Internet Statement
2012-22
Fundamentals
about the EU and the Euro Issue
Maria
Weiß July 16, 2012
What exactly is the social and socio-economic basis of the EU? The basis is capitalism. The whole EU is not homogeneous at
all, not
in any way. What is
it, what they want to unite there? You could
almost see that in some ways, what has now
joined, for example, under
the single currency, these are just the
old, traditional European
countries, who, in this
way, wished to achieve a more acceptable and better position
in the international
globalization wrangling.
Now we have
again a different situation.
Now there is no longer an upswing of capitalism, or of international
capitalism, but there is again
a very massive crisis of
capitalism, and under the aspect
of this crisis a lot of
things are, of course, also different. The real
background of this whole
development lies partly already
in the year 1976/77 when, on the basis
of the betrayal of Deng Xiaoping and other revisionist forces in China, the international bourgeoisie
succeeded in separating the revolutionary approach
of the sixties in Europe,
in new forms beginning to develop again increasingly in the late sixties and early seventies, from the
Chinese revolution, from Chinese socialism.
They could achieve based
on these facts, that the revolutionary development
in the world suffered a further setback of a strategic
nature. In the mid-seventies the international capitalists
again achieved a
nearly strategic defeat of socialism. Firstly
by the overthrow of the
revolution in China, in
that, accelerated by Mao
Zedong's death in September
1976, revisionist, neo-capitalist forces could come to power and on the basis of the long before performed overthrow that had taken place in the Soviet Union and the triumph of
revisionism they succeeded in initializing
a new capitalist global
wave. This repeated strategic setback
of socialism through the
establishment of revisionism in China is the real reason for the following new
(and, as you can see at present, temporary) rise
of capitalism and
imperialism world-wide. This development is also the basis of today's situation,
as it was before. And
whereas capitalism and international capitalism in the form of globalization, of course,
has its crises in it and
they can break out and already have broken out, the situation is such that on the one hand, obviously
this capitalism goes back to
its old critical developments,
on the other hand, however,
the revolutionary forces can
only very hesitantly
take advantage of the situation. Because of the whole
generational differences that
have already taken place, the
experience in some cases does
not exist in continuity and
must be regained
first. This creates
the problem of the
current situation and its dangers. Meanwhile, social democratism,
especially in Western Europe,
is coming to its strangest blossoms. The German
bourgeoisie is currently
on track to go
back into a similar situation as before the First World War, namely
of sitting between
two stools. But one must at the same time learn from the history of the twenties
and thirties of the last
century. Then, too, there was the Social-Democracy,
which had taken
in this country a certain position. But
there was above
all a revolutionary communist
movement, and from the relations and the strategic decisions of this movement we must
learn
for today's needs, as
well as of course it has
to be learned from
their mistakes. In fact,
the current capitalism,
both the European
and the U.S., is in a
deep crisis, and none
of them knows what he
is supposed to do to get control on this crisis, rather,
how to wriggle out. Of course,
military intentions in
this way come increasingly to
the carpet; along with
their dangerous and
destructive character.
And of course the competitors, the capitalist-imperialist opponents try to get a
stand in other parts of the
world, however, at least they try reinforced.
Potential coalitions of a larger global military
conflict seem to appear increasingly again , what is alarming and certainly
should be. In contrast
there is the proletariat,
the masses of working people,
who create the values and,
on the basis of the (now
again world-wide dominating) social system of private appropriation, are forced to hand it all over to the capitalists
in a present situation that must be analized in detail with its enormous
problems and its requirements on these masses as well as on their organisational
representatives. For example, what sort of position the working masses in
Europe should take in front of the unification of European countries under capitalist sign? This question is currently very topical again, it is permanently set on the agenda, to say so. And this
question begs a solution. The decades-long avoidance of the European bourgeoisie in front of
the movement of
the proletariat, the workers and
working people, has led to a
significant accumulation of debt
in these countries.
Debts that have already
reached such proportions
that they bear
not even in the future, and certainly
not the immediate, any
chance of settling. Moreover,
these states
have not developed
evenly. In Europe one can see that some
states such as Germany,
but also some Scandinavian
countries, have taken
a different path than, say, southern European countries or even France,
which is of considerable weight in central Europe, but ultimately
they took a slightly different development than Germany, for example, especially during the
deindustrialization of the past
decade or more.
Not to mention former socialist
states of Eastern Europe including
Russia. These differences
are such that they pose a potential of significant differences within itself. This is
the reason for the
current conflict over
the so-called rescue
fund for the Euro and its
special orientation, in other words, the method of combating the current debt
crisis on the part of the bourgeoisie. Then, there are a number of Eastern European countries
that previously had been in the
context of the union of former socialist states under the leadership of the Soviet Union also increasingly
taken by revisionism and dominated by the
Russian social-imperialism, now broken off and
brought into the European
union , or having
joined. Here, too, is a non-negligible potential
for conflict. This is very natural,
because these states bring
in their experiences and
also more
or less are not
willing, after
shaking off a dictation,
to get under a
new one immediately. This is
certainly an aspect that must
be considered in view
of certain disputes. At the same time, however, by the crisis
of capitalism in the U.S., which one should not underestimate, the pressure on the whole of Europe is increasing,
which is calculated to establish an additional pressure against the countries. Due to the
uneven development of capitalism and imperialism
in the world of course
the pressure that can
be exerted by the various representatives
of the same is also very
different. But the productive
base of the different powers,
so to speak, is also very
different. There is, on the one hand, the base of natural resources and on the other hand there is the production base, and they try to exert
international pressure in
different ways. Russia, for example, but also various Middle
East countries, especially
are representatives of the
raw material base, whereas the Asian region, especially China, but also
other Asian countries, represent
especially the productive base.
The old capitalist countries
such as European countries,
but also the U.S., are representing
in a certain sense both, i.e.,
above all, a residual component
of the productive base, for
example, in Europe, and the United States there
is both, the raw materials,
oil in particular, and
even a certain productive one,
although this is more
melted down to a residual
basis. Because
the process of globalization, of course,
they represent not only their own base, but
always the whole base
they have internationally, their foreign affiliates, production in other countries, etc., etc.,
which can hardly be separated from each other. But that this itself constantly in motion and
things may change. For example, there
are occurrences that former Spanish production facilities in Argentina, for
example, have
now been nationalized there.
Or in other countries,
Brazil and so on. This is
happening to all original
capitalist powers that their bases
are increasingly co-opted by
the different countries
and states. Or there are
also enterprises, where both
are represented. What has increasingly emerged
is the contradiction
between the international
production and the national appropriation,
which is located next
to the contradiction that
forms the basis
anywhere anyway between
social production and individual
appropriation. This in turn leads to a
variety of other contradictions
and complexities, and
it is the basis and the content of the new military strategy of U.S. imperialism, for example,
the local limited wars in their
interest, which are
found all over the world
instead, depending on how interest corresponds to. On the contrary there
are great, unlike nation-states
like Russia, China and also India and many
other states, and is not required a great wealth of imagination to
conclude what
kinds of entanglements and controversies can emerge here. Even Europe, the European
Union, but also
the various individual states are
involved in this whole
system. It can be stated
quite generally that in the eyes
of U.S. imperialism "freedom"
and "democracy" must be enforced
everywhere in the world
where they
meet relevant financial interest and
push for a solution. This
situation leads to the most absurd parallels. While in this country
the Federal Constitutional Court already seems to be the final authority
to resolve the European crisis, although it does not have jurisdiction,
the government of this country is moving around in other parts of the
world in order to arrange maximally lucrative business deals (weapons
including of course). This shows that currently it does not matter which
clique in this country is forming the government,
the crucial decisions are made somewhere else anyway. And how much a
Hertha Däubler-Gmelin, or Gregor Gysi and others get excited about the markets swinging the baton here - what will
they do? What is their approach against that? Furthermore one has not
heard much talk about that, let aside the
permanent talking about taxes for this and for that. How do they
intend to find a solution for the debt crisis in this country, in these European countries, which are conditioned historically,
are conditioned by class-relations, socio-economic factors? What is
the social concept they want to promote in contrast, except a revolutionary
social upheaval, but just that they are fearing like the devil fears
the holy water. That is the stark irony that shows in it. The whole fake bickering, all the alleged eye-scraping which has been established between individual states, particularly since the crisis has worsened, it leads to nothing. You can try to put the entire economy to a common, to some extent appropriate basis in all states, and then you can also maintain a common currency on a stable basis, or you cannot. If this is not possible, then you
cannot do anything, then just the whole concept in a way is a wrong one. But that can certainly not be achieved by any rules or interference in national sovereignty or anything of this kind, or by trying to completely get rid of states, such as for example in terms of Greece has become obvious. No, that can only be achieved by restoring the economic base, if this is at all
possible. And that means on the other side inevitably confrontation
with certain other competing imperialist powers. If you do not face
this confrontation, then you cannot be successful
at all. Even
a proletariat
taking power, for example in some countries, would have to face this confrontation inevitably, and it would show how far at all the forces are there to stand up to such a confrontation, how far in fact the initiative is present, how
far the positive, constructive forces within such a country are existing. It should, therefore, not
be said that no such thing is
possible. However, with a policy of playing off against other countries in Europe that will not
come true. Ultimately, of
course, only the interaction of the working
masses, the class
of the proletariat in Europe
can really bring about something really decisive
between the various countries.
Only then should
it just be
working, then just
the connection must also be searched with appropriate
forces in other countries for debates and co-operation
and common engagement. But we should not rely
more or less solely on oneself and say: we will come out of the European
alliance, that's all we care, we do here our supposedly revolutionary
politics and the rest , as much as we are concerned, can go down the
drain.. In this way that will not work at all, neither
in one country nor in the others, so we can be sure. The only thing that is achieved with such a policy is to make oneself
a pawn of more powerful
forces on the opposite side . What follows from all this? Basically
it follows that the joint meeting, interaction, criticism of each other but also the unification of the various revolutionary forces in the European countries must
be promoted and heavily reinforced.
There must be created a kind
of European international
revolutionary proletarian forces
which of
course is in close contact
with all international
revolutionaries in other continents and is engaged in debates and meets the resulting
challenges. The motto
must be: Reject capitalism,
criticize revisionism and
develop and strengthen
the proletarian collective action
and interaction . The contradiction between social production
and individual appropriation,
between labor and capital, is the fundamental contradiction that
today pervades more or
less all the regions,
states, nations and continents around
the world. Let us
solve it in our interest
that in this case coincides
with the interests the whole of mankind.
Let us work to resolve it in our interest! This contradiction now leads the entire world to the fact
that basically the work
of millions and billions
masses every day, all the wealth that is created by them will benefit the opponents, because, due to the system
of private property of the means
of production, this by
Law is available for them.
This relation is standing upside-down more than
ever. This relation must
be adapted to
the real conditions at last! To ensure this, the question is of vital interest how such a state has to
look which is able to guarantee that and defend that.
With environmentalism, this backward-looking,
idealistic cuddly pillow of the bourgeoisie,
however, there is nothing
to achieve. This cuddle
cushion is based on the
exploitation, the brutal exploitation
of the vast majority of the world, of their constriction
of the opportunities
and resources, and takes advantage
of this contradiction.,. That
the effect cannot be useful in terms of progress and liberation is obvious. We must refrain from such corrupt and reactionary
ideas, which are promoting the petty bourgeoisie
and the method to cook
ones own soup at the expense of others. "The
crisis says: Let's move!"
So, Ursula von der Leyen (currently
Minister of Labour in our country).
This is not wrong. But the question is, who is moving and in which direction.
Ultimately, the whole question
of whether euro or single currencies
is secondary. The essential question
is: in what
direction goes the society?
And this essential question
is certainly not dependent
on the currency of a country
or even an entire region, an
entire continent. Not without reason
Karl
Marx spoke about the fetish character of commodity.
And from this fetish and its
objectification in the form
of money whole societies and their progress certainly
do not depend. So it should
be the right approach to permit both, similarities
and differences. It
is only essential in which direction
society is moving. It is not
the currency that matters, but the
social relationship which underlies
this. This is
what needs to be tackled.
Sticking to a currency that expresses the character of the exploiters of society and
to ensure it, by
hook or by crook, is certainly the
wrong way. A currency that is maintained under all circumstances by a community of states,
which moves in
total dependane from certain apparently
even stronger powers,
and therefor bows to their exploitative
and warlike intentions,
is certainly not a path
towards progress. What the
international capitalists are planning
is to provoke again
a great war to wipe out
so many millions of people
here, to ruin everything
that has been built in recent decades, in order afterwards again to rebuild and to
make a profit - the always recurrent
form of "crisis management
"in the manner of the capitalists. Even the European proletariat, including its discarded parts,
must stand up against
it and fight together
with the proletariat and
the oppressed peoples and
nations of the world for their (human) right
to achieve a new society.
Only in this sense, the
historical task of the union
among the peoples of Europe can
be realized. Only then an
agreement in Europe
could be understood in a historically progressive
sense. If the
imperialists actually try
once more to start a war here, so ultimately this will only be the
historical result. Only the creative
power of the working class,
of the masses really
provides a historical perspective,
but not the parasitism and
the perversion of the obsolete
class of the bourgeoisie. The masses in the imperialist countries, including and especially the
U.S., increasingly suffer
from this parasitic imperialist
system. In the U.S., for example, there is a very significant leak in the
area of infrastructure,
where obviously there is
little investment in the maintenance of transport systems,
water and energy supply of the
population - a fact that
obviously
in a very significant
number of past alleged natural
disasters has massively increased
their effects, and it results in many more victims among
the population and always increasingly stirs up annoyance. Even
in countries like the U.S.
social unrest is maturing. And what if this time
there it really will
be discharged into riots? What
will the government do then? Will they shoot
at their own “rebels”? And who will then fall into their
arms internationally, with
the call "The U.S. government
is slaughtering the own people" ? |