Americas
Europe
Africa & Middle East
Indian subcontinent
Asia Pacific
News
Analysis
Economy
Environment
Oppression
The Basics
Science &
Culture
Marxist Theory
History
Publications
Links
Workers Power Global, London
The Euro has arrived and no amount of scare stories from the Sun and the Daily Mail can hide the fact that, from the Euro-bosses' point of view, it's a massive success.
But in Britain it's a different story. The right wing opponents of the Euro are setting the agenda: "saving the pound" is about the only issue on which the Tories can still get a hearing among working class people.
There are two parts to Tory euroscepticism: symbolism and self-interest. When they talk about Sterling "symbolising Britain's greatness" they are kidding themselves.
Sterling was a world currency in the 19th century, when Britain had no major rivals for world domination. But the real fuss about the "Sterling area" took place during Britain's long decline as an imperial power in the first 45 years of the 20th century, when Britain could not - and the USA would not - assume the role of the leading imperialist power.
Sterling was kicked from pillar to post by the USA in the post-war period and then devalued by Harold Wilson's Labour government. Sterling's "greatness" will only come back if you are prepared to accept wooden ships and steam trains with it.
In fact, adopting the pound as a symbol of right-wing politics is symbolic mainly of the bankruptcy of Toryism faced with globalisation. In one respect the Tory position is a triumph of ideology over class interest a fact that has gone a long way towards making Blair's New Labour a more natural party of bourgeois government for those who run Britain's big businesses.
But there is a rational element of ruling class self interest involved in Euro-scepticism It is couched in terms of "controlling our own economy". But, since many British firms are owned partly or wholly by American, Japanese, German and French bosses, you have to look at the wider context to understand this.
The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 laid the basis for the Euro. It involved crucially giving up economic control of monetary policy - which sets interest rates and inflation targets - completely. It also involves strict limits on the amount governments can spend and borrow: 60 per cent and 3 per cent of GDP respectively, with stiff penalties for those who break the rules.
The Euro-bosses have been willing to do this because, with the emergence of the single market in the 1980s, the currencies were converging anyway around the strongest one, the German D-Mark. What they lose in terms of control, the core imperialist countries gain back again at the level of Eurozone economic policy. The Maastricht Treaty was a profoundly neo-liberal document: advocating and requiring the systematic break up of nationalised industries and "national" economic policies and making the European Central Bank attack inflation as single-mindedly, if necessary, as Maggie Thatcher in the 1980s.
Britain's bosses are divided about the benefits of this. Manufacturers and bankers are generally in favour; but those who make money out of the big "service" sectors - everything from hospital cleaning to private railways - have tended to oppose the Euro.
Because of its neo-liberal strictures, socialists oppose the Maastricht Treaty. A socialist government would certainly not have signed it. However we also oppose as utopian the little England (and even overtly pro-American) economic stance of Maastricht's right wing opponents.
However, since 1992 a majority has emerged in the labour movement in favour of the Euro: most union leaderships back the Euro and all wings of the cabinet now say they are in favour in principle.
Why has the Euro conquered the hearts and minds of the reformist leaders? Quite simply because of the compromises forced out of the European ruling class in practice during the creation of Economic and Monetary Union. The unwritten deal is this: the bosses will privatise what's left of the state sector - or deregulate it. But they will protect jobs where possible and at all times work through "social partnership" with works councils and consultation the order of the day.
The Maastricht Treaty also had a "social chapter". No guarantee, certainly, of any actual social gains but an outline of a general stance in favour of welfare and social inclusion that marks the Euro-capitalists out from those in the USA and Japan.
Of course partnership and consultation have in practice worked to weaken working class independent forms of organisation and in countries where the far right is growing, the collusion of the official workers' movement with the bosses' Euro project, in all its undemocratic labour aristocratic glory, has been a factor in alienating a section of the working class.
So far, the Euro-project has not had to deal with a recession. If it does it will cause cracks and fissures in the Euro ruling classes. A regime designed to bear down on inflation is not needed when deflation threatens. But if you want to boost the economy rather than damp it down, you have to have a struggle over who gets what.
Marxists' attitude to the Euro starts from our goal of a Socialist United States of Europe. So why don't we just advocate accepting the Euro as a step along the way? In the first place because the Euro does not unite "Europe" - only the western, imperialist half of it. Secondly, because it has been built on an overtly anti-working class treaty, which is an obstacle to state ownership, high public spending and working class self-organisation. Thirdly because the Euro project is a far sighted political project by the centre-left of the bourgeoisie to create a pan-European imperialism.
But socialists won't join or take part in a campaign against the Euro based on nationalism or economic isolation. The argument that "to get socialism we need control of the economy" is correct: but the economy in Britain is part of the European economy. The socialist transformation of Britain in isolation from Europe is 10 times more an illusion today than it was in the 1950s and 60s, when most of the left were anti-EU.
So now the Euro is a reality, and New Labour is getting ready for a "yes" campaign, what should socialists say? Our position is that if the bosses want a single currency we will fight to make sure it is not adopted at our expense. In a straight yes or no vote in a referendum we would argue for workers to abstain.
But we would use the run up to the Euro-referendum to campaign for a socialist Euro action programme in the Euro-zone. Around the 2004 Inter-Governmental Conference, which is set to lash up an undemocratic quasi-constitution for the EU, we will argue for a Euro-wide constituent assembly with the Euro-governmental bodies accountable only to elected representatives.
The Euro means there is a pressing need for a pan-European labour movement organisation. The European TUC has done nothing as jobs have been slashed: it is addicted to "social partnership" at the expense of the working class living standards. We need a militant pan European Labour movement.
For millions of young people and progressive people in mainland Europe, the Euro symbolises, however vaguely, the idea of internationalism and progress. But as the months drag on after the Euro-launch, as recession deepens, the shine will come off the new money. When you've got no money, it doesn't matter whether it's a Euro a yen a dollar or a pound.
|
Site search |
Read more
What is imperialism?
Capitalism and the state
Visit these websites:
Destroy IMF
WTO (or not!)
They rule
[A bit slow and needs Flash, but interesting nonetheless]