Trotsky on a United Euro

Scan page 8

"li the capitalist stateș of Europe succeeded in merging into an imperialist trust... the proletariat would have to fight for not the return to 'autonomous' national states, but for the conversion of the imperialist state trust into a European Republican Federation."

"The programme of the European revolutionary movement would be: the destruction of the compul• sory, anti-democratic form of the coalition with the preservation and furtherance of its foundations...

OODS!

para El Salvador Solidarity Campaign: c/o 29 Islington Park Street, London N1. TO bourgeois politics the destruction of "internal" European customs houses is an insurmountable difficulty; but without this the inter-state courts of arbitration and international law codes will have no firmer duration than, for instance, Belgian neutrality. The urge toward unifying the European market which, like the effort towards the acquisition of non-European backward lands, is caused by the development of capitalism, runs up against the powerful opposition of the landed and capitalist classes, in whose hands the tariff apparatus joined with that of militarism (without which the former means nothing) constitutes an indispensable weapon for exploitation and enrichment.

Militarism

The present war. speaks eloquently enough on this score. Lastly, the disharmony and irreconcilability of • capitalist interests between the Allies themselves is still more visible than in the Central States.

Under these circumstances, a halfway complete and consistent economic unification of Europe coming from the top by means of an agreement of the capitalist governments is sheer utopia.

Here, the matter can go no further than partial compromises and half-measures. Hence it is that the economic unification of Europe, which offers colossal advantages to producer and consumer alike, in general to the "whole cultural development, becomes the revolutionary task of the European proletariat in its struggle against imperialist protectionism and its instrument - militarism.

The United States of Europe - without monarchies, standing armies and secret diplomacy -is therefore the most important integral part of the proletarian peace programme. Exceprts from 'The Peace Programme, 1915. Breaks in the text have not been indicated.

The ideologists and politicians of German imperialism frequently came forward, especially at the beginning of the war, with their programme of a European or at least a Central European • 'United States" (without France and England on the one side and Russia on the other). The programme of a violent unification of Europe is just as characteristic of the tendencies of German imperialism as is the tendency of French imperialism whose programme is the forcible dismemberment of Germany.

If the German armies achieved the decisive victory reckoned upon in Germany during the first phase of the war, then German imperialism would have doubtless made the gigantic attempt of realising a compulsory military-tariff union of European states, which would be constructed completely of exemptions, compromises, etc., which would reduce to a minimum the progressive meaning of the unifications of the Euro. pean market. Needless to say, under such circumstances no talk would be possible of an autonomy of the nations thus forcibly joined together as the caricature of the European United States. Certain opponents of the programme of the United States of Europe have used precisely this perspective as an argument that this idea can, under certain conditions, acquire a "reactionary" monarchist-imperialist content.

Yet it is precisely this perspective that provides the most graphic testimony in favour of the revolutionary viability of the slogan of the United States of Europe. Let us for a moment grant that German militarism succeeds in actually carrying out the compulsory half-union of Europe, just as Prussian militarism once achieved the halfunion of Germany, what then would be the central slogan of the European proletariat?

Would it be the dissolution of the forced European coalition and the return of all peoples under- the roof of isolated national states? Or the restoration of "autonomous" tariffs, "national" currencies, "national" social legislation, and so forth? Certainly not. The programme of the European revolutionary movement would then be: The destruction of the compulsory, anti-democratic form of the coalition with the preservation and furtherance of its foundations, in the form of complete annihilation of tariff barriers, the unification of legislation, above all of labour laws, etc. In other words, the slogan of the United States of Europe -without monarchies and standing armies - would under the indicated circumstances become the unifying and guiding slogan of the European revolution.

Possibility

Let us assume the second possibility, namely, an "undecided" issue of the war. At the very beginning of the war the wel-koom advocate of ronited List, 'United argued that should the termans fail to conquer their opponents, the Furopean unitication would nevertheless be accomplished, and in Liszt's opinion it would be even more complete than in the case of a German victory.

Obstacles

By the ever growing need of expansion, the European states, hostile to one another but unable to cope with one another, would continue to hinder each other in the execution of their "mission" in the Near Last, Africa and Asia, and they would everywhere be forced back by the United States of North America and by Japan. Precisely in case of a stalemate in the war, in Liszt's opinion, the indispensability of an economic and military agreement among the European great powers would come to the fore against their own working masses. We pointed out above, the colossal obstacles that lie in the way of realising this Even a partial overcoming of these obstacles would mean the establishment of an imperialist trust of European States, a predatory share-holding association.

And this perspective is on occasion adduced unjustifiably as proof of the "danger" of the slogan of the United States

Scan page 9

cusses the EEC drawing from interest in the British Parliament, which is potentially very dangerous. The extent of withdrawal from, or non-interest in, any belief that Brussels could do it, would be even greater.

. People would be driven into desperation or apathy or protest, but they wouldn't be able to use the mechanism which is open to them now of dismissing a government.

A full federal Western Europe, under the Treaty of Rome, with its own army, its own currency, its own acts of nationalisation, in terms of socialist aspirations and achievements, would be a hundred years behind the United States, where capitalism on a similar scale has failed. So why should it work any more on a European scale?

MT: You seem, then, to think that the European Commission would present an unstoppable obstacle to socialist measures on an EEC scale., The EEC Commission has a bureaucracy about the size of one department of the British civil service. Yet you have argued that socialist measures in Britain are possible despite the conservative nature of the civil service...

TB: The bureaucracy in Brussels is at a very high level. I'll give you a few examples.

When I was Energy Minister, we had a scheme which Ted Heath had introduced, under which in order to encourage jobs in Scotland Scottish firms were able to borrow money at 3% below the going rate provided that they were building for the North Sea equipment business -because all the oil companies were buying every hammer and chisel back in Texas.

I was called up before three Commissioners, and told it was illegal.. In the end they took me to court. They took me to court on polling day, 1979, and the scheme has been dropped.

Another example: I was called up before Guido Brunner, the Energy Commissioner, who said it was illegal for us to insist that all the oil from the North Sea be landed in Britain, because the North Sea is an Euro-asset.

Similarly on nuclear matters: we are signatories of the International Atomic Energy Authority safeguards. But Euratom has a rule that all nuclear material must circulate freely within the Community. So we would buy Canadian uranium under safeguards, and under Euratom we found that the French, who weren't signatories to the non-proliferation treaty: were entitled to have it.

These are not based upon some theoretical nationalist concept. They're based on the hard facts of the situation.

The Commission could consist of as little as half a dozen people, though actually it's much bigger than you make out - but it has the power under the Treaty to enforce policies that would lead a •Labour government in Britain to dismantle its defences and its development of OUT own economy.

MT: Why then is it not possible for socialists and trade unionists to get together on a European scale, to say that we want a united Europe too but a socialist Europe, and to fight to get powers for the European Parliament that it can instruct the EEC Commission, change legal provisions, etc.?

I don't think fighting through the EEC Parliament would work in the end, any more than i think that a parliamentary road to socialism is possible in Britain, but I don't see why. we're any less likely to get victories on a EEC scale than in Britain.

TB: It is open to the British people if they choose to do so, ạt the next election whenever. it comes, to defeat Mrs Thatcher and put in power a parliamentary majority that could alter legislation and benefit our people. But in France, in Jermany, in Britain, hroughout Europe, vorkers rave fought for a 35 hour week. The trade leaders pay 35 Heures EN 5 JOURS POUR TOUS