No. 4: What Stand to Take on the European
Union
(WDIE reply to reader's query, continued from
issue No. 130, August 9)
Having stated our stand, and before moving on to the
question of what is key to bringing about socialism, and whether the
strengthening of the European Union would assist in this, we would like to
underline two things about the EU.
One is that it can be accurately described as a Europe of
the monopolies. In our view, the facts demonstrate that from its origin through
to the present its aim has been to benefit the monopoly capitalists and has
been dominated by them. This is the case whether one looks at the European
Union as a whole, or whether the individual countries of Europe are considered.
One could sum up this development by saying that the aim of the monopolies has
been their drive for maximum capitalist profit on the one hand, and on the
other to place a block on the advance of the working class and communist
movement and the aim of that movement to establish socialist states. What is
more, the strengthening of the EU as first an economic bloc and then a
political bloc and the continuation of this as a military bloc has also a
geo-political aim. In the situation where the old equilibrium between the
spheres of influence of the two superpowers of the United States and the Soviet
Union collapsed at the beginning of the 1990s, to dominate Europe is seen as
crucial by US imperialism, as well as by the European monopolies. The issue as
to who should control the Balkans must be seen in this light, as should the
enlargement of the EU and its expansion eastwards. Other factors are now
entering the equation, such as the increasing economic and political
significance of both South and East Asia. However, the geo-political truth for
the big powers that the control of Europe is a precondition for their
contention for global hegemony still holds good. This is a very dangerous and
increasingly tense situation, and is only flimsily covered over by the many
statements of good intentions from the US and European leaders.
The second point to bring out is that it would be wrong to
equate the European Union with a "united Europe". Not only are there
serious contradictions between the big powers and the different monopoly
interests within the EU, such as Britain, France and Germany, but the political
structure is being consolidated to ensure that in an enlarged EU, it is these
big powers that dominate. The EU has never had any interest in the principle
that all countries, big or small, should participate in international affairs
with an equal voice.
As the new millennium dawned, the transnational companies
through the mouths of their spokespeople were emphasising a new age of
globalisation, and that everything must be subordinated to the unfettered power
of the monopolies to penetrate and control markets and that success in the
global marketplace was the be-all and end-all of life. In this context, a
"New Direction for Europe" has been put on the agenda by the EU
powers. This represents a "new direction" only in the sense that, as
in the individual countries, the aims of the monopolies to counter the falling
rate of profit has led to the dismantling of the social welfare state and
increasingly to the policies of neo-liberalism. These policies are synonymous
with cut-backs in social programmes and the gearing of all areas of the life of
society to enriching the financial oligarchy. For the EU as a bloc, this
translates into how to make the Europe of the monopolies better equipped to
compete in the global market, to intensify its rivalry with the US and others,
and how to facilitate the penetration of the big monopolies into the Balkan
countries, Russia and Asia, as well as how to incorporate the Balkan and
eastern European countries into "mainstream Europe". Measures are
being taken to remove barriers to the development of a single market and to
allow ever greater privatisation.
All this is being carried on to the detriment of national
economies, to the welfare of the people and to the recognition of their rights.
At the same time, an ideological offensive is being carried out to try and
convince the working class and people that this is "progressive
governance", and in the interests of all. This offensive could also be
said to include the promotion that the worst effects of neo-liberalism and
globalisation can be opposed by "social partnership" nationally and
fighting to make the EU a "People's Europe". This must be considered
a cruel illusion.
(to be continued)
