>Yes there will be that tendency [loss of monetary freedoms forcing >capitalist austerity] 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?
I think the key thing is that it would be the same right now if the PS/PCF were in charge in France. Well not much different anyway. I would be to the left of these organisations. We would get caught up in fighting in the middle of the pitch, whereas we need to leap to the left. In any case, losing that control is a bad thing - with the onset of recession even a left-wing government would be forced to make some quite nasty choices given the rules from the ECB. >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. Yes, and how will they do this? By exploiting workers more...I'm not concerned with the position which should be adopted in colonial/third world countries. >That will be positive [uniting left across EU to fight neo-liberalism], but >also a reason why the resultant of forces may not be a totally Thatcherite >EU. In my experience with the EU (and it's not inconsiderable) the possibility for meaningful reform is limited. A coming together of the left would need to fundamentally shake the whole structure. I have indicated that I agree with you at some point in this argument - I am not sure exactly where but would certainly support a significantly reformed and democratic EU - that's not anywhere likely just yet though. >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. I disagree. Lenin was writing years ago - you can't just quote ITHSC and be confident that your right. There are certainly conflicting edges but in the main the EU is forcing the neo-liberal agenda to compete with the US. They will likely out-do each other in 'liberalising and privatising'. As for the military power aspect, I can't foresee the circumstances where Blair sends his troops in against the US. The only reason that the PfP was established rather than extending the WEU was to bring in special cases like Russia, Austria and Ireland. >>The WEU is effectively controlled by NATO. >Hence subtleties like the Europeans taking over completely responsibility >for policing the Balkans. Exactly, the US doesn't want it's troops tied down all around the place when they've jobs to do elsewhere. Besides, there's not much oil there! They've got the British 'mopping up' in Afghanistan too. Does this mean that you think the British are seriously challenging their influence there? Whatever small wrankles may arise, it's not likely that they will develop into full antagonisms. >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. No-one will disagree with these vagueries. It's where it gets us in reality that I'm thinking about. >>And we should, therefore, be thankful for small mercies [i.e. the limited >>benefits of the EU Vs the US] >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. We, the Europeans in the EU. We must speak for who we are not who we would like to be. The Argentinians may prefer to deal with the EU (although it's not clear why EZ capitalism would be better than US capitalism) but let's not get in behind our imperialists because of their marginal benefits. >>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. Do you really think that a world Government is realisable within the next 20 years?? >The US has been forced to tack on the Human Rights Court. All they've been forced to do is have the postphonement reconsidered after one year. It may be extended thereafter if the US is still central to UN peace missions. >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. Yes, I agree its a hard call to make but I that's what we are discussing isn't it? Are you suggesting that in circumstances where a nuclear armed US is facing off a nuclear armed EU (+ Russia possibly) that we push the latter because it's capitalism is slightly less rapacious than the former. Me, I prefer to stick with Lenin's revolutionary defeatism - that's one of the benefits of being Irish - we know what imperialism is first hand. >My arguments assume there is both contention and collusion. That's just a reformulation of a dialectical analysis. On that we can agree. >>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. For a start, let me apologise to your sensitivities. I did not say you was a Trot or a Stalinist. I said your position was 'some sort of demented extension of the Trot position'. That's not too bad. I am characterising your argument. As to the horse manure saying, that's just to liven this up a little. Your position was untenable. It was a radical challenge to reconsider it. I note you did not defend it subsequently. >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. I'm developing my strategy right now. So its not completely formulated. Generally linking up with large leftish groups and pushing them together and to the left through conflict with the neoliberal agenda. Sé _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
