Common Market: a Reply to Stan Newens

Stan Newens obviously took great exception to my remark about the Labour M.P's efforts to rationalize British Capitalism. He then proceeded to outline his views and, to my mind, cotild not-have proved my point more simply. Although a person holds a view which, in all sincerity he believes does not contradict his stand in other matters, this does not alter the fact that it may still be inconsistent, First, however, as the article was written under the title "Internatione@lism and the Common Market", the contents of it were not on the whole a debate for or against going in, but a rebuttal of the argument that support of the Common Market could be partly justified by the Internationalism of Socialist philosophy, As I said in the previous article, even if there are reasons to go into the Common Market, it is a delusion to include that one. With regard to the point at issue. I have no wish to disagree with the view that standards in Britain have generally risen and, although the contradictions of capitalism might be easier to fight in the past, we do not want to return to those times under any circumstances. Nor would I disagree that capitalism is, in its way, more efficient now than formerly. However, for Marxists, in which category Stan Newens includes himself, it is important to remember, not that socialism can arise only out of the development of the productive forces, but that capitalism in any of its forms means exploitation of the working class, and that the more efficiently they can do this the better they like it. The monopolies, in their fight against the old guard, have, when necessary, passed on some of the benefits to the working classes. The simplest example is the supermarket, with lower prices than the small shopkeepers. Should workers object to this ? Of course not ! But it is necessary to be alert for the next stage. For when the monopolies are complete, then they squeeze our necks with price fixing, excess profits and redundancies. How does this affect the Common Market ? There are two main prospects: political and economic. The only question which should concern Marxists on the former point is whether the working classes move forward or not. One could cite examples in which we might gain from Italy and France, but others where I think we should loose. Unofficial strikes in Germany are illegal. One official is serving six years for calling an wofficial strike. From the economic point of view, who is going to pay for the change ? The capitalist class ? The simplest example is the rise in food prices: 25/- a week at least. Serious even in normal circumstances. The unions would not be slow in applying for wage increases and its effects might be cushioned or just moved over onto the most poverty-stricken. Taking into account, however, the mobility of labour and capital, the workers! bargaining power would be minimal, and the probable effect is a cut in everyone's real wages of £1 a,.week to begin with. Mobility of labour, and dropping capital movement restrictions, reduce the benefit to the workers of the labour scarcity which crops up every now and again. Usually the worker can use this period of 'go' to catch up and possibly advance his standard of living, but if a ready market of unemployed or cheaper labour is available then this can either be brought in, or factories moved permanently to their locality. The slightly