¢ uw oo whe A. BA , oth st a f iy}: ' I, ; /
eg eel Vol. 1. No. 37/8 Price Sixpence Sept. 18th 1962
It is clear from the way that the Commonwealth Prime liinisters' talks are going that the Government is determined, against all opposition, to take Britain into the Common Iiarket. The Tory Party, as usual, is expressing the interests of the decisive and most highly monopolised sections of British capitalism in this policy. The latter have the most to gain from entry because they are in the best position to compete with West mropean capitalism, and, on the other hand, the most to lose by being kept out of the expanding West -suropean market by the 'common tariff,'
Opposition to entry is srowing. ‘The harshness of the terms insited upon by the 'Six', the growing realisation of the consequences of entry by certain section, e.g, the farmers, and the campaign by the various opposing forces have all contributed to a swing in 'public opinion! against entry. The non-entrists, a really 'broad' movement ranging from the Leaue of Empire Loyalists, Lords Beaverbrook and liontgomery, the "True Blue Tories", over to Briginshaw and his Forward Britain Movement, Tribune and co., and the Commnist Party all argue that the benefits accriiing from entry (to British capitalism) will be negated by the damage done (to British capitalism). Briginshaw speaks from the same platform as Hinchingbroke and General Hilton, of the True Blue Torics; the Forward Britain Tiovement stresses its non-party character and tells people not to bring party banners on its demonstrations; just as tho Daily Worker enthusiatically reports praise that its editor recoived from a luading Tory for the line taken at an anti- Common Ilarkot demonstration.
Supporters of entry include nearly all the capitalist press, influential bourgeois journals like the Economist, the bulk of the Tory Party, the Liberal Party, and Labour Party supporters who range from Roy Jenkins (and his Labour Party Common Market Committee) to Bob Jidwards of the Chemical Workers Union. In the eyes of the mass of the people the big argument is between these two camps. Ilarxists have not succeeded in presenting an alternative to both. To present such an altcrnaive case is the crying need of the situation.
The marxist alternative is based upon a class appraisal of the whole question. The Common Iiarket represents an attempt by the capitalists of Westorn -urope to adapt themselves to the realities of the latter half of the 20th century, to strengthen themselves in face of the working class, in face of the colonial revolution, in face of the workers states and in face of U.%. imperialism. Insofar as it represents as an attempt to consolidate and preserve capitalism, °‘arxists are bound to oppose the Common Ilarket. But to any such proposal --arxists must pose &@ positive alternative - in a crude way the Common liarket represents the recognit— ion by the most far-soeing capitalists that national boundaries act as fetters on the productive forces, that the elaborate structure of tariffs, import controls, ctce, is completely outmoded. IMarxists have recognised this for a long time and have posed the alternative of the United Socialist States of aurope, as a step towards a world federation of Socialist States.
The cynic will respond that it is utopian to speak of the United Socialist States of urope just now. Our answer is that such a slogan embodies a strategic aim which in turn determines our basic oricnitation and tactics. Ve fight for a Socialist Britain (not based on Commonwealta preferences, but based upon an economic alliance with all the world's progressive forces - the workers states, the colonial revolution, etc.) as a step towards a United docialist states of uurope. in integral part of this fight is the struggle for unity in action by workers' organisations to meet the threat to workers conditions arising from the Common liarket (and especially Britain's entry which would mark a new stage in this respect), an embodied in the slogan for a conference of workers organisations, To the united front of West suropean capitalists we must counterpose the united front of West uropean workers, From unity in action can come unity in a theoretical understanding of the necessity of the United Socialist States of urope.
There are signs that wide sections of the Labour liovement would respond to such a policy - one which is in keeping with a basic working class approach and in the traditions of the movement. Small steps can be made g ediately by fighting _ for solidarity in all struggles, 1% a good beginning wou nave some means \reby the Labour li: vements of Br in ana ‘ie countries 'Six!' are informed
yach others' struggles.