The EU question

Les Schaffer schaffer at optonline.net
Tue May 1 15:42:31 MDT 2001


[ from Nestor ] 

En relación a Re: The EU question, 
el 1 May 01, a las 11:37, Julio Huato dijo:

> My instinct tells me that if "integration" in Latin America has not
> translated yet into a "Latin American Union," it is because Latin
> American capitalism is yet to mature for that.

Do you assume, Julio, that under the conditions of imperialist
oppression, there exists a possibility that Latin American capitalism
can "mature"? The fact that the "national question" (and the Unity of
Latin America is not a _supra_ national issue, such as the EU, but
_the_ national question in Latin America) has been historically linked
with the bourgeoisie does not make any bourgeoisie capable of solving
it. This is precisely the central point: while European bourgeoisies
are full grown bourgeoisies, and the formations they rule on are self
centered capitalist nations, the only possibility for Latin Americans
to become self centered without foreign intermission is to unite in a
single, strong Federation. A Federation, not a Union in the EU
sense. While the European Union _begins_ with nations whose ruling
classes try not to slaughter each other any more, the Latin American
Union would be the only consistent step for the Latin American
_nation_ to begin to exist in actual life, not in the dreams of our
revolutionaries. So that the idea that we should remember the origin
of the EU to understand what may happen south of the Bravo is, in my
opinion, mistaken. Different would it had been if you had pointed to
the murky and repugnant, dynastic reactionary beginnings of the German
union with the Hohenzollerns of the late 1700s.

> But let's not forget that the EU began, not as the crystallization
> of some European "exceptionalism" or any other Euro-ideology, but as
> a series of less ambitious trade deals that became a monetary
> arrangement, which "evolved" into a broad political arrangement.
> IMO, this complex historical process has been driven essentially by
> the "logic" of profit-making.  A growing geography that accommodates
> the increasing productive force unleashed by a still vigorous
> economic structure is not a notion unfamiliar to people acquainted
> with historical materialism.  Obviously, these broad historical
> events tend to be punctuated by a long series of tentative misteps
> and failures, but the fact that they bounce back evinces how organic
> their sources are.  Hegel would not be surprised by that.

The difference between Europe and Latin America is that while
enhancing profit- making in Europe implies a _pre-existence_ of a
solved national question (which in the terms of economic geography
means that the problem of _domestic accumulation_ has been solved),
the union in Latin America is made to solve the problem of
accumulation, not of profit-making. The problem of how is the excedent
invested, and most importantly, where.

As to the remaining parts of your posting, Julio, I agree with the
criticisms that Louis Pr. is making.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar





More information about the Marxism mailing list