Your argument, in short, is that progressive, perhaps even critical, support for the EU project is necessary to counter the growth of US hegemony and that this is more true to the spirit of Lenin than blindly quoting him *out of context*. I am sure that Louis properly understands this position.
In order to properly think one's way through this, it is necessary to see exactly what you are proposing. An example where I might agree might be support for France in its battle to save the CAP against US dominated GATT reforms (although these are actually being forced through by an EU). An example where I mightn't agree would be supporting the development of a EU wide Rapid Reaction Force (which far from counterweighting the US will become an instrument to complement NATO). What should be clear here is that taking a position on this requires more concrete analysis. The problems are precisely those identified by Louis (that the EU is an imperialist comglomerate and that it has an over-riding neo-liberal agenda). Let me add a few other concrete examples to his list: EU directives forcing the 'liberalisation' of the Transport, Energy Generation and Supply and Water Supply Sectors. The EU also has directives which prevent State involvement (shareholdings) in the more mainstream production sectors. Balancing this, the EU have implemented the mealy-mouthed Social Chapter. The real problem with the EU is not that it has a life of its own but that it is reflecting the state of play among the Governments (not the peoples) throughout Europe - all of whom, even the old French Socialist Party/PCF coalition, had acquiesced to the neo-liberal agenda of competing for inward investment and profit-funding local capitalists. To top this off, the loss of national control over interest rates will also have an impact - particularly given the EU limitations on Debt and Governmental Spending. Effectively, Governments will be forced to choose between increasing tax or cutting-back on state sector involvement. We can all guess which they will choose given that virtually every Government is Thatcherite in its economic ideology. The EU will act as a servant for finance capital to tear back the remaining state sector gains from the 40s-60s eras in all EU states. The task for progressive EU groups is to unite around these issues. Indeed, I think that the EU will offer us a great opportunity to link up across Europe in fighting these assaults - because they are being coordinated on a pan-EZ scale. The 'liberalisation of Energy/Water' will effect all EU states around the same time so I could envisage us calling pan-EZ protests on similar days even. There are some large socialist parties left out there willing to fight on this and I think that this fight will further radicalise them. It is in that context that I make my commentary: >Obviously in arguing that the potential divisions between Europe and the USA should be exploited by the progressive working people of the world, I am not "genuflecting". Nor do I see the policy I am adopting is deleterious. I am surprised on the other hand that left-wingers in the USA may not apparently see the deleterious nature of deflecting attention away from the urgent task of opposing US hegemonism. First, the EU is more likely to become a strong arm of the US than anything else. The WEU is effectively controlled by NATO. Even PfP is a NATO construct bringing in Russia. Second, you need to concretise your balancing act. What elements of the EU would you support in order to counter-balance the US - the Euro/the European Rapid Reaction Force?? >Besides the issue is more whether for the people of the rest of the world, the choice between US imperialism and European imperialism is like the choice between cyanide and arsenic.I think the Arab people would not say this. I think that the Argentinian people would have have been given more help in recovering from their financial crisis. I think the people of Africa would do better with the sort of international development proposals put forward by Gordon Brown than by George Bush. I think the people of the world would do better with Europe's approach to global pollution than that of the Bush administration. This sounds like the classical 'good cop, bad cop' routine. The PLO or the Chavistas are fully entitled to balance off one imperialist bloc (if that's the right word) against the other to get the best deal. What's not correct is for progressive movements to identify with their local imperialism because it's slightly better in terms of working conditions, minimum pay or in terms of only exploiting countries by 80% instead of 90%. That's why some British Socialists supported Britain in WWI against the 'undemocratic' German Empire of the time. It's not an exact parallel, I'll admit, but it makes the point. I think what's needed is a progressive critical engagement with the EU and then to see how that will fit into the overall patterns for struggle worldwide. >I certainly agree with Louis Proyect that the Maastricht convergence criteria for the EU and in preparation for the Eurozone, were heavily neo-liberal, as that was the trend at the time. European imperialism has a lot to gain by freeing up the capital market and rationalising production in the whole of Europe by take-overs. Nevertheles the social democratic trends in Europe are far deeper and stronger than in the USA, and the term "smoldering ruins" is a great distortion of what is probably going to happen. Even five years from now, there will still be provisions in Europe that progressive people in the USA would welcome now. And we should, therefore, be thankful for small mercies...? In five years time, I reckon the left in Europe will be a growing and much better connected bunch with smallish but mass socialist (and I do mean socialist) parties/movements/tendencies in all EU states. Ideological struggle will be paramount in the popular political consciousness. The third way will be under pressure. In that context, I think we can re-evaluate any potential gratitude for scraps from the table. >That is my prediction of the balance of internal forces in Europe. With the humiliation of the US model of finance capital, there will now be less pressure for Europe to conform closely to this model. The humiliation for central Europe will be equal to that in the US. Germany is looking down a deflationary hole as big as Japan's. The inevitable cut back on interest rates will send places like the Irish Republic into 'burnout' territory - it's housing market is already overheating. Alliance to the Capitalist leaderships masquerading under the name of Social Democracy or as a progressive EU oligarchy will prove a fundamental error. >I hope Louis Proyect's breath is indeed taken away, because I detect very little dialectical in his approach at all, whether you put the word in inverted commas or not. I would be more convinced if he could explain how from the existing contradictions in the world we get to world socialism. Louis can see very well where things are going. That's why he's focussing on the current financial difficulties. Latin America is a sign of things to come. It may take up to another 10/15 years to boil over here but make no mistake, the sort of liberalism represented by the EU heirarchy and all existing EU Governments, will come tumbling down and have to survive through some serious measures. >I am aware of nothing strategic from him except an implication that if everyone fought opportunism in their own country there would be a revolution in each country, which would presumably gather momentum, country by country, in the way revolutions are supposed to have spread out form Cuba across Latin America. That's all that is needed right now. Rising Social Movements with a mass character are nascient - anyone can see that. These just need a focus, once that's provided the whole thing will acquire a life of its own. The glory is that the bread and butter issues facing Spain are those facing Italy - the onslaught on state assets is being conducted in precision across the EZ. >I think I have been fairly clear that moves towards world government with regulation of capital, and justice, is on balance more progressive than economic and political affairs being controlled in a more fragmented and less accountable way by existing imperialist and finance capitalist forces. >A world government can be used much more clearly to place on the agenda issues like control of global pollution and phased development. People can then promote progressive policies by all appropriate political methods, including street demonstrations. That must weaken the power of finance capital rather than strengthen it, and must accelerate radical change whether it comes through reform or revolution. In current conditions, such world Government is a pipedream given US hegemony. They won't even subject their troops to UN Human Rights Courts let alone anything more. Indeed, any such government would be another weapon in the arsenal of worldwide capitalist imperialism. It would be Kautsky's vision of the worldwide trust. >No, the victory of socialism is no longer possible in several capitalist countries alone. (And I am not arguing over past terrain between "stalinists" and "trotskyists" in saying this, but talking about the present balance of forces in the world.) That's horse manure. It's some sort of demented extension of the Trotskyist position. What about Cuba?? It will start in national forms because those remain the dominent economic form in the popular consciousness (believe it or not) - nobody really listens to ECB mutterings on inflation but everyone listens to the National Budget. Then it will spread like contagion due to these para-statal imperialist institutions which are actually the vanguard of imperialist assault. >Most concretely now, we do not have a polycentric imperialist world in which the difference between each imperialist power is like the difference between cyanide and arsenic.We have a world in which the majority of members of this email list live in a country whose military forces are more powerful than the next fifteen most powerful armed forces in the world. Together. And post Sept 9 the difference is likely to get larger.That is why it is consistent with the spirit and method of Leninism today to seek to take advantage of differences between the imperialist blocs, at the risk of being satirised by others as promoting the "glories of the Eurozone". I am not above supporting taking advantage of inter-imperialist rivalries where they exist. But in moving towards 'Social Imperialism' I draw a line. What's needed here is for Chris to state what he thinks that progressives should support about the EU. List them out and we might agree somewhere. The EU is a centre of struggle for all progressive movements in the EZ. We cannot afford to ignore it, but at the same time we must measure the value of our involvement against the risks of getting sucked into something which will trap us in a liberal, partial social democracy. Sé. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
