppose the Euro organisation's walkout from the Socialist Alliance conferrom an internationalist standpoint, should abstain from vot- ence last December.
I argued that it was clear ing against an anti-working from that statement that the class project of this kind . SP would logically be simply because others will also opposed, for example, to a vote against it from a com- new party in England on the pletely different political stand- lines of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) in The problem with these positions of the AWL, Workers Power, and the CPGB is that in John Malcolm advised me, for my enlightenment, to the event of a referendum they read the SP's pamphlet The help to ensure that the agenda Case for a New Workers on the single currency remains Party. I have taken his in the hands of the Tory right -advice - and found that not something which has already been worsened by the confu- oniv coes me danoner contain the same political line as the EC statement Sidelines (although the EC statement Their policies would leave the is a cruder version) but that left wringing our hands on the my criticisms of the EC sidelines, with nothing to say, statement apply with equal whilst the Tories held forth. force to the pamphlet. There would be no socialist The pamphlet does indeed fail to call anywhere for a This would be a disaster in a new party that is not at this referendum. Precisely what is stage a mass party, and needed is a campaign against remarkably it fails to say the Euro based on the interests anything at all about the rise of the working cla, and with of the SSP. the Socialist Alliance at the cen- In this 24page A4 pamphlet, entirely about a new This would be impossible on party of the working class in Britain, the only mention of makes no sense to working the SSP is in a half senpeople for us to argue that the Tente acre anot a ny-aer single currency is such a big tion result in Scotland! threat to jobs and welfare that If. as John Malcolm claims, the SP fully supports The SA needs to open a dis- the existence of the SSP, this is a very strange way of ensure that by the time deci- showing it. The SSP is after sion making time comes any all the most successful new disagreements which remain are not the result of a lack of broad party of the left launched anywhere in Britain for a long time. The idea that it does not warrant a mention (let alone a thorough analysis) in a pamphlet specifically on the formation of new left parties is bizarre.
The overall framework of the pamphlet, like the statement, is one of economic determinism. It argues that an inevitable economic crisis will trigger an inevitable explosion of working class struggle and a new mass party will emerge out of this.
The class content of this party is unknown, or at least unspecified. We can only assume that it would be old Labour recreated.
Meanwhile preparation for that eventuality should be limiten to lonce federal Socialist Alliances, and various other forms of resistance, which crucially avoid moving towards party structures or becoming parties at this stage.
The model for the SP's new mass party - expounded at great length in the pamphlet - is, predictably, the formation of the Labour Party a hundred years ago!
True, this model (spun in the right way) can be twisted to suit the SP's current argument about federalism. But to entertain the idea - after 100 vears of social democracy, the rise and fall of Stalinism, the emergence of radically difThings have changed a little since these Liberal & Labour MPs arrived at Westminster in 1906: but SP don't seem to have noticed ferent social conditions, and with a trade union movement that has been through a long period of decline -that the early formation of the LP provides the tactical model for the emergence of a new party today is to lose touch with reality.
The formation of the Labour Party was characterised by an extended, tortuous, and incomplete break from Liberalism. The task today is different. It is to reassemble and regenerate the socialist forces scattered by the march to the right of new Labour and the collapse of Stalinism.
It is to link these forces to those, particularly young people, who are radicalising against the new world order. In the unions it is to fight social partnership and redefine the link between the unions and new Labour.
The best way of advancing such a political fight today, and preparing for a new mass party of the future, is not the recreation of old Labour - even if that was possible.
It is the formation of new parties which like the SSP are not yet mass parties but establish the model of broad inclusive socialist parties which can be the basis of a mass development when it comes.