Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi
Thu Feb 13 00:02:03 MST 2003
Martin Spellman writes:
On a serious note I found some of the stuff on the 'Euro', such as the
article in the latest Monthly Review, also seems to favour one brand of
imperialism over another. What is the use of spurning US hegemony in favour
of some kind of Euro superstate hegemony? I'll try and find time to do a
review but don't hold your breath.
The fact is, as I have tried to explain here before, that we are not likely to experience any such thing as a Euro superstate hegemony. That's a fantasy cooked up by a bizarre coalition of punk Thatcherite British nationalists and, on the left, national Keynesians of the Wynne Godley variety and ultra-leftists still obsessing about a "British road to socialism" whilst content to retain Northern Ireland, for example. Once we realise that a Euro superstate is a distant, if not utterly futile dream, we can move beyond a false dichotomy of one imperialism versus another.
It is quite instructive that those who take most exception to my arguments are based in the English-speaking metropolitan countries themselves. DMS seems to have a hang-up about the "British": possibly the result of watching too many Hollywood movies starring Charles Dance as the stock villain. Whatever, lest those think I advocate a lesser imperialism (as opposed to Marxist internationalism), I have in fact advocated here the speedy demise of the British state, a key pillar of any would-be future Euro-imperialist superstate. As for France, I have no illusions about the tactical nous of Chirac, nor his ulterior motives. The same goes for Putin too.
But it is Germany where the future of Europe is being fought at a most intense level. I reiterate: our immediate task must be to stiffen the resolve of Schröder so that he does not capitulate, either to war against Iraq, or to the dismantling of the German welfare state. For a bourgeois representative like Schröder, progressive nationalism is about the best we could expect from him, but were he to adopt such a stance it would immediately weaken the grip of US-sponsored neoliberal hegemony over Germany and ultimately Europe. It's a means to an end -- hardly an end in itself.
As for Paul Foot, the SWP, etc., my criticisms of that outfit are in public for all to see. But right now, he is correct that a massive mobilisation of as broad a political coalition as possible *against the war* will turn the tide of politics. It is already doing that -- why else would Chirac see any advantage in defying the US? We must keep applying the pressure in order to yield more such defiance from sub-imperialists, and ultimately defeat for the biggest imperialist of them all.
I may reply to DMS's other points later if and when I get the time, but the above is sufficient for now.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism