NuioDoID The Labour Party must approach the Common iiarket from a SOVIALIST POINT OF VIav yather than from the point of view of what is good for British capitalism. ‘oa far the arguments of both the '‘ontrists' and the 'non-entrists' in our ranks have suffered from the lack of a class approach. Proof of this is seon in the fact that Labour Party members in the FORWARD BRITAIN LiOV.LiGNT find themselves on the same platform as representatives of the TRU: BLUS TORTS, whilst the LIB.RAL PARTY makes an appeal to the members of the LABOUR PARTY COMMON MARKUT COLMIITT:3G to join their ranks. The Common liarket represents the attempt by a group of West 4uropean capitalist states to meet the world situation of the 60's. Its aim is to strengthen and consolidate capitalism as against the workers, in face of the Sqviet btoes jas yi against U. 3S -SopPbablemoand 21 PLIWKE Ble tObIGHI AT paspe se fighting for their independence and for the development of their countries. THAT I3 WHY SOUIALISTS CAN HAVES NO TRUCK WITH THS COMMON MARKT.
Ve explain elsewhere how we consider the Common liarket strengthens capitalism against the working class, but the Rome treaty contaii® devices which are aimed to prevent the workers in any country carrying out real measures of socialisation. It aims to intensify the cold war by consolidating the divisions of jurope into blocs and its anti-Soviet character is not disguised. Britain's entry would make it the world's biggest importer of basic raw materials and former colonial count= ries foar the growth of the i.3.C. as facilitating neo-colonialism. They believe that the existence of such a large capitalist importing bloc will load to one-sided terms being imposed upon them. This fear is confirmed by the growing trend of the 'terms of trade' against primary producers. It is not a question of getting more favourable terms of entry but of SOCIALISTS OPPOSING TH COLTON MARKT OUTRIGHT. If the Tory Government takes Britain in (which scems almost certain) LABOUR SHOULD UNiQUIVOCABLY STAT} ITS INT.NTION OF TAKING BRITAIN OUT WHAN IT I3 R.TURNSD TO POTUR. Any other policy is, in practice, a disguised form of support for the Common Llarket, that is, support for a basically anti-working class alliance of West iuropean capitalists. The alternative held out by many opponents of the Common Liarket (from Beaverbrook to the Forward Britain Movement) of consolidating Commonwealth ties is neither a socialist policy nor realistic, unless it is based upon a SOCIALIST BRITAIN. Commonwealth links represent on the one hand economic colonialism and, on the other, a form of trading which is declining. Since the end of the second world war trade between industrial countries has greatly increased,whilst that between" industrial ‘arid under~déveloped countries has declined relatively. This pattern could only be reversed by a British government carrying out a socialist policy of giving massive and unfettered aid to under-developed countries (and especially Commonwealth ones) to industrial themselves. On the other hand socialists agree that Durope needs uniting and that national boundaries are a relic of the past and an unnecessary hindrance to industrial and social development. But this development must be a socialist one if the contradictions of capitalism are not to exert themselves again. THAT IS WHY THS ‘& Poss TH ALTARNATIV:: OF THs UNITSD SOCIALIST STATUS OF -UROPS AGAINST TH CAPITALIST JUROPSAN UCONOMIC COMMUNITY. Some will say that to put this idea forward is utopian at this stage. But really the whole devlopment of the Common Market, the talk by various capitalist classes of the necessity of planning (including that of Britain) shows that this is a living question of the day. Much needs to be done to propagate this conception and to work out the means of achieving it. The development of the Juropean con— omic Community and the possibility of Britain's entry offers the solution because it poses sharply the question of the unity of the Suropean working class. FROII UNITY IN ACTION: Wu CAN AND 1ST GO TO UNITY IN POLITICAL PURPOSE AND UNDURSTANDING. Capitalist competition in the field of exports means periodic attempts by the capitalist class of each country to better its compotive position by reducing its workers wages relative to those of competitor countries, thereby roducing its costs of production. This tendency is intensified in a set up like that of the Common Market and especially in those countrics with relatively higher wages, that is why Britaincan expect such attacks. The Tory ‘wages pause' policy, Il.-1.D.C. and, the most blatant of all, N.I.C. are cxamples of what we can expect (this is not- to say that we accept the argument that Britain's competitive position is weakened by high wages, British exports have lagged because of the backwardness of British industry and because of constant infltionary pressure caused by the colossal ARHS JXPENDITURE)
~ «a ‘
w~ Various estimates have been made of the possible effects of Britain's entry into \ the Common Market. In this small leaflet we will not go into all these arguments But on one thing they all agree: that entry will mean a thorough reorganisation of the whole structure of British capitalism. Those sections of British industry which are backward and out of date will be subject to a tremendous competition and go under eventually, and those sections which are most modern and competitive will expand as their markets increases. Both tiese processes will mean that hundreds of thousands of workers will lose their jobs and (if they are lucky) move to other parts of industry. As trade unionists, we know that any rationalisation under capitalism, organised cither by the state or by private industry, will always be done in such a way to weaken the working class, in a callous way and at the expense of the workers. Anyone who doubts this only has to look at the way the Tory Government is now rationalising the railways.