File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-02-14.064, message 71


From: wdrb-AT-siva.bris.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:06:18 GMT
Subject: Re: M-I: The EU and monetary union



> > It seems to me that 'large capital' in Europe would
> > oppose the breaking in 3 'rival imperealist camps'
> > that Richard envisages. Not only do most major
> > European capitalist enterprises have extensive markets
> > outside Europe, they also have significant productive
> > capacity and resources. Think about a company such
> > as Rio Tinto Zinc or ABB for example. Furthermore,
> > European capitalists have massive holdings in the
> > stocks of non european companies and the treasury
> > bonds on non european countries.
> >
> > Trying to force the current world economy into
> > a framework described by Lenin in
> > 'Imperealism, the highest stage of capitalism'
> > does not help us understand what is going
> > on and therefor, to my mind, isn't very
> > revolutionary.....
> >
> > will brown bristol
> >
>
> What are you trying to say Will? Are you saying that Lenin got it wrong?

WB: Lenin was wrong in saying that his description
of the world in 1917 was the highest stage and thus 
an adequate description of the rest of capitalist history.
He was also wrong in thinking that the analysis of
Finance Capital that he borrowed from Hilferding
which was based upon an analysis of German 
economic structures was replicated in the US and Britain.

> If so, what is your idea about the EU? If it isn't European capital
> pushing for monetary union, then who is? Why do you think that the EU
> exists, if it is not for the benefit of European capital?

WB:   I agree that much of European capital wants
the EU to create structures large enough to compete
on a world stage. But there are clearly sections
of capital opposed. And the drive towards
the EU does not necessarily mean the world
is heading to 3 hostile camps that will end up
fighting imperealist war.

> I can't figure out why you accused me of "not helping us to understand"
> the situation and "not being very revolutionary" without anything at all
> to back it up.

WB: In my opinion Leninist (ie Trotskyist and Stalinist and
Marxist/Lenninist) in their slavish adherence to Lenins
work and in particular Imperealism, the Highest
Stage... have failed to understand developments in
the world economy.

A dogmatic  adherence to Lenin in my opinion does not help
us understand developments. And since I think
understanding what is going on is necessary
if we are to change the world, I believe Leninism
doesnt have much revolutionary potential
which, judging by the weakness of Leninist
parties in the UK, is not a bold claim.

But I didnt mean to sound childishly
competitive or scornful and I know
many of the comrades professing Lenininist
views are brave fighters for the working class.

I agree with Dave McMullen when he says:

<<<It seems obvious to me that the economic, social and political
integration of Europe is an excellent development. One of
capitalism's important historical tasks is the creation of an
increasingly globalized economy and society - the creation of
one humanity.

In Europe the old political divisions are an increasing fetter on
economic and social development and their removal is overdue.

It always amazes me how many people on the 'left' have sided
with national and parochial interests on this question.

>>>>

Will Brown
Bristol





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005