The EU question
xxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sun Apr 29 10:34:14 MDT 2001
>Should Scandinavian workers, to protect something that is not being
>adequately protected anyway, abandon other European workers in this
>euro-prison? Would it not benefit all European workers that they could be
>joined by a group of workers so committed to more advanced social policies?
>And to the extent that their defense of the welfare states is more likely
>to succeed under a growing economy, why should they shoot themselves in
>the foot by refusing to enter a club where the productive forces of their
>societies are likely to have more room to expand?
No Julio. If nordic workers are refusing to enter EU (no matter what their
social gains from nordic ruling classes are limited), we should _salute_
them. Guess, the solution to the problem is this: nordic workers should
_solidify_ themselves with continental workers and _refuse_ together to
join EU. However there are two strategic problems at stake here. Is such a
european or international working class solidarity possible or existing? In
what ways or to what extend continental workers are coapted by imperialist
European bourgeoisie? Are the European working classes committed to
anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle at this historical moment?
If I am not misunderstanding you, your idea that nordic working classes
should accept EU on the grounds that they should suffer together with
continental workers is just another _way_ of saying that free trade
develops the material conditions and promotes working class solidarity.
Such an idea is not relevant in the age of imperialism. EU is there to pit
workers of different nationalities against each other, just as NAFTA, not
to unite them EU itself is an obstacle to working class solidarity. We
should oppose EU''s econnomic and political goals by any means available. I
agree with Magnus is that respect.
> Not that EU capitalist economic growth will be smooth and fair, but it
> won't be smooth and fair in "social-democratic" capitalism either.
>>It's better to join the EU and the "winning team" in inter-imperialist
>>rivalry? Yes, I think this is the policy of the Norwegian social-democrat
>>For Marxists I think one should fight for the dissolution of the EU, and
>>fight the imperialist bourgeioisies in all of Europe.
>>I'll quote Lenin on the "United States of Europe"
>>"Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and
>>between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an
>>agreement between the European capitalists... but to what end? Only for the
>>purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting
>>colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of
>>their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose
>>might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than
>>that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with
>>the United States of Ameriea, Europe as a whole denotes economic
>>stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e., under capitalism, a United
>>States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction to retard
>>America's more rapid development. The times when the cause of democracy and
>>socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone for ever. "
>My problem with Lenin's quote here is this. Say that he was right and, in
>1915, capitalism was rapidly going to hell in Europe. Europe was in
>flames, European capitalists were stabbing each other using workers as pawns.
>Social-democratic parties and the socialist movements were massive and
>very influential in Europe. In the middle of such turmoil, why would
>revolutionary socialists accept something when they could take it all and
>get away with it?
>But, is this the outlook now in Europe? I don't think so. If back then
>the purpose of the USE was -- according to Lenin -- to suppress socialism
>in Europe, now it'd be to allow European capitalism a larger breathing
>geography, period. No European socialism is a threat large enough to
>impose anything more "advanced" than national entrenchment.
>Aren't we relying on Lenin's theory of imperialism a little too
>much? There exists now plenty of historical evidence to back test the
>validity of the theories of imperialism advanced by Hilferding, Hobson,
>Bukharin, and Lenin. Lenin's own theory is the underpinning of the USE
>quote above. Hindsight helps. For those of us who admire Lenin, there
>would be nothing in this critical analysis that could possibly question
>the universality of his work. Still, we need to look at his views coolly
>because whole strategies appear to hinge on them.
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
Department of Political Science
135 Western Avenue, Milne 102
Albany, NY, 12222
More information about the Marxism