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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005