The confusion of the left on the
question of the European Union was shown by an event at my alma mater,
the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, on 16 February.
It also revealed a more general absence of critical faculties among many of
those who do not like the way the world works today. Tariq Ali was promoting
his latest book, The Extreme centre: A Warning. He made the standard
complaints about the lack of any political alternative to ‘neoliberal’ politics
in most major countries, and he also tied this theme into the question of the
vote on Britain’s membership of the EU (now set to be on 23 June 2016). I have
not read his book, but based upon what he said in his presentation, I would
make the following comments, ones that also set out how to understand the
forthcoming UK vote on EU membership.
Firstly, as an old hand at these
events, it was surprising that Tariq Ali did not reflect upon the lack of any
widespread opposition to what he calls the ‘neoliberal extreme centre’. He did
hope that the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to the lofty pinnacle of the British Labour
Party leadership showed that the Labour Party was not actually dead, and he
also cast a positive gloss on the popularity of the Scottish National Party as
a sign of some popular opposition. My problem with this searching in the
dustbin for a gem is that it does not understand that much UK public opinion is
welfare-nationalist at best – ‘save our NHS’ – or that any materialist analysis
would have to draw the conclusion that this opinion is because the mass of
people see that this is where their immediate economic interests lie. A prime
piece of evidence for my perspective is that half the British public voted for
the Conservatives or UKIP in the 2015 general election, while the Labour Party
had ‘controls on immigration’ as one of the policy demands carved into the
infamous stone monolith of Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader. Instead,
Tariq Ali gave credence to the implausible notion that the British media are
responsible for right wing opinions.
Secondly, Tariq Ali made a
telling point, almost as a confession. He had formerly been in favour of
Britain’s membership of the EU, but now he had grave doubts. There seemed to be
two connected reasons: what ‘EU policy’ had done to Greece, Spain and other
countries was unacceptable, and the EU-driven policy was a machine for
implementing the wider policies of financial capital, not those of the mass of
people. Just consider what this position amounts to. It identifies a policy
driven by the EU as the problem, not recognising that it results from
capitalists in each country trying to restore their viability in the global
market, still more that it is one that the richer countries are imposing on the
poorer in order to get some of their money – bank loans, etc – back. So, it
becomes a policy decision that progressive forces could change, not one that is
inevitable unless the market logic of capitalism is overturned. It is not a
question of ‘the EU’ demanding nasty policies; these are the consequence of the
crisis that these economies face. The ECB, EU Commission, etc, are the
messengers, and the message is that your economies are uncompetitive in the
world market!
Thirdly, the political confusion
of Tariq Ali, and many others, on the question of the EU is based on accepting
the alternatives such a vote gives the electorate. There will be a ‘Yes’ or
‘No’ answer to leaving/staying in the European Union. But the terms of the
debate are already set. Each side is based on what is
best for Britain:
whether to stay in a ‘reformed’ (on capitalist terms) EU, although the changes
are minimal, and so keep the UK’s global bargaining power, or whether the UK
should strike out on its own into what might be a more enticing, faster
growing, wider world. The debate only reflects an anxiety of the British ruling
class since at least 1945: what to do about a Europe in which the UK could only
realistically play a manipulative, tactical role, when it is a minor country
with much wider global interests. I have covered these issues previously on
this blog (see, for example,
here). There is no
basis upon which the Stay or Leave vote could be construed as being in favour
of something else, anti-capitalist, given the lack of any progressive
alternative in the UK. For this reason, I will
not be voting Yes/No on
which is the best way to save British capitalism.
Tariq Ali’s confusion also goes
further. In the SOAS meeting he noted that there was a political problem of
many of Europe’s right wing parties – for example, the Front National in France
– being in favour of welfare spending. ‘And so are we!’ Well, the
unacknowledged problem comes down to the fact that western welfare spending is
based upon the privileges that rich countries have in the world, something that
his kind of analysis is reluctant to recognise. The attack on welfare spending
today results from the chronic stagnation of most economies, ones that are just
about buoyed up by huge levels of debt, but which debt also calls time on the
previous status quo. Rather than recognise this, Tariq Ali bemoaned the
attacks on the welfare state and the ‘breach of the consensus’ that had
previously been achieved. So much for the analysis of an anti-capitalist who
sees unfavourable policies as a result of decisions that could be changed
within capitalism. I heard nothing from him to suggest that what he called
‘neoliberal’ policies could not be changed by a more enlightened policy under
capitalism.
The rich country welfare system
represents part of a deal/consensus that is now being broken by many
governments. Policies that are called ‘austerity’ have not been implemented
much in the richer countries, though they will be in the next couple of years.
However, the political reaction, especially in northern Europe, is often to
bolster reactionary nationalists that want to restore the status quo ante
against the ‘hordes’ of migrants and other unwelcome drains on the national
wealth and welfare that rightfully ‘belongs’ to the ‘legitimate’ recipients.
This is the basis of a reactionary trend in European politics today. While this
is exacerbated by the flows of migrants into Europe from the destruction of the
Middle East and North Africa, such events only harden the views of those in
Europe (and the US) whose states have done so much to cause the damage. It is
heartening to see the humanity of many people in Europe helping refugees,
especially in Germany. But the problem remains that the overwhelming majority
of the population in European countries takes a different view of the world and
their economic interests in it.
Tony Norfield, 20 February 2016
Posts
