The C.P. and the Common Market

Hence Lukács tries to see the whole of literature in terms of how well or badly a work illustrates this pre-conceived, and it must be said, THE TITLE of John Gollan's Communist Party pamphlet, "The Common Market: why Britain should not join it' is already a programme.

Instead of presenting a policy for the working class of Britain and of Europe to fight monopoly capitalism and the ruling class, Gollan sees the question as one of loss of national sovereignty and thus of the ability of a British government to 'advance to socialism'.

Beginning with the theory that each country advances to socialism independently, the whole approach to the European Common Market is made one of loss of sovereignty.

Even from this point of view Gollan writes his pamphlet not on the basis of the actual struggles between the different national governments representing the ruling class of each member country, but from the texts and documents of the Common Market itself.

Integration

The supranational apparatus, the bureaucracy of the Common Market, has not yet by any means superseded national sovereignty.

Nor is there any sign, in the near future, that real and effective steps will be taken towards political or even economic integration as set out in vague terms in the Treaty of Rome.

In fact, it is not this bureaucracy which is the main danger for the working class, but their own ruling class and employers.

It may be true, as Gollan puts it, that 'the logical extension of the EEC idea is for a single West European capitalist state which in all aspects of policy, foreign and military as well as economic, is centrally controlled in the interests of the super-trusts' Bitter But the differences between the national sections of the European ruling class, as well as between the big monopolies in fields like motor cars, chemicals and electronics, are deep and bitter.

The Common Market institutions, far from constituting a ready-made framework for some kind of 'super-imperialism', , are a cockpit of struggle for the long-standing historical rivalries between the ruling class and big capitalist interests of the European states.

Limitations These ruling classes and monopolists are forced to establish institutions like the Common Market because the developments in technology and large-scale economic organization beat against the limitations of the old state frontiers which are part of the social relations of capitalism. God-given. human Because he looks on litera. ture and art as illustrative of a pre-existent reality, he fails to grasp literature as one of the ways in which man struggles to develop his consciousness of the world and develop weapons to control it.

But they cannot solve their problems in this way.

They only carry the conflicts to a higher level.

Brought together, too, by fear of the working class and by the pressure of the noncapitalist states of eastern Europe, they are, nonetheless, incapable of resolving their differences or of really unifying Europe.

National

It is therefore not enough to conclude, with Gollan, that 'The Common Market and its institutions are the monopolists' dream and the monopolists' creation'.

When Gollan considers the arguments about Britain's entry he does so from a typically national standpoint: will it or will it not help overcome 'Britain's plight'?-will it be in 'the interests of Britain'?— will it help the economy to grow faster?

Some of the 'authorities' he quotes against the Common Market from this point of view are, like William Pickles and Douglas Jay, on the extreme right-wing of the Labour They, like Gollan, fear that entry into the Common Market will mean 'the loss of control over Britain's economic future'.

Law-making

They fear, like Gollan, that parliament would lose many of its law-making powers to the Common Market bureaucracy and its supra-national institutions (see page 18 of Gollan's pamphlet).

What a pity it would be for 'the mother of parliaments' what revisions of 'The British Road to Socialism' would be necessary!

Referring to the powers the Common Market would take over, Gollan wails: 'With these vital powers in the hands of the Common Market, British control and direction of the economic life and functioning of Britain would virtually cease to exist.

In other words the type of economic counter-programme now demanded by the left would be impossible once we were in the Common Market'.

Programme

And he goes on to add:

'At present we have the power to compel parliament to change government policy.' This is certainly a programme - a good, social-democratic, retormist programme anticipating gradual measures towards socialism, not even by capturing a parliamentary majority, but by pressure on parliament.

Such a programme, in the epoch of imperialism, the domination of the big monopolies and the use of the state power against the working class and its organizations in Britain, France and Italy, is not only obsolete, it is reactionary and counter-revolutionary.

The fight against the Common Market on this basis can only be a sham fight.

The French and Italian Communist Parties have led the way in this for over a decade and now accept in practice the existence of the Common Market and work within it.

To make the question of the 'sacrifice of British sovereignty' the central one is to avoid the class issues which are involved.

It means that the Communist Party is prepared to enter an alliance of anti-Common Market, 'anti-monopoly' on a non-class basis.

Coat-tails

When Gollan quotes approvingly from constitutional lawyers on the powers of parliament he shows that he has tied himself to the ideological coat-tails of the bourgeoisie.

There is not a grain • of Marxism in this pamphlet. Lenin might never have written 'Imperialism'. With slight modifications it could appear under the imprint of the Fabian Society or "Tribune'.

In obedience to the needs of the Soviet bureaucracy Gollan makes a big point about the need for 'a firm system of European security' based on an understanding between the West European countries and the Warsaw Pact (the Soviet Union and its East European allies) and the opening up of East-West trade.

But these recipes for confusion are just as illusory as the rest.

The all-European Security Pact was supposed to include all states, irrespective of their social systems. In other words, the monopolies would continue to rule in half of Europe.

How can the big monopolies and the European bourgeoisie accept this kind of 'peaceful co-existence'?

Gollan does not tell us because this part of his pamphlet contradicts mucl. of what he has previously written about the role of the mammoth international monopolies.

What the bureaucracy evidently has in mind is a peaceful co-existence of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, of the EEC and COMECON.

Liquidation

The co-operation of all European states irrespective of social systems, the liquidation of military blocs and the diversion of resources now used for armaments to housGollan: Supports right-wing Labourite Douglas Jay's arguments against entry. ing, education, social services and pensions is a petty-bourgeois Utopia.

Of course, having assumed this, it is not difficult for Gollan to say what might be done if, 'Instead of undermining British sovereignty and the power of parliament and giving up control over the most vital areas of economic policy, which entry into the Common Market entails, we should, by mass political campaigning, ensure that the sovereign power is used to introduce an entirely new alternative economic policy in Britain' (p. 27).

But to quote this sentence is to reveal the whole conception which underlies his pamphlet.

This is a concrete application of 'socialism in one country' a reactionary, nationalist and narrow petty-bourgeois doctrine which, as a matter of fact, has nothing to do with socialism as understood by Marxists.

Answer

There is a belated appeal, right at the end of Gollan's. pamphlet, for co-operative action by the trade unions of western Europe and this is said to be 'the real answer to the Common Market' But where has Gollan been all these years since the signing of the Treaty of Rome?

Doesn't he know that there are mass Communist Parties in France and Italy, both inside the Common Market, which control powerful trade union federations?

Has he forgotten the existence of the World Federation of Trade Unions to which they belong?

Isn't he able to tell us one thing about the struggle of these Communist Parties and trade unions against the Common Market in a pamphlet of 28 pages of pandering to nationalist sentiment ?

The answer is no, because as Gollan knows it would be more than a little embarrassing to have to admit that the Communist Parties of France and Italy have confined themselves to verbal criticisms and actually pursue a policy of live-and-let-live with the Common Market.

Pitiful

Perhaps they are waiting for Britain to go in so that the powerful forces of the Communist Party of Great Britain, under the leadership of John Gollan, can give them courage which they need to fight it!

All that can be said in conclusion is that this is a pitiful effort which exposes once more the CP's theoretical bankruptcy and political misleadership.

The Common Market can only be fought as part of the class struggle in Britain and internationally which puts as its goal leading the working class to power in the capitalist countries and in the states of East Europe and the formation of a United Socialist States of Europe.