The left case against the EU - Costas Lapavitsas and Alex Callinicos

[@greenleaves3637]

Great to here the left case againstt the EU.

[@johnure3283]

Several interesting issues come out of this discussion (clearly not a debate). First, Alex corrects Costas’ view that this is a clear-cut class divide issue in the UK. On the one hand, Costas asserts, incorrectly in my view, that the great majority of the capitalist class are pro-Remain. It’s impossible to know for sure. Those like Tim Martin who run businesses such the Witherspoon pub chain and who are clearly focused on the UK market, are far more pro-Brexit than those relying upon the EU’s Common Market. But the point of significance is that capitalists can move their capital in and out of the UK and the EU, Brexit or no Brexit. On the other hand, as Alex points out, the working class is divided. The voting figures indicate that younger workers are predominantly pro-Remain and workers in the larger cities are largely pro-Remain - of the larger cities, only Birmingham voted Leave. Newcastle and its much smaller close local rival Sunderland illustrate this perfectly, the former voting to Remain and the latter to Leave despite the implications this obviously has for future investments in the Nissan car factory. Larger cities have more dynamic economies than smaller ones, which explains why they are larger in the first place. Second, Alex and Costas share a view that it is easier for socialists to support national class struggle than to support class struggles across borders. This is a dangerous argument for socialists despite its obvious appeal to logistics. History is replete with examples of struggles across borders, and when those borders are transparent, as in the EU, the opportunities should be viewed with enthusiasm. Alex and Costas give them no reference. Third, Alex views the EU as a “dysfunctional” imperialism. I find this too glib. Every capitalism of size is “imperialist” to some degree, and none has been more so than the UK, which was also a key architect of austerity that became EU policy. But UK imperialism is a shadow of its former self and the creation of the EU is hardly to be explained in terms of its global territorial ambitions. Alex cites the EU imposing its terms of trade regulations on, for example, Switzerland’s access to EU financial markets, but a large part of that regulation is to demand Switzerland puts a stop to aiding and abetting money laundering by companies and rich individuals who are avoiding tax. Surely a socialist government would support such regulation. Without tax revenues, how can a socialist government support public investment and social expenditures? Alex sometimes sounds like an echo of the Tory Brexiteers who complain that the EU is enforcing an Irish backstop to protect its own borders, as if the EU should be the supplicant to the UK in this matter and stop imposing its policies. The demand for no return to a hard border came from both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and not from Angela Merkel as Alex seems to imply - she supported the backstop as a way to support the Irish Government as a Member of the EU. Hardly unexpected. The reason for a backstop was to kick the can down the road, given that there is no solution to the issue. A circle cannot be squared. Alex simply sidesteps these realities, as do all Leavers, yet they are existential issues for both Brexit and the EU. The fourth curious point of the discussion is there is no discussion at all of the underlying economic consequences of Brexit. I would suggest there are three realms of argument: facts, reasoning and sentiment. Fact don’t ‘prove’ anything because they will always be disputed, but the view expressed by the Treasury that the UK could take a ‘hit’ of up to £90 billion cannot be dismissed again as so-called Project Fear - indeed the original projections of Project Fear have turned out to be pretty accurate except for the timescale, but folk easily forget that, except when they look at the value of sterling. The implications for a future Labour Government (even for a future socialist government) and for jobs, wages and social services are rather dire. OK, perhaps not the end of life on that part of Planet Earth known as the UK, but miserable nevertheless. Reasoning is a more substantial basis of argument, such as who can expect Nissan to invest more in Sunderland if access to the EU is tariff-ridden. It’s not a question of capitalist sentiment, but of capitalist reality. Suggestions that capitalists will rally around the British economy is simply putting lipstick on a pig. Sentiment however seems to be the most widespread foundation to the Brexit argument. In an earlier exchange with one SWP comrade, the argument I was given was “give the EU a good kicking”. With another friend (not a socialist as far as I know) it was the Dunkirk spirit all over again. And we all fear that anti-immigrant sentiment is a factor. Alex, to his credit, does at least appeal to reason, namely his assessment of the imperialist nature of the EU, but as suggested above, I find this un-substantive. Fifth, on political economy, a good point Costas makes is that the austerity programme of the EU, which he argues is now hardwired into its institutions, was not part of the original concept of the EU - which was more oriented towards a social market economy. But it is fatalism to suggest that one change cannot be followed by another. Nothing is set in stone, and even under current EU rules the Left seriously under-estimates what governments can do, as the French are rather good at proving as in the case of Renault which was rescued from bankruptcy, unlike British Leyland and other British car manufacturers. EU rules are more to do with forbidding subsidies, but even these can mutate into investments. Nothing is ever fixed in stone in the world of finance or politics if there is a sufficiently strong lobby, and at the end of the day working class solidarity is one hell of a lobby. Sixth, and finally (apologies for the length) back to political perspectives. The EU emerged from a horror of internecine conflict between imperialist powers whereby nation states sent their workers into battle against each other. It is simply the case that this is far more difficult for ruling classes to accomplish if these nation states are integrated into contiguous semi-federal (federal in the case of the USA post-1864) contour of states. Combined and uneven development, cited by Alex, is a given, but a federation of states is far more difficult to mutate into workers versus workers wearing army fatigues and bearing national flags. So I would argue that when Alex and Costas agree with each other that supporting a worker’s movement is easier to accomplish within a nation state, the other side of the coin is that it is also easier for the ruling classes to pitch one nation of workers against another. I think I know which side of the Left-Right divide thinks they are on to a winner on this one.

[@painterQjensen]

product placement ...

[@StephenSchleis]

painterQ yeah it’s kind of shabby. Watching this from the us is harder to see that product while trying to learn about anti capitalism, UK Marxists must try harder, the United States is going through a radicalization and everything matters.