The "Franco-German Peace Plan"

Tom O'Lincoln suarsos at
Wed Feb 12 17:10:33 MST 2003

>>A multipolar world would probably know a fair amount of little proxy wars
but not any major confrontation of WW type.<<

Well the evidence is that both World Wars so far have arisen out of just
such a situation. You just brush this aside.

>>I don't think we can build a mass movement against such a complex and
scientific concept as imperialism (would you mean a party?). We can
mobilize great amounts of people against war<<

We start with this, and work to develop it in the direction of generalised
anti-imperialism. It does not have to be some hifalutin "scientific
concept". Millions of people around the globe hate imperialisms right now,
in a fairly straightfoward way. Beyond that, in the direction of
anti-capitalism, etc. Yes we need to build a mass party. All of it is hard.
But we aren't going to be able to do any of these things if we endorse the
first alternative imperialist manoeuvre that comes along.

>>Leaving aside the fact that it is not in the power of the ruling classes
to cease being imperialists.<<

Sure it is. We smash them, they stop being imperialist. The problem is that
you want to endorse them.

>>Of course, in any movement that we participate in, there cannot be any
doubt as to it being independent of all imperialisms.<<

Yes there can. All movements contain tendencies towards compromise with the
enemy. You are giving ground to them, we need to fight them.

>>Marx once remarked that the international proletariat should consider
itself a new "great power", and therefore have its own real-politik.<<

But as Lenin said, we need a "revolutionary realpolitik".

>And the fact is, we are now in a situation where there is a very objective
(though, no doubt, temporary) convergence of interests between us and the
nucleus of the EU<<

No there isn't Our interests lie in liberating Iraq. France and Germany
want to impose an endless stranglehold.

>>We draw strength from them, for many more
people will walk the streets with us knowing that anti-war is quite
mainstream politics after all.<<

No we will become weaker.  We might get bigger crowds for a little while,
but the political disorientation will damage us.

>> if they do it, Europe will be dragged, willy-nilly,
into a logic of opposition to the whole US Middle East policy.<<

The whole policy? I can't imagine you believe this yourself.

>>Of course, we are absolutely forbidden to spread any illusions about the
nature of European imperialism.<<

You mean like suggesting the European ruling classes might oppose the
totality of US Middle East policy? You mean like suggesting we can draw
strength from the European imperialists?

>>Whoever wrote it probably felt compelled to appear very tough on Saddam<<

Felt compelled? They ARE tough on Saddam. They're imperialists. Stop
spreading illusions in them.

>>the essence of the matter is this confrontation between the US and the

No, the essence of the matter is the struggle against imperialism.

>>Baghdad has just refused it, in a polite but dignified manner, and I
think they were right to do<<

Let me get this straight. Baghdad is right to refuse it, but we should
support it?

>>Alas, we could never have split the enemy with our pressure alone.<<

No, it takes other factors as well. But given such factors, we can do it.
In fact, we've already done so to a degree, otherwise you and I wouldn't be
having this debate.

>>particularly a situation where EU (Paris-Berlin axis) imperialism falls
out definitely with the US, for which it will have to seek the support of
Russia, China, India, Latin
America and Africa.<<

In case you haven't noticed, this portrays a tendency for multi-polar to
become bi-polar, which is just what happened in the run-up to the two World


BTW for the curious who know my background: I didn't like Paul Foot's
article either.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list