NAFTA, EU and "rejecting the agenda"
malecki at algonet.se
Sun Jun 23 03:04:54 MDT 1996
>I think there is only one thing wrong with your reply to Zeynep:
>We *do not* set the agenda at present.
>In Denmark we had the same debate - actually we have had it a couple
>of times - about the European Union. The mechanism are almost the same
>as with NAFTA - just a little more developed - so I though it
>Basically we argued the things you wrote. Unlike most of the rest of
>the left who argued the - sometimes very - nationalist stuff. Danish
>flag on their pamphlets and so on. "Denmark will do better if we stay
>out side." "The whole world is so big, so why get into this little
>union. Better do business with the rest."
>But that didn't mean that we did not take side. We opposed the EU
>because it was the bosses' union, because it was one more step towards
>a new imperialist power - but at the same time argued against all the
>nationalist crap: If we want to fight the bosses' union we have to do
>it *with* workers' from the rest of the world (incl. Europe) not
>Cute little story: The day of the first referendum (June 92) the
>biggest, most "working class" tabloid wrote on a front page with a big
>photo of Uffe Ellemann, the most pro-EU bourgeois party leader:
>"Forget him and vote Yes".
>It turned out to be a (narrow) No. You should have seen the streets
>that night. There really was a feeling of "This time we got them by
>their asses". And thousands of people will still remember the face of
>Ellemann on TV when it became clear that it would be a No. His usually
>arrogant facade had gone and his mouth hang low. What a day. It *was*
>a defeat for the bosses' union.
>Of course they got their will. They staged a new referendum - with
>bribes to the left reformists (and changing the government from the
>bourgeois parties to the SocDem's) they got a narrow yes 11 months
>later - but their credibility lost.
>My point is: There are different ways to "reject the agenda".
I intend to agree with Jorn here. However i,m not sure that his line of NO
and the good reasons are the best in the given situation.
We could have called for a boycott saying that a yes vote means putting up a
protectionist trade wall around Europe directed at the third world. A no
vote capitulation to nationalism.
Then by doing a lot of propaganda around a Socialist United States of Europe
or something along those lines.
It would have differentiated the revolutionaries from the capitalist yes and
the fake left and its opportunism...
malecki in exile
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism