At 31/07/02 11:56 +0000, Se c/o Natasha Potter wrote:
>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. Yes there will be that tendency but I guess it will not be as undiluted. Assuming Stoiber wins in September in Germany he will certainly go in this direction but how far? Social/christian democratic assumptions run deep in Germany. Note that Chirac decided to craft his government on centrist lines. We won't yet know if he is about to reveal this as all an illusion, but what is in it for him to do so? >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. But also the EU is a creation of European deal making between its finance and industrial capitalists. They are eager to gain competitive advantage against the US > 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. That will be positive, but also a reason why the resultant of forces may not be a totally Thatcherite EU. >First, the EU is more likely to become a strong arm of the US than >anything else. No. On theoretical grounds you should expect imperialism to lead to conflict even if it does not lead to war. Europe is hungry to have some military power that can give it even slight independence from the USA >The WEU is effectively controlled by NATO. Hence subtleties like the Europeans taking over completely responsibility for policing the Balkans. >Even PfP is a NATO construct bringing in Russia. But - on condition that the anti-US hostility is not overt (an important condition of this serious game, the EU will make its own links with Russia, including those that are not dependent on the USA) >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?? See my earlier brief strategic response to your letter: I am not advocating a strategy adequately summed up by saying that the international proletariat should support the EU. The international proletariat should unite and take advantage of contradictions between the ruling classes. > 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%. Agreed. Within each country or state the working people and other progressive forces should continue to struggle against their own capitalists. >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...? Who is "we" in these sorts of sentences? The people of Argentina should not be grateful, but it may help them if the EU for whatever short term imperialist reasons of its own, offers somewhat better conditions than an IMF under the control of the US treasury. >>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. Especially if the left persists for revolutionary reasons to insist that it will be a pipedream for ever and that nothing can be done to oppose US hegemony. I have not caught where Se is writing from but while I would expect progressive people in Europe to oppose the imperialist policies of European imperialism I would expect progressive people in the US to fight US hegemonism in conjuctions with all possible allies including other imperialist ones. >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. The US has been forced to tack on the Human Rights Court. about Kautsky's vision these are very big issues and not adequately covered by mentioning the headlines of old polemics. There are powerful tendencies in imperialism to contention up to and including war. (It is not impossible that EU troops could find themselves in occupying some country and giving orders to some US troops to pull out in the next ten years) But imperialism also leads to collusion. The overall mix of this strategically and the concrete mix in particular conditions are complex to weigh up. My arguments assume there is both contention and collusion. >>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. I am going to call foul at this point. Michael Perelman puts in his strictures against characterisation as best I understand it to block inflammatory and insulting characterisations of other peoples positions. You know little about me and I know little about you. I am not going to spend time discussing whether my position is inherently Trotskyist, whether it is demented, or whether it is horse manure. >I am not above supporting taking advantage of inter-imperialist rivalries >where they exist. But in moving towards 'Social Imperialism' I draw a line. I do not know what you are getting at. Could you sign where you are writing from so I have got some idea of context? I may not be able to respond however to your next post, as I am trying to clear some things up. These issues have to recycle perhaps many times. The contradictions exist in the external world. We argue about how to reflect them in our own minds. You could say what your strategy is and whether it is going to take into account the existing balance of forces in the world including US hegemonism, or scrupulously defy them. But others might have to reply. Chris Burford London
