Internet Statement 2012-22
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?
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
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.
bourgeoisie is currently
on track to go
back into a similar situation as before the First World War, namely
of sitting between
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.
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
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
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" ?